Terif
-
Posts
2,432 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Terif
-
-
Yep, the Gulf War was exellently fought by the allied commander
- the entire german Africa Korps got annihilated after its HQ had been destroyed by a combined russian-UK attack with paras and UK tanks...only one airfleet was able to escape from the original forces. Nevertheless a new HQ commander got dispatched to Alexandria immediately together with fresh troops that are now holding the Sinai. Russian forces seem to have given up a possible liberation of Egypt and instead operated back home to mother Russia for its defence...Here Axis meanwhile conquered the front cities as well as Leningrad, Moskov with both cities north of it, Kharkov and Voronezh - destroying all of its defenders merciless and without much effort as most of the russian forces were busy in Middle East...so Axis lost a lot of units there and the ressources are in allied posession now, but on the bright side it made things in Russia much easier
.Archangel just got cut off, the daring russian corps from Sevastopol raiding one of the mines immediately destroyed.
The last russian baltic cruiser is now sunk by italian and german battleships. Axis ships are patrolling the Atlantic, stopping allied merchant ships trying to sneak past them...so far the combined italian-german fleet is ruling the seven seas...
- but as I know the allied commander his fleet got repaired and equiped with Gun Laying Radar and Anti-Sub-Warfare technologies to soon challenge the might of the Axis fleets... 
-
Yep, very expensive land warfare from the beginning for both sides and large naval battles are the essence of this game
Axis already sunk 6 allied battleships and 4 cruisers, the survivors heavily damaged with more than 40 strength points lost in total while most of the axis fleet survived and got repaired in the meantime after the battle of Ireland-Brest. The sub fleets had to reinforce and resupply after the battle but are now hunting merchant ships on the convoy routes again
. -
Sorry, Blashy - not true
You are right in that if you buy too many of them too early you will have a problem against a decent player. That´s why I said Bombers are for the longterm games where you don´t go for the fast vicory or defeat and to use subs you also need either to invest into them later (= when you have your invasion force for Barbarossa ready) or better: to use them at the right opportunity and not in all cases at all costs.
All strategies have their strength and weaknesses - bomber or sub strategy are no exception here - and if you want with the head through the wall no matter what circumstances or don´t plan your strategy right then in deed the strategy will fail.
Bombers ARE cost efficient for Allies, no matter the AA level of the enemy if you use them right as AA defence of a ressource/city depends on its strength (multiplied). Combine your bomber attacks, don´t spread them initially, so you suffer only in the first attack real losses and after that you can keep the ressource at zero by attacking every 3rd or 4th turn with expected losses of zero for your bombers. I.e. if you look at one ressource your bombers loose in average 5 mpps every 3 or 4 turns (= ~ 1 mpp/turn) while the enemy suffers 8-16 mpps each turn (and each bomber can keep 3-4 ressources at zero)...I would call that cost efficient and everything else but useless
.Similar for subs:
If Allies expect you to go for subs and therefore preserve their fleet or even upgrade them, then it is in deed a bad idea to meet the expectations and actually build them...but then you have the advantage that the fear of subs caused the enemy to not send his fleet into danger and so your ground units got spared a lot of damage they would have taken from naval bombardment and lots of other hassles you would have had on the oceans during your own operations if Royal Navy would have used aggressively...
...using subs is a counter to an aggressive Royal Navy. Then you have the possibility to sink the bulk of the Royal Navy and later rule the seas with your subs. You have to keep enough mpps back to still build your invasion force for Barbarossa, but Germany can easily spare a thousand mpps and more to build some subs.
So sub strategy has a counter (like all strategies), but Axis sees it first if the enemy is using it and can decide then if they go for subs or not...and the thing is, Allies on the other side don´t see them coming if the allied player doesn´t expect them until it is already too late
.P.S.: Standard subs with lv 1 cost only 220 mpps vs 288 mpps for a standard upgraded army.
Make subs cheaper and you will only see the seas flooded with them in every game and the Royal Navy always be extinct. ASW doesn´t really help them as it doesn´t reduce the damage for the defender but only increases the damage for the attacking sub. Since surface ships are costly and - perhaps even more important - need a long time to build, they will all be sunk sooner or later if Germany cheaply can build sub after sub and doesn´t has to care if they are sunk. Would be a simple trade off: one sub sunk vs one Royal Navy ship sunk in average, a no brainer for Germany if subs would really be that cheap as only 125 mpps...
P.P.S: I have fought enough wars to know that bomber strategy and sub strategy both work and are everything else but useless if you do it right – the thing with it is only like with all strategies: you first have to learn how to execute them - usually by fighting, making mistakes and learning from them
. -
The problem is not the cost of bombers and subs - they are a valid option already and lowering the costs only unbalances the game and will result in crazy "killing the Royal Navy" and "bomb Europe to hell" games...
.Bombers and subs are already possible, but as with most of the other strategies: only if you know how to use them and plan long term...especially for subs you need the right opportunity and time while bombers are more for the long games...thing is most players don´t go for the long war but prefer the short success or defeat - and short term both sides first need ground troops. In the long games bombers are powerful weapons and their current cost more than justified - players only need to be patient and take the time to build and use them...but you can´t expect to have them all already in 1941/42 – even pretty historic here...
. In the end how it is now you can also go for either subs or bombers - they are both working strategies, but neither better nor worse than other strategies...just how it should be
. You could lower the costs of them and make them the number one choice...would be perhaps fun for a while but then become boring when Allies would only be building bombers then and Axis only countless subs ...At the moment many, many different strategies are possible and have no real advantage above each other so you have the free choice – let´s keep it that way
. Situation and opportunity as well as the different players habbits and preferences make the difference which ones to choose, but choosable they are all .P.S.: I have already won more than enough games with bomber strategy and also lots of games with sub strategy...actually, in one of my latest battles I was and am just going for subs...and this is against a veteran player
-
Yep, in SC2 you have no unlimited ressources and therefore have to make choices
. Bomber strategy also works and is cost efficient, but it depends on the situation and the opponent if it is successful - in any case this is a long term strategy
.Allies have lots of possibilities to launch their attack against fortress Europe...yesterday just a game ended where my Allies used a multi-invasion strategy
:4 main invasions with HQ support and heavy stuff (armies, tanks, planes) took place in:
- Spain via Gibraltar
- Sicily + southern part of the boot
- France via Brest
- and Northwest Germany from Denmark-Hamburg
2 small invasions with light forces were aimed against:
- northern Italy
- and Albania/Yugoslavia
Simultaneously Russia counterattacked around Kharkov and invaded Poland at Königsberg...an entire task force with tank, armies and several corps got annihilated, no russian survivors except for the HQ
...but in the end Axis had to surrender after a last bloodbath at Kharkov - they would have been able to stop the russians, but not western Allies any more after they established all their beachheads .Here a little screenshot of the warmap
:
[ May 03, 2007, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]
-
Yep, Bomber strategy needs time and Allies can´t build ground troops for those mpps spent for bombers. So D-day will start very late and Axis have all available forces built. No need to operate in any more since the counterforces will already stand ready in France...
-
France may be the easiest place to land for Allies, but it is also the easiest place to defend for Axis
. So if Axis know how to defend their territory, it will usually be a bloodbath for Allies if they start their invasion there against a prepared enemy.
Allies have lots of other possibilities to attack Axis: Scandinavia, Baltic, Denmark, Portugal, Gibraltar-Spain, Cassablanca-Africa, Egypt, Greece, Sicily, northern Italy etc...
Usually they are also the better options as Axis can´t defend them all - you only need to find the weak spots of the enemies and invade there. Never invade where the enemy awaits you (like France) unless you are superior at least 2:1 in numbers or you will be thrown back into the ocean with high casualties...
France and western Germany are perfect for Axis to defend. They have lots of cities to operate units into and Allies never will manage to bomb them all out of order at the same time - if necessary Axis always can use a further away city to operate in and start the counterattack a turn later...
Nevertheless France is a good option if either Axis is weak on the ground and busy somewhere else or if you do a late D-day (1943+) when Allies have built most of their forces and Allies are superior in firepower to what the Axis can muster.
But that´s seldomly the case and in fact, my Allies nearly never launched their main invasion via France during the last 100 games...maybe 5 out of them or so...the rest they invaded at one of the many other possible places and seldomly twice in a row at the same spot against the same enemy player
. -
Sweden is usually a nice cat and mouse game
. Both sides can invade or defend it to get Scandinavia and all depends on the situation and the right timing.Usually Allied players screw up their first 3-4 invasions before they have learned how to do it. Either by leaving the connection to the capital intact or the port, attacking during the wrong season (Winter) or using not enough units when Axis prepared a counterattack with amphibs standing ready - so Axis can send a superior task force without much effort or preparations and wipe them out like it happened here
.If both players are experienced, it all depends on their respective plans and preparations and which strategy they choose
. Axis can conquer it before or with Barbarossa, or prepare a trap in case Allies DoW Sweden (so they get the swedish units on their side) or leave it to Allies without a fight since they need their units for a different operation on another place on the map...if Allies prepared a huge invasion force, not defending it can often be the best reaction: huge costs for Allies to transport/operate all those units in, a second time the costs for moving them out while no costs for Axis and no second front in France for quite some time...
Allies also can choose at which time they want to conquer Sweden...they can already do it in 1940 while Axis are busy in Spain, or do it during the last summer turns with Barbarossa or wait for US troops and attack in 1942...if it succeeds depends on the situation and what Axis are up to - if Axis anticipates the allied attack for the right time, they can always counter in one way or another if they are willing to spend the resources to do so...which is not necessarily the case cause a Sweden expedition always means other operations elsewhere have to suffer from this diversion of military ressources...
[ May 01, 2007, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]
-
It depends on if you play against a good or a bad Allied player
and if Allies are expecting you to go for Norway. Against the AI you can do it in any case - just follow TaoJahs prescription
. Against a human player who knows what he is doing it is the perfect recipe for disaster since after the Axis first turn he knows that Axis are going for Norway and will prepare accordingly to make sure no survivors will be left to tell the tale of this expedition task force .Only if Allies don´t protect their Norway invasion fleet or don´t know how to fight a naval battle you can do it without much risk, but for this you need to know the enemy players habits from previous wars to be safe...
.But an experienced player will always protect his Norway invasion fleet with his Royal Navy and the french fleet. Here it is a bad idea to try an early Norway invasion as Axis - you will only loose your fleet (and maybe your amphibs too...) in battle against the expendable french fleet.
If Allies don´t expect you to go full scale against Norway and weather is in your favour (= storms for Allies, clear for you) you have a slight chance, nevertheless losses will be enormous, especially if you use air from Denmark too that will be bombarded by the Royal Navy...
In the end the costs of such an expedition to Norway are in no relation to the benefits if the allied player knows what he does and how to command a naval battle.
P.S.: spotting range for airfleets concerning ships/transports/amphibs is halved. So airfleets in Denmark will not spot the enemy transports approaching Norway and not be able to bombard them - the amphibs have to stay at the norwegian coast in any case in order not to loose morale/readiness in a storm and so risking to fail against Oslo - only if the army amphib moves from coast to coast the chance for success is 100%
. -
Yes, the chance is always per chit - so in your example chance would be:
3 chits * (5% base chance + 5% catch-up chance because of 4 intel levels difference) = 3 * 10% = 30%.
I.e. intel lv 4 would increase your chance to get HT1 from 15% to 30% each turn in your example.
But first you had to research Intel lv4 which needs time (if it happens at all as nobody is helping via catch-up and to get it you have only 2% chance/chit) and means instead of those 4 breakthroughs you could already have researched something useful
. -
Assuming Intel levels are equal:
a) 5% base chance + 1% catch-up chance = 6%
2x6% = 12% chanceEach Intel level difference between your nation and the enemy nation that has heavy tank lv 1 increases/decreases your catch-up chance by 1%/chit (can´t fall below 0). It has no influence on your base chance, that´s why researching intelligence is usually a waste of mpps as you have more from investing into the tech you want to have directly
. -
Pretty simple:
- place the Royal Airforce in Scottland with HQ so the german fighters can´t draw the fire away.
- upgrade Manchester port with AA
- keep the Royal Navy around Middle England
- use the bomber as spotter from the mountains or London, so if Axis places units at the coast, Royal Navy can move in and bomb them away.
Since UK will hold Brest after France has fallen, Germany first has to conquer it before it can really use the bombers against Manchester port or to research Long Range (and buying bombers already reduced tech research..). So usually either the summer of 1940 already is gone before Manchester port can be attacked or Axis have to sacrifice mpps (and often 1-2 units) to conquer Brest earlier.
In any case, attacking the port for itself is already pretty expensive for the bombers, if they are intercepted by UK fighters even more. Germany only can draw the fire away if the airfleets also attack Manchester (since the UK air is positioned in Scotland). This for itself would already cause double the damage for the german air than for UK - but they also would have to stay at the french coast (even with LR 1..) where Royal Navy would happily train their cannons on them...
.All in all Germany will in average loose around 60 - even more if you count the collateral damage - mpps each turn to keep the port out of order and even much more at the beginning to get it down to zero first...lots of mpps spent, not much gained if UK keeps most of its fleet near the Home Island and builds some corps to protect it against a Sealion.
When Barbarossa starts, Germany will usually have to move its bombers away or Germany will have no air support in Russia if they have to keep their airfleets west to protect the bombers...which usually doesn´t work anyway since western Allies air is usually much stronger than the german one at this stage. So in the end the port is not really many turns out of order - depending on the axis aggressiveness and will to sacrifice mpps, maximum from late Summer 1940 till late Summer 1941.
Even more important will be the strategic impact as building the bombers means less tech and less conquered ressources since the german forces are bind against UK
. -
Buying bombers is one of many possible strategies for Germany with advantages and disadvantages - and if it is the right supplementation to your main strategy, why not
. In the end it is like with every strategy: If you can surprise the enemy and/or he doesn´t know how to react you will be successful. But it can also be countered and has disadvantages, so if you meet the wrong opponent this strategy will reduce your chances to win. In any case it is no game breaker one way or the other - it will only shift balance a bit in one direction...yours or the enemy one
.P.S.: bombing Stalingrad (or any other cities) has no effect on supply of other cities or ressources. USSR also has supply centers in Caucasus, so even conquering/cutting of Stalingrad also doesn´t reduce supply in Caucasus - they can supply themselves
. -
1947 is the standard end date of the game, but you can also change it if you want to:
- either you change it via editor into a date of your own choosing
- or if you want to play open end you can deactivate the victory scripts (1947) when starting a new game in the advanced options menu (options -> advanced -> scripts -> victory).
Deactivating only the 1947 victory conditions means it will still end when you achieved major victory. If you also deactivate the (early) major victory scripts you will have a completely open game that never ends by itself
. -
There are a lot of things possible, the question is only if it is worth the investments and as Hellraiser already said: it depends on the opponent and its level of opposition / game experience
. Against the AI or an unexperienced players you can do pretty much everything, including building bombers as Germany - but against an experienced one it is usually not such a good idea
:Buying bombers in 1939 means no mpps for research and diplo which can backfire easily and can be a problem later in the game, especially against Russia (additionally to the missing mpps used for the bombers).
Besides, UK usually only looses its canadian mpps from the convois (= 15-30 mpps depending on the season of the year; an experienced Axis player regularly takes Africa), USA still keeps its mpps, they are not lost. Attacking Liverpool port is much more expensive (especially if it is defended by UK fighters) for the german bomber and air than those few mpps lost for UK
. Only if Axis don´t go to Africa and UK conquers it together with Iraq (so it looses Egypt + Iraq convois too with a disabled port) it may be worth to bomb Liperpool port out of order (or in case of a planed Sealion..)...in the end it is a question of which way you want to go and which strategies both sides have chosen - they all have their advantages and disadvantages and can be countered...buying bombers can be useful at times (mostly if you plan to abandon Africa or want to Sealion England), but against a prepared enemy or in the wrong situation it may not be such a wise idea...
-
Page 39 + 113 of the manual
But you also see it in the game if you have a look at the expected combat results
.@Moonslayer:
If you want to change the halved attack values for the streets you don´t need to change the terrain type but only change the negative defence bonuses (-1) into zero or positive ones.
The question is if it is necessary to change it, since how it is now you get a nice fight in the buildings and not only one unit row on the streets
.P.S.: defence bonuses of the buildings could be a bit improved, especially if you change the streets but also without - would make planing ahead and using the right terrain more worthwhile
. -
Not quite Taojah
- since I am just watching a poker game this is a good comparison :Between equal players in SC2 it is much alike a poker game where you have to bluff or surprise the enemy with unexpected strategies, attacks and withdrawals so you can strike at the places he least expects it and lure him into deadly traps
.Random events, tech etc. where the dice comes into are only playing a side role and determine which paths you can choose or which are now more appealing/likely to succeed.
And luck doesn´t even out during 100 games, but more like during 100 (or 1000...) random events - and during the course of a game there are more than enough random events so it nearly always evens out within one game as long as you continue to play and don´t let you scare away by some unfavorable event(s) at the beginning.
Besides, random events as it is now have only very little objective effects in game reality - you only have to use the better strategy and win one more key battle than the enemy where several thousand mpps are involved and even if all random events would have went against your favor, these small effects are more than evened out
.Nevertheless bad luck can have a huge psychological influence, especially on how you continue a game (aggressive, passive, with rage in your stomage...
). But as long as you don´t let yourself throw off track, random effects only change the strategies under which you can or should choose, not the outcome of the game . -
I can only second Liam and Ottosmops here
The first year(s) will always be more or less predictable (and should be as it is a strategy game based on history). But if you let SC2 develope its charm in the later stages and don´t surrender (often unnecessarily like in the turkish case) too soon, you will encounter and discover lots of different possible variations, see thrilling battles all around the map in various areas and come accross countless different strategies that are possible in SC2 and often lead to unanticipated turnarounds and fascinating games
. -
All good suggestions to spice up the game at a first glance and since SC2 is a game that develops further with every patch/enhancement some things will surely change in the future to add new spice in the game from time to time
Nevertheless players will always accustom to any change within a short time like they did after every patch in the past and then demand for the next batch of spice
. So if you include more improbabilities, then players will only adjust their strategy so these improbabilities will not occur any more or at least not be able to threaten their strategy/side. So there won´t be more variability in the end, only new basic strategies as the past proved – in all 6 patches only the basic strategies changed with every patch
.P.S: there is already a lot of variability in the standard campaign possible – if you explore and use different strategies in your games...and there are lots of possibilities as Jollyguy can certainly confirm...I am using a different approach in each of our games
.In any case you have to be careful what you change in the standard scenario cause every change affects game balance and everyone has a different opinion what he considers realistic, historic, good for the game...etc.
That´s why there is the possibility to create own scenarios or take the standard scenario and change the things in a way you personally want to see them
.BTW: there is already a good example of what improbabilities can do to the game when they get introduced without thoroughly thinking about their real effects
- in one of the last patches such an improbability already got introduced:If Axis attacks Syria and Iraq, there is now a slight change that Turkey will join Allies. HvsH games have already proven that this was not such a good idea... players still attack them since they have no real choice here, but when this improbability occur, most players simply quit the game and start a new one....not really a desirable effect that this change for the sake of more variability caused
. -
Yep, luck plays no role in SC2 right now - which I personally like - only strategy matters, not how lucky your are
.P.S.: Axis DoW of Vichy and Syria already always causes USA to react: the span is 8-15%.
-
Yep, the AI makes a lot of fundamental mistakes - otherwise it would be impossible to wipe the martian ground units out
:- marsh terrain is used for the streets so when attacking from streets combat values are halved - the AI doesn´t care, humans should and move their units off the streets before attacking
- martians have a larger strike and spotting range, so all they have to do is to kill the humans from the distance...so except for the first turn the humans nearly never get an opportunity to even fire at human commanded martians. But the AI controlled martians go into hand to hand combat with their tripods so the human artillery can blow them to pieces.
- this is increased by the AI tendency to attack the wrong units (= entrenched scout units) and to go directly via the streets against its target building while ignoring the artillery and other stuff entrenched in the area around it. So the artillery can attack them from 1-2 tiles distance and do maximum damage (like rockets efficiency decreases with distance, so the nearer the enemy, the higher the damage).
- Also the AI only sends small groups of units, group after group, so they can be killed one after one. When all ground combat units are destroyed, it finally sends the HQs too into suicide mission
.- Nevertheless all human combat units will be destroyed later by the undestructable flying machines. But the main mistake of the AI is it has no anti-partisan functionality and doesn´t keep garrison units at the conquered important buildings (can be changed via scripts), so the refugees running around can finally liberate them all before the martians die
.Summary:
Defeating the martian AI makes a lot of fun - here it is crucial to place your units at the right place to have a chance against the numerically and technically far superior enemy
.Weakening the flying machines and halving their attack range will make it possible to attack them too and make it even more interesting
.The human AI needs either at least 30-40 more units to make it a challenge or combat values/tech need a change
. The same applies for Human vs Human games - a human martian opponent won´t do all the heavy mistakes of the AI, so the human side needs a large boost to have a chance holding the martians off long enough . -
Hmm...if you make script effects more random as they already are, you only increase the luck factor and turn it more towards a roulette game...
But SC2 is supposed to be a strategy game, so you should know more or less what the consequences of your action will be - just how it is now
. Effects are random but within certain limits and that´s a good thing IMHO cause I prefer to play a strategy game and not roulette
.Every strategy has its chances and risks, pros and cons and there are lots of different possibilities out there already to explore and try against different opponents, depending on their individual strategies
. -
Good work and a totally different scenario - makes fun to play
.Here some feedback
:Against the AI it is no problem to win with either side on highest difficulty level - but with the human side mainly because of all those refugees runing around, liberating the key points and keeping enemy units busy...
.As Martian it is a clear walk through, usually within 2 weeks, only a few strength points lost, not the slightest chance for the humans - martians simply wipe them out from the distance with concentrated firepower
.As human the martian flying machines are much too strong and range is too high - they destroy 2-3 human units each turn with their high range and can´t be attacked. All martian ground forces got killed and humans achieved victory - but also every single human unit got wiped out by the flying machines...mutual destruction, but no martian ground units alive to occupy the empty buildings
. Concerning play balance:
Between 2 human players at the moment the martians will clearly win, no chance for the human race to survive...
Main problem are the flying machines: range should be halved and also their attack values (or their numbers halved..). At the moment they have free shots and can´t be attacked since they are too far away.
Another thing are the too few human units - numbers should at least be doubled so they have a slight chance, better trippled (or the martian unit numbers reduced
). Usually the martians will stay out of human range anyway and kill them from the distance since they have a much larger strike and spotting range - but even in close combat the humans are no match for the martians when they are commanded by a human player that knows the basics of how to attack . -
Battle of Finland:
1st Battle of Kiev:
Russian retreat back to the fortress line of Kharkov:
End of the war – July 1942:
UK special forces hold out in their besieged Essen till Axis surrender:
Allied invasion of Spain – Madrid under siege:
...and the simultaneous offensive in Russia with the 2nd battle of Kiev:
...but in the end Axis had to surrender after a last bloodbath at Kharkov - they would have been able to stop the russians, but not western Allies any more after they established all their beachheads 
2x6% = 12% chance
AAR, Terif (Axis) vs. Jollyguy (Allies)
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Update – we are now in April 1943:
The naval battle is just heating up again...
During the last year Bismarck and its italian escort battlefleet Andrea Doria cleared together the Baltic from all remaining russian ships. Having fullfilled this task their commanders get both presented with medals of honour in Berlin while their ships were repaired in german ports and prepared for their long journey to join with Axis main fleet in the Atlantic.
When storms and mud set in, both battleships set sail from their shelter in norwegian waters around Scotland towards their destination point east of Canada...unfortunately the enemy must have broken the code and intercepted communications...no enemy ship or air was able to spot them, nevertheless allied vessels broke off their bombardement of french soil and moved exactly at the crucial moment towards the predetermined meeting point...and so the hunt for Bismarck with their support ship Andrea Doria begun and their last battle took place in the triangle of Canada-Iceland-Ireland.
As one sub went missing on the open seas and communications could not be restored, intelligence also speculates about one of the german enigma machines having fallen into enemy hands and to be on the safe side immediately change communication codes.... :cool:
The entire US and Royal Navy – except for the carriers that were grounded due to storms and mud - engaged in February 1943 the Axis fleet breaking out into the Atlantic. Bismarck changed course after the first exchange of blows by both fleets while Andrea Doria was ordered to make a stand and face the enemy in ship to ship battle to draw off the enemy fire so Bismarck could escape in the stormy weather...at least for some time...Royal Navy hunted Bismarck till nearly St. John´s where it got finally sunk in a last battle....Axis main forces unfortunately were too far away from the battlefield when it started to save the day and eventually broke off the journey north as they had to recognice it was too late for rescue for any of those axis battleships. Better not to go in battle on the enemies terms, but to move back to fight another day on a time of the own choosing.
At the end of this day Bismarck and Andrea Doria were sunk, but Allies also sustained extensive damage on their ships: Their 4 battleships lost after all 11 strength points, 5 cruisers another 9 points and the US sub got also several strength points reduced.
US ships already showed upgrades to GLR 1 and ASW 2, UK ships to GLR1, all ships repaired from previous battles and additional US subs built. Since they lost more than 40 strength points before and all ships seem to be upgraded, Allies invested heavily into their navy....but so did Axis...and Axis main naval forces are still ruling the southern Atlantic, hunting down every convoy ship coming from Middle East
.
Meanwhile on the ground western Allies were quiet as they obviously needed all ressources for the naval war and after the loss of a US Paratrooper in front of Bordeaux even retreated and started evacuating their forces at Brest without much of a fight...probably to man England and defend it against a possible Sealion as all allied ships were used in the hunt for Bismarck and no vessel left to defend their home Island
.
In Russia in contrary the largest battle of this war took place around Rostov-Stalingrad during the hunt for Bismarck:
Axis conquered Archangel in 1942 and secured the northern part of Russia before setting their main army in march against Rostov that got conquered in fall 1942. Immediately after the fall of Rostov - before snowfall - Russia started a massive counteroffensive with their 3 tile deep stacked forces gathered east of it...in the second axis turn of this battle snow set in and since only one Axis airfleet was in striking range vs 2 russian ones at this time, it seemingly encouraged the russian commander to continue the battle despite heavy losses. Russia sent every man able to hold a weapon into battle and also most Axis troops operated into Kharkov-Voronezh towards the fight and as neither side was willing to step back, this winter battle turned into the most likely crucial battle of this war. Air was pretty much neutralized by snow or mud and so the ground forces were on their own and the big clash happened between the land forces during the 5 Winter turns of 1942/43.
Pulver clouds darkened the sky in a 100 mile radius around the battlefield...when the long night was finally over, no tree was standing any more and every square inch digged over by grenade shells and explosions. One of the two german Paratroopers got a heroes burial as well as a tank, 4 armies and 3 corps. But on the other side Russia lost its core forces in this battle: 2 tanks, 8 armies, 4 corps and the rest of its forces bombed to pieces and out of fighting shape. At the end of the day only old men and children without rifles had been thrown into the meat grinder...newly arrived troops without tech upgrades sent into death....before the russian commander eventually ended the dying and broke off the battle, retreating behind Stalingrad and river Don – followed by the victorious german forces...not granting them a rest
.
[ May 18, 2007, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]