Blashy Proved Wrong, Jollyguy As Allies Goes 2 for 3 Against Axis Heavyweights

[Jollyguy]

Terif won his game as Axis.

Terif played his usual flawless game. What he did was induce Iraq by taking Syria, then placed two airfleets, a level 4 tank, and his paratroop among other units on the Iranian border. Then around Russia entering he took Iran with a motorized corp, and Baku and their oilfield with his tank, the airfleets, and his paratroop. I had a 2 AT and IW corp there, but it didn't stand a chance against that level 4 tank.

In Russia proper he just bulled forward. And when I tried to counter his Caucusses incursion he just retreated to the Iranian mountains. It was basically a raid, but threw me off balance. Then he hit Vichy France, and it was clear that with the start of minor collecting that he would win.

Learned as usual, you always do playing the better players, you learn more and faster, which is why I don't mind losing to the premium players, because in the long run it improves your game.

Bob

[Iron Ranger]

"What he did was induce Iraq by taking Syria, then placed two airfleets, a level 4 tank, and his paratroop among other units on the Iranian border. Then around Russia entering he took Iran with a motorized corp, and Baku and their oilfield with his tank, the airfleets, and his paratroop."

This is pritty much a back breaker for the side that 'gets the drop' on the other in this move. In our game I desided to let it slide and pulled my units that were already thier to France. You got first jump on Iran / Iraq and the axis have been in a tail spin the rest of the game. In the game above Terif got the jump on you and ect...... If DOWing Turkey is suck a sure win for Axis perhaps we need to look at this as well in HR's. I really dont like limiting the options people have but if this one 'event' is all it takes to win (granted there are more factors) then this will always be a race. Not bad in comparison to SC1 when it was just the air war race to see who would win 99% of the time.

[Terif]

Caucasus was no more than a diversion in this game and certainly not back breaking since russians did the right thing and operated enough forces there to be able to throw Axis out of this area. In deed it was even a bit overkill with Russia at IW 3, AT 3, HT 3:

3 russian elite tanks and several armies + corps + 2 airfleets against one single german tank, 1 paratrooper and 1 corps on russian soil there .

Fortunately the Iran-Russia border is pretty much the only area in the SC2 world where defence makes sense and is possible. Entrenched in mountains behind a river it is possible to hold the line and so Axis expeditionary forces immediately retreated after their raid to this position.

For the rest of Russia it looked much darker since Stalin decided to defend nearly every city with 2-3 strong units (tanks/armies). But since defence is pretty much impossible in SC 2 V1.02, they were only cannon fodder and good target practice for the german units on their way in the russian interior and a nice mpp drain for Russia .

In May 1942 the last battle occured and with Leningrad, Moskov and Kharkov conquered by Axis, the allied commander surrendered.

Sidenote: before this battle, Russia was 4:1 superior in tanks against Axis (= 4 russian tanks vs 1 german tank) since Germany only built a lot of corps .

P.S.:

Caucasus can only be deciding if one of the both sides makes a huge mistake - otherwise it will always end in a trench warfare at the border river and its mountains since neither side can cross it if the opponent at least has some corps there for defence

[Iron Ranger]

P.S.:

Caucasus can only be deciding if one of the both sides makes a huge mistake - otherwise it will always end in a trench warfare at the border river and its mountains since neither side can cross it if the opponent at least has some corps there for defence

It would take alot of planing, but para units + alot of air might break the dead lock.

[Terif]

It is always the task of a commander to decide on which front to spend the available ressources - if it makes sense is another question :

Sure, with enough airpower it is possible to kill one of the defence units and move into enemy territory, but as fast as you are in, as fast you are out...the invading unit dead and the spot reoccupied by a defender .

Even if you can manage to advance - which often is possible (and happened here) during the initial stage of the invasion when Russia has not enough units - any invasion force can be thrown out when siberians arrive:

Since without Turkey, Axis have no supply in Caucasus and conquered cities only go to strength 3, they can neither reinforce their units deeper into russia nor operate units there - so they are toast if Russia wants this area back.

P.S.

Same the other way around: Since Iraq, Iran and Syria have UK as parent nation, Russia doesn´t get supply if it liberates them, so it has also no chance to move deeper into enemy territory - nevertheless it is better for Axis to simply stop them already at the border.

[Jollyguy]

Now that I didn't know, that the eastmost Caucusses resource hexes can only go to 3 for the Axis w/out Turkey. Other than the Baku area the Caucusses are fairly defensible. Perhaps the Allied player has to make do with an Axis incursion there, and devolop a work around.

In hindsight then I could have operated less to the Caucusses, but that's why you play Terif, to learn. Next time around I'll be Axis, and learn some more.

Bob

[Jollyguy]

Contrary to Blashy‘s assertion that the Allies stand no chance to win, I went two for three as the Allies against the heavyweights all playing the Axis, as Iron Ranger and I both agreed my Allies had better position and we called the game.

My game against Rambo was rooted in diplomacy, but against IR it was primarily one slugfest after another, with some diplomatic help from a Russian readiness boost, but all-in-all it was just one battle after another. There’s also no doubt that IR would have done certain things differently, but so would I…we both learned a great deal about how SC 2 works during this game.

Briefly, following our three epic naval battles around Spain, we both pulled back out west and repaired and re-armed and up-tech’ed. The Russians held the line in central Russia and even took back territory, and then hit Iraq and Iran with about ten motorized units and a paratroop landing in Iran, and then took Amman and Syria. Uncle Joe followed that up with an invasion of Turkey, which surrendered after two turns. IR then launched a limited counter-strike against Syria while at the same time advancing in force in Russia. I think he believed that I would have operated my Middle Eastern force back to Central Russia once Turkey was subdued to meet that advance, but instead I chose to give up territory for time, and repaired them. So, I was able to strike back around Syria and he evacuated west of the Suez. Meanwhile, he took Moscow and the other city across the river to the left of Stalingrad, which was okay IMO as after playing Rambo a couple months ago I realized the Russians are better off pulling back and hitting in force, rather than trying to defend upfront piecemeal and losing units one after the other after the other. Within a few turns I had operated back the bulk of my Mideast force, now at AT and IW 3. I took out his lead tank with three of my corps, plus got three more of his corps, and then set up a defensive line behind the river, and at the same time moved six level four tanks in from the right flank. I figured my level 4 tanks against his mostly level 1 anti-tank corps gave me the advantage, as I could us my cheap level 3 anti-tank corps against his tanks, and my advanced tanks against his screening, under-armed infantry.

Out west IR took Iceland with an amphib’ed corp he had secreted through my much depleted naval screen, and which generated seismic ripples on the American and Canadian mainland, who promptly started a round of corp building. Unbeknownst to Iron Ranger, his Iceland landing also resulted in me evacuating most of my African contingent, as the US needed some fast garrisoning. IR then took Spain, triggering the US Pacific Fleet, which IMO tipped naval balance in the Allies favor. Plus, the Pacific Fleet arrives like the Siberians, fully tech’ed, which in this case was gun laying radar two; anti-sub two; LR two, and advanced aircraft one. I finally took Ireland after about a years delay, following the combined Axis fleet swarming England about a year earlier and sinking my transport meant to subdue those damned Irish and seize the Guineess factory one turn before I was ready to attack. With the Irish seeing things the British way I moved my LR 3 bomber west of Belfast and spotted two Axis subs which had been raiding, but which IR pulled back to port, possibly because of that bug where naval units turn, as his subs rotated in response to my Pacific Fleet and other repaired British naval units, including level 1 anti-sub British BB’s, cinching a noose around him.

IR finished with Spain and took Gibralter, but I kept a US garrison in the African, Spanish city, and also the city west of Tunis, which IR started bombarding with fully repaired German BB’s and screened with at least one sub. Seeing that the pride of the Kreigsmarine was occupied elsewhere I took out a minor corp trying to relieve Brest with six, soon to be seven advanced English and US fighters, plus a level one bomber. The next turn I hit Brest along with my upgraded naval units, arriving from the US now that I had my garrison in place, knocking morale of the Brest corp down to the low teens and its strength down to 5 and the city to 0, and preparing it for invasion the next turn.

So, by the late summer of 1943 we were fighting on all fronts, but IR, looking at the board, realized I was in better position to sustain my momentum, and we called the game.

All-in-all one of the best games I’ve played, and one of the bloodiest. My impressions are that the game still has an Axis bias, but it is not unassailable, and this will probably be chipped away at a bit more in the 1.03 patch. And also contrary to Blashy, I believe soft builds must be activated, which it was during our game, otherwise the US can’t garrison correctly. I don’t see an Axis advantage in regards to cheap corps, as IMO the Russians and US both need to be able to build extra corps to cover themselves, and they benefit from soft builds just as much as the Axis. IMO not having soft builds on actually limits the game.

I also believe new players should realize that if their willing to take their lumps and record their losses and scale the learning curve, that the variability of SC 2 means they too can win against the better players. I never beat Rambo in SC 1 after multiple attempts, and there is no way that I could have beaten Iron Ranger, one of the handful of players that has beaten Terif. What all this says to me is that SC 2 has many, many more moving parts than SC 1 did, making it harder for even the best players to predict all eventualities and cover all bases. With an ample amount of preparation and a little luck, I believe a competent but lesser skilled player could beat a better player sometimes. This could not have happened in SC 1.

I’ve pared down the number of games I have going and await the 1.03 patch. Now if I could only figure out a way to beat Terif I would consider my SC 2 career complete…

Bob

[ August 03, 2006, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Jollyguy ]

[jon_j_rambo]

@Jollyguy --- That Spanish thing hosed me big time! Germany was broke w/o Romania & axis minors!

Rematch, my friend? This time I will send new diplomats into the field, or maybe I'll try to make up some new whacky strategy

Let me know, I do enjoy playing you

-Legend

[Jollyguy]

Jon;

Rematch, of course. But give me some time, I need a sabbatical from all the games I've had going. I'll contact you sometime after the 1.03 patch is released.

Bob

[jon_j_rambo]

That's cool. I'll be able to wrap-up my current schedule & get refreshed. I'll need to take you more seriously & bring my A-game.

[Iron Ranger]

"I never beat Rambo in SC 1 after multiple attempts, and there is no way that I could have beaten Iron Ranger, one of the handful of players that has beaten Terif"

I have never come close to beating Terif, just to set the record straight. Rambo is the only one I know of that has not beaten him due to pure luck (dead tech advances).

Yea I learned alot, Diplo, that Iran has no Garisson unit ect.... Was a good overall game that was really desided in 42 with my loss of control in the Middle east.

[jon_j_rambo]

DragonSlow, Zapp, & Avatar have beaten Yodl in SC. My only claim-to-fame was RACK strategy in SC, but that is a dead method now. My record against Yodl is God awful. I'm more of an entertainer than a player.

"Sir, I'd rather keep my opinions about the Vietnam war to myself. I'm just an entertainer" --- Elvis Presley at a press conference sometime after his '68 Comeback.

[Blashy]

I'm not proved wrong.

a) IronRanger does not have the full experience you do on SC2.

JJvR tried a few out of whack stuff and was not playing to WIN in trying this.

Take Terif vs. Terif and the Axis side will ALWAYS win.

Plus the fact that the Axis can actually win by conquering all is extremely unhistorical, it never could have happened, only of the Allies GAVE them the world.

[Iron Ranger]

Axis will always have the advange when people have low experence, perhaps even equal experiance due to its ability to 'have the initiave' for much of the game. 99% of the people quit once they feel they are slightly down = allies quit alot when they are not behind that bad.

And offen people here are looking at two different views. Is it balanced or is it historical? In trying to make it balanced (and sc 2 is much better then sc 1 ever was) you lose some of the historical aspencts.

Take the dreaded 'Turkey' move. Its so bad I was told we have to have a HR on no DOW on Turkey by Axis. Then its been modified abit. Historical? Perhaps, Russia made a bid for Turkey in 45-46... AFTER they had joined the Allies.

TBH I feel that Turkey should have a Minor HQ (the leader at the time was the general from Gallipii sp). A navy, and at least one armored unit.

But thats nether here or there, Jolly won 2-3 games as Allies through good play. So you can win as allies I think he was trying to say, you just need to understand the scripts... same as the axis.

[ August 03, 2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]

[Iron Ranger]

"And also contrary to Blashy, I believe soft builds must be activated, which it was during our game, otherwise the US can’t garrison correctly. "

I disagree with this, I didnt buy any cheap corps as Axis, and a overall limit on what you can build is a must I feel for this game. Your force pool should be set, and you live within it. Now weather the present force pools are right is another matter.

[jon_j_rambo]

I had won so many games in a row, I haven't been bringing my A-game to the field lately.

[Jollyguy]

As to force pools and soft build limits, one or the other needs to change for the US, because as it is now there is still a real risk of invasion of the US mainland. IMO the capabilities of "The Arsenal of Democracy" are still woefully underrepresented.

Perhaps the US should be able to build garrison units similar to the Canadian and Iceland bombers, which can't leave their respective territories, but serve the valuable function of holding a resource hex. This would allow the US to deploy more combat units forward.

Let me tell you, after IR DOW'ed an empty Iceland, as Denmark had not been brought into the game, he could have raided North America fairly easily, as probably 80% of my naval units had been sent to the bottom. Perhaps I could have intercepted his transports with the remnants of my repaired navy and the Pacific Fleet, but perhaps not. There are what, six cities in North America not counting the oil hexes, and the US can only build three or four corps? Whats left over to project into Europe? IMO a determined Axis player could go toe-to-toe with the RN with the combined German/Italian navies early in the game, and then escort a sizeable raiding force to the American shores. I guess this should be a viable Axis strategy as we are playing a game here, not repeating history, but IMO it should be a bit more difficult.

Bob

[Iron Ranger]

Your forgetting that the US has a Home Gaurd that pops up if its invaded. No build Q, full tech - HQ included.

Yes yes that was my overall plan but I scraped it after my transports sat off of Iceland for close to a year due to continus mud in Eroupe.

[Jollyguy]

Ah, the Home Guard, I stand corrected then as I had forgotten that.

Bob

[Liam]

It's true about Experience, I've faced 2 Axis opponents and I really destroyed them in a matter of a few minutes. One case my French did too much damage to a overambitious kid. Another PanzerLeaguer got beat by USSR, he was unprepared for IW3 and Heavy Tanks 3.. I recall a game vs Rambo I played, very first one, I walked into USSR and the difference between IW 1 and 3 was so huge it may have been the deciding factor of the game. I didn't outproduce the Allies, but I had more land and air and at the time an I was smashing through USSR and would've taken it. When those IW3 and Heavy Tanks came it was all over... Several cases of this have occurred afterwards. You almost have to have IW3 more important than IT/Production tech by 1941 as Axis and Allies... UK can be taken by 3 IW3 corps and 1 Tank...lots of fighters and bombers...

I tried on Terif, as Axis, the North African manuever hurt my morale. I lost I don't know 6 ships, several land units. My units became bogged down in a war of attrittion. He used the Rock as a kill Zone. I placed my units in the wrong places and underestimated what the UK can do.. and my whole overall strategy was flawed. I surrendered more out of self loathing..

As Allies, he made every perfect Axis move. Cutting off oil in the Caucasus through Iran, Smashing my Russians. Not waiting too long for me to get Readiness and build up for a defense, very very important.. I have managed to only delay him at Moscow a little.. I doubt I have a chance so against an experienced player Allies I feel are underdogs..

Though Rambo in our recent game is proving that the Russians if fed enough MPPs are dangerous.. I am uncertian if it won't become just a bloodfest on the Eastern Front. They've got Tech and Numbers... and they're using it quite well.

[Colin I]

Bob,

The US home guard matters. In our game I had Italian units heading for the US from Nortjh Africa. Fortunately remembered the US trigger so aborted the raid; it would have been counter productive.

Colin

[hellraiser]

Bob, you only play PBEM ? If you go for tcp, maybe we can play a game this weekend. Seems you're a rising star here

[Jollyguy]

Liam;

Actually I prefer tcp/pbem games, starting with tcp if possible to jumpstart things, then pbem during the work week, then tcp Friday evening, when, armed with a few beers the inhibitions of my profession (accountant) are unleashed.

I'm wrapping up a handful of games now but would like to play you sometime after 1.03 is realeased. I'll e-mail you or vice versa. If you remember we played a 1.0 game, I think the first for both of us. If I remember correctly you won after a huge Kursk type battle in Russia that you got the better of.

Plus, this weekend I'm tied up with my company's annual picnic and chores around the house and errands.

Bob

[Jollyguy]

Colin;

Given the breadth of our game it would have been likely decisive if you would have landed those Italians in the US and triggered the Home Guard. In my game with Iron Ranger, after he invaded Spain, the Pacific Fleet tipped the naval balance to the Allies and I was able to take control of the North Atlantic.

Bob

[Jollyguy]

Hellraiser;

Oh, got things mixed up when I responded to Liam in my post. Yea, tcp/pbem would be great, like I said to Liam, I'm waiting for 1.03.

Bob