Colin I

Sorry - ignore previous post, got games wrong way round. AAR 1 Nupremal Allies. Colin Axis. Winter 1941. Axis hammers British in North Africa, a major effort. Rommel shows up a bit late, job was well underway ;-) Battle of Britian died out as Nupremal had a good defense and I needed the air elsewhere. AAR 2 Colin Allies. Nupremal Axis. Winter 1941. Germany knocks Norway down very rapidly. Norwegian partisans spot some worryingly advanced air deployed there - with Finland already Axis could Sweden be next? Sneak attack by Italian corps in Horn of Africa. British advance on Tobruk though Italian navy is harassing them. Overall my focus is North Africa in both games.

AAR 1 Nupremal Allies. Colin Axis. Winter 1941. Germany knocks Norway down very rapidly. Norwegian partisans spot some worryingly advanced air deployed there - with Finland already Axis could Sweden be next? Sneak attack by Italian corps in Horn of Africa. British advance on Tobruk though Italian navy is harassing them. AAR 2 Colin Allies. Nupremal Axis. Winter 1941. Axis hammers British in North Africa, a major effort. Rommel shows up a bit late, job was well underway ;-) Battle of Britian died out as Nupremal had a good defense and I needed the air elsewhere. Overall my focus is North Africa in both games.

AAR 1 Nupremal Allies. Colin Axis. Autumn 1940. France falls. Quite some air action over UK - British resist strongly. Italians and British go at it rather indecisively in the desert. AAR 2 Colin Allies. Nupremal Axis. Autumn 1940 Germany suspiciously quiet after the fall of France, but Finland is tipped into the Axis camp by diplomacy which makes me think Russia will be the target in a big way. British nail another submarine. Like the other game, British and Italians clash around Tobruk but no clear victor. Italian navy is showing up in strength off the coast of Egypt.

AAR 1 Nupremal Allies. Colin Axis. Spring to Summer 1940. Germans continue to scour the French countryside, isolating the French armour in Paris where it is entrenched. German paratroopers are in action in France in considerable numbers. Digging in seems to be the order of the day for the Allies, the UK is fortifying London. Elsewhere there are signs of a building confrontation between Italy and UK in North Africa, though Italy is not yet in the war. AAR 2 Colin Allies. Nupremal Axis. Spring to Summer 1940. More bad weather grounds the Luftwaffe so it takes him an extra turn to clear Lille and most of the Maginot. Germans are showing signs of improved panzers and have built at least one extra armoured unit. The French counterattack and destroy stormtroopers in front of Paris and damage an army and a corps (the latter with naval support). The French are basically huddling in a large mass around Paris, supported by air and artillery. The French high command complain about lack of support by the British. Its true – if the UK had committed land and air to France I think the Germans would either have had to slow their advance or take more casualties. As it is the RAF has been rather quiet. Meanwhile in North Africa a similar situation to the other game is emerging, as UK and Italy gear up for a dispute over North Africa. The Russians annexe part of the Balkans which pisses off the Bulgarians. To me all three starting nations seem well equipped and the balance of units is better than in WaW.

Why just be content with Europe, the whole world beckons……… I am playing mirror games with Nupremal using version 1.09 of his fine global modification. To start with I’ll write up both but will probably concentrate on the one that proves most interesting, quite possibly the one I’m losing least badly in ;-) AAR 1 Nupremal Allied. Colin Axis. In the opening 6 months I made some mistakes but some other aspects (tech and weather and sub raiding) were pretty good. Germany did a standard 2 turn takedown of Poland then launched an invasion of Denmark - despite that this pushes Norway to Allies (they are effectively the same country in this mod). Textbook attack on low countries followed in Feb 1940, thanks to good weather. Brussels was taken, the rail network mobilized and more troops transported in. However, disastrous placement of TAC near Maginot means it is destroyed by aggressive French infantry. My mistake, perhaps Nupremal has tweaked combat factors as I expected it to have survived rather better (I think it would have done under standard WaW/PTO). Decent sub raiding. The Allies defend France strongly with the BEF but its destroyed. The German assault continues, mopping up Lille and armies from Maginot quite efficiently. A French army does advance into Germany and a German corps is almost killed. Basically, fast but bloody blitzkrieg. My impression is France plays a bit more realistically under the Nupremal modification – France has good forces but the map geometry means they are more out of position. I also like BEF having their own supply source in France. UK bombs Germany. Rumour has it German generals are coordinating a master plan with Japan and Italy. AAR 2 Colin Allied. Nupremal Axis. This game is developing a bit slower due to weather. I’ll write it up in more detail soon but don’t want to flag UK strategy. Poland went down fast. As of March 1940 Germans look to have got decent technology (IW1AT1) and are massing but have yet to enter the low countries. The Royal Navy sinks the German submarine, though it took quite some effort to nail it.

You will have the turn by tomorrow - look forwards to trying this.

Do not use instant messaging much, meanwhile if you or anyone wants PBEM then its possible.

Downloaded. A few times fails to end turn but looks good otherwise.

Will certainly take a look at 1.09.

I have v 1.05 loaded and would be up for PBEM but not as fast and furious as Rambo - typically 2 turns a day.

A question for Nupremal et al - can Italy corps invade Suez from Horn of Africa via the land arrows? Might make for an interesting pincer movement on Egypt if so.

Think Nupremal's mod is excellent - posting for a PBEM game - will only manage a turn a day though. either side.

I intend playing Nupremal's game - indeed I think it opens up strategic options. Indeed, when I get back from hilidays might challenge you to a game. Defending islands alone does not work but in this game I have India and China and I'm using fortified islands to slow the US. He will take them but it takes time and whilst his fleet is superior its dangerous for him to close on Japan with fortified islands with long range air still in his rear. When you have an HQ coordinating TAC bombers on Guam or Iwa Jima you can stand up to heavy punishment and sink the odd battleship when it gets depleted and kill incoming transports. If we up TAC offense even further but decrease defense then they should really behave like the dangerous but fragile items Kamikaze bombers were.

Indeed. I thought defending key islands with a combination of HQ, fighter, TAC and ground troops was good but the fighters are just sacrificial victims (despite being L4 and HQ lead). I would note that some of the TAC were veterans of India but does not explain this at all.

Rambo - last year. I live in NL and my girlfriend is Dutch. Here grandfather actually cycled to the German border in 1913 and was relieved that the Germans did not test the effectiveness of his farmer's shotgun! See: http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=part-ii-the-peel-raamline I think the Dutch were not that prepared. Netherlands was neutral in WWI, did quite well out of trading with both sides, and on the German border there was some collaboration. This was unlike the Belgians that got stomped upon in WWI and, whilst did not coordinate well with France (both did not want next war fought in their country) did build stuff afterwards. Perhaps it was that or perhaps there is simply not the same level of defensive terrain (Belgium is a lot more hilly) but they did dig some defensive earthworks but these stood no chance. I know the Germans found ways circumvent the Belgian forts but these really were a bit more impressive. Dutch canals did slow the Germans a bit - there was one case where German paratroopers dropped one side of a canal and their heavy gear the other so they lost the subsequent firefight. Some of the defences fought by the Dutch were quite good but the effort was ultimately doomed.

Nupremal - just downloaded your world modification and played up to the fall of France. Its really great, you have given the series a far better historical feel and the strategic options really open up. The map is better, the use of garrisons is great, love that units seem a bit more mobile/agile. Its a bit hard to get my head round the map fragments but I understand why. One minor nitpick - do not believe the Dutch fortification should exist - I know they built one but it was very limited - I've walked along it - nothing compared to the Belgian forts.

Seamonkey - but its a strategic game. Surely tsight/prepare is more of a concept for tactical games? I assumed entrenchment is a bit more than that with quite some work by combat engineers Very much agree on supply being needed for second strikes. I would certainly support double strikes by tactical aircraft and double intercepts by fighters to give parity with carriers.

By alternative I mean a strategy that works against a good player. So far I have: China first: The obvious - least MPP, can be bombed to hell and least competent troops but your navy is limited and Soviets might liberate it. India first: currently being explored in game with Baron. More effort to transport and fight at end of a supply line plus monsoon. Some pluses though - quite a bit of open terrain, UK is very weak at the start, your carriers can have a big effect and its hard to retake. Pluis some synergy with China on MPP reductions. Australia first: Cannot get this to work. The targets are more dispersed and its much more vulnerable to counters from the US. Plus its a lot of MPP getting your troops there. Hawaii and lesser Islands: Not sure - think it just creates a target for the US to attack later and distracts from mainland. Its easy to get isolated there. USSR: Only Rambo has dared. Anyone know what it takes to get USSR out of the game? Actually might be tempted by this in concert with China before Soviets really tool up. North America: Will be impressed if this works. PLUS using IJN to create mayhem as proactively and fast as possible.

Baron, Scotsman: Agreed - its the old debate. I think in SC2 there was quite some scope for alternative strategies. PTO is more limited by the historical setting which is effectively one nation against the rest. I think here my concern/input is partly to do with playability - any game that has multiple viable strategies is more interesting. So far, I cannot see any strategies beyond India and China that work but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm still campaigning for the war to start earlier (before US involved) and some possibility of a diplomatic solution in China to add some different strategic paths. Bill - Good answer, thanks. Possibly the alternative is to convert some Japanese armour to infantry - there does seem more of it than I expected. SeaMonkey - yes, then the strategic possibilities really open up. Should really figure out how to download it and give Nupremal's mod a try.

Agreed, it is unlikely Japan would ever have developed blitzkrieg/tank tactics to match the Soviets. Agreed there is too much Japanese armour at the start. The Soviets had experience of fighting one of the most effective mechanized armies in the world. This suggests its reasonable to give them a few experience/elite levels. They had great armour so its reasonable to give them a high baseline of technology or investment. So far I think we agree. And these benefits will normally make the Soviet armour much better which is fine. But suppose a Japanese armoured unit (Level 1, 60% morale, readiness) fights a Soviet armour unit with IDENTICAL statistics. Why does the Soviet unit get 2 strikes and the Japanese get one? A reasonable answer is superior tactical doctrine in blitzkrieg. OK - but then why cannot Japan learn that if it chooses to commit enough resources and has enough practice? Similarly, Japan could make amazing battleships - if it stupidly chose not to but make tanks why could they not be as good as the Soviet's? Its a dumb strategic decision but seems possible - why not let Japan see if it can Blitzkrieg China by pouring all its resources into making a Japanese Tiger II. Similarly with France - I agree with what happened. But we change history in SC2. I've retaken Paris in early 1943 and built a L3 armored unit by late 1944. Along with some similarly tooled up US armour it attacked the remains of the German army. The French get one strike, the US/UK get two. Why? By this point in history (admittedly and unlikely but possible alternative one) there are similar units in both force pools so why do they behave differently? After their hammering in 1940 did the French not learn how to use their armour well 4 years later? The French did have US armour (in the game this gets 2 strikes when used by US troops) - if it wasn't used as well why not, and most importantly could there be a plausible route by which this could happen in the game?

Scotsman - understand about editor but this is a play balance issue so would nice to have in standard scenario. One point related to how devastating their entry can be is Soviet armour - I do not understand why it gets 2 strikes. You could say it is more experienced but the experience system handles that parameter (duh!). By that point in nthe war at least one of the Japanese armoured formations is often very experienced too. You could say its higher tech but the technology track handles that. So, it would be better to say any armour unit of any country gets 2 strikes or any experienced armour unit does or above certain readyness or whatever. I can see the issue is US armour being a bit abundant and powerful but maybe give them less - this was not the theatre for mass armour. Seen this before - French armour gets 1 strike? Why? Its true it was used badly (though high quality) but surely if France had stayed in the war longer or built armour after liberation they would have learned how to use it well. And I thought the point of the game was to give players choices that were possible but did not happen. If you have many parameters that give an indicator of quality of a unit you do not need national quirks. Similarly, why is Japan capped for armour technology? Its true they did not develop it that well or far. Surely that was because it did not have the value in Burma that it did in the west. If Japan can build a battleship like the Yamamoto is could design better tanks. Understandably, its navy and air force had priority but if a player wants to try blitzkrieg in the jungle then let them try - it was possible to build the gear with lots of investment, just not very wise perhaps?

Even with China out, which happens a lot in the games I play? I think the US gets so many MPP it does not miss them after the first year or so. My objection is partly balance - if Russia intervenes early its a game breaker. Secondly, why have a Diplomacy system if there really is only one country that matters as a target to be influenced? Doers anyone really bother to apply pressure on Nepal? At least in the western games there are multiple valuable targets for Diplomacy and not all the Allies are in at the start - so the Axis can get somewhere if it choses to and has a bit of luck.

Bill, I think it is a serious effort for UK or China to invest MPP in diplomacy but its trivial for the US - if it forces matching investment from Japan its a major piece of very useful attrition. The thing is the Soviets have such a huge impact - its not just trashing China but having paratroopers, aircraft and ports makes taking Japan far easier. As you say - lets see what others think. As I wondered - could we link Diplomacy to decision events - an event only happens if you have X chits invested? If so, diplomatic side could be made more interesting. Thanks for the response. cheers Colin

Fair enough - I was hoping for a standardized Operation Z for competitive play though.

I think we need to either fix or eliminate the diplomacy system for PTO. Basically, unlike the West most major participants are at war already. The minors are mostly not worth influencing. There is no complexity, Japan has no allies to back it up diplomatically. So, its really only about Russia. And here its no contest - Japan cannot stop the Allies influencing Russia which, when it enters early, kills the game. The simplest option is to eliminate the diplomacy system but I can see you want it for global mods. A more subtle approach might be to integrate with decision events - if Japan invests somehow then China might sue for peace for example.