New AAR with default settings.

[Blashy]

It seems to me you did not follow it very closely.

Had the Russians stayed put with their 6 lvl 2 tanks (2 more coming), all entrenched, the Axis would most likely not have the run of the field.

Plus, the med was fragile, no units on 6 cities, syria, tobruk and the city south of it, all 3 Egyptian cities. 5 could have been easily covered, but still Italy only has one unit on each city, no extra manpower except for it's navy.

The allies should have launched attacks the minute the Russian offensive was shown to be a failure. But they were too patient waiting for better tech, which they did not need to be on the offensive.

And I did say at one point I thought Germany was going to loose, even after the Russian failed offensive.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Like the convoy screen. Where tho are the southern

convoys bringing stuff from Asia and Africa? Earlier

IIRC it was said that convoy routes are player-

adjustable, correct?

That is caused by the surrender of Egypt and the pro Axis coup in Iraq. No more supply.

[jon_j_rambo]

Sounds good, great job Blashy. What's the next campaign? Speaking of campaigns, what are they?

[Edwin P.]

Blashy, great AAR. Much appreciated. Great screen shots and descriptions of what was going on.

A few questions though;

a. After the USSR and the UK surrenders (which I read earlier is an Axis Victory), does the Axis player have the option to continue the battle against the USA?

And if they do, could a script be written that gives the USA more Mpps (by boosting its productivity to X00%) as it would focus all of its efforts on defeating the forthcoming Axis invasion, as opposed to continuing the fight against the Japanese.

ie: America offers to sign a peace treaty and accept Axis dominance in Europe. Does the Axis accept?

Yes - Popup: Axis Victory,(Game Ends)

No - Popup: America signs peace treaty with Japanese.(US gains access to Pacific Fleet and productivity of American industrial resources doubles - max 360%)

b. Simarily, if the Allies defeat the Axis is there an option for a Soviet vs Western Allies conflict?

The answer to both question is probably no, but I just had to ask.

[ November 12, 2005, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[J P Wagner]

Thanks Blashy for this Hotseat AAR, though of course my decision to buy the game was set the moment SC2 was announced, it will go a long way in helping newcomers decide...thanks again...

[Bill101]

Thanks for the AAR Blashy. It was very interesting and has definitely whetted my appetite for the new game.

In SC1 the possession of Iraq plays a large part in determining the outcome. As the Axis will now be able to sway Iraq by diplomacy into joining them, do you feel that it will have the same significance as before or is it too early to tell?

Another thing I'd like to know is how important is anti-aircraft research now? As we know it could also be a large factor in SC1 so I'd be interested to know how it works now.

Thanks

[Blashy]

Edwin, it's game over, Axis win if UK and USSR are done.

[Blashy]

In SC1 the possession of Iraq plays a large part in determining the outcome. As the Axis will now be able to sway Iraq by diplomacy into joining them, do you feel that it will have the same significance as before or is it too early to tell?

If you get Egypt as Axis, which IMHO is so far a virtual assurance since us as players send the proper supplies, unlike Hitler. With that said, Iraq eventually does an pro Axis coup, it goes from 20% Allies to 80% Axis. You need diplomacy to get it to join. Or you can invade it, easily done of course diplomatic consequences will ensue(sp?).

In short, it's no longer a "must" have.

Another thing I'd like to know is how important is anti-aircraft research now? As we know it could also be a large factor in SC1 so I'd be interested to know how it works now.

AA was a bug in SC. That is no longer an issue in SC2.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Like the convoy screen. Where tho are the southern

convoys bringing stuff from Asia and Africa? Earlier

IIRC it was said that convoy routes are player-

adjustable, correct?

That is caused by the surrender of Egypt and the pro Axis coup in Iraq. No more supply. </font>

[Blashy]

The convoy is around from Egypt and Iraq only. If they are under Axis control, that's it.

[vveedd]

Well, here is what I saw in this AAR. I saw very bad Allied player (no hard feelings to anyone) and some very good moves from Axis and when you have situation like that you can expect only this ending. Actually, this game was very, very similar to one of my SC1 PBEM game when my opponent was the same skilful player as Allies. So I have lots of questions for Allied player and/or for Hubert:

1.How many MPP you invest in new technology as US and USSR when they were neutral?

2.How many units you bought as US and USSR when they were neutral?

3.Did you invest any MPP as UK to diplomacy to speed up US or USSR entry to war?

4.Is it really smart move to withdraw French troops from Maginot line and does this units have its own supply when they are in Maginot line?

5.Why you did not evacuate some French units to UK?

6.Why you did not put your tanks in USSR cities if they are so powerful like Blashy said?

7.Did Soviet units get some bonus or Germany units get some penalty in winter and if they get why you didn’t use this?

[J P Wagner]

Keep in mind that Blashy was playing with himself (uh, hotseat play that is) and was perfoming these turns quickly to provide us with a fast overview of the game. I would not take too much stock in which side won and how it reflects on the game at this point...

[Blashy]

1.How many MPP you invest in new technology as US and USSR when they were neutral?

Enough to get the proper tech, except Russia invested too late in anti tank weapons, that hurt for a while.

The only big difference was LR which UK had at 3. While Germany was late to get LR1, but they had better planes and it was not a factor.

2.How many units you bought as US and USSR when they were neutral?

USSR did alot of unit building in terms of heavy tanks, they had 6 at level 2 tech. And all their units everywhere had HQ support, that was good.

3.Did you invest any MPP as UK to diplomacy to speed up US or USSR entry to war?

No, it's 150mpp a shot, seemed expensive.

Allies invested no MPPs in diplomacy.

4.Is it really smart move to withdraw French troops from Maginot line and does this units have its own supply when they are in Maginot line?

We all know how useless the maginot line was in WW2. If Axis DoW Benelux ASAP after Poland, those troops can be in trouble. You'll have to spend MPPs to OP them to Paris, if you start right away you don't spend those MPPs, will see more as the game goes mainstream and proper strats are discovered.

5.Why you did not evacuate some French units to UK?

Because in SC2, even if you troops are in UK, there is only a 20% chance they will be free french. Historically virtually all troops just gave up and went to colonies or too Vichy. It is a much better representation of the french mindset at the time.

6.Why you did not put your tanks in USSR cities if they are so powerful like Blashy said?

They were at first, but a counter attack was tried to see if they could really cause damage at leve 2. Remember this is game is new to beta testers and we are trying different bizarre strats.

7.Did Soviet units get some bonus or Germany units get some penalty in winter and if they get why you didn’t use this?

Soviet Winter causes a shortage of supply for Germany and serious hinderence to moving. It gives Russia a chance to regroup. That is often how you use it, to regroup.

[Blashy]

Finally, this is beta and even vs. my best friend we don't play competitive, we try new ideas that were not possible in SC.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by J P Wagner:

Keep in mind that Blashy was playing with himself (uh, hotseat play that is)

Eh...well guess Some like it hot

[JerseyJohn]

Terrific AAR by any standards, Blashy. Thanks for showing us some things about the new system, you did a great job of it.

-- Kuni, uh, hmmm, never mind

[Blashy]

Thanks, I had never done AARs in the past.

First crack at it.

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

Blashy

Are Russian partisans still active after the USSR surrenders?

anyone?

[vveedd]

Thanks for all answers Blashy. I have only two more and we can close this AAR and start a new one.

1.)How many MPP you sent from US to UK and USSR via Land Lease?

2.)Does US entry to war is increased with each Axis sub attack to convoys? If not, it should be - Hubert?

By the way, did you play AAR against yourself or against friend? I recommended Bill 101 as Allies. He beat me every time.

Hi Bill 101. How are you?

[Liam]

seems the Allies needed to hurt the German bank a little more am I right Blashy? Egypt is pretty much indefensible unless you delay France as in SC1 terms and to boot you need more to just wipe out a few MPPs here and there and prepare your troops to hit Normandy force the Axis to split in two. Two Fronts = Axis Death... Should be the focal point of any hotseat or beta match in the future

[Bill101]

Hi Vveed, I'm fine thanks and hope you are too. I'm looking forward to the new game and if you want a game of it with me when it's out let me know.

[Blashy]

1.)How many MPP you sent from US to UK and USSR via Land Lease?

It was left by default for this game, I think it showed around 10-15mpps, it was not much.

2.)Does US entry to war is increased with each Axis sub attack to convoys? If not, it should be - Hubert?

That is unecessarry and it would simply kill a possible battle of the Atlantic, no smart Axis player would do anything to increase USA %.

Are Russian partisans still active after the USSR surrenders?

When USSR surrendered in this game I saw the partisans disapear as well.

seems the Allies needed to hurt the German bank a little more am I right Blashy?

Yes and no, the crucial error in this game was the russians going on the offensive instead of staying entrenched. It was a very costly maneuver. USSR was seriously producing units and should have played the war of attrition, until Germany's new troops showed up with less technology and experience. Things might have been different

Egypt is pretty much indefensible

Indeed it is, and as it should be. Why I say this? Because most smart Axis player won't act like Hitler and send minimal units to Egypt, you'll send everything you have and take it. In this game UK did a find job of delaying the fall of Egypt, remember the Axis could not start a surprise Barbarossa and until that Russian counter attack, they were moving much to slow. All because the Egypt / Malta resistance kept 4 AFs and 2 tanks away from Russia for a few turns.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

IIRC (the grogs here can correct me) the problem

wasn't a stubborn Hitler refusing to send more

troops but a poor sea supply situation with the

Italian merchant navy. When you consider that the

trucks which carried the fuel would often burn a

significant portion of it en route to the front,

and I doubt the Axis could have supported much more

troops (esp. tanks) than they actually did. Add in

British interdiction of the Italian convoys on top

of that.

Other games have simmed this in various ways-

World in Flames (or was it Clash of Steel?) IIRC

limited you to one armored German unit in NA.

[Desert Dave]

Valid points all around John DiFool.

1) GErman Fleigerkorps X conducted a bombing campaign against Malta that was every bit as intense as "The Battle of Britain."

So devastating that UK had to keep her subs underwater during daylight hours so they wouldn't be annihilated.

So devastating that for long stretches UK had only 5 or 6 TOTAL # of interceptors on the island.

UK Carriers were used later to ferry some Spitfires, but that was AFTER "F-K X" had been reassigned from Sicily to North AFrika in November of 1941.

2) The Malta Effect is designed to reduce supply. This re-presents the "Malta Strike Force" which included planes, subs, and other patrol craft.

Perhaps? We'll need to bump up the % chance that Malta will interdict supply to North Afrika?

We'll see, as testing progresses.

3) Here are some of the MANY determinative factors in North Afrika...

a) Lack of fuel, as you've mentioned.

Rommel's use of 88s as Anti-Tank.

c) Churchill's increased willingness to "run the guantlet in order to get Armor and other units to Egypt faster.

d) Eventual Air Superiority by the Allies.

e) Gradually more units introduced from the Commonwealth countries of Australia, New Zealand, India and South AFrika.

OK.

Not a problem.

All of these can be "tweaked."

We are NOT through with the "high-wire balancing act" by any means.

Either here or in Russia or WRT to USA's potential, and actual materiel outlay.

But, we're getting there! :cool:

Blashy has done a tremendous job introducing many of the new! features of SC-2 Blitkreig!

He keeps us "old grogs" on our toes because he is a creative and risk-taking player who finds all sorts of unique ways to "break the tried & true" S&T.

There will be more.

Different things in store.

[SeaMonkey]

Nice AAR Blashy, quite revealing, good for the game evolution.

Russian weather effects were mentioned as far as hindering movement, mud = 1/2 AP.

I'm wondering is the same true for winter conditions? Also is there any combat effects? In SC attacking across rivers = 1/2 strength for attacker, so in winter when rivers are frozen over is that combat penalty negated?