E_Von_Manstein said:
Shane:
Hmm. Seems problematic for the Axis then. Declare Sea Lion and essentially be prepared give up Barbarossa, or, pass on Sea Lion and leave England behind you, knowing its just a matter of time. Any allied player worth their salt would trade the US entry negative, as exists, to prevent ALTOGETHER, an Axis Barbarossa.
Agreed.
Which overall route then, as you've gamed this several times, gives the Axis the best (any?) hope of winning the war???? TO Sea Lion or not TO Sea Lion, so to speak?
:laugh: You stole my line!
To Sea, or not to Sea(lion)
It all comes down to Russia. Killing the Brits makes killing Russia alot easier, as you don't really have to worry about the Atlantic wall. The Yanks might not even be in the war, and they don't amount to much for a looong time anyways, so you can basically forget about them if things are going well.
I can't say for certain that there is a 'best' route (any longer) - I have a unique and interesting history when it comes to Europe Aflame. When I first became involved, I was 110% convinced that Barbarossa was too powerful (in its early incarnations - you used to be able to hold on to it and use it when you wished, it was longer, etc). I also was 110% convinced that taking over the Suez Canal, going through the Middle East, and attacking Russia from the south as well was the be-all and end-all of Axis strategies.
But I was the FNG on the forum, and I needed to establish myself a bit, and show screenshots, empirical evidence and repeated demonstrations, etc. So *every* game I played, I took the Axis, and did the same thing. (To date - I have never used any other path into Russia - not once).
It took a while, but my points were verified, and not using Barbarossa at all in a game where Russia was defeated made crystal the observation that this theatre option (TO) must be timed from the DoW.
Since then, we've limited Barb to 4 turns after you declare war on Russia (have to use it by then), made it a bit weaker/shorter, and added in the ability for Russia to take Persia over as a buffer zone, giving them a massive range of mountains the Germans will have to batter through to make any headway.
Since then, I totally switched around, and have played nothing but the Allies for the past couple of years, as I'm currently working on theories of play balance in the Eastern Front.
And to be frank, you have the problem backwards (not your fault - you need alot of play time with this monster to know how the balance is)- The scenario is quite well balanced for two average-skilled players, they'll have a great game. The problems begin when the Axis player is a vet. The skilled players in TOAW, ones that are able to coax many combat phases out of the game engine, are able to wipe the Russians right out, with relative ease. (This is why I've been the Allies for the past two years! My new pet project!
)
Changes since that time have changed the balance in favor of the Allies (Russian reinforcements show up more quickly, light rifle squad production has been increased and starts sooner, a couple of formations show up almost instantly with the DoW, etc). I'm not convinced one way or the other yet, but the general feeling is that the Axis might still be somewhat overwhelming in the hands of an expert.
Here I start to have a problem with the scenario balance in that it:
(1) starts to play completely fictional
We always have to consider game balance, and the best of an imperfect set of circumstances. There are limited events in the game engine (500), so although we could tweak the system extensively to more realistically model a sealion effort, and all the various outcomes, the events simply do not exist. (I think we currently have one or two free, and something like what I've described for Sealion would take dozens(!)...)
A> Sealion almost *never* happens, so it's not that important in the main scheme of things. Not when compared with the events required for the Fall of France, Operation Barbarossa, etc.
B> No one has
ever mentioned all this before, until me, with this very thread, so it's obviously not been a problem even once yet. I also need to point out that as soon as a player moves a single unit back in summer of '39, that the game is now fiction - that's the point, (to me at least), to NOT be historical. (I know what happened historically - I play to see what
might have happened!
) I realize your point is more about the ahistorical nature of the way the US does/doesn't decalre war re: Sealion, etc; but I believe you get my point now about events, and making the balance overall the best we can with what we have available to work with.
(2) appears to penalize Axis success {odds are tough enough as is: anyone else of this opinion?}
I went into some detail about this above, so I'll try to keep this novel-sized post as short as I'm able. :whist: But I don't see that as penalizing Axis success. First off, Sealion should not be attempted unless you see a situation where the Brits are
asking for it. It is a potential, not a viable strategy every game. And if the Axis takes the chance, and makes the beaches for a few turns, likely he'll take the island eventually. Trading Barbarossa for the death of the UK, and the 'sinking' of the unsinkable 'aircraft carrier' off the French coast (taking the island from the Allies) is a great deal, in my mind.
Secondly - the Russian player might argue that there shouldn't even
be an operation Barbarossa. What exactly IS this option? It represents the Axis blitzkrieg tactics, and the surprise of hitting all those Russian troops that were deployed waaaay forward, that were unprepared as they attempted to setup for their
own future offensive!
Well, Joe Mantis Stalin was watching what happened in France, and we've been working on this ourselves. We will not be caught as unprepared as my historical counterpart was. Also - The damage done in Barbarossa was mostly the catpure/destruction of all that previously mentioned men and equipment in forward positions. (Shakes head) Uh-uh. Not in
this man's Russia.
I have
no-one up front, I've scorched the earth, destroyed the rails, blown every damned bridge, armed the peasants with nice shiny sticks, and burned down every bit of anything that might even remotely be considered food. Sure, my starting army will still take a beating when I am forced to stand up to the german assault, but we'll do it in a nice, controlled manner, not huge surrounds/surrenders. So where does Barbarossa come in? How can the Axis player lose something that might not (technically) even exist?
It's a good trade, and the Axis player is the one with his finger on the button. There are no free lunches in EA. Doing something that benefits you will likely cause something equal and opposite to happen. (For every action...) Killing the UK is a monster victory, and losing a Barb opportunity hurts like hell. Pretty good balance. You simply don't DO Sealion as a lark - if you attempt it, you'd best be serious!
Hitler must consider carefully!
Axis elects TO Sea Lion --
If Sealion unsuccessful and USSR DoW - No Axis TO Barbarossa (ouch)
If Sealion ultimately successful,however, Axis can declare Barbarossa X {6?} turns after << England falls/occupied by X divisions/other criteria>> regardless of USSR DoW
Nope, I like it better the way it is now - if you recall my points above, I think you'll see where my thought process comes from. Barbarossa is a simulation of a certain set of circumstances that, although quite telling historically (and thus included in the game), might not even
occur or exist in a game of EA. It's a fair enough trade. Do you
really want Barbarossa? Then don't do Sealion, period. (Sealion itself is a lark, and didn't have a chance in a million of succeeding. Germany, on her
best day, could not have hoped to pull it off. We've been considering adding in a more realistic approach, however. If you wipe out Russia, the Germans win the game with an overwhelming victory. How can this be so when all the Western Allies are intact? What if you were to take a theater option to start a massive buildup of transport craft, and retool industrially to produce the needed equipment for an operation like this? It would likely take 2 years or more to kick in, but then you'd have a *real* Sealion, and one that could have actually happened {if you grant the Fall of Russia}).
Now then, the USSR has to seriously look at what's happening in England as opposed to a completely "automatic" DoW... they can try to pile on if things go bad {as Mark alluded to} and crack the Axis quickly -- but they run a risk if Axis is ultimately successful.
And here's one of those things that players need to discuss prior to playing a game of EA - Are Russians allowed in the UK? I agree to NO Reds in the UK in my games, although I feel that historically, there could have been Russians there, but they would always be outnumbered by (western) Allied troops (and only if the need was *dire*). Churchill did say that if Hitler went to Hell, he (Churchill) would speak to the devil (Stalin)...
This can make quite a difference. If the Reds can navy in 2 corps per turn to bolster the UK, then Germany is
boned. Thankfully, they aren't setup at start to have access to any sealanes to make this possible, but certain circumstances would make it work. (Allied Narvik, for example).
The big thing is that Germany has the initiative, and the choice is theirs. She knows what the risks are, she knows the potential costs. Do it, or don't; no one is forcing them to press the button! Is it perfect? No. But lacking the ten million events needed to recreate the nearly unlimited set of circumstances that can occur, we have to do the best we can.
And, to give you a bit more insight as to how important a few free events are:
There are a fairly large number of objectives on the map that have events linked to them. For example, there is a decent supply hit taken by the Allies if they lose the Suez Canal/Cairo region (obviously!) Same with Gibraltar and Malta. This makes perfect sense, as the Allied lake (the Med) could become an Axis lake, and any units going to Egypt/ME would have to sail all the way 'round Africa! This all works. BUT! There isn't enough events free to reverse the changes! If the Allies retook Gibraltar, Malta and the Canal, and re-established the Allied Lake, they would
still be penalized as if all these objoectives were German controlled!
So, we really need to examine any suggestions that will require events, and weigh them against the current needs before implementing them!
