Axis vs. Allied PBEM Challenge!!!

[pzgndr]

Immer Etwas as Allies and I as Axis just wrapped up a game. London fell in Oct 40 and we decided to call it at that point. I'll summarize how the game went and offer some comments.

German blitzkrieg took Poland and Denmark on turn 3, Low Countries on turn 7, and crossed the French frontier on turn 9. Germany bought an extra tank group and air fleet in the west and an extra corps in Poland.

France early on disbanded their air and bought a HQ for Paris, which significantly toughened Frence resistance. Britain bought an army and HQ and started moving them to the Med. Apparently started moving the Canadians to the Med also.

Allied activity in the Med brought Italy into the game in Jan 40. We had a brief naval battle which resulted in significant damage to a French BB and Italy lost its sub and a BB. The Italian fleet pulled back to the Adriatic and a German air op moved down to cover southern Italy, not knowing if an invasion was afoot or what. I made a couple of air strikes on the British fleet and caused damage, but nothing much happened after that. I still didn't know what the Allies were up to and the French fleet was still a major threat until France surrendered.

With only 3 air up north, the battle for France took longer than anticipated. Paris fell in Jul 40 and France finally surrendered, but it was a tough fight considering my early start. About this time I spotted Montgomery off Tripoli and the British army transport off Tobruk, and began to realize what was going on. A yellow light for Sealion was on. Germany bought 3 subs and started moving units away from the northern French coast like a normal redeployment to the east, hoping British air would spot the movements. Units were actually staging in SW France and Kiel. 2 corps from Prussia started their transport to the west. I chose to throw everything into Sealion in lieu of any research, since Sealion is not something you want to "try."

Maybe my deception worked or not, but Britain then declared war against Iraq and their bombers showed up in Egypt. The Iraqi force also included the Canadian army, and at this point the green light for Sealion was on. Now it was just a race for time to hit the British shores before the Iraqi plunder and extra MPPs could be used against me by building a new homeland defense force. If Germany had not been ready, Britain could very well have walked away with the prize.

With an Italian air and HQ to support Sealion, I struck on Turn 31 in Oct 40. My invasion had 2 corps and an army land north of London, while 2 armies, 2 tanks and Rundstedt landed south. London was still defended by a single corps and fell on the first turn. My subs and cruisers chewed up the British fleet. US entry was at 3%, USSR at about 40%, and nothing left but a stroll to Manchester, so we called the game and talked about it.

IE confesses to having a faulty strategy, but I'm not so sure. With FOW it may very well work, you just have to remember the 2-hex spotting range from ground units on the coast. That early information was critical to my decision making. Once Britain is poised to strike from Egypt into either Iraq or Libya, they really must wait until Germany commits itself in some direction other than Britain. By attacking Iraq early without knowing what Germany was fully prepared to do, and reducing the US entry by unnecessary aggression, Britain invited disaster.

This was a game decided by FOW, one of the great features of SC. I was not committed to Sealion until I had indications of British weakness on the home isle, and then confirmation after Iraq was attacked. If either or both of these events had not occurred when they did, the Axis crosshairs would probably have shifted east and Britain would have succeeded with its plans. Those extra Iraqi MPPs may be well worth a delayed US entry if the game had continued.

So chalk up an axis victory, but it's not clear from this particular game whether play balance was an issue. However, there were some great lessons-learned.

Btw, IE and I have both seemed to dabble with the Med in our two games, primarily because the AI does not I suppose. Getting the Allied AI to consider its Med options and getting the Axis AI to consider Sealion are a couple of things Hubert still needs to work on. Hint.

[Hubert Cater]

Very interesting AAR's on the PBEM challenge guys! I haven't really heard back from too many games yet, only these ones so far, but I think some of these games are becoming very good indeed

Keep it coming!

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Just checking in on this one, any results to note as of yet?

Hubert

[Jollyguy]

Hubert;

Devil Dog and I are well into Barbarossa. We started that at your behest, just prior to your official challenge, when you suggested those who felt the Axis had an advantage play good Allied players.

Devil Dog got weighted down with other responsibilities after we started the game. We had a number of nights with a flurry of turns, but recently it's been one a night, with a few misses inbetween. Regardless, I believe we are 5 to 10 turns from determining which way the wind will blow in the game.

As Devil Dog's and my game sits it is the Fall of 42. I am putting tremendous pressure on Russia, forcing him to attempt a premature Overlord. I was able to buy six subs, and fanned them out across the Atlantic the turn America entered the war. A running battle of the Atlantic has ensued, spanning several turns, in which I reinforced with four more fresh subs, for a total of ten. The battle is still ongoing. I sank two carriers, three capital ships, a couple transports, and knocked the remaining four American transports down to 1, 2, or 3 strength. He has sank four subs, and knocked four down to five strength or less.

Devil Dog extricated a large Free French force from the mainland, including a headquarters and tank. He is attempting to land them near Denmark, and I am attempting to block him with German and Italian corps covering seaside landing hexes.

I have level 4 and level 5 advances in several research areas, and just achieved level 2 in another. And that was after an extremely frustrating span of 10 turns following the fall of France, when I got 0 advances, even though I had invested ten chits at the the cost of 2500 MPPs. I finally decided I was in unlucky research tracks, and moved my chits around. This helped, with the result that I achieved five heavy tank advances, boom-boom-boom, in about 7 turns, just prior to launching Barbarossa. I had moved the other 5 chits to advanced subs though, and got 0 advances over eight turns. I finally threw in the towel on advanced subs, and moved those chits somewhere else.

As to other games I have going. I'm basically wrapping up games now, initiating very few. Other good players are telling me the same thing, and why: Because of the Axis inbalance.

The Game Devil Dog and I have going is a good example of this inbalance. It's still 1942, and as the German I was able to field 10 subs, and as a result of prior heavy naval action between us, have a chance of seizing control of the Atlantic. In Russia, "Dog" is up against level 5 tanks, level 5 jets, and as you can surmise, industrial production advances to fund all of this. And this after ten frustrating turns of 0 advances from a fully funded research program.

I consider myself at least an average player, but when I play the Allied side against a good Axis player, the result so far has always been the same: Axis victory. I did play a game with Russ, me as Axis, when I booted the Low Countries and didn't take them in one turn. Russ, being the solid player he is, stalled me for four or five more turns, until I could afford to buy more air. Then he got favorable Russian rediness, so I conceded, as I knew the game was a foregone conclusion against someone of Russ' calibre. But as Russ said to me, you only boot the Low Countries once. We've corresponded back and forth, and both feel as the game sits, a good Axis player will prevail 80% or better of the time. Research advances and rediness can work in favor of the Allies on occasion, but on balance, the Axis player simply swamps the Allies the majority of the time. I know Iola is gloating about his 9-1 record as the Allies, but my guess is he hasn't played enough good Axis players enough times.

I don't want to rehash the prior suggestions, you've read them all, but do want to stress that I believe most players feel just a little bit of tweaking will instill balance. Not being able to cut-off the Caucusses would be number one on my list. More balanced, predictable research advances would be number two, along with a bit more research capability for the Allies. Steadily increasing American MPPs would be number three.

Again, great game.

[DevilDog]

Don't have time to do a long post now, but will do one later tonight. Due to the game with Jolly and a experimental game I played against the AI last night I am now a new convert to "the game is unbalanced towards the Axis" cause. I think that if the fixes are minimized, the less chance other areas of the game that are currently balanced will get thrown out of wack.

[ September 25, 2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the replies guys, glad to hear you've had a "clash of the titans". I've got a short list of changes that I think will help to balance things out and for the most part make things a bit more interesting. I think the proposed research adjustments, a few extra research chits for the allies, the added 3 capital supply source rules, and a port at Istanbul should do the trick but most likely this will have to wait until after the TCP/IP patch.... and just in case, the answer is still soon.

I've also got a few other tweaks and comments in mind (mostly related to the hot recent debate threads) that I think will add some more dynamic game play especially for the Med., but more on that later.

Hubert

[Jollyguy]

Hubert;

Glad to hear of the proposed changes. You have a GREAT product here, that can only get better.

Looking forward to the improvements, and very refreshing to know that someone listens and digests the input.

Bob

[sogard]

I look forward to seeing the tweaks in action.

[Doomsday1]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

EDITED

I know Iola is gloating about his 9-1 record as the Allies, but my guess is he hasn't played enough good Axis players enough times.

Again, great game.

Hubert,

This is the match I have been waiting for. Having lost to both these players (Jollyguy and Iolo), I personaly would find it interesting to see the outcome of this match.

Both of these players, I feel, are suberb. Me..I am average. I work on emotion and impulse, not always to my advantage. Playing these guys has made my game better. So....how about it guys?

Has anyone given a good account as the Allies? Iolo...are you game?

[sogard]

"Originally posted by Jollyguy:

I know Iola is gloating about his 9-1 record as the Allies, but my guess is he hasn't played enough good Axis players enough times.

Again, great game."

Well, having lost to Iola when Iola was playing the Allies and I was playing the Axis, I think I know some of what is going on here.

First, let me say, Iola is a VERY GOOD PLAYER. His moves are very efficient with little, if any wasted time or effort. But, part of what was going on in our game was that Iola's strategy was very counter intuitive if one were attempting to play given WW II historic experience.

Iola used a very aggressive strategy where he not only cashed in the French Air Fleet to generate the necessary MPPs to get a French HQ; but, he also disbanded and cashed in most of the French fleet. This generated a great deal more income for the French than anyone would have been lead to believe possible (especially since the Game Manual specifically says that players can NOT disband naval units and get MPPs for it -- the only way one would know this is possible is to carefully read the patch history updates). The British too pursued a strategy of disbanding units to enable a restructuring of the British military so that the Brits look quite differently from what you would see in a solo game. Iola disbanded the Bomber Air Fleet along with a chunk of the British navy which resulted in the Allies fielding either equal Air Forces (all British) to the Germans or at a 5:4 ratio. Finally, Iola invested at least one research point in Jet research and got a payback on that investment almost immediately so that the Allies were playing with a tech advantage over the Germans.

I fell right into this trap completely and only recognized that the Allied force structure looked radically different than anything I had seen in any previous game (or thought possible).

Iola cemented his victory because he was thinking so innovatively out of the box that he exploited a number of game features that most players would never dream of. Having players who can and will do this is very important in play testing any game design because it is very common for a game to work perfectly well when players do what is expected. What is very difficult to consider though is what happens to any given game design when players do the unexpected.

Possibly all the aggressive tactics by the Allies can be countered by an equally aggressive Axis player. I don't know. I hope to do another game against Iola shortly to see whether or not this is so.

Anyway, I thought I would give this folder my thoughts on game play after a game where I could see something of how a very good player, who understood the game design well, was able to win with the Allies.

[ September 26, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[DevilDog]

Well I cashed in the French fighter and all the navy, got a HQ a tank and another army all to no avail against Jolly. True I did evacuate them from France without much fighting, but this gave me a sizable Free french force of 1 HQ, 3 armies, 1 tank and several corps. All to no avail. I also purchased almost nothing but air fleets (and 1 HQ) as the British. As the Russians I managed to take Finland using all my air and only purchasing corps to slow down the German advance, but when Germany has a ~400 MPP per turn income and maxed out in industrial tech its no contest.

So let's see the match-up!

[Hubert Cater]

Sounds like an interesting matchup, love to hear the results of that one

As for the proposed changes, I think there should not be much harm done even if the proposed changes are implemented, those who consistenly win as Allies (although there may be only 1 or 2 of those it seems, and perhaps none after the Jollyguy and Iolo matchup ) will still win, and for the rest it should at least balance things out a bit.

To make a note on the naval units, disbanding was added in due to high demand, albeit at a restricted and lowered level, but once all the patches are finalized in the coming months I will go over the manual and add/edit a few things in there to clear up the recent changes etc.

Hubert

[Jollyguy]

I have played opponents who employed a similar full-court strategy as Iola in France.

What the German player has to do is not buy research chits from the get go, and buy planes instead. Actually, since you don't know what the French player is going to do initially, I don't start buying research until I've felt him out, generally after the Low Countries fall.

After Denmark and the Low Countries are dispatched, using the pluder to purchase two or three more air units, the German needs to concentrate all his air on one or two French hexes per turn, using combined land/air attacks. By now the German player should have five or six airfleets, or more if needed. He should hold MPPs in reserve, also, in case he needs to buy more air. If not, buy research.

When a hole is created, DO NOT charge into it initially, as the Allied player may counterattack, and chop you up. Occupy the hex, and do the same thing for two, three more turns. If he has an HQ, it could take four, five, or six turns. But attrition generally works in favor of the Germans. And if the French lose two armies in one turn, 500 MPPs, that's hard to replace.

The battle for France does take longer than normal when an Allied player throws everything into it. The downside for the Allies is once France is taken, he's open to a possible Sea Lion, especially if he's taken heavy losses, and depleted his navy. The German will have six or more airfleets lined up at the Channel, which could do heavy damage in support of landings on the English coast.

As to Allied jet research. That's an unpredictable variable. On balance though, I would say in many more games than not this shouldn't be a significant factor. But if he gets lucky, that's how it goes.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

As to Allied jet research. That's an unpredictable variable. On balance though, I would say in many more games than not this shouldn't be a significant factor. But if he gets lucky, that's how it goes.

Iola actually offered to restart the game at the point just before he got the Level 1 Jet tech level; but, I declined thinking that any Allied player that had the moxy to make a bet like that and then have it come up a winner deserved to enjoy the result. Next thing I knew I watched a 5 point German Air Fleet blow up on a mission (first time I had realized that he had jets).

[arby]

Well, Dave Arnold and I just concluded our Axis-Allied Challenge game, with him as Allies, and it was pretty much SOSO. I had some good luck at the start. I tend to not rush the Low Countries invasion, preferring to invade Denmark on turn 2 and move my armies and tank groups back to the western front on the same turn (the corps can usually finish off Poland), then reinforce and build an additional tank and airfleet on turn 3, then invade the low countries and attack France on turn 4. I lucked out in the sense that I managed to capture the Low Countries with 2 armies and 2 air fleets, leaving 2 fleets and 2 tank groups to attack one of his French armies. Which they did, destroying it. The Low Countries and a French Army, all in the same turn. Sweet! France was gone by the end of May, despite determined resistance, then Norway, Sweden, and Yugoslavia, by which time I'd maxed out my chits for research.

One of the things I like about this game is that I learn something virtually every time I play it. What I learned this time is that the German doesn't even have to be "researched up" to have an advantage on the Eastern Front. I got to Level 4 Ind, Level 2 tank, and Level 1 air by the time Barbarossa started. But at that point, I hit a dry hole, research-wise: over the next 2 years, I got 1 anti-tank, 1 air advance, 2 L/R aircraft, got up to 5 Ind Strength, and that was it. Didn't matter. The Level 4 Ind Tech was all that I really needed: I could put more tanks and planes in the field than he could ever hope to handle.

When things got desperate on the Eastern Front, he tried an invasion of France, admittedly prematurely. I'd gotten real careless and left it lightly garrisoned, so he took Brest and pushed east. By that time, the situation on the Eastern Front was pretty well in hand, since I'd gotten to the east edge, so I started opping units back to France. Took a while, but I eventually destroyed his entire force and pushed him back into the sea. And that was that.