Blashy Vs Jollyguy, AAR

[Jollyguy]

The Axis, in a continuingly obvious pattern of picking on Muslim nations, what with bribing Goddam Hussain, then attacking Syria, just DOW'ed Turkey. Of course, the only remaining non-Axis, Muslim nation in the region, Iran, became alarmed.

He took the eastern city with two tanks and an army and Italian army, and Istanbul out west also fell, and the US entered. This finally accounts for his remaining armor, as only one panzer unit was showing itself, around Leningrad. And speaking of Leningrad, it finally succumbed to repeated combined attacks. Other Soviet units in the area pullback.

Meanwhile, around England, Blashy tries to bait me into committing the RN near Scapa Flow. He sank a BB up there in port, but I refused to bite, and instead started hitting Brest again. And, in an exhibition of negligence, the next turn the RN loses another (5 strength) BB. This is what happened: Orders were issued by the Admiralty to pull that BB out. But then my own High Command, the better-half, issued the following orders: "It's time to take the dogs out." Being married 20 years, I quickly realized that the better half's orders needed to be acted upon first, and that was done. But in the confusion of orders between the Admiralty and the better-half High Command closer to home, well, the BB didn't sail. Axis subs made sure it visited the bottom quickly.

But the RAF exacted some damage the next turn on a German BB, my bomber being so experienced now that it didn't suffer any damage, followed up by an attack by a fighter. The BB didn't get sunk, but must be fairly damaged. So, Intelligence reports the combined German/Italian navy is near England, but the Brits believe the combined RN/USN/RAF can handle them, not to mention that the USAF also needs to be factored in.

Bob

[Blashy]

The Russians are determined to protect the Caucausus and hopefully defend Turkey by sending massive troops down south, killing one Italian army.

The Capital of Turkey is hit once and next turn it should fall under the attack of 3 AFs, 2 Corps and 2 tanks.

More troops are sent near the Turkish - Russian border, along with a bomber .

On the Russian mainland two heavily motorized Corps capture the vital city of Archangel and the other city south of it (north of Moscow), both were left unmaned. Eliminating the convoy to USSR.

The two Russia mines and the city next to them down south are seeing a build up of German troops. The city was attacked with one troop.

The Axis navy is now resting nice in German waters, it has arrived safely and with no losses. Preparations for actions are underway.

[Dragonheart]

I wonder why most players put so many efforts to take Leningrad. IMO it´s a waste of time and it´s messing up the axis timeschedule which is ..

-1941 border cities,southern mines,city east of the mines, moskov

-1942 Rostov, Stalingrad

-1943 Sverdlovsk

If weather is bad and things running nasty you will need one year more.

Leningrad does not have the importance like in SC 1 where it is important as ressource center due linked Finland, to penentrate deeper into russia. Also the 10 MPP in comparison to 20 MPP´s doesnt justify any efforts to capture it. If you cut it off this should be enough but this depends if the russian player is going for finland.

I dont have the patch yet but i dont think that it would change the overall strategy. Just my 2 cents.

[Blashy]

You take Leningrad that's -10 mpps for Russia and +10 mpps from Finland and another 5 MPPs from Leningrad. So a total of +25 in favor of the Axis by taking one city, that is significant.

Leningrad is easy to take with a bomber and AFs.

[Dragonheart]

One cant see everything MPP wise. And by cutting off Leningrad and linking Finnland behind Leningrad the difference is only 10 MPP.

[hellraiser]

DH, if things start to stink - weather, rolls, poor planning you can always get skando and with leningrad linking Finland and Skando, well, you got one of a hell mpp basis

You say '42 Stalingrad? - you gotta be kidding me ... I would like to see how you take Stalingrad in 42 from me

@Blashy - you don't need to waste cash on a bomber for Leningrad, your BBs and cruisers have the same effect

[Blashy]

A bomber is FAR from a waste of cash in SC2, those things are lethal on the offensive.

[Dragonheart]

Well, so far i had never probs with taking stalingrad...and dont forget i play with HT 2 and IW 1 limit so it´s even harder to take.

But i can imagine if you consider stalingrad as a key in the game it will be a though battle.

A bomber for germany is nice and a matter of your taste i would rather buy two AF´s instead of one bomber.

But i have to admit bombing a city to zero supply and then taking is making sense.

[hellraiser]

@DH - yes Stalingrad is a very good defensive position - get those engineers to do some work around and Axis will spend an eternity taking the city. It is not that it cannot be taken, but slim chances in 42. Unless you attack very very early in 41 which is double edged mpp wise.

@Blashy - bombers rock, I agree. But I would rather spend cash on filling my axis' ranks with common troopers rather than a bomber. Bomber is king in low supply areas like Africa, good on offensive and on defensive as well - f*cks up the supply pretty badly.

I guess it is a matter of preference after all.

[Jollyguy]

The Axis (Blashy) made some good moves the past turn. First, a motorization II corp swooped down an empty Murmansk, which I did initially have garrisoned, but when I saw the Axis paratroop in Turkey I thought I was safe and had operated him down to the front. So, in the future, the lesson is to not leave Murmansk ungarrisoned if Finland is still Axis. He also took another undefended city, which shows the power of motorization II in the broad expanses of Russia. I chalk these mistakes up to learning curve, all part of trying the game on for size. Mistakes like these are seldom repeated twice, and I throw them out so other players can mull them over.

Here is a summary of the Turkish campaign, which I just created another thread for:

In my Turkish campaign I was able to amphip over a Russian corp to the center Turkish city, and then another, which Blashy initially had tried to isolate with two tanks. What he did then was have his two tanks turn west toward Ankara to join up with two corps moving east, and eventually took out my Turkish corp near the isthums, and moved another German corp across the isthmus to fully concentrate on Ankara. I advanced on the Eastern city, where he went on the defensive. I haven’t looked at my latest turn, but IMO it is likely that Ankara will fall and the Turks surrender, as he has three airfleets around Istanbul in addition to the three corps and two tanks, so I just don’t see the Turks surviving another turn. Once they surrender he can start operating/moving east with a substantial force.

IMO there is a good chance that the Turkish campaign will determine the outcome of the war. And also IMO we’re still beta testing here, as I’m sure Blashy wanted to try this Turkish variant out. As in SC 1, creases in strategy are always experimented with, and can be expected to be tested along the way toward game balance. I’ve asked Terif’s input as if I did something wrong I’m more than willing to learn. But in SC 1 it was usually the Allies that got to DOW Turkey first, giving them the strategic initiative. In SC 2 it will likely be the other way around. Although, as I write, I guess the Russian could do a pre-emptive Turkish invasion when Syria is invaded and Iraq joins the Axis? Perhaps in hindsight that’s the answer? I believe I actually might have had enough time to do this during early Barbarossa, as I had multiple units and my sole HQ in the Caucusses expecting an invasion from that direction, but Blashy held off for months, by which time I had moved my units toward his main invasion force. A pre-emptive attack done correctly would gain the Russians the far eastern and center city, and allow them to garrison Turkey fairly well, and also threaten Iraq. Anyway, I welcome the discussion. The downside is it stretches the Russians out, as trying to defend not only the Turkish but also the Caucuss front would require a fair number of troops.

Out west the build-up continues, while Blashy feinted and retreated with his combined German/Italian fleet, which he now has all up by Denmark.

Bob

[Jollyguy]

I agree with Blashy on Axis bombers, wielded correctly they are potentially powerful adjuncts to the Axis armada. One thing that Axis players will need to adapt to in SC 2 is that the old SC 1 blitzkrieg in Russia, where you try to knock the Russians out ASAP and by 1942 if possible, likely is not the best strategy in SC 2. In SC 2 more planning is involved, and the strengths and weaknesses of varying units offer new capabilities, and the Russians can hang on longer.

With that in mind I think I also agree with Blashy on Leningrad. Depending on how the game unfolds, Leningrad can be an important city to take. The only thing I would have done different than Blashy is to swing east and envelop it and knock the city down to five ASAP. I think he was worried that I would chop off any move east, but all I had there was one corp to help keep the city connected to Moscow and thus up to 10 strength. I had the bulk of my force meeting his main invasion force, with the remainder waiting in the Caucusses, as after he took Syria and Iraq joined, I was concerned he was going to go after the Caucusses and/or Turkey, which he did do eventually.

The fact that in 1.02 Blashy’s Axis were able to overcome my infantry weapons 3 and anti-tank level 3, fully entrenched troops, and take Leningrad, and attack Turkey, still shows that the Axis pack a powerful punch. I’m not complaining, as things will evolve, and Allied counters will develop, but it does show that the game has moved more toward balance, not out of balance in favor of the Allies as some have suggested. Can you imagine the Allies trying to counter Blashy’s moves in 1.0, without the improvements to the Allied side that were made in 1.01 and 1.02?

And also, a key to the Axis attack in this game is that he didn’t wait until Russian readiness was in the 80s or 90s. He attacked in the summer of 1941, which is somewhat historical, and which kept my Russians from building up fully. IMO this is an odds on Axis move, as they have the experienced units. To wait much longer allows the Russians to buildup, and likely gain the advantage of mud and winter. This is also a change from SC 1, when weather had no effect, and the only thing you monitored was Russian readiness.

Bob

[Iron Ranger]

nice AAR, and the comments on weather / timing seam spot on

[Jollyguy]

Okay, I called this game, Axis victory. Basically an Axis Turkish invasion is a game killer until patched. Blashy and I chatted, and he is right, the Russians could hold on for quite awhile. But taking Turkey moves the strategic initiative permenently to the Axis. I would have to retreat and set up a defensive line in the Caucusses, which means he would consolidate Turkey, then he takes Iran with his paratroop already in the vicinity because I can't hang around down there. Then he turns back to Greece and Yugoslavia, etc., etc. I've played enough minor collecting games with Rambo and others to know where it goes eventually.

So, in my games I will insist on no Turkish invasion until patched, as Terif as done in Panzerliga, and will not do so in the games where I'm Axis.

Bob