Gunslingr3

Can you send me the scenario? gerryhicks@terranhost.com I've played the '43 scenario at Expert/0 as the Axis and won. I avoided repeating Citadel in favor of Manstein's desire to solidify a line and beef up tank strength for another assault. I pulled back to a line that ran along the Don, through the Pripyat marshes, and then from Kiev along the river line to Riga. I gave the Allied bombers a free hand in Western Europe so I could concentrate my air force on Italian front. The Allies were repelled with heavy losses while I worked on research for improving industrial technology, rockets, and jets. When those approached level 4 I turned research to anti-tank infantry and improved tanks. Summer of '44 saw the Allies seize Brest and put a sizable force ashore, but it couldn't make headway in the face of level 4 level 4 jets. I then pulled the rest of my air force into France and drove the Allies out of France and crushed the fighters based in England. By late '44 I had 5 rocket detachments behind the Riga-Kiev line. Let me say that those who have denounced rockets haven't tried to hold a line facing 5 level 4 rocket detachments with 3+ experience. I could literally pick wherever I wanted to make the hole in the Russian lines. When I went on the offensive in the East it was like '41 all over again. The attrition from '43-'44 had really cost the Russians, and when they broke it was for good. By May of '45 I was astride the Urals and slowly working my rockets back to France in preparation for Sea Lion. By the time my rockets and air force were in place it was spring of '46 and clear that the Allies had crammed the entire British Isle with troops. I hammered on them for a few months and they accepted German domination of the continent by May. Gunslinger

How is supply calculated for minors that are overseas from their allied majors? I learned that Finland could get full supply if I took Norway and Sweden first (learned this with a BEF that hopped across Scandanavia rooting out Nazi sympathies expressed or otherwise), but ran into the aforementioned problem of Greece NOT being in the full supply chain. Is it that the port is too far from another allied port? Am I correct in assuming these ports function as a method of extending supply LOCs across the water? I don't have the map in front of me, but if I'm correct then Riga having a port value of 5 might be insufficient to 'reach' the Helsinki port when in German hands under Scorched Earth conditions. Is this correct? Gunslinger

If you have already seized Norway and Sweden then Finland is supplied at full value. Finnish units will still get hammered by being too far from their supply base if an HQ isn't sent up there, but having the higher initial supply value should keep the Reds at bay. Is there anyone who knows exactly how the supply chain works? I was dissapointed to see that the Allies seizing Greece didn't have the city at full supply even after liberation. Is there something about the range between ports and supply chains linking over seas? Gunslinger

Hadn't thought of, or tried that, but I see how it would work. Yikes! Hubert, any chance of patching the Russian production supply line? Would it be possible to give them three capitols for the purposes of production? This would prevent PBEM games from devolving into the gamey tactic cited here, and would also allow for split fronts (fighting for the Urals and the Caucasus). I realize this isn't as simple as adding a few units for the Black Sea Fleet, but it would do a lot more for the Russian player. Gunslinger

Breaking the line in France (or basically anywhere) requires combined arms. Your most important asset as the Germans at the start of the game are your Air Fleets. I never attack units within the Maginot, I just shadow them on the Ruhr with a corps across the river to keep them from rampaging East. Declare war on the Low Countries and move an infantry army against their capitol. After hitting it once you should have your planes in position for three follow up strikes. If necessary you can move in another army and mop up so that a tank unit can sieze the city. Hit the northeastern Belgian corps if you want to get a little experience, or just let him surrender. Hit the French wherever you can along their northeastern line to soften them up, but don't put any tank units in the area just southwest of the Low Countries capitol. That place is a meat grinder if he wants it to be (he can hit it with three armies, two air fleets, a bomber, and even naval bombardment - you have been warned). The next turn you should now be able to employ two of your moderately experienced (after the Polish campaign) infantry to hit one French Army on the northeastern line. Follow up these two infantry attacks with all of your airpower. Five (six if you bought another Air Fleet after Poland/Denmark/Norway) attacks should annihilate the green French army, and provide a path for your armored sickle. Make sure you keep a solid line with any initial breakthroughs or encirclements. Let units lose contact and your opponent can easily cut them off and reduce or destroy them. The price in repair (and lost experience!) isn't worth taking one more turn. Once you've initially broken the French line the battle is large scale mop up. The French simply lack the resources to reassemble a line in the face of more experienced troops. If he's lucky, he'll hold out three or four turns after you've crashed through the gates. The most important thing to keep in mind during the battle for France is the French inability to replace lost units. He earns enough to repair two or three damaged units, but if you concentrate your attacks each turn you can eliminate armies he can't replace. Gunslinger

With your setup, two computers, you'd be better served using PBEM and then transferring the file across a LAN than hotseat. Hotseat doesn't have replay implemented, so you read that some units died, but won't know how or why. My friend and I made the mistake of playing our first two games this way (hotseat). Gunslinger

I've personally managed some pretty spectacular breakthroughs and envelopments with the existing setup (tanks ignoring ZOC for movement). If you increasingly overpower the tank, who will buy armies? If you lower the action points for corps and armies, how will they keep up across the steppe? Would this effort to make the game more 'mobile' actually result in the opposite? If a tank can move after combat, can it attack again? What if it runs into a hidden unit? Does it suffer AP loss for combat? How much? How do you suggest impacting readiness for the next battle? No, I was doing fine with just three. The original Brit with one purchased each by Britain and America. No, I spent about 900 and the Brits had level 2 Heavy Bombers. I was knocking out 60 points of production per turn (keep in mind that the MPP loss is both immediate from the treasury, and cumulative from loss of production value) before turning on the cities. German cost to garrison those cities and mines is ~125 per resource. 5 rounds of lowered production by 60 costs him 300. Strategic bombing is a long term aim. Money the German is spending on corps in France is not being spent against Russia. Against a human playing the Germans amphib invasions are much riskier. You might prefer to buy an army and leave it parked in England, but at least you have the option of buying a bomber and delivering some hurt. Don't keep hitting corps with your bombers. That is a losing proposition. But you can operate that bomber to another city, perhaps in the Med, and force him to start buying and defending there. Then shift it again, etc. I believe the chief issue is when? If you start costing him money after Russia is beaten into a corner, you might not be doing yourself any favors. Gunslinger

Do you mean give them just 2 action points? Unit movement seems pretty well scaled to me. WW2 wasn't all about tanks. Tanks may have come into their prime, but infantry anti-tank weapons were catching up by the end of the war. When did fortune stop playing a role in war? This isn't chess, there is always an element of luck. You make your own luck by putting money into research yourself. The research model is oft maligned, but to my thinking it's what gives the game the most replay. Your success in research has to affect your overall strategy. Only 20? How do you figure that? There are three or four ports alone within reach of England, that's 32 points, there are at least three mines, that's 28 points, then the cities, all of which can be ground down if not defended. And that's all only on the Western front. Take Sweden and you can play havoc with the Baltic resources, or maybe snatch Greece and harass the Balkans. Also taking into account that to defend these resources and cities requires at least a corps, there's another ~125 down the drain per resource. Think of them as the manpower devoted to anti-aircraft artillery (this was a substantial number of men during the actual war, it practically was another front). I haven't built any strategies around rockets myself either. They are expensive, slow to move (can't transport!?), and reward poorly considering the investment. That being said, I'm not sure a week is long enough for me to declare they are useless. Anti-Aircraft Radar isn't useless. When the other guy takes higher casualties to his expensive air units I'm all for it. Gun Laying Radar exists so that all units have a research component to improve them. Perhaps with the existing scenarios it is a waste, but if someone puts together Plan Z they might want it. Why take it out? Liberation is not the same as conquest. If a country is attacked, and then joins the Allies (Britain) and is subsequently liberated by the Americans, yes it goes back to the power who had it before it was conquered. If you conquer something outright (Vichy, etc) as the Americans, it will add to their MPP's America achieved enormous production levels, but this doesn't necessarily translate into MPP's. Just because America made all the boots and tires for the Allies doesn't mean it could field 200 Divisions. This was a trade off. The U.S. fought a war on two fronts, made innumerable supplies for it's allies, AND put troops in the field. After you build up your army you start to reach a point of diminishing returns, whereby adding more armies means forgoing reinforcement. The MPP levels do a pretty good job in my opinion of enforcing a historical relationship between the size of the various countries armies. The Med is there, you just have to be willing to use it. Maybe you opt for the American strategy of France first, but against a wily human opponent you might be better served by Churchill's desire to 'peck around the periphery'. Allowing Allied units to go around the horn, and increasing the size of the battle area in Africa just benefits the Allies at the expense of the Axis. How does this improve the game? Was there a big desire to battle in the Sahara? I've seen a few quirks in the AI, but not as often as I've been impressed. I can't count the times I've marvelled at how well made the map is. The number of hexes from particular areas seems very deliberate, as does the placement of cities, mountains and rivers. I think people should give the game more than a week before trying to institute wholesale changes. If you'd like to give me level 2 Industrial Tech as the Americans I'll take it without the extra 70 MPP's and play you anytime. Gunslinger

With regard to airfleets only defending units of their nationality, did WW2 style CAS actually operate across national lines? Would FACs bring in Hurricanes to help out American ground forces, and vice versa? If I had to guess, I'd say no, given how difficult the U.S. military finds it today for the Navy to provide CAS to the Marines (hence, the Marines still have planes). These kind of cross branch communication problems (which are perpetually refined, and have improved vastly in the course of the war in Afghanistan) ended up getting some Brits killed by an American Apache during CAS in the Gulf War. Maybe ground units had the ability to call on air support from other nations in World War 2, but I would find it suprising, and likely very limited. I do not look at this as a limitation, however. Instead, I use it to my advantage in the game. Often times air fleets used for CAP end up being weakened too much to risk for interdiction strikes the next round. I prefer to mix my airfleets as the Allies and keep my ground force one nationality (in a given location). This always leaves me with a reserve of airpower to hammer a particular unit or section of the line while being able to reinforce the CAP airfleets. Gunslinger

I'll play a few games with FOW off so I can watch, but I can anecdotally attest to the AI purchasing tank armies as the Axis. My last game was as the Allies, Expert +2 difficulty. When the Germans finally hit Russia (I had stymied him in the Baltic, so Denmark and Norway were never attacked) in the summer of '42 (the Germans declared war immediately after the Russians prepared for war) he had 5 or 6 tank armies on that front. With FOW on an exact count was difficult because my initial rear covering actions had poor spotting without air cover, and he would reorganize his line by operating tank armies off the front lines and out of sight. The AI is susceptible to the sub off of Brest, I learned that one as well. Carrying over unit location info from the turn before is likely not being done now, and would be a major pain, if not impossible, to implement, but could the AI learn to scout and or patrol the path its transports use before committing them? My sub was getting all those kills while the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy were clusted around Brest shelling the bejeezus out of the garrison and blithely ignoring the losses my single sub was exacting on the southern wing of his invasion. Gunslinger

Took my first peek at the Campaign Editor, and it raised again in my mind these questions. If we are to construct alternative histories (for example an invasion of Russia in '42 after Stalin had demonstrated his designs on the Balkans more forcefully) it would help to understand what swings the minors. It appears their propensity to join cannot be examined in the Editor, but understanding what drives them would help in the creation of balanced campaigns. If I have a game starting in '42 where Russia starts invading Romania, how does this impact Finland, Turkey, Hungary, Spain, and Bulgaria? Will they automatically join the Axis? Will Yugoslavia automatically flip to the Allies? Will they be less inclined to do so? Gunslinger

Several aspects of the scoring system, the adding of kills and subtracting of losses coupled with points for resources, will make game score comparisons vary greatly. I've recieved a lower 'score' when I finished the '39 campaign in less time and with fewer losses than my friend. The reason for the difference in score was attributed almost entirely to how many more units the AI had time to build (and he to destroy) in his game. A more interesting comparison might be to provide your score breakdown as well as dates of individual conquest and allegiance. The '39 campaign I won (November '42) at Expert, +1 against the Axis suffered a lower score because I took out the Axis before America entered the war. Granted they held off because Stalin was roaring through the Balkans, but another turn or two of waiting and they'd have joined and boosted my 'score' with their resources. Gunslinger

I do the same thing, particularly in Russia. Just a few corps performing rear guard can really bog things down (especially if they take two or three units to kill before he advances past them). I wasn't even thinking in terms of a doomed nation (although with that in mind isn't the German hurting himself by driving that mine he intends to soon conquer down to zero?) The problem isn't strategic bombing. The problem is that the AI is engaging in it at his detriment. The most useful application of those airfleets is against the French troops. The French don't have the resources to replace armies, and if the AI concentrates fire from it's airfleets it can quickly whittle through the best French defenses. Right now it's content to let me keep my armies and instead deprive me of a handful of MPP's. If it wanted to hurt the French pocketbook, make the French repair (or worse try to replace) armies. I'm not aware of the mechanics of the AI targeting, but I feel that a unit bordering AI troops deserves a higher targeting priority than a mine, especially for airfleets (strategic bombers may be a different matter). One hex of the Alps shouldn't be the zenith of Axis advance into France on Expert, +1 difficulty. Gunslinger

These triggers involved a calculation don't they? I've seen the Balkan minors join at different times, sometimes on turns were nothing significant occurred, so it seems odd to suggest they're set in stone and there isn't a propensity that can be displayed. The date and terroritory conquered definitely seems to have an impact, but I haven't discerned that by accomplishing X and Y by Z date means that Hungary, for example, will be triggered everytime to join the Axis. Have you? If so, can you shed light on X, Y, and Z? I know that attacking Spain reduces the chance that the Balkan nations will join me, but is this a reduction in likelihood, or does it completely preclude Balkan allies? If so, couldn't that be displayed? Finally, if that is the case, wouldn't the accomplishment of X, and the approach of Z, and least be recognizable as an increase in the likelihood of a minor joining? Even if there are hard coded triggers, achieving those conditions incrementally can be evaluated as percentage of the total triggers needed. I completely understand Mission Creep with respect to writing software, and would rather have the game in my hands than be waiting for Hubert to be ironing out bugs in another feature. However, the purpose of the this forum is to share our experiences and suggestions with each other, and most importantly the individuals like Hubert who have the wherewithal to make them happen. Gunslinger

The times I've had Spain join me were only when I succeeded at Sea Lion (typically they join the turn I take London, regardless of whether or not Britian has surrendered). Turkey has only joined me once, and I know it was after taking London, but not sure if it was before the Russians declared war on Germany. It would be very nice to be able to guage minor country leanings (as you can the majors). Perhaps when you click on the flag have it displayed alongside their resource strengths? Gunslinger

I don't think this really classifies as a bug, but I noticed something peculiar that the AI was doing in a game last night. I played as the Allies on Expert +1 difficulty. The Poles held out for three turns, and in that time I disbanded the French airfleet, sent their corps to defend the Alps, and purchased an HQ to bolster my line. As the Germans gathered along the Maginot I deployed the Canadian army and corps to the northern flank, allowing them to dig in behind the Low Countries. I did not move a unit into the mines behind the Maginot as I normally do, instead I hoped that my line of French armies, with an HQ to aid them, could hold for an extra round or two and let me build a unit for that purpose. The French Altantic Fleet was sent into the Baltic to screen for the Kriegsmarine with the Royal Navy right behind them. This effectively precluded a German invasion of Norway, and apparently discouraged him away from Denmark as well. That's when I noticed the problem. The AI devoted all three of it's fighters to hitting the undefended mine behind the Maginot. Even as German units battered themselves on the Maginot, at times driving the northernmost unit down to 2 strength, the Luftwaffe concentrated on driving down the value of the mine. Even this wouldn't have saved me, if the AI hadn't strictly observed the neutrality of the Low Countries (I hadn't the resources to complete my line yet, and the Germans did have a +1 exp bonus which would have made short work of the green French and Canuck troops). The AI continued to hammer on the mine, and as consequence I was able to purchase an additional army and even a tank group for the French while repairing a short line. With the British free from worry of invasion I devoted their production to research and was rewarded with level 4 Industrial Technology pretty quickly. They then focused on purchasing air fleets and researching jet power. The Germans, unable to overcome his fixation with the mine, and unwilling to try anything besides plowing straight through the Maginot, was making only 140 MPPs per turn. The Italian effort was completely stymied by two corps positioned in the Alps and the seizure of Sicily immediately after the Italian declaration of war. The Russians finally decided to set aside their non agression pact with the Germans and in just a few turns had overrun Poland and subdued the Balkan states (who remained neutral given the Axis lack of success). The Yugoslavians saw the handwriting on the wall and joined the Allied cause without any of Uncle Joe's unique persuasion. Berlin fell shortly after and the Italians fell by November of '42, without the U.S. ever entering the war (they didn't care for the British decision to seize Iraqi oil, nor the Russian penchant for greater Slav unity). I'm not sure how AI prioritizes targets or strategy, but it seems clear that the preference for Germany to hit strategic resources with it's limited air power in the beginning of the game doomed it to failure. Even if this had not been the case, the German effort would have been aided by moving on the Low Countries and forcing France to repair a longer line with it's meager resources. Perhaps the propensity to bomb resources (particularly in preference to enemy units) can be prioritized down. Also, if the strategic consideration to invade the Low Countries could ratchet up with the passage of time (in effect, the AI recognizing that battering the Maginot isn't working and it needs a new avenue of advance) the game would be improved. Still loving the game, and trying to figure out how I can hold off the Axis at Expert +2 (those experienced units are SO deadly!) Gunslinger

Beautiful artwork, definitely would like a copy of those mods. gerryhicks@terranhost.com Thanks, -G

I figured out the solution to the Random/Historical problem. Put it on random, then on December 10th, 1941, you can have your Germans declare war on the U.S. first just like they idiotically did. Viola! ...'course this doesn't work if you're the Allies... Gunslinger

At odds perhaps, but 'collision' is not inevitable. Someone could argue for Germany's 'right' to engage in aggressive pillage of its neighbors, but does anyone buy that? C'mon... Very possible. Which is more threatening to the U.S., a Third Reich intent on ruling Europe for 1000 years, or authoritarian regime #2 trying to impose a chattel existence on mankind across the globe? OK, but that makes me wonder how well you understand it. Why would you think it is better to forcefully take money from one person and give it to another at a bureaucrat's discretion instead of letting the people decide how much of their money, and to whom it will be invested? Remember, when an entrepeneur fails to make a return on an investment the investors go elsewhere. When a bureaucrat fails he just comes back for more money. Exactly! Now the important part, how can they afford it? They make something we want to trade for. They're not still spending that Marshall Plan money. The reason the USSR collapsed is because communism/socialism is driven by bureaucratic whim, not consumer demand. You can hike economic artifacts like GDP by adding a shift at the plant and telling workers they'll make X amount of Y product by the end of the 5 Year Plan, or else - but does that increase wealth? No. Other producers are not an enemy to be 'crushed'. You simply want them producing something different than you so you can trade. If they are making nothing, what do they have to offer me for what I make? Nothing. That doesn't benefits either of us. The U.S. was fortunate to emerge WW2 without its cities bombed flat, an undeniable competitive advantage, but the billions spent making bombs instead of wealth didn't enrich the nation. What enriched the nation was unshackling the economy from many of King FDR's economic edicts. Gunslinger

The partisans have to be mobile and be threats, otherwise they are pointless. If as the German I know all I need to do is leave one corps or army in Belgrade, what's the point of partisans? For a little more depth on what the Nazis had to put up with read this: German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) "As of the end of June [1943], the Germans had a total of three Bulgarian, one Italian, and 12 of their own divisions scattered throughout those areas of the Balkans under nominal German control." In my own first game against as the Axis against a human I NEVER had a partisan pop up in Yugoslavia, but I was ready, maybe that's why... Gunlinger

Note spelling? Somehows those always come back to bite... Gunslinger

No more inevitable than war against the Soviet Union was. George Washington's farewell address spells it out best: "Europe has a set of primary interests which to use have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel." The United States is an economical superpower because it has less state intervention in its economy than most of the world. Fascism is doomed to the same miscalculation and bankruptcy that Communism has found. If you think that Lend Lease or the Marshall Plan made the U.S. richer try this. Give your neighbor 20 bucks. Then mow his yard and ask him to pay you 20 bucks. Feel richer? WW2 bankrupted the British Empire because building bullets and bombs, however necessary they may be, doesn't add to a nations wealth - it drains it. Gunslinger

Norway is certainly conquerable prior to invading France. In my own first campaign against a human ('39) I rolled Poland in about two turns and wheeled my fighters to the Baltic coast. From there they were able to assist in seizing Denmark (I put a newly purchased tank army in Hamburg for the advance) while I repaired and shifted the units that had taken Poland. The following turn I staged my aircraft into the northern tip of Denmark and declared war on Norway while several of the units that had invaded Poland loading into transports at Koenigsberg and landed on the shore near Helsinki. The Brits dispatched a portion of their fleet, and even got some troops ashore, but with Helsinki under my control Norway fell and I was able to operate a corps across to defend the other city. The Royal Navy persisted in destroying my cruisers, and allowed my air power to destroy several British vessels in the process. Norway is worth taking (add up plunder and the MPP values for the cities, ports and mine, then think about a 3, 4 or 5 year long game...), otherwise you risk giving the Allies another avenue from which to attack, reduce the frontage they have to defend, and diminish your own income. The French are simply too weak to come out of their entrenchments and threaten Germany effectively. If they do come out the French player is consigning them to death. The aborted British attempt to save Norway, coupled with the British/French landings in Sicily and consequent naval battle in the Med. gave me the opportunity and momentum to launch Sealion once the French were dispatched. I haven't given much consideration to an early German attack on Sweden because of the strength required, and the likelihood it would impel the Russians and Americans to war faster (they come fast enough if you launch Sealion!) Gunslinger

Two things, first always take suprise encounters into account when moving your own units. You know how far you can see, are you willing to accept the risk there might be a unit waiting in the fog? Corps are great for holding encirclements, and for scouting. Second, use it to YOUR advantage. It's particularly nice with naval units, but keep an eye open for opportunities to sucker the computer (or your unlucky human opponent) headlong into your own ambush. Think that sub or cruiser is going to flee? Don't chase him, get between him and where he wants to go, just make sure it's out of sight... Gunslinger