Early Allied Strategy part II

[Norse]

Welcome to briefing girls!

With this topic, I bet you are expecting something close to firework, but actually, since last time was a major offensive against Italy, this time will be about how to properly defend the allies in the early stages of the war.

As always, what I say is not a blueprint and you haveto find your own way on how to implement any strategy into your unique game. This can only guide you as a guideline, and I'm sure that I forgot to mention something (because I don't know it...yet!)

I hope that theese discussions can help us, considering all the talk about how it is impossible to do this or that, impossible to stop the Germans, impossible to win with the allies etc. By discussing this and how we can accomplish theese things, perhaps we can figure out the best strategies to use at this time? And then, the other side figures out counterstrategies to that, so we haveto find new strategies again

This is real fun IMO (this is the best part of any strategy game IMO ).

Alright, let's start.

First off, let me take a quick look at some game mechanics.

Any French unit in British / Commonwealth territory, by the time France surrenders, will continue to fight as Free French and draw supply from the Commonwealth. British troops do not get this feature. This is good to know, let us work with this.

Also, if Britain is to fall, we loose both the biggest allied fleet and gibraltar. This means that the axis can combine their fleets in the atlantic, and most likely keep the Americans at bay for the rest of the war.

If Malta, Egypt, or any other part of the commonwealth falls to axis control, then the allies suffer no major consequences.

If the allies loose London and Manchester, then both the Free French and the British surrender.

So obviously, the number one priority must be to defend Britain, and sacrifise anything that is neccesary to achive this goal.

Atleast this is what I feel is the number one priority for the allies in the early stages. Operation Sea Lion must fail!

It is not neccesary to maintain control of France, if we are able to maintain control of Britain long enough for USA to enter the war and turn the tide. Any territory lost, including France, can be taken back.

So it makes no sence to throw in everything we got in order to defend France. With the stated above mechanics, it is in my opinion, better to work the other way around.

I also base this, on the argument that the forces the allied player got available to defend France with, is essentially the same forces the allied player got to defend Britain with.

You have one forcepool to defend both France and Britain!

If the allied player looses horrendous losses while defending France, then defending Britain later on might be an impossible task.

What I do, as the French, is to build a few corps and put them in the maginot line. This free's up some French armies, so I can put one army in Paris (better give Paris the best garrison possible, the default garrison is just a corp), and the excess armies can be shipped over to Britain.

With the foreward troops defending France (mainly corps and a couple armies, possibly a British corp or two as well, but that should be about it), buy time so France get's enough MPP to build a HQ. I always disband the French fleet, gamey or not. I cannot know if the French fleet will help me defend Britain later on, so in my opinion, it is better to disband it so I can buy something that will help me defend Britain.

When the defensive line begins to falter, don't fight till the bitter end. Remember that the troops you got now, are also the troops you need to defend Britain with. So start the Dunkirk effect, and evacuate as many as possible to Britain, while your garrison in Paris forms your last line of defence and tries to hold out for as long as possible.

To buy you even more time, send the Canadian army to France and put it on the west-coast. Even if France surrenders now, then the Germans will only be having control of 1 French port, which buys you time in case they will launch the Sea Lion. Remember that they need ports to launch their units from. If the Canadian army is about to be annihilliated, then you can ship it back to Britain if you want, it already bought you some time, so it might as well get it back for defence by now.

Now, with Britain, considering that holding Egypt, Malta etc., doesn't make or breake the allied effort at this stage, it is better to just ship the naval and air forces from the Med back to Britain. If Malta etc falls to the axis, then with time, we can always take it back. It is much harder to take Britain back if that falls instead.

Also, I should mention this (I considering hiding it as an easter egg for u;) ), by denying the Germans the ability to destroy the bulk of your French forces - because you withdraw it to Britain right before they can do that, and with the Canadian army still fighting in France, France will actually keep on fighting for a turn or two after Paris falls. Don't depend on this, but it always works out this way for me. It hadto do with the game mechanic that, even if a nation's capital falls to the enemy (and thus denies you the ability to create any more units), the nation will not surrender just yet, if the nation's military is not yet defeated.

[Norse]

In order to get most bang of the buck with the Free French forces, send the French corp in Syria down to Egypt.

Notice that the fleet have departured and is en route to Britain.

Do the same with Gibraltar. When the airfleet in Malta leaves for Britain, ship the British Gibraltar garrison to Malta, and the French algerie corp to Gibraltar (or other way around, you get the idea).

By now, your defence of Britain should look something like this (screenshot at 21 july 1940)

This kind of defence will make it very difficult to beat Britain before USA can join and help turn the tide.

Notice that with the help of the Free French, the British can focus solely on air and naval forces, while the Free French can focus on the ground forces.

With time, the Free French can join in D-Day and liberate their lovely country

Don't hold on to London if doing that is crushing your forces, remember that you got a 2nd capital in Manchester. Retreat northwards to buy time if you must, and find comfort in that USA is coming soon.

Good luck

~Norse~

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Oddly enough, i was plating the Ai in dgaads new mod and they had the exact same mediterranean strategy here. Except i did sealion in jan. 1941 and UK surrendered in June, i am now in the process of taking portugal, with my allies, spain and italy, along with the usual slew of minor axis. And am about to go on the offensive in Russia.

CvM

[Jeff Gilbert]

Norse,

i seem to have missed the your 1st half analysis ... could yuou point me toward it or email it to me at

jgilbert@mchsi.com

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

its another thread in the forum, just look down a bit

cvm

[John DiFool]

Hmm wouldn't this leave the Russians swinging in

the wind? I know if I just had two corps

defending all of the Middle East that I would

be foaming at the mouth and Rommel would be on

his way down there ASAP, along with any other

assets I can spare. Once Iraq falls then Russia's

Caucasus front is ripe for the plucking.

Yes I know two things: air units can be redeployed

down there, and fog of war. Can you sneak the

Egyptian fleet past the Italians without them

knowing about it? Since I usually have a sub

parked near Malta as the Italians, you likely will

be fighting his fleet with them at full supply.

Not a good recipe for long-term survival of your

ships.

JD

[Lou Wigman]

Hmmm, I can just imagine French reaction when asked to disband their navy and move their entire army to Britain leaving Hitler to walk in the front door. Yep, sure makes a lot of sense.

[Norse]

Comon John DiFool, you can do better than this.

Originally posted by John DiFool:

I know if I just had two corps

defending all of the Middle East that I would

be foaming at the mouth

I doutb it

Because, as you would have known if you had actually played the game, Egypt only got 1 corp in defence by default. This way, it gets 2 corps. And you are saying this will make you foam around the mouth?

Some Italian players go for Egypt anyway. If you have kept the British fleet in Egypt idling, then it is now dead. Sitzkrieg doesn't work, sorry.

Then you need the forces to invade Egypt with. Unless you bring a HQ, then your unit attacking Alexandria is out of supply and can't accomplish it's task. So you need a HQ, and do you remember how many HQ's that Italy starts the game with?

You can bring a German HQ if you want, in which case the British player benefits from your shift of focus anyway (could you imagine?)

About Iraq, Iraq has 1 single hex that borders Soviet. If you try to send your axis armies thru this hex, then they will get stuck, and then they will run out of supply. It is possible, sure, but how much Soviet effort do you think is neccesary to defend 1 mountain hex?

This is the Iraqi and Soviet front and it's 1 hex border.

Taking Iraq doesn't threathen Soviet much.

Yes I know two things: air units can be redeployed

down there, and fog of war. Can you sneak the

Egyptian fleet past the Italians without them

knowing about it?

I don't know, can you? How about you actually buy the game and try it?

Since I usually have a sub

parked near Malta as the Italians, you likely will

be fighting his fleet with them at full supply.

Not a good recipe for long-term survival of your

ships.

Yes, you are right JD. The allied player, if he has no plan, or a silly plan, then he dies.

You might have forgotten, that if Britain falls, then Egypt falls too.

Comon John DiFool, I have faith in you... :cool:

~Norse~

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Norse, we playing on sunday or what?

[John DiFool]

Sarcasm does you little good (and yes I have only

played against the AI because I have little

interest in being blitzkrieged by one of the

many gamey strategies available-once those

loose ends are tied up-SC2 most likely-then

maybe I'll try my hand at MP...)

I just think that you are risking creating an

Italian monster by shifting everything out of the

Med. If Germany decides to go for a Sea Lion-

great. If you are counting on an early Overlord

to take pressure off of Russia, I can see your

point. (and yes you can get the fleet out

before Italy is in the war-reminder to self-don't

post late at night anymore :eek: ). But even

with two corps defending Egypt, the Axis can land

an Italian HQ in Libya, and a German one to the

east of Alexandria, and the garrison will soon

fall, with the help of the Italian fleet and an

air unit or two (typical timeline is mid-to-late

'41 or early '42). If you can shift some air

down there then maybe you can delay the inevitable...

And you forgot about Turkey it seems. On two

fronts it will typically die quickly, and you can

now chain HQs through the mountains to get at

Russia. Hence the Axis player trades a little

short-term momentum in Russia for a serious long-

term edge (with all the MPPs/high IndTech he

typically has by this point I think it is a

worthwhile investment).

To sum up: if Germany tries a Sea Lion, you got

him by the nuts. But if he lets the Italians get

some plunder from the Yugos and the Greeks, can

afford to send an HQ and an army/tank or two down

to the Med, then Russia is at serious risk. In

the latter case you might be better off SENDING

assets to Egypt before Italy is in, and taking

Iraq yourself (all those MPPs will definitely

help the British cause-note the increased MPP

value for Med cities which can trace a line of

supply to Moscow once Russia joins).

With FoW, either way its a gamble. If you knew

what your opponent was up to all the time of

course it would be boring now wouldn't it?

JD

[Sir Whiskers]

I think Norse has shown us an excellent example of a gameplay option which is seriously broken. Even knowing what the Allies are trying to do, I can't come up with a strategy to stop this. Allowing the Allied player to gain several Free French armies, an air fleet, and an HQ for the sacrifice of the French fleet and the slightly earlier fall of France is, IMHO, unbalancing. In a game with a human opponent, I would have to insist that this option be turned off, given how easily it can be abused. I'd even go so far as to suggest that Hubert limit the option to a maximum number of Free French units (3-4), selected randomly by the computer. Then the Allied player would gain some benefit, but not the doubling or tripling of the British ground forces which occurs now.

[Jollyguy]

Sir Whiskers, I disagree. Maybe you haven't played enough PBEM and TCP games. Norse's strategy will not work, plain and simple. Why do you think he doesn't want to try it on a real human opponent? It seems all he can do is post snide, condescending remarks.

It is actually very easy to counter. Actually, let me rephrase. His strategy would be moot point. By the time an Allied player even got close to attempting that strategy, Paris would have fallen.

Bob

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Jolly, i think you are misinterpreting norse. Hes not being snide or condescending. He is simply trying to provide a look at certain strategies and their effectiveness against the AI.

btw, when norse and i have our match, and if he tries this strategy on me, he will be repelled swiftly, but that would be just because i had his blueprint for attack.

CvM

[Jollyguy]

Sir Whiskers, my apologies. I misread your post, and thought we were in the early Allies attack Italy thread.

As to the Free French. I agree that in future versions there should be a limit on the number of French units that can be evacuated to England. Maybe an MPP cap, five hundred MPPs lets say, something bordering historical.

Although, I've played games as the Axis where a huge Free French contingent made it to England, and it didn't seem to significantly effect the games outcome.

[Sir Whiskers]

No problem, Jollyguy. I agree that the Italy strategy won't work consistently against an alert Axis player - I said as much in the other thread. Against the AI, of course, it's a killer.

Concerning the Free French deployment, you may be right that it doesn't affect play much. I stopped testing after seeing how much could be evacuated (2 corps in the Med, 4 armies, 1 air fleet, 1 HQ in England). To me the key unit is the HQ - this unit makes the Free French forces a real threat in a second front invasion. The Axis player will have to leave stronger forces in the West, weakening his assault on the Soviet Union, perhaps fatally. I'll keep testing and see if I can find a better counter to this.

Norse - while I personally consider this option unbalanced as is, I appreciate your Allied strategy posts. They've prompted some good (and heated) discussions and improved my game. Good job.

[Jollyguy]

Whiskers;

One thing I've noticed in the game is a considerable degree of balance. (Barring the current Axis play imbalance, which Hubert has already said he will be addressing.)

I.e., in games where I've gotten very poor Axis research luck, Russian readiness has been considerably delayed, allowing me to build up a larger invasion force.

I would bet my left. . ., well, maybe I wouldn't go that far. But I'll bet when a considerable Free French contingent makes it to England, all things being equal, the Axis is compensated somewhere else. True, Sea Lion wouldn't be possible for the Axis player, but there are very few games where a Sea Lion is attempted anyway. Plus, if the Axis has a cakewalk across France, they suffer significantly fewer losses, get the French MPPs sooner, probably have time to eye another Minor to bring under heel, and can pour $ into research sooner.

So, my guess, a large Free French contingent is not a game breaker. It's probably a push.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

(...) Norse's strategy will not work, plain and simple. Why do you think he doesn't want to try it on a real human opponent? It seems all he can do is post snide, condescending remarks.

I only play this game for fun, nothing else. If you are not having fun while playing the game, then the point is gone. Even if you won 1 match, you wouldn't have proven a point. I already said the attack on Italy is risky, it works sometimes, and can fail others. What more can be proven with this? If you claim that this strategy never works, good for you! It works for many others, and I don't really care if you think it works or not.

It is actually very easy to counter. Actually, let me rephrase. His strategy would be moot point. By the time an Allied player even got close to attempting that strategy, Paris would have fallen.

Bob

Everybody take a look at the Canadian army fighting on the west-coast of France, do you see the blue hexagon it is fighting on? This means France has not fallen, even if Paris is taken

*sigh*

Originally posted by Sir Whiskers:

Norse - while I personally consider this option unbalanced as is, I appreciate your Allied strategy posts. They've prompted some good (and heated) discussions and improved my game. Good job.

Originally posted by Jollyguy:One thing I've noticed in the game is a considerable degree of balance. (Barring the current Axis play imbalance, which Hubert has already said he will be addressing.)

Where did Hubert say such an thing? Cite? Quote? point us....

~Norse~

[Jollyguy]

Norse;

As to game balance. Hubert never said anything that I'm aware of, but it is very clear that the game engine has a strong tit-for-tat element to it. It could be likened to Newtons third law of motion:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

That's why when one plays random politics, as all good players do, attacking a minor carries consequences. For the Axis its increased American and Russian readiness. For the Allies it's decreased American and Russian readiness.

And I've played several games now where as the Germans I got piss poor research luck. Each time Russian and American readiness was snail-like in its slowness, allowing me to buildup a larger invasion force, and avoid Barbarossa until October or November of 41. When I got great research luck, Russian readiness was quicker, and I'm usually in Russia by June or July or August.

Sorry if you haven't noticed this important balancing element to the game, but it's there. Other players could probably chime in, as there are probably many more instances of these type of self-balancing reactions that I haven't noticed, but which would be interesting to discuss.

Bob

[ev]

When plaing the Allied side, I used the following tactic to defend France:

Defended heavily the Maginot and Ardenes, forcing the Germans to advance trought the northern most hexes.

Used my fleet to attack any armies along the coast of Belgium or Northern France.

This forced the Germans to advance through a very narrow corridor. Which is very difficult.

The only way the Germans could breakthrough this narrow corridor is through heavy bombing. In order to prevent this I had a Fr. HQ and a Brithish HQ backing my airplanes, and made sure they were always reinforced. I also brought in the Canadians to help along the northern coast where the Brit planes could cover them. And I brought all my troops and airplanes from the Med. into France and England.

I have done this twice (1st begginer, then Intermediate +1). Always held up France. My Fleet were pounded heavily, but so were the German planes. And without planes, the Germans could not breakthrough in France. And, even if they had, I don't think they could mount See Lion (without planes).

[JimR]

Originally posted by ev:

I have done this twice (1st begginer, then Intermediate +1). Always held up France. My Fleet were pounded heavily, but so were the German planes. And without planes, the Germans could not breakthrough in France. And, even if they had, I don't think they could mount See Lion (without planes).

I suspect that if you try this against a human opponent he soon will be wiping the floor with the remnants of the Allied armies.

I am still trying to figure out how to wage a coherent, long-term Allied defense against a skilled Axis player. Anyone have a good Russian defense strategy that works?

[Norse]

Originally posted by ev:

[qb]I have done this twice (1st begginer, then Intermediate +1). Always held up France. My Fleet were pounded heavily, but so were the German planes. And without planes, the Germans could not breakthrough in France. And, even if they had, I don't think they could mount See Lion (without planes).

EV: This is what I usually did too. I threw in as much MPP as possible to defend France, I would not let France fall. Then, France fell anyway, it just takes the Germans some more time. And what really sucks then, is that you have hardly any units to defend Britain with, because they were toasted in the intense battle for France. By then it might be terribly difficult to defend Britain against the Sea Lion, because the MPP where spent to defend France and not Britain. You seem to be getting the hang of it and what to do now, keep it up, just remember that the battle for France and the battle for Britain is the same big battle - it is where you put your MPP that makes a difference. Kickass!

JimR

I am still trying to figure out how to wage a coherent, long-term Allied defense against a skilled Axis player. Anyone have a good Russian defense strategy that works?

Hell yeah

Soviet Strategy that works

Good luck!

~Norse~

[BriantheWise]

Norse,

I sincerely enjoy reading your strategy tips (kind of reminds of articles in the General, from long ago - dating myself). A couple of comments if I am (and no, I have actually not played a human on line yet - still trying to make that work. Game smart, computer dim).

1) Generally, I have taken the French fleet down to the Med, along with a couple of British ships and carriers (after wiping out the silly German Uboats), and with the help of the Alexandria fleet, go to wipe out the Italian navy. There is usually enough time before the French surrender.

The French fleet gets wiped out, there's a few casualties for the British, but most or all of the Italian fleet is gone. I consider this important, since if you leave a British fleet or two down in the Med, the Axis won't be able to do anything and it could later facilitate an English invasion against Irag.

Would you consider this as a wise tactic against a human?

2) Other than that battle, I never use the British to help out in the early days of the war, and certainly not in France. As much as possible, while France is dying, England is investing in research. Hopefully, this will allow a few break throughs in Ind Tech and Jets that will help later in the defense of England and then again in the return to France. It sounds like you don't either. However, I do use the french to their dying breath, and don't even try to get their air force or armies moves to England.

Listening to the points you made, do you think that without the french armies, England will still be too weak to stop Sea Lion?

3) I have read, almost ad nauseum, about the fact that the Axis will a) get massive tech advantage, and b)"twenty air fleets" to fight the Russians.

So I am thinking along these lines. The Axis need to do three things in conjunction with the taking of France and the aftermath before the Russians come in: a)Invest in research; buy planes; c) buy ground units for the Eastern front. And at the same time, conquer minor countries and mount Sea Lion. All in about a year.

Something here is going to have to suffer. Less research, less planes, not being ready for Russia or conquering less minors - presumably Norway/Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia/Greece - with the overall impact of reducing the MMP's that the Axis get. Which in turn, I think, will weaken the Axis ability to have all those plances/tech advantage.

(I love how this game makes you need to balance the competing needs).

So, since the game, inevitably, will be decided on the Eastern front, do you think it is worthwhile to take out England, even if it means that your tech and "twenty air forces", and even ground prep, leaves you somewhat unprepared for the Russian bear?

And last, do you really really think that the game is unbalance against the allies, all things considered? When I play the game as allies against Axis plus two, i can usually win. When I play the game as Axis, against Allies plus one, it's a struggle and even a stalemate. Maybe it's the AI, where the Axis can't be tricky enough and the Allies just have to be solid.

Anyways, I appreciate your strategy ideas. I never really thought about moving key french units to England. Not sure if I like it (nothing to do with gamey ness (there is, in my opinion, nothing gamey in the game - Hitler, if you ask me, was pretty gamey).

I look forward to your response and hopefully to someday play again you.

Thanks.

[BriantheWise]

sorry about the typos

[Flashblade]

I'm going to have to disagree with your grand strategy Norse.

As with all strategy games, SC is about ressources, plain and simple. France is worth over 100 MPPs per turn to the Allies (139 if you take the Low Countries) and about 65 to Germany + the 700 to 900 in plunder bonus. If Germany takes France early they can use these MPPs to get a huge lead in tech. Also, the better the German player is doing the faster the Balkan minors join up.

In my best PBEM game I declared war on Denmark to deny Germany the plunder there (gamey). Invaded the Low Countries so France was getting 139 MMPs a turn + the plunder bonus. This combined with British air support allowed France to hold out until Early '41. My opponent finally had to declare on Switzerland to make a hole in my line and get some plunder. But by then it was to late, Britain was able to capture Norway and because he need all his remaing force just to get into France Russia declare on Germany in '41: game over.

I have never tried to mount Sealion, Russia is what is important. After France I focus on securing easy ressources: Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, Iraq and Egypt... haven't gone for Sweden yet, maybe next game.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Flashblade:

I have never tried to mount Sealion, Russia is what is important.

You "think" Germany gets the MPP reward so quickly as you never tried this.

~Norse~