View Full Version : vichy+med.
france has been gone for 2 turns and i notice that the vichy units in north africa are free to move. I (allies) have not moved next to any vichy units anywhere, this is 1.8 game. i sailed units aroud casablanca but did not move next to the city. Is this a bug?
Also, is it possible to limit axis shipping capabilities early in the war? perhaps have their sea move limits increase a little with the capture of Crete, Malta Gibralter or at least maybe start with 2000 and only go to 4000 after italy enters the war. It seems too easy for germans to invade anywhere especially in the Med. when Italy is still neutral. Because the Brit. units are motorized they are to heavy to compete in a sea transport race with Germany which seems to be taking away the only advantage the allies had during the early years of the war. the germans could not even get seaborn troops into Crete with Italy in the war and at the peak of their power.
:flag:
Mark Stevens
07 Oct 02, 15:50
I've checked the scenario and am 99.9% certain that the North African Vichy forces do start inactive. Are you absolutely certain that no Allied unit - even a naval unit - started or moved past a Vichy unit - again, even just a naval unit at sea? Would overflying a Vichy unit with an Allied air unit be enough to trigger them?
The main defense against the Germans in the Mediterranean, particularly before Italy enters, should be the Allied navies. I've never thought it that easy for German units to sail around invading at will - any comments anyone?
What has alarmed me is something that I didn't realise, namely that sea embarked units that spend one turn on a coastal hex can then disembark, even if the hex isn't a port. Did everyone know this? Of course, they're terribly vunerable to attack when they're embarked, but it does open things up a lot. What I may do is only have port symbols where there were actual ports. Until now we've scattered them at random where there were open beaches, as I thought that they were the only places where seaborne units could land. In addition, it might be sensible to have all coastal defense units as mobile, even if they can't physically move, so that they can shoot at such embarked units.
If they're stuck in garrison mode, they can't fire. I know that many of what we call 'Coastal Artillery' units were really static garrisons, but it needs a bit of thought.
Grateful for any comments - I think that it makes a big difference to the whole question of sea invasions.
Fairs, I realise that this doesn't answer your thread starter.
Mark, the only possibility would be an allied plane overflying a vichy unit. I am not sure if I did that but I did transfer air units to Gibraltar from east africa so I assume that I must have triggered them that way.
The only problem with depending on the allied navies to stop the germans from invading everywhere is that, at least in my games as allies, when I sortie out of port to fight I rarely am able to get back into port because the allies do not get multiple impulses (generally). This leaves the ships vunerable to massive air attack over several impulses which, especially when coupled with any axis naval units has sunk the entire allied naval force, even when they have air support. I would be interested to here if this has been poor play on my part but I have been bloodied by the axis air in the past so I now keep my fleets for shore bombardment in areas away from the massed axis airforces.
I did not realise that bit about sea invading any hex after sitting on it for a turn but I like the way the game plays as is and would not think a change is needed. I am just assuming that in reality an invasion force could not land just anywhere so the current port/beach limit seems justified.
Thanks for the info, now can you tell me how to defend russia???:D
Dan Neely
07 Oct 02, 23:05
The secret to using naval units safely is to base them close to where you intend to bombard. A min loss attack takes 1 round, and ignore loss attack takes 3. If you move 50 hexes 1st and then do an ignore losses attack you'll only have 20% of the turn left and will have good chance of failing the proficiency check afterwards. AS a rule of thumb, don't move more than 20-30 hexes before bombarding, and don't plan any bombardments that will go past 60% of the turn unless firing from port. This will minimize the chances of failing a proficiency check when shelling. Also, try to avoid any land combat while your ships are at sea, if you must counterattack use minimize losses. Amphib assualts are dangerous because they begin at the 50% point of the turn so you've got a real risk of being stranded at sea.
Total AS is also useful if you can get it. In a 1.5 game with Mantis he's been able to keep the stacked axis fleets offshore of lenningrad for several turns with impunity because my bombers can't penetrate his massed air power, and I've lost >1000 to negliable effect (a few DDs and a CL I think) trying.
I am Fairs' opponent and I agree that things are much too easy for the Axis in the early part of the war. Barring poor play, I feel it is inevitable that the Axis will take over everything West of the Vistula (excluding E. Africa and Norway) by mid 1940. Given the starting 4,000 sea transport it isn't even close and that is after a house rule that we use that paratroopers must wait 2 months before landing again. I do assume pre-war builds AND the Spain buyout (ensures Gibraltor goes down). Also assumes a slog through France to Paris in 1939 (even without Case Yellow). Rather straightforwrad when taking the most direct route through the Low Countries. Painful (I lost 30,000 Hvy Squads) but, fairly inevitable.
The only thing we have not experienced is the long term affect of early US Entry. Obviously, with the success above and pre-war builds with Spainish entry the US will also be in in 1940. I am hoping that this early entry and Hvy Squad losses will make things interesting (assuming Fairs can keep Russia alive) from 1941-45. I think it will, as even with the Italians and the Med closed off the Axis will be hard presssed to keep the West out of Europe - even before D-Day. Thus ensuring two fronts in late 1940 (albeit a small cramped one in the West) and on.
Back to the excessive sea transport. The 4,000 ensures 2 divisions and a HQ (not to mention the always energetic paratroopers) can be landed in vacant beaches or hit lightly defended beaches. Once they are landed the inevitability starts. Poof goes Lebanon/Syria, Italians take El Alamien, there goes Egypt (stop and leave Suez open so as not to piss off America too early - can be taken later when US Entry is inevitable) just for fun Iraq revolts with help of SS paras they take out the Hab force and keep the Basra units at bay behind the Euphrates. Rest up during Sitz and then make Franco an offer he can't refuse and next thing you know you are standing on the cliffs of Gibraltar. Close off the Suez and the Allies must content themselves with East Africa and hope to delay the attack on Russia by creating a front East of Casablanca, however, that front will be crushed too given the 6,000 sea transport ability of Axis. For the sake of not rambling (more) I admit I have left out the things the Allies can do in defense (blocakdes, FF appearance after Franco Buyout) but, the inevitability still holds. Just a matter of when in 1940 the Axis can hit a lonely Russia.
I know we are short of precious events but, is there a way we can stair step up the Axis sea transport. For example,
Start 1,500 level (1 division)
Italian entry 2,500 level (1 division + HQ)
Athens falls +500 (2 divisions) also makes Greece worth something
Crete capture +500 (replaces the -1 SP Allied reduction?)
Malta Capture +1,000
Gibraltar capture 6,000 level
PS: Dan excellent points on the bombarding and phase comments. Very educational (as was Mark's comments on the disembarking although that seems to be a bug and should not be allowed).
Otto, good points although I dont feel even by steping up that the axis should get over 4k sea transport points until Gibralter falls. Maybe put less value on the Italian entry (1500) and 500 each for Athens and Malta (or Crete but not both) plus the starting 1500 and you would keep the original 4000 points and keep the Gibralter bonus as is. Certainly Athens will fall easily and if Crete is chosen instead of Malta the axis will most likely capture it as well which would give them their 4000 points (with Italy) but at least they have to earn those points. And as you say it makes Athens as well as Crete a more attractive objective. PS I certainly hope to "make things interesting" for the Axis on their "inevitable" drive to the Volga.:rolleyes:
Dan, thanks for the info on handling the naval units...would you say that the allied navies are a reliable defence against axis invasion in the Med.? IMO they are not.
Dan Neely
08 Oct 02, 20:16
I hate to rain on your parades, but there's no easy way to do what you want. there's no Sea transport += XXX event. Only a Sea Transport = XXX one. to do something like what you 2 want would require a branching tree. Fairs system with 3 changes excluding gibralter would require a minimum of 7 events (3 single boosts, 3 pairs, all 3, in general 2^N-1) plus any events needed to handle the branching. For as retarded as the event engine is I suspect it would be a large number, but will defer to an expert on the matter.
Panzerpelle
09 Oct 02, 05:24
Originally posted by otto
Very educational (as was Mark's comments on the disembarking although that seems to be a bug and should not be allowed).
I´m not to sure that it is a bug. My PoV is: If you do a amphibiuos assault you dont do it on well defended beaches. In history the attacker have always tried to avoid well defended areas and make the landing on poorly defended (or not defended at all) beaches: The allies in Normandy and the UN in Korea.
The scenario design is important. I tend to see the beach hexs as ports or VERY favourable places to land forces.
The coastal arty units gets important as they have a chance to interdict the embarked units and (as IRL) cause casualties for the attacking force. Air and naval superiority is much more important to cover the units embarked at sea. As in the Normandy landing in 44.
Dan Neely
09 Oct 02, 10:23
I tend to lean toward the bug view myself. There're lots of places where the coast is impossible to land on because the shallow water is too rocky, or the shoreline is a cliff, etc. Using beachs to mark the places where the coastline is conducive to landing is IMO neccesary to prevent landings from being made in places where it would've been impossible to carry out IRL.
Not every shoreline is conductive toward landings. Some have cliffs, rocks, and other obstacles. Others have tides that make it too dangerous.
Panzerpelle
10 Oct 02, 03:27
How realistic is to be able to fortify every possible landing site and then knowing that the opposing will not land else where? I agree that the geagraphy of the landing site must be fairly good but the landings outside Seul by the MacArthur was carried out in very difficult terrain and the Soviets did do amphibiuos landings along the arctic oscean during the Petsamo-Kirkenes operation 44. So it seems that if a attacker have a chance of choosing well defended beach or harsh conditions historically the harsh conditions have been choosen.
There are a drawback for the attacking force: In my game against Mark I did a amphibiuos attack on Norway. He anticipated the attack and reinforced Norway heavily with French and Brittish Air, Naval and land units. I could not have taken Oslo easily by attacking it frontally, attacking the town directly. Instead I let my Inf Corps stay embarked and waited for the next turn. Mark attacked the embarked unit and I lost every RL but 20 in the unit. The prize was high but worth it. If I had attacked Oslo directly I would have gotten higher losses and an early turn ending (most probably) and not beeing able to reinforce with other Inf Corps becasue the attacking unit would (probably) have still been embarked outside Oslo.. Three turns later the capital was taken. Most realisticly in my opinion.
Did Mark move his units into Oslo befor a german DoW ?? I always though that the allies aren't allowed in neutral states before a DoW ??
Otherwise, if you've already declared War on Norway why didn't you took it on the next turn ? Oslo can easily be taken by sea-assault. Just support your assault with the entire Luftwaffe (first sinking the Norwegian Fleet) and your Kriegsmarine and it'll be a walkover :)
Mark Stevens
11 Oct 02, 09:37
No, I just stuck the French Atlantic Fleet in the channel leading to Oslo: the Allies were quite prepared to violate Norwegian neutrality just as the Germans were launching their invasion, so I reckon that's a legitimate precautionary move (provided you don't actually sit on the Norwegian Navy or actually enter Oslo harbour).
This question of sea landings is still bugging me. Given that this is a corps based game, I tend to the view that sea assaults or disembarkation should be restricted to port/beach hexes. Otherwise, maintaining supply lines over areas like North Africa will be well nigh impossible for both sides: split a weak, light unit into three - you might even manage six if you chose a small flak unit as well - sail each part separately to a coastal hex, and it would be impossible to destroy the lot, or block every potential landing hex. And once ashore the whole enemy supply line's buggered. Set the units to Minimise Losses and even if subseqently attacked and routed out of supply they'll probably just move a couple of hexes down the coast road and still block supply. I know that small commando units might have been able to carry out raids virtually anywhere, but neither the British or Germans landed forces in any strength behind enemy lines in the whole Desert Campaign. There were only a handful of important opposed landings in the whole war - Germans in Norway, although that was more of a surprise coup - Allies in North Africa (all major ports) - Allies in Sicily (ports and flat beaches) - Allies at Salerno and Anzio in Italy (ditto) and of course Overlord and Anvil/Dragoon in the south of France - again, all flat beaches with good ports nearby. The more I think of it, the more I think that its balls (at least in a game of this scale) to have a tiny unit come ashore and cut supply anywhere it likes.
Pelle, what are your thoughts on this point?
Fairs, Dan's answered your point on incremental increases in shipping based on capturing individual islands - shipping levels are set once per turn, and you can't just say 'add another 2,000 tonnes for Malta' or whatever. And what if the islands or ports are recaptured - should the shipping capability then decline? It would take a mighty revision of the Event List to accommodate this sort of thing.
Panzerpelle
11 Oct 02, 10:04
Regarding Norway:
I´m currently playing Erik Nygaards scenario weserubung and I´m fresh on the topic. I think the blocking of sea transport route to Narvik in Bergen is not realistic. Better make a channel through the unplayable hexs, outside Bergen, with an island controlled by the Germans and Beach on it in the middle. Place a big German Garrison on it to prevent the allies to use it. In that way the germans can attack the Northern part of Norway on the first turn and the Allied can block it after that(house rule) with Naval units. I can make a small map to show what I mean.
I think designer must decide weather to allow this strategy or not. If allowed remove all beaches not representing harbours. Check that supply points is in the harbours. This will create a historical effect in my POV. It is possible to land virtually every where( maybe a houser ule on wich type of terrain) but (important) you have to capture a harbour within a couple of turns to get the supply flowing. The sea transport of the game makes is difficult to transport very large numbers of troops anyway. The attacking force must make sure that he has naval and air superiority otherwise the defending Navy and Air units will hit him hard (the coastal units will have a chance to decimate the attacking force). It is realistic in my thinking that Naval and air units will affect the possiblities to conduct amphibiuos assaults. Crete 41 comes to mind when discussing this. Naval units becomes important in defending the UK. To be able to land on the Brittish Islands the Germans must destroy both the RAF and the possibly RN. One change to the OOB might be necessarily: making the naval units smaller and increae there numbers.
If not allowed. Add more beaches and keep on going. Naval units will continue to be floating arty pices. And the defender can always anticipate the landing zones... Yes I am advocating to allow it....:)
No, we can't allow that. First off, that would throw the game more out of balance than anything else that has previously come up. Secondly, rereading the manual makes it rather clear that units are only supposed to be able to land at ports. There's nothing in there at all regarding 'wait a turn and then we'll allow you to land on that unlandable hex'. Lastly, any grognard worth his salt knows that there are far more hexes in which you cannot land than those in which you can in this theatre.
If you ever decide to give up the rest of your life, and redesign this game, oob, event engine, from the ground up, >then< consider the feasibility of it. Right now, (even if it IS proper, which it's certainly not) it would destroy the scenario.
:rolleyes:
In an attempt to get this thread back to the original question/problem (although everyone'e beach landing comments are interesting). The Axis shipping capability is too high. It makes things too easy in the Med bringing about an almost inevitable closing off of the Med at some point in 1940. Assumes pre-war builds, slugging it out straight to Paris in 1939 and triggering Spain (at some point) to take Gibraltar. This puts a tremendous amount of pressure on Russia to carry the war (more so than historically). They would need to carry the war for at least 70+ turns virtually alone (until US is in in force).
Can/should the Axis shipping be reduced at the outset of the game (I understand it can not stair step up due to event limitation). It would then be increased/decreased with the already existing events (US Entry, Gibraltar etc.). OR should Allied shipping be increased from the outset?
Thoughts?
I think Axis shipping is just right. It's the Med that is the problem. I already posted this somewhere in here, but to repeat:
In the (board) wargame that I have been designing (campaign WWII) since forever, we've followed the historical route. While the Axis can ship stuff all over the place, the amount of Germans in Africa is very limited. Italians can ship whatever they want down there.
If the Axis take Crete, they get a small increase in the amount of Germans that can be in Africa. Taking Malta, Gibraltar or the Suez Canal removes all restrictions.
Malta is the reason that there was so much trouble (historically) in getting supplies and troops to Africa. The Brits were interdicting everything right, left, and centre. The Axis had problems keeping what little they had down there in supply. Taking Malta eliminates this problem. (Malta is also one of those rare spots on the map that the Allies can be sure to hold for the length of the game. If it falls, it's the Allies fault).
Gibraltar and Suez are in there because if the Axis captured either one of these, the Med would no longer be an Allied 'lake', and Malta could be circumvented.
The shipping levels feel right to me. Don't mess with that, mess with 'Germans in Africa' rules. There are two options here; Mark can look at it and decide levels for us, or like-minded players can simply make up a house rule about it.
I feel that Africa is a joke as well. The Axis can take it every time, and it's crazy not to make the Russians defend from a third direction as well. I have yet to play the Axis and NOT decide that the southern route was the way to go. It was a consideration historically, but it was not the be-all and end-all of Axis strategy. (They didn't even do it, for pete's sake!) If the game system is such that it only makes (game) sense to go this route, every time, then the game system needs to be modified.
I started a thread like this as soon as I saw how easy it was to push Dan's Allies out of there. (And he really went the distance to defend it; we had some great action for a while). I suggested levels like this then. The result of the ensuing conversation was the Persian 'buffer zone' that the Russians now get. I'm not convinced that it's enough. It looks like I'm well on my way to doing the same damned thing to Raver as I did to Dan, and it's not their fault, it might just be a flaw in the design that we've yet to find the right correction for. In my game with Dan, I've not even used the Barbarossa option yet partly to further illustrate a point. If I can crack the Russian nut without even using Barbarossa, then there's definately something out of whack. This is also another reason why I keep persuing this strategy, I really want to see balance in this issue.
In a recent game with Ming, I put everything I could get into the Med as the Allies. Ming made a strategic error, and was ill prepared in Africa when the Italians declared war. Africa wasn't even a big focus for Ming, (although it became one), he wasn't even trying to max it out. Even so, it took everything I had to wipe them all out (plus the few Axis units that were there), and I still had them advancing on the canal from the east now. They came close to taking Cairo from that direction, and unhinging me anyways. As it was, the Axis were stopped, barely, but let's look at what was involved:
Axis: Error in attacking so early; lower troop levels than could easily be shipped there were it made a priority, good use of the FJ, eventual commitment of most of the luftwaffe, completely destroying the RN. Destruction of most of the Italian fleet.
Allies: Everything there was. ALL spare units that were not required to defend the UK, plus troops shipped across after the Italians were evicted from Ethiopia. The entire RAF. The entire RN. All 'Free (insert conquered nation here)' troops.
In essence, holding the canal was the entire Allied war effort. And against a considerably less than optimal strength Axis attack, they almost didn't make it.
:dead: :dead: :hurt: :dead: :dead:
In regards to the invasion of any coastal hex is concerned I think that the game scenereo should not be changed, it works very well as it is and landings should be allowed in port and beach areas only.
I agree with Mantis and Otto in regards to the Med. being to easy an axis target. It seems that a limit of axis sea transport levels would greatly help---It just bothers me to see Germans successfully invading alexandria in 1939--while also engaged heavily in France and a still neutral Italy.
otto's idea seems good imo---
By the time France falls Italy will most likely be in the war and it will be somewhere in early-mid 1940. What if the axis begin with a 2000 transport limit and use the battle of britain option to increase this number (if successfull) to 4000. Then add 2000 for a cature of Gibralter to bring the total to 6000(or 4000 if the axis does not choose or loses the BoB). This should add teeth to the battle of britain option, which most players would pay the 5 point US entry to risk given the high rewards if successfull. I do not know anything about the event editor but this way keeps the events as is with the same increase only a lowering of the initial starting point. Of course this limits the Italians as well but they are generally non-moterized inf corps which are comparitivly light. This would help to at least delay the axis in africa and carry the fight into 1941, which would be along the historical timetable.
The Germans alone should not have the ability to invade (and even transporting would have been dicey using captured Greek and Yugoslavian ships) until Italy is in the war in the Med. Frankly the RN would have kicked BUTT.
OR:a) make the Gib. and Malta garrisons more powerfull defensively.
b) start the game with the Spanish railroad bridges destroyed so the german army cannot rail next to Gib. on the same turn as Franco rolls over (partisan activity?). delay the inevitable.
c) increase the allied sea transport limits--its not as if the Brits can invade Germany in 1940, (successfully).
Dan Neely
11 Oct 02, 20:58
There's no event to let you *increment* the naval transport value, and doing it with an if/else tree would require a large number of events. If you did Bob = 4000, and Gibralter = 6000 as assignments, you'd obviate the need for the BoB event entirely. Activating Spain ans whacking the Reynaud units isn't as troublefree as it used to be either. In my 1.7c game with Kraut the last turn saw 2 full strength Reynaud reconstitute in southern France along with a few guerillas. I'd only deployed enough troops to smack the partisans and had one of hte corps badly mauled as a result. I've railed some heavy units north from spain to deal with the problem, but it's not a freebie anymore.
It's also not how I'd prefer to see the cost raisied either. Several large "Tito" type partisans in Spain that had a chance of toppling to government would be alot more realistic than an uprising including mechanised forces in southern france.
Hi Dan, those Reynaud troops are no partisan units but the original sheduled Reynaud troops. They couldn't deploy earlier because the hex was under your control, but the partisan unit got near their deployment point (I guess it was Vichy) and the game engine decided that that is close enough and deployed the 2 units. :D
Originally posted by FAIRS
[B]I agree with Mantis and Otto in regards to the Med. being to easy an axis target. It seems that a limit of axis sea transport levels would greatly help---It just bothers me to see Germans successfully invading alexandria in 1939--while also engaged heavily in France and a still neutral Italy.
How can the Germans take out Alexandria in '39? First off, they start with no way to get troops down there. They require a port in the med to ship units to Africa, and if Italy is neutral, they'd have to take out Yugo. Sure, they can do that, but that gives the Brits that many more turns to be prepared.
The second the Germans invade Poland, I DoW with the Allies. Every turn from then on is spent shipping units to one part of Africa or another with the British. I'd like to see someone even attempt to mess around in Africa prior to a BIG buildup by both the Italians and the Germans when I'm playing the UK...
Reread what happened to Ming above, and there WERE quite a few Axis units there. Didn't help.
If the Allied player loses Alexandria under these conditions, he's either very inexperienced, was caught with his pants down, or both. If Alexandria falls prior to Italian entry and a large Axis buildup in the Med, it's generally the Allied player's fault. My problem with it is that they can do it everytime, but not until they complete a large buildup; somewhere in mid - late '40. Even a well prepared Brit can't stop it.
What if the axis begin with a 2000 transport limit
Wanna setup a test game with you as the Axis, and attempt to take Norway over with only 2K transport points? :D Can anyone say 'Axis bloodbath'? :p
No, I've thought about this since I started playing this scenario, the answer doesn't lie with messing around the Axis transport levels. (And that would be too complex and require too many events to be practical under any conditions, regardless).
Mark Stevens
12 Oct 02, 13:18
I know I've written this before, but both Grand Admiral Raeder and Field Marshal Kesselring believed that it would have been perfectly possible for the Germans/Axis to have overrun the Middle East by diverting a lot more troops and supplies to the area, and constantly urged this policy on Hitler. These were senior, experienced commanders who knew all about the problems of coordinating land, air and naval forces. Kesselring was the C-in-C South and knew all about the particular problems of transport and supply in the Mediterranean. It would have meant diverting more fuel and supplies to the Italians, improving their ports, forcing them to accept even more German direction, but both men believed that it could be done and would hit the UK hard. Hitler didn't go for this strategy because he wasn't that concerned about extending the Italian Empire, and had a deeply-fixed ambition to get to grips with the USSR by the most direct route.
If Alexandria really fell to a German amphibious assault before Italy was in the game then I have to say that it's a failure on the Allied Player's part: no offence, God knows I've been beaten often enough - I once lost Berlin on Turn One or Two to the Poles - but a '3 - 3' mobile unit, the intrinsic garrison, and one Allied Fleet plus a bit of air cover should surely hold off such an attack.
In 1.8 we've the Axis supply point in Benghazi, rather than Tobruk, which should make an overland attack harder, and the intention is that following the collapse of the Italians in the Horn several Allied units are freed up to join in the defence of Egypt, plus whatever the UK can spare to ship in. If the Axis does go for this strategy, then there's still the pre-Barbarossa Persian exclusion zone to hold them some distance from the Soviet border and allow the Red Army to move more units into the difficult terrain in the Caucasus.
If it's certain that the Axis can easily beat the Allies in the Middle East, and still have the troops to move against southern Russia at the same time as they surge forward in Eastern Europe, then I agree that something's wrong, but I'm not convinced that it's that easy. British control of the whole Middle East hung in the balance for nearly three years - perhaps a more aggressive Axis approach there would have paid dividends?
All I can suggest if players are really concerned with this is the alternative recommended above: limit the German numbers in the area based upon the countries and islands they control around the Mediterranean coastline, but it'll be a pretty arbitrary decision. One 'free' corps representing the Afrika Korps + one extra corps for control of each of Malta, Gibraltar, Crete and Cyprus???
I'm sticking with Raeder and Kesselring, who were concerned with this issue in a way that we never can be.
I agree about the Axis in NA and basically, I have a question about the Axis in 1940/41 overall.
First NA: In my game against Chuck (my first PBEM game ever), Malta fell due to my inexperience. However, with the aid of several Russian units, I have been able to stop him in NA at the cost of losing...gasp...England. My two very nice English units were in Egypt and due to their weight and the distance involved, I was pretty much stuck with leaving them there. Now, Alexandra has fallen several turns ago, but a regrouped Allied force (Italian EA was taken and all those units are now in Egypt) is making quick gains and soon should retake Alexandria and beyond (Syria has already fallen).
My suggestion to LIMIT...repeat...LIMIT axis aggression/advance in NA and beyond is by having one and only one axis supply placed in Tripoli. This would shorten the Axis tether forcing him to reach Cairo, but really nothing after that. Also, those Italian units in EA are REAL tough to beat...it took quite a bit of help from Free French units (fleeing England) not to mention a few Russian units at the end to win there. The Italian supply in EA is what kept those units going, where as my supply in that region was usually around 7. I also recommend a supply "road" from Tobruk down to Italian EA would be realistic, as any Allied advance into Libya would severely hurt those Italians in EA. This way, the Axis have a shot at getting Cairo but at a high price in units (it will be costly due to lowered supply). Italian EA can hold out (perhaps those units should be beefed back up to their early numbers once again?) unless a determined and reinforced attack is made against them. Axis expansion east of Egypt is now stopped for all but the suicidal. Turkey now becomes vital to any deep southern route into Russia.
Now my other question:
In my two PBEM games and several hot seat solo games, I have found that the Axis in 1940-1941 seems to be able to go whenever and wherever they want with little or no loss. Despite a decent, IMHO, defense of England (with what I had) Chuck was able to get so many units over the Channel that England was doomed. I thought several times about sending Russian units into England but did not. I could justify their use in Africa but not in England proper. Moreover, America sitting with their (to quote the British) thumb up their bum did not help at all. Shouldn’t the Axis enter England event/mssg have a greater effect on US entry?
A suggestion to slow down the Axis some would be to remove their shock advantage AND overall supply/replacements between the fall of France and Operation Barbarossa. The activation of Barbarossa TO by the Axis could again raise the supply/repl and shock (6 months?) As it is, the current Axis shock bonus is based on HISTORICAL events and not game events.
Just some thoughts….sorry for the length.
Now, to the Angel game :D
Panzerpelle
13 Oct 02, 05:31
One idea (repeated with a variation.) :) If you read my post about the possiblity of conducting amphibiuos warfare and make a compromize you´ll get a situation where it becomes more difficult for the axis to actually assault England without destroying the RN and RAF. If you take my idea of an complusary stop of one turn before attacking (only on beaches if you want that) you have an extra dimension of naval warfare and...the German lack of navy assets will stop them from running all over the map...the strong naval units of France and Brittain will be very important. I will suggest that as a comprimize to Mark in our game to see how it will affect the game.
Originally posted by SkyVon
IIn my two PBEM games and several hot seat solo games, I have found that the Axis in 1940-1941 seems to be able to go whenever and wherever they want with little or no loss. Despite a decent, IMHO, defense of England (with what I had) Chuck was able to get so many units over the Channel that England was doomed. I thought several times about sending Russian units into England but did not. I could justify their use in Africa but not in England proper. Moreover, America sitting with their (to quote the British) thumb up their bum did not help at all. Shouldn’t the Axis enter England event/mssg have a greater effect on US entry?
The Axis might be able to conquere all of Europe and Africa in 40/41 but not at little losses. A good defence in France should inflict 30.000-40.000 HR losses, a good defence in Africa can slow down the Axis and keep his losses rising (a good defence in England will doom any invasion attempts). The Axis can take all those objectives but their victorys come at a cost. They will weaken the Axis before his drive against Russia which is undoubtly the most important campaign in EA.
The Allies have to pick their spots in 40-41. They can't defend everywhere but they can either:
1.) Make a invasion of Britian impossible by keeping most units in England or
2.) Hold North Africa by sending most units to Egypt.
If they try to do both than both the UK and Egypt will be in danger.
Another thing they need to do is hold France as long as possible. If the French can hold out until the Summer of 40 than the Axis will have there work cut out for them to clear the Balkans and North Africa before the winter penalities kick in.
Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I'm sticking with Raeder and Kesselring, who were concerned with this issue in a way that we never can be. [/B]
Let's also keep in mind that the Brits could've responded in kind. Move, countermove. I had every Brit in the theatre down there (minus a few to guard the UK). This is signifigantly more than they had historically. (By several times).
Also, let us not forget that a Med 'supreme effort' would detract from Axis options in other areas. Give and take. Oh, I certainly think the plan was possible (I'm quite familiar with the plans outlined by R&K, we researched it extensively for our game), but not to the extent that EA depicts.
I'm not sitting here going 'Mark, change it change it change it!' I want empirical evidence, and that's why I keep doing it in every game I play. I have every turn (opponents and mine alike) that I've ever played, and when I've got 4 or 5 complete games in hand, that will be a reasonable starting point. I'm also quite happy that we DO keep adding in things tomake it a little tougher, such as the Persian buffer. We get a better feel for how much farther we (might) have to go.
One note, if anyone DOES decide to put in a house rule in Africa, I strongly suggest that it not be quite as Mark illustrated in his point; taking Gibraltar, the canal, or Malta itself lifts ALL restrictions. The whole ballgame was about supply/interdiction, and any one of these locations would be an end-run around the problem. And to forestall arguments, yes, an Axis capture of Gibraltar or the Suez would not preclude the Axis from still shipping right past Malta, and thus being interdicted anyways. But we made the rule thus to also symbolize the strategic shift of taking away the Allied super-advantage of having an Allied Lake in the form of the entire Med. Having it open at either end for the Axis (and likewise closed to the Brits at that end) would have drastic repercussions on the Allied war efforts.
Originally posted by SkyVon
Despite a decent, IMHO, defense of England (with what I had) Chuck was able to get so many units over the Channel that England was doomed. I thought several times about sending Russian units into England but did not. I could justify their use in Africa but not in England proper. Moreover, America sitting with their (to quote the British) thumb up their bum did not help at all. Shouldn’t the Axis enter England event/mssg have a greater effect on US entry?
No offence intended, but if the UK falls under pretty much ANY circumstances, you somehow blew it. (Inexperience with the scenario, catastorphic disasters elsewhere, etc?) I've been playtesting this under optimal Axis circumstances, and still think it's probably a doomed gambit. (The Brits are well below halfstrength, with most of their good units already destroyed, the RAF is depleted, the RN is partially destroyed, the US has 'agreed' to not come in regardless of being active, the Russians will not interfere, etc).
Ask yourself another question: if you restarted this game with Chuck, from turn 1... Would he even have a HOPE of taking the UK? It sounds alot like one of those things that you can only do to a person once. After they've seen it, they're now aware of the possibilities, and will not be caught thusly again.
As to your points about the Germans walking all over Europe with impunity in the early going... They pretty much did. A good example of this is my current game with Dan. I took out everything quite quickly, had months to spare prior to Barbarossa, didn't lose a single unit anywhere, won everything I went after, won the BoB, had damned near the entire map under the Axis banner prior to DoWing the Reds. (Only the UK, and Ethiopia were Allied). I'm just hexes away from Moscow, still in great shape, Stalingrad has but a couple turns of life left in it, etc. I haven't used Barbarossa, so keep in mind that perhaps my losses would be lighter vs. the Russians thus far had I used it.
My point?
First off, let me say that Dan has fought valiantly, has taken me to task everytime I've left an opening in my lines, has managed to show up each time I've left a vital port open (Norway rings a bell :) and has given me no free lunches anywhere. The soviet defence has been determined.
Here's the kicker: my total losses are around 60k HRSs. For all that I totally walked all over everyone in the early stages of the game; for all that I never was fighting anyone who could even hurt me, let alone stop me; all those little countries, little battles, little campaings, and France itself... They account for over half of the Axis losses, even though I've almost tamed the Soviet beast!
Never discount what the real purpose of the Allies is in the early stages. Be as nasty as you can, cost him for every hex. Sure, you'll lose, but make him PAY for those advances. You know, when you have a few units dugin, set to ignore losses, and the Axis hordes get around you, they blast you a couple times before they manage to evap your whole stack... Well, even though the losses say 'Axis 21%, Allies 34%' on those attacks where you >just< manage to hold him off, he's attacking with 7X your force, and that 21% loss he took once or twice was several times more than you had in the battle from the beginning! THAT'S what it's about.
And France. Oh, I LOVE France. No one has ever wiped out my France (yes, I've lost everytime) without something really nasty happening to them. With Ming, I wiped out 2 panzers and a couple mech before he crushed me. (I call that a victory!) In another game, I toasted the entire FJ, at the cost of 'allowing' France to fold in '39 when I might've been able to make it to the sitz. Etc etc etc!
It does seem to be a harsh blow to morale, especially during the 'lonely years' when the UK is all by her lonesone, and you sit powerless watching the Axis have their way with everything... But the tide turns! Keep in mind that every one of us has MUCH more experience with the Axis 'glory days' rather than the Allied 'glory days' simply because alot (most?) games never make it to the end, and that's where the Allies shine.
I look at it in a whole different light. Those early years are a joke; it's an entirely Axis show. Can you seriously 'plan' to take out Berlin, or liberate France? Let's be serious. So what's left for you to do? Nothing. Except to analyze EVERY move the German makes. Watch ALL of his deployments. Buzz ALL his coasts and look for ANY error he makes. There's alot going on for him, and it's likely (almost certain) that he's going to bollux it up SOMEWHERE; you simply have to be on the watch for it. I >love< the early stages of the war for the Allies (believe it or not) because you can pretty much always take care of the Allied things that are important (UK, Malta, Gibraltar, etc) and then spend the rest of the time just waiting like a vulture in the sky.
You get through it, and yes, the Axis crushed everything they went after, but you're able to say 'Ha! Ya, you got everything, (but so does everyone else), but I wiped the entire German navy/destroyed the FJ/kept you out or Narvik forever/eliminated the Italians in Africa/detroyed 3 panzers/insert Axis disaster here'.
THAT'S what it's all about, and I absolutely LIVE for that! I love those turns where you send your opponent his turn, and you just KNOW his face is gonna go slack, his jaw will drop, he'll actually feel physically ill in his stomach as he watched your replay. Getting the answering email with 'I sure as hell didn't see THAT coming'... OMG, that's why I wargame!
:freak: :skull: :PIMP: :skull: :freak:
Originally posted by Chuck
1.) Make a invasion of Britian impossible by keeping most units in England or
2.) Hold North Africa by sending most units to Egypt.
If they try to do both than both the UK and Egypt will be in danger.
I have to disagree. Defending the UK adequately leaves you enough for 1 big thing, and Africa is generally it. It takes not even 1/4 of your units to ensure the survival of the UK.
Dan Neely
13 Oct 02, 13:56
I just finished a sealion test in 1.8 It is doable, but will be difficult and costly. I did prewar builds, fall of france in 39, and italian entry too late to move the east african troops by sea after ethiopia is liberated. asside from the 2 reserve corps sent to beef up the malta/gibralter defences no troops were moved between uk and the med. Brit defences had 1 corp per supply hex, 1 div at each adjacent beach, and 1 armor div on each side of the island. I dropped paras around plymouth and stormed the beach south of it with 2 corps + the marine div. about 40% of the time I was able to land all of my troops and evap the corp in the port. The landing triggered a us DoW. Simultainious to the landing I activated spain and railed the panzers south to take gibralter. Sufficiant italians were assumed to be in africa to squash the renuad forces as soon as they appeared. With italian bombers (longer range than the germans) in morroco and western england in german hands it's impossible to ship troops from south africa without thier being attacked and destroyed. The initial brit counter attack was unable to push me back and I spent the next 3 months building up forces including 2 pz corps. Once I assumed the offensive, 8 turns were sufficient to see birmingham fall and the english surrender. German losses were ~20k hrs and a badly chewed up AF. Since roughly half the brits have green or blue coloration instead of white they won't disband and many of the white ones will enter a reconstitution loop, unless the germans keep england well occupied an american landing will bring them all into play. With half the german OOB in england progress in the east will be very limited and I doubt the 20% replacement drop will be sufficient to counter that fact and let the germans inflict a cripling bow to the bear. When the penalty is removed after 2 years the allies should still be able to push the germans back.
Unless the brits strip england bare and debatablely even then, I still think Sea lion is a loosing propostion. IF the production penalty was permanant, more of the brit oob disbanded, or if none of the remaining units drew brit hardware then I might change my mind. OF the 3 objections, the continued availablity of units using brit tanks and aircraft is my biggest concern, and the easiest to fix, withdraw the RAF and all armor divs and deploy Free brit ones wiht only american hardware instead, or restructure the blue brit units to only use us equiptment and make most of the RAF white.
Are the bombers in Morocco enough to stop reinforcement from Africa even with the units being escorted by the entire RN?
I used this in my tests, but haven't got so far as to try these air attacks as I'm testing vs. a human. Also, it would depend on the situation. If bringing in Spain is what activates the US, should it still be done? If not, the Brits can still reinforce through Gibraltar; if so, there are how many turns of full reinforcement coming through from the US, in addition to the few turns of the Brits being able to sneak through Gibraltar before Spain enters.
If there is a UK reserve corp on both Malta and Gibraltar when the BoB is won, lessee...
The Allied player sees in the news that he lost the BoB. (German has already landed, and Spain has been chosen to activate next turn). He ships the reserve corp from Malta to Gibraltar, still leaving enough to move another unit somewhere. German turn sees Spain activate, and a mess of Axis units rail adjacent to Gibraltar. Brit moves one (or both?) reserve corp to the UK, and has an active us player to provide several more turns or reinforcement, plus has the home guard units.
Hmmm, it still seems rather tight. I can envision it working (thus my playtests as well), but I can also see it going just as you've stated, but the Axis not quite cutting the mustard. Will corps that originated in the UK that are destroyed at sea reconstitute in the UK? (Those that do reconstitute?)
Interesting results.
Dan Neely
13 Oct 02, 16:13
Originally posted by Mantis
Are the bombers in Morocco enough to stop reinforcement from Africa even with the units being escorted by the entire RN?
didn't try. in my test by the time it became necesary the allied navy was down to orange health, and didn't have anywhere need the needed number of moves. I just tested it, and most axis bombers have the range, not just the ultra LR ones like I thought. even with kreigsmarine support I wasn't able to finish off the stack, but the allied navies were devastated, but almost all of the swordfishes went down with the carriers. Once the axis forces resupply they'll have a much easier time of it, and they did kil over 50% of the target div an reduced it to 33% readyness (supply still at 100) meaning it won't be able to do anything for several turns after it arrives. Considering that ethiopia to uk is 3 weeks, axlexandria/uk is 4, I don't think i'll be enough to change the outcome in any event.
I used this in my tests, but haven't got so far as to try these air attacks as I'm testing vs. a human. Also, it would depend on the situation. If bringing in Spain is what activates the US, should it still be done? If not, the Brits can still reinforce through Gibraltar; if so, there are how many turns of full reinforcement coming through from the US, in addition to the few turns of the Brits being able to sneak through Gibraltar before Spain enters.
in my test it was the landing that did it. if I hadn't done the winterwar TO, they US would've entered on turn 27. US gives 2 inf corps and 1 tank div that take 3 or 4 turns to ship,
Hmmm, it still seems rather tight. I can envision it working (thus my playtests as well), but I can also see it going just as you've stated, but the Axis not quite cutting the mustard. Will corps that originated in the UK that are destroyed at sea reconstitute in the UK? (Those that do reconstitute?)
If they're set to reconstitute yes. but most of them will be from the africa OOB which reconstitutes in alexandria.
Originally posted by Mantis
I have to disagree. Defending the UK adequately leaves you enough for 1 big thing, and Africa is generally it. It takes not even 1/4 of your units to ensure the survival of the UK.
How do you this? What units did you put in:
1.) Egypt
2.) Malta
3.) Gibraltar
4.) UK
I have to agree with Chuck. The UK can sucessfully defend either NA or England...not both. This ties into my 40/41 year of the Axis post. The Axis player WILL take one or the other...sometimes both. The Axis will also take anything else he wants during this time (except USSR...usually). This is why I suggest that the Axis be toned down some between fall of France and Barbarossa.
(Mantis quote inserted)
But the tide turns! Keep in mind that every one of us has MUCH more experience with the Axis 'glory days' rather than the Allied 'glory days' simply because alot (most?) games never make it to the end, and that's where the Allies shine.
(end quote)
The above quote sums it all up...doesn't it?
It's really hard to do both. There should be enough high quality units to either hold Egypt or the UK. The UK has both naval and air superiority over the Germans so it makes it tough if the Axis have to split their limited air and naval units to both theaters.
an Axis attack on the UK will allow the soviets to DOW the Axis and they will surely do so. Tha Axis will get some Ostforts but most importantly the russian stream of reinforcements will start flowing! If the Axist waits to long with their conquest of England or have to wait several turns to resupply they'll face a far stronger opponent in the east. Lets assume that it'll take 3-4 month to ship sufficient troops into England, 2 month until the UK finally falls and again 3-4 month to bring most forces back on the continent rest a little and rail them to the ostfront. Thats 8-10 month extra preparation time and most importantly fresh reinforcements for the soviets. They should be able to form a solid defence line with those troops and the Axis will have a hard time trying to break open the line. If the Axis even have to wait some more month to wait for spring they are in real trouble!
Dan Neely
15 Oct 02, 17:52
I agree that it looks like a loosing proposition. Whenever I find annother block of free time I'll try it again against a minimally defended uk (most troops in Egypt). IF combined with closing the straits of Gibralter, I suspect that this might make an invasion a viable proposition. Previously the mass reconstitution of the French reorg in the UK made SeaLion an impossible propostion under almost any circumstances. Now with it possible against a reasonablely well defended UK if not advisable, I'm thinking that if the brits strip the cubbard bare that it will be a winning propostion.
When you finally do it again, be sure to post what you feel is the minimum the Brits need to leave in the UK to be secure; the point at which a German player will go 'it just isn't worth it'.
I am especially interested in the results.:hmmm:
Mark Stevens
17 Oct 02, 15:31
I second that Dan: let us know how it works out when you find the time.
As you know, I'm a reasonable man...
As you know, I'm a reasonable man...
I don't quite follow what exactly you mean by that...???
Dan Neely
17 Oct 02, 18:45
Originally posted by Mantis
When you finally do it again, be sure to post what you feel is the minimum the Brits need to leave in the UK to be secure; the point at which a German player will go 'it just isn't worth it'.
I am especially interested in the results.:hmmm:
running these tests takes a fair ammount of time each. My previous test took most of 2 nights, after spending 2 nights redeploying the brits and hitting end turn while doing something else. If I do annother test, it will probabally be nonprewar builds invade ~turn 60 with brittain stripped bare to defend egypt.
Without playing the Eastern front as well (very time consuming) telling if the 20% reduction in allied production will be sufficient to counterbalance the loss of the shock penalty, and earlier deployment of soviet reserves. I suppose I could try counting lrs squad total deployment rates (per turn + timed deployments), but it would be overly simplified since non committed germans (in the previous test I still had half the german oob available) and balkans troops will be able to carry out a limited offensive against the russians when they attack.
MY gut feeling is that the Germans need to invade early(before May) and take out Britian with 2 months worth of troops. Garrisoning will probabally take 3-5 corps to deal with partisans activating reconstitution loop troops and blue/green brits that won't withdraw. My reasoning is that if the germans invade late in 40, it will be impossible to severely hurt the soviets before winter sets in and they get massive numbers of replacements. The latter is a requirement against sending too many troops away from the eastern front.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.