EA with Ravenstrike 2.0

[Rev]

Turns 52-58
Axis
Well the campaign in Africa/Middle East rages on. Don was on vacation in the deep south so we didn't play for a while but the game goes on. The axis keep bombing the rail net between el-Alemain, Cairo & Alexandria which keeps my engineers busy. Panzer elements and now several leg divisions continue to push into Iraq and have closed in on Basra proper, capturing Baghdad on 57 and the surrounding airfields. I had anticipated an airdrop on Basra or at the key bridges due north; but it never came, to my liking of course . The German Nile offensive from Palestine has stalled and come to a grinding hault. Perhaps the Italian's are fueling up and await the sounding gun to drive into Eqypt from the west??

Partisan action continues in Yugoslavia and the Kriegsmarine is active, and has probed the beaches and south coast of Great Briatain, looking for a hole. Most of the navy moved south near Gibraltar and German engineers landed further south in west Africa to secure the allied port there. There continues to be a lot of rail activity and I see a few more infantry redeploy out of France to the Blakans and probably Poland.

Allies
My defense is holding and I have taken the offense to gain some space and hopefully push the Germans back a few hexes away from the Suez canal. Still I am under strength in the west but I should be able to shore that up on turns 59-60 because I don't have much faith in the ability of the Italians, unless they are backed by the German Heer. I wish I had more airforce to cover my fleets, I would consider moving them back into the Med which would threaten all the beach hexes on the Palestinian coast and keep Don honest. The Basra defenses are crumbling as the maps will show, but I can not afford to peel any thing off of the Nile line and GB won't be thinned any more. Norway and Greece keep reconstituting units outside there home territories and I continue to move them in if adjacent or disband them. I have a feeling America will enter the war very soon. Once that has happened, I will be able to strengthen Africa even more and contend with the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic. Until then, I will bide my time, and make do with the army I have and hope I can survive in the Middle East as long as possible.

Rev

 

[Mark Stevens]

I'm finding this very interesting.

I don't think that you should be disbanding the Greeks and Norwegians, unless they're popping up somewhere completely ridiculous (e.g. behind German lines on a rail line).

If it's somewhere reasonable, like the UK or Allied controlled area of the Middle East, I'd consider them as Norwegians or Greeks who were already, or have fled, abroad and have been reformed into UK-controlled and supplied units, rather like the Free French or Poles actually were. The British certainly had a Greek formation in the Middle East, and had enough Norwegians been available...

The same may happen with a few Hungarians, Rumanians, Finns, etc., when and if the tide turns. This is a limitation of the game engine, but I don't think that it's too ridiculous.

Russian mechanised corps - sigh - reappearing in the Pripet Marshes should be disbanded of course.

 

[Bdr.Mallette]

Please continue with AAR, I need more info and tips.
I am approaching your ended turn number, so if you could, finish your job! lol

Rev, you had said something about having to contend with the Kriegsmarine??? I'm afraid to even move out of the Baltic. I've lost my Main fleet once, can't afford any more losses.
My opponent loves his Navy (as he should) and he continually blockades my ports by cruising by them and changing the sea hexes to Allied control, damn.

Anyways......continue please, find it interesting as well.
If this game was exactly like the actual war, why play it, we know how it ends. Kinda like the reason why I have never read the Bible, why read fiction when you already know the ending, he gets nailed in the end.

bdr :halo:

 

[Rev]

I will be posting a long overdue update shortly. My web hosting has had some zone/dns issues and that is why you can't see any of my previously url'd pictures. I should have that fixed soon and then I will bring you all up to turn 66.


Rev

 

[Rev]

It is turn 74. I moved ISP's so my pics are not linking. I have been busy and not much into posting about the game but I will make some effort to catch up very soon. In short, the war in Russia has begun and Don is moving through my defenses. My initial line of defense was setup just east of the pripet along the Leningrad, Gomel, Kiev, Dnep axis with some secondary mobile units on the Moscow ring of entrenchments. It doesn't appear to be going well. All the Middle East is lost, I can't extract anything from Africa so 1/2 the UK is pinned even though they have the largest navy in the world, the shipping rates seem so low that I can't even move a single division out of east africa and there is no option to divide such units so they sit and do nothing for months on end, what a waste. I should have just stayed and let Don pound on me until the units disintegrated, instead of saving my army intact.

I have taken what I can out of Africa and around the horn and up to the USA and then back to Britain... Overall I'm not happy with the scenario, but I told Don I would play it out till Russia collapsed, which will happen even if the USA were to enter very very soon. Its a foregone conclusion, just playing it out. The Germans are to ahead of schedule and are allowed to start early which is a huge benefit on the time tables for them, among other things. I'd be interested if anyone has put together any results statistics on wins. I'd be curious to know who wins more in these EA games, the Germans or the Allies. If I remember the Germans lost the war.

Rev

 

[06 Maestro]

REV

To get information on a scenario just go to the WARS ladder. Game reports should show you what you are looking for-if not, just find a player on the ladder that has played EA (by clicking on his name,when you see that the game was played by him, just click on the game name and it'll take you to all reported games of EA
.
In your current game it sounds like you are sunk-only because of the time frame. Before you right off this scenario as grossly inaccurate you need to consider who your opponent is-he is rather accomplihsed and could rip up most people on the ladder.

 

[Mantis]

Perhaps you've defended too far back?

That doesn't really give you a lot of space to trade for time once you've engaged him. With barbarossa likely in effect just as he meets your main line of defence, you don't really have too far to fall back before he's taking vital ground.

 

[Rev]

I am very well aware of Don's ability, and when I express my misgivings with the scenario, I do so not as an excuse to my inability to play effectively. It is not even 1941 yet the Germans are able to plow over multiple enemies simulaneously. No matter what I do, it is just the overwhelming numbers and power that can not be resisted with minor allied units. It's a snowballing effect. Starting war early puts you ahead from day 1, which in turn allows you to wipe out other opponents/countries far earlier while the allies have no growth going on, the USA remains silent and this gives Germany more than ample time to destroy the Soviets. It is ludicrous to think a 1944 western front would ever come to fruition. Russia will have been long dead (by years) and there just is not enough time to save them. Maybe I just suck and have made repeated fatal errors (I really don't see making any huge errors, not on the scale that resulted in such an overwhelming German domination.) Sure there have been some tactical mistakes, but even if I eliminated all of them, France/Spain and Africa would still be lost... maybe 10-15 turns later, like that matters.

Has anyone seen a game of EA that had a realistic time table of German expansion and contraction? I have seen a few other games and it seems to me to play the same. Everything gets wiped out on the west, the Med is a Italian lake and there remains the UK and Russia. Russia is plowed over, wrapped, encircled and pocketed holding nothing but like a Moscow ring, they can't even maintain a front it looks like a joke really. Then the 2nd front comes, but its not from Normandy, it is usually from Spain or somewhere else.. and that is really contained and stagnant..... so that is how it works until time runs out, assuming Russia or the Allied will doesn't collapse first? Sound familiar? Has anyone ever crushed Germany in a 44-45 time frame and literally destroyed most of its armies?

Oh well, I'd be glad to play any WW2 table top with Don and show him how things work with chits and dice.

Rev

 

[Mark Stevens]

Nearly all Axis players seem to take the Pre-War builds, reckoning that the extra troops are worth the long distant prospect of the USA entering early.

For the Eastern Crusade version, we already have an equivalent Red Army build up in the 1930s included in the scenario, representing the USSR not scrapping Tukhachevsky's reforms. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have this automatically triggered in a 'normal' game if the Axis player chooses the Pre-War builds?

It's all hypothetical of course, but I suppose you could argue that Stalin wouldn't have been very pleased to have seen Germany rearming even more strongly than it did historically and would have attempted to match it?

The current Red Army '1930s' builds are: two mechanised 13-14s; three motorised 11-12s; three shock infantry 6-12s and one 24-3 artillery corps. Would that provide a deterrent to the Axis Pre-War builds? And not taking them would make it harder for the Axis to overrun the West so quickly.

 

[06 Maestro]

There certainly would have been a response to a more rapid rearming by Germany. The question is “how much for the Allies†The Soviets were already the # 1 arms producer, but could have done even more. The western Allies would have increased also. Germany’s equipment production had the greatest unused capacity during the ‘30’s and should have the most to gain in all this.
Giving Russia its “eastern crusade†units is certainly reasonable as a response to Germany’s build-up. Likewise, the western allies should receive a little something themselves-perhaps an armored corps each-good ones,

 

[Karri]

Perhpas lower the supply for Axis to represent earlier blockade?

 

[Lou]

One of the things that could be done is to deny the Axis the Barbarossa supply bonus.
It is not available until the Spring AFTER Paris falls, and is never available if Barbarossa happens first. Consumes lots of events.

An alternative would be to give the Axis a larger supply radius - 400 km was the historical reality - cutting it down to current levels in several steps, delay with range, to end with the lapse of Barbarossa. Consumes less events.

Problems with the supply bonus are known.

Problems with the extended supply range accross the map need to be thought about.

 

[Rev]

Lou
That brings up some interesting ideas. When I was attacked in the Med the turn France surrendered, Don had Germans in ports waiting the turn before so they could be shipped to now friendly ports in Israel since he knew they would go pro German. This allowed him to plan a large naval invasion while he was still knee deep in French with a full front of troops. This surrender event guaranteed him a huge advantage and threw the entire Med out of wack against the UK. It basically allowed Don to take it all, just because he knew and took advantage of the French going pro axis in Israel. This in turn allowed him to 2 front me in the Suez. The Italians sit waiting for me to demilitarize the Libyan border to answer the threat coming down from Israel area so I can defend both sides of the Suez. Again it comes to volumes... the Germans can just continue to put more air, more infantry and more tanks wherever they want and the allies seem to lack shipping to answer back. This I think should be seriously looked at. Shipping was huge and always an allied strength. Perhaps there should be a difference between amphib ability and port to port naval transport. This is probably a limit on the game I'm not sure and I suppose Mark could explain this better.

To my point finally, getting beyond the Suez via Israel allowed Don to move onto Iraq and Basra. I recall Mark mentioning (many posts back) that their would be some supply problems due to distance etc. .but this was not really a hindering issue IMO. Supply didn't seem to stop him taking Basra and thus getting more supply bonus for the Axis. How on earth can that be defended along with Gibraltar, Malta and the Suez area from both sides? Impossible. So the Germans get more supply advantage.

Hell Rommel could not even be supplied well from Italy to Tripoly.. how in gods earth would they have done so all the way to Basra? Naval convoys from Sicily/Taranto to Lebanon? LOL.. nIt wasn't possible and I'd like to see any logistics officer argue with me that it could be done with any real efficiency. Still it can be done in the game somehow... (shakes head).

Supply was always a critical factor in the east. Manstein's back hand blow in 42 was very limited as was the tail end of the Stalingrad offensive. Is this supply limitation reflected in the game? I don't see it at all. Cherry red units are still attacking and they can still move and push as far as the map goes.

This supply 'Barbarrossa' bonus is supposed to make the Russians suffer a shock effect right? Is there no other way to do this other than giving the Germans bonus supply? They had a constant supply crisis going on from the first summer, it was exacerbated by the deep penetrations of the armor/mobile units.. they should not get a bonus, the Russians ought to be more static perhaps.. Thoughts anyone?

Rev

 

[Mark Stevens]

The issue of how many units the Axis can ship to and supply in the Middle East has been a long running question. We've tried juggling around with the location of the Axis supply points, but from the threads I understand that this just isn't working and that it's still possible for the Axis to simply steamroller the Allies in the region.

We could introduce a House Rule, or I could recolour 'Panzer Corps Rommel' and say that only that one German unit can be sent to the Middle East until Malta (?) is captured, then the restriction ends.

The thing with that, as I never tire of saying, is that senior German commanders like Kesselring and Raeder believed that a far greater German/Italian effort could have been made in the region, and that it would have had a decisive effect on the development of the campaign there. Kesselring in particular argued strongly for the reduction of Malta as a priority, although it was never implemented because it always seemed that diverting the troops and supplies directly to Rommel might allow the one last push that would see Egypt fall.

Also, although the distances involved were shorter, later in the war the Axis were able to supply in excess of 300,000 men of Panzer Group Afrika for over six months in the Tunisian bridgehead, including the already existing Italian and German forces, and several new German formations shipped over to strengthen it.

I must admit that I'm in a quandary about this. If it is just a matter at present of the Germans stuffing the region with troops and overwhelming the Allied by sheer weight of numbers, and if this fatally compromises the defence of the USSR, which is where the decisive campaign of the scenario will eventually take place, then something needs to be done. On the other hand, artificially limiting the Axis to a fixed number of units (either by a House Rule or by recolouring one or two corps) prevents the Axis player making what was felt by senior commanders to have been a realistic alternative strategy, which the scenario is designed to allow. (By the same thinking, why not limit the number of German units that can be sent to Norway, or the UK for that matter?)

I'm still keen on the idea of matching a German Pre-War builds with an equivalent increase in the Red Army, as it's reasonably historical and we already have the extra Russian units built into the scenario for the Eastern Crusade variant. I also want to represent the significant increase in the Turkish Armed Forces that took place in 1941 (see earlier threads). However, neither of these directly address the question of the Middle East: the Axis player can choose not to take the Pre-War builds to keep the Russians from appearing, and can choose not to invade Turkey (or at least try to get it over pre 1941) and still stuff the Middle East.

Maybe German units coloured to indicate their availability to be shipped to the Middle East appear as the main Mediterranean islands fall? Rommel's panzer corps for free, as we know that it happened, then additional corps (?) for each of Malta, Crete, Cyprus and Corsica (and Gibraltar)?

Rev's point about the 'Barbarossa' bonus being excessive and affecting the whole map is also reasonable - if there's a general feeling that it guarantees a German victory I suppose that it could be reduced, but I've lost as the Axis plenty of times with it at the existing level.

I'd welcome any suggestions. :nervous:

(I still have to look at Lou's suggestion about freeing up additional Events by looking at looping the weather, among other things. I'd hoped to do it during my main holiday in August but instead of sitting in front of the PC I actually went away and enjoyed myself. Ideally I need to be made redundant, or break a leg or something, but that seems a little drastic.)

 

[Rev]

Based upon that thought, is there any way to better reflect the dependence upon naval/fleet supply to keep units moving in North Africa? I realize there are many limits based upon the OAOW engine, but I was wondering if say for example you wanted to have some sort of supply transport capacity that moves X amount of supply across sea's form port to port. In additon wouldn't ports be limited on how much could be delivered within a turn? Mulberries come to mind here as does the importance of capturing a great/major port intact. (Cherbourg) for D-Day or the dramatic improvement Antwerp had shipping wise once it was occupied by the allies.

Not really - as you say, there just isn't the option in the game engine to cover naval capacity affecting supply in different theatres.

I've tried to cover it to a very limited extent by placing supply points in the major ports - in the example you mention above, the Allied recapture of Antwerp (or Calais/Amsterdam/Cherbourg) post 'Overlord' will allow supply to be drawn from there rather than the Normandy beachhead, but that's about it. Being honest, TOAW isn't designed to cover a scenario as widely spread and complicated as Europe in WWII, although I'm always willing to listen to listen to suggested improvements.

 

[Felix]

Mark,

Could you not add British pre-war builds? Or French ones, to help slow down and drain the German invasion of France. You say that Stalin would not be happy with an accelerated German rearmament. I'm sure the British and French wouldn't be too thrilled either, and this would have lit a fire under their bums from the mid-30s on.

A few extra Spitfires, Wellingtons, D520s and Somua's might balance things out, and give a disincentive to the German player.

2 cents from someone who hasn't played EA before......

 

[Mark Stevens]

Yes, that's an option - simply balance German Pre-War builds with a Western Allied equivalent. For what it's worth my understanding is that the Nazi regime didn't go all out to rearm in the 1930s as it wanted to keep the standard of living in Germany as high as possible in order to keep the population happy - there was still plenty of 'spare' production diverted to consumer goods, many middle class families could still afford to retain maids and other domestic help, etc. Germany wasn't prepared for a long war, just a series of short campaigns: of course this policy came to grief in the USSR in the winter of 1941 and by 1943 Goebbels was organising for 'Total War'.

The British and French, on the other hand, only woke up to the fact that they'd probably have to fight much later - around the time of the failed Munich settlement - and so had less opportunity and time to rearm in depth. The only 'compensation' the Allies currently get if Germany rearms more strongly is that the USA will enter the war earlier than it did historically.

Like I say, I think it's been overdone in the scenario - it seems that every Axis player chooses the Pre-War Builds. That's why I suggest allowing the USSR a similar bonus - I'm certain that Stalin's regime could have increased production far more easily than the western democracies.

 

[Mark Stevens]

Based upon that thought, is there any way to better reflect the dependence upon naval/fleet supply to keep units moving in North Africa? I realize there are many limits based upon the OAOW engine, but I was wondering if say for example you wanted to have some sort of supply transport capacity that moves X amount of supply across sea's form port to port. In additon wouldn't ports be limited on how much could be delivered within a turn? Mulberries come to mind here as does the importance of capturing a great/major port intact. (Cherbourg) for D-Day or the dramatic improvement Antwerp had shipping wise once it was occupied by the allies.

Not really - as you say, there just isn't the option in the game engine to cover naval capacity affecting supply in different theatres.

I've tried to cover it to a very limited extent by placing supply points in the major ports - in the example you mention above, the Allied recapture of Antwerp (or Calais/Amsterdam/Cherbourg) post 'Overlord' will allow supply to be drawn from there rather than the Normandy beachhead, but that's about it. Being honest, TOAW isn't designed to cover a scenario as widely spread and complicated as Europe in WWII, although I'm always willing to listen to listen to suggested improvements.

Sorry - last two paragraphs were meant to be my answer to Rev's first one, but I pressed 'Edit' instead of 'Quote'. Tosser.

 

[Felix]

The British and French, on the other hand, only woke up to the fact that they'd probably have to fight much later - around the time of the failed Munich settlement - and so had less opportunity and time to rearm in depth. The only 'compensation' the Allies currently get if Germany rearms more strongly is that the USA will enter the war earlier than it did historically.

I agree with what you say about the Germans. Concerning the Brits and French, we get into the realms of 'what-if' even before the game starts. I think you can justify British and French pre-war builds on the grounds that a Germany that is rearming sooner and more intensively will spur similar action from the Brits and French. Maybe Churchill and the non-appeasers get more of a say, the British public wake up to the fact, etc, etc. You can balance it easily enough with giving the Brits and French less than the Germans, but still enough to give the Axis player second thoughts.

Like I say, I think it's been overdone in the scenario - it seems that every Axis player chooses the Pre-War Builds. That's why I suggest allowing the USSR a similar bonus - I'm certain that Stalin's regime could have increased production far more easily than the western democracies.

Allowing the Soviet Union pre-war builds is entirely sensible, for the reasons you've outlined. But I do think that the western Allies would have responded to a degree too.

It's only an idea, but I thought it could be used to balance the overwhelming use of pre-war builds. A few hundred Spitfires, Matilda IIs and Somuas would lessen the impact of the German extras.

 

[Rev]

Back to some updating:

It is 12/1/1940. Leningrad resisted 3 assualts on the German turn. I managed to move a unit back in but nothing is entrenched so the city will fall next turn. Rolling down, the front, I am unable to move most of the Russians (typical) as they are mostly orange banded and pinned or routed due to combat. Building any semblance of a line is impossible, which doesn't seem to be a concern of my opponent. The germans continue to go where they want.

Smolensk fell, and my tattered ring around the western perimeter of Moscow is barely setup. This runs along the Rzhev, Vyasma, Kaluga axis. Germans are somewhat close but they have some cleanup work to do in the Smolensk area before they collide full force with my "line". I am trying to fill in the Bryansk-Kursk-Kharkov road with units but there are not enough left. Don has breached the Dnepr like it was a stream and Kiev lasted 1 turn against German assualts. I think it fell on turn 71-2.

I have another grouping of units at Stalino/Mariopol and some scattered elements trying to make way south into the caucasses to fight there, since the Germans have free reign to rail in army groups from Basra up through Iraq. Really amazing that this can happen.... its irritating to say the least. Speaking of which, all these guerillas popped up behind my lines and Baku is conveniently cut off by one. In addition, Don just isolated the southern 1/2 of the Soviet union by bombing rail bridges so I can not reinfoce the region. So I am forced rail my very limited number of engineers to the breaks, fix them and then move to the next. It is easier for him to continue to break them faster than I can repair them. More annoying tactics.

I moved every possible soviet fighter south to twart this, but the bombers just keep coming. Oh well, when Baku falls and Leningrad falls I am done playing. It wasn't very appealing looking back. The Germans have had their cake and eaten it too in this scenario. And its still 1940!!!

On another note, I am playing another gentleman who I have managed to give him many problems yet even with all these setbacks (Italy is out of the war)... he has still managed to plow over France on turn 40, as well as Norway. Seems he will also be invading much earlier than historical. My next plan is to analyze all of the reported EA games, in particular the one's played by the higher rated gamers here and see if there is any pattern that supports my claim that the axis have it too easy.


Rev