The Longest Day....Not!

[The Great Santini]

Is it set in stone that the Allies have to return to Europe through France, more specifically at Brest? I presume the specific reason is the airpower support in Englnd. But don't German fortifications and German air fleets neutralize that? And since the Germans are expecting them there isn't a defeated D-Day a potential gamebreaker? Why not go ashore in the Baltic or recapture Africa and hit the Axis somewhere in the Meditteranean? It seems a lot less risky.

[Blashy]

Nah, you get tons of time to bring All of France and Brussels to 0 supply with bombers before DDay and your AF is for a long time left alone to keep Brest and if well prepared Bordeaux as well without a unit on it by constantly killing them.

So when you land even with fortifications, the enemy is still not in excellent supply and can not operate troops right in your face.

While you never used up MPPs for operating and transporting troops somewhere else.

If done right, DDay via France is always the least expensive and best option. But not the only option.

[Terif]

France may be the easiest place to land for Allies, but it is also the easiest place to defend for Axis .

So if Axis know how to defend their territory, it will usually be a bloodbath for Allies if they start their invasion there against a prepared enemy.

Allies have lots of other possibilities to attack Axis: Scandinavia, Baltic, Denmark, Portugal, Gibraltar-Spain, Cassablanca-Africa, Egypt, Greece, Sicily, northern Italy etc...

Usually they are also the better options as Axis can´t defend them all - you only need to find the weak spots of the enemies and invade there. Never invade where the enemy awaits you (like France) unless you are superior at least 2:1 in numbers or you will be thrown back into the ocean with high casualties...

France and western Germany are perfect for Axis to defend. They have lots of cities to operate units into and Allies never will manage to bomb them all out of order at the same time - if necessary Axis always can use a further away city to operate in and start the counterattack a turn later...

Nevertheless France is a good option if either Axis is weak on the ground and busy somewhere else or if you do a late D-day (1943+) when Allies have built most of their forces and Allies are superior in firepower to what the Axis can muster.

But that´s seldomly the case and in fact, my Allies nearly never launched their main invasion via France during the last 100 games...maybe 5 out of them or so...the rest they invaded at one of the many other possible places and seldomly twice in a row at the same spot against the same enemy player .

[Blashy]

The Allies can bomb all of France, Brussels and the first 3 German cities under 5 of supply prior to landing, which means Axis have to operate from their Capital or Italy or Spain.

That is the key and not many players do it before landing.

[Bromley]

It'd take a while to build all 6 bombers, so it presumably becomes apparent what's going to happen in time for the Axis to operate in before the cities are all hit to <5.

Of course they take the risk that it's just a diversion, but even if it was originally intended as such, failure by the Axis to operate in in time would likely change that.

[Terif]

Yep, Bomber strategy needs time and Allies can´t build ground troops for those mpps spent for bombers. So D-day will start very late and Axis have all available forces built. No need to operate in any more since the counterforces will already stand ready in France...

[Liam]

D-Day in the West is very difficult decision. It's primarily due to the fact we're all use to France, historically it was the #1 option, it has some symbolism and a perfect location to strike out at all of Germany's resources...

The problem as stated it's also the most protected point and it's only possible to bomb out most of the French cities, Vichy-Northern Italy, Southern Germany are usually open. If Switzerland is in tact that is also open. Even Spain can be a place to slowly manuever troops from operations...

You think of that and you realize that having 4 bombers minimum with advanced technology, the cost and the perfect timing to use them, you'll also need good Fighter coverage and plenty of time. Which will alert the Axis to your possible strategy way ahead of time! Really it's just not practical to use Brest as the Launching Pad as it was before unless as Terif stated you know that the Axis are pretty battered up anyways on the ground.

I have had few successful Normandy Invasions. I find Scandanavia, Spain, Italy in most of my games a kinder option.

There is one alternative here, the fact is that Performing Normandy will force the Axis to operate West, and regardless of losing your invasion force, if you supply it the Western Allies can rebuild it. At the same time that you perform an all out Normandy, Invade from the East... You will lose ground on either side but ultimately you will draw enough Axis resources to one side or the other to lose enough real estate and iniative to compensate..

It's called attrittion D-Day, instead of bleeding the Russians you turn your Yanks and Limeys into BodyBags, on suicide mission

[TaoJah]

I prefer landing in Spain myself, but I have been thinking about the bombing-option. You only need to bomb three cities from 8 to 4 to slow down the operatings, which doesn't take 6 bombers to do, three is enough. And you already start with one, so...

Add two paratroopers to destroy some fortifications and you got a good landing in France, IMHO.

Spain works too, of course, especially from Casablanca.

I also looked into Greece and northern Italy (I succeeded with this once against a human player), but it's hard to do if he keeps the Italian navy around. In my next games I think I'll try he African approach with my full UK navy there as support : invade in Vichy / northern Italy and see where he breaks.

Anyway, as other said : the first choice you got to make is what the goal is for your D-Day : is it to actually get into Germany ? Or just to take Paris ? Or just to draw German troops west and let the Russian do the work ?

I prefer the Russian-route, altough I got to admit I don't have succes with it against human players, they always wipe out my allied D-Day and then wipe out my Russians, lol.

[Blashy]

You get two bombers for free and you only need one other and at most level 3 bombers and you can use 1 bomber to keep 3-4 locations constantly under 4 of supply. So that is 9-12 locations.

Still, the bombers need to be less expensive as they take too much damage in regards to how they dish out and it takes away from other troops. The Allies did not have a problem having bombers, afs and ground troops in WW2, while in SC2 as it stands you have to make a choice.

The Allies are severely "gimped" in the default scenario compared to what they actually produced in WW2. That is a whole other discussion and the default scenario is made so the game is 50/50 of winning for both sides.

[Terif]

Yep, in SC2 you have no unlimited ressources and therefore have to make choices .

Bomber strategy also works and is cost efficient, but it depends on the situation and the opponent if it is successful - in any case this is a long term strategy .

Allies have lots of possibilities to launch their attack against fortress Europe...yesterday just a game ended where my Allies used a multi-invasion strategy :

4 main invasions with HQ support and heavy stuff (armies, tanks, planes) took place in:

- Spain via Gibraltar

- Sicily + southern part of the boot

- France via Brest

- and Northwest Germany from Denmark-Hamburg

2 small invasions with light forces were aimed against:

- northern Italy

- and Albania/Yugoslavia

Simultaneously Russia counterattacked around Kharkov and invaded Poland at Königsberg...an entire task force with tank, armies and several corps got annihilated, no russian survivors except for the HQ ...but in the end Axis had to surrender after a last bloodbath at Kharkov - they would have been able to stop the russians, but not western Allies any more after they established all their beachheads .

Here a little screenshot of the warmap :

[ May 03, 2007, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Liam]

I was a part of this Bloodbath, as the Axis Side...

Indeed this is where the Allies utilized Multiple landing sites and confusing the Axis as to where the main thrust was going to be in the West. However it didn't much matter the Allies had already slipped into the Baltic via the Straights in Denmark and crushed the Baltic Fleet and I had foolishly gambled the Italian Fleet at Taranto trying to lower the strength of the RN... It is essential that the Axis utilized their Fleets to defend and support their missions not attempt to dominate seas! Rarely can she have naval domination. Doing this Terif had managed Naval Domination in both of my backyards, able to perform any sort of amphibious mission with little or no risk to his land forces making far away missions on Axis soil. I had no counter weapons, regardless he held North Africa and took Sweden-Finland and the MiddleEast turning the tide of Power toward the Allies.

The Russians in this match were formidable and when I had launched Barbarossa I got bogged down in entrenched Red units behind rivers. This is goes with the ole saying "Don't attack a fixed fortification headon!" Even still I put up a decent fight, but it gained no ground, a few key locations where Russain attrittion killed German Experience and Airpower... 2 units to my every 1 unit, trading is a key component and knowing where I would strike!

Bombers played no role vs me and rarely do! I know that they are powerful weapons that can in a tactical situation payoff, but actually are worthless as a strategic weapon if a Player counters them. Heavy Bombers deliver more pain, BUT as of yet do not possess more body armor when upgraded, an Ahistorical portion of the game. I think we should either make them Faster, bristling with more MGs, or more armored when you upgrade, better defending from Flak and Enemy Fighters! Plus Countermeasures to air defense...An interdicted Bomber or one that hits a high AA defense target will be damaged a great deal and may be out of service a turn, so all this talk of Endless City Leveling is untrue, even base defense many of these cities can rebuild and refit...and there a lot! of cities and Capitols in Western Europe.

You will more than likely lose with a Bomber strategy vs a Player who knows it's comming... It is a possibility and I think it neat but not practical. Like U-boats, who really uses them?

Only vs Inexperienced foes

[Blashy]

Bombers and subs need to be lower in cost to be considered a valid option.

Test Bombers at 175 and Subs at 125 with ASW at 50, you'll be very impressed, even vs. the lowly AI.

[Terif]

The problem is not the cost of bombers and subs - they are a valid option already and lowering the costs only unbalances the game and will result in crazy "killing the Royal Navy" and "bomb Europe to hell" games... .

Bombers and subs are already possible, but as with most of the other strategies: only if you know how to use them and plan long term...especially for subs you need the right opportunity and time while bombers are more for the long games...thing is most players don´t go for the long war but prefer the short success or defeat - and short term both sides first need ground troops. In the long games bombers are powerful weapons and their current cost more than justified - players only need to be patient and take the time to build and use them...but you can´t expect to have them all already in 1941/42 – even pretty historic here... .

In the end how it is now you can also go for either subs or bombers - they are both working strategies, but neither better nor worse than other strategies...just how it should be . You could lower the costs of them and make them the number one choice...would be perhaps fun for a while but then become boring when Allies would only be building bombers then and Axis only countless subs ...

At the moment many, many different strategies are possible and have no real advantage above each other so you have the free choice – let´s keep it that way . Situation and opportunity as well as the different players habbits and preferences make the difference which ones to choose, but choosable they are all .

P.S.: I have already won more than enough games with bomber strategy and also lots of games with sub strategy...actually, in one of my latest battles I was and am just going for subs...and this is against a veteran player

[Blashy]

Terif, you don`t buy bombers because they are useless as a strategy. They cost WAY too much to repair as is.

And there is a counter AA, which no one uses because no one needs too since Bombers are pretty much useless, except for using the two you get free.

Subs are useless, you invest in subs heavily you are screwed for Barbarossa. One sub costing MORE than an army group is not accurate by any measure.

Subs have a counter... ASW which again no one really bothers with as no one will invest heavily in subs.

Both strategies will fail vs. any decent player. If a veteran player gets caught by a sub strategy he made a very bad error.

No one should get caught by both strategies, they are too easy to see coming.

[Terif]

Sorry, Blashy - not true

You are right in that if you buy too many of them too early you will have a problem against a decent player. That´s why I said Bombers are for the longterm games where you don´t go for the fast vicory or defeat and to use subs you also need either to invest into them later (= when you have your invasion force for Barbarossa ready) or better: to use them at the right opportunity and not in all cases at all costs.

All strategies have their strength and weaknesses - bomber or sub strategy are no exception here - and if you want with the head through the wall no matter what circumstances or don´t plan your strategy right then in deed the strategy will fail.

Bombers ARE cost efficient for Allies, no matter the AA level of the enemy if you use them right as AA defence of a ressource/city depends on its strength (multiplied). Combine your bomber attacks, don´t spread them initially, so you suffer only in the first attack real losses and after that you can keep the ressource at zero by attacking every 3rd or 4th turn with expected losses of zero for your bombers. I.e. if you look at one ressource your bombers loose in average 5 mpps every 3 or 4 turns (= ~ 1 mpp/turn) while the enemy suffers 8-16 mpps each turn (and each bomber can keep 3-4 ressources at zero)...I would call that cost efficient and everything else but useless .

Similar for subs:

If Allies expect you to go for subs and therefore preserve their fleet or even upgrade them, then it is in deed a bad idea to meet the expectations and actually build them...but then you have the advantage that the fear of subs caused the enemy to not send his fleet into danger and so your ground units got spared a lot of damage they would have taken from naval bombardment and lots of other hassles you would have had on the oceans during your own operations if Royal Navy would have used aggressively...

...using subs is a counter to an aggressive Royal Navy. Then you have the possibility to sink the bulk of the Royal Navy and later rule the seas with your subs. You have to keep enough mpps back to still build your invasion force for Barbarossa, but Germany can easily spare a thousand mpps and more to build some subs.

So sub strategy has a counter (like all strategies), but Axis sees it first if the enemy is using it and can decide then if they go for subs or not...and the thing is, Allies on the other side don´t see them coming if the allied player doesn´t expect them until it is already too late .

P.S.: Standard subs with lv 1 cost only 220 mpps vs 288 mpps for a standard upgraded army.

Make subs cheaper and you will only see the seas flooded with them in every game and the Royal Navy always be extinct. ASW doesn´t really help them as it doesn´t reduce the damage for the defender but only increases the damage for the attacking sub. Since surface ships are costly and - perhaps even more important - need a long time to build, they will all be sunk sooner or later if Germany cheaply can build sub after sub and doesn´t has to care if they are sunk. Would be a simple trade off: one sub sunk vs one Royal Navy ship sunk in average, a no brainer for Germany if subs would really be that cheap as only 125 mpps...

P.P.S: I have fought enough wars to know that bomber strategy and sub strategy both work and are everything else but useless if you do it right – the thing with it is only like with all strategies: you first have to learn how to execute them - usually by fighting, making mistakes and learning from them .

[TaoJah]

As Allied, there isn't alot you can do against the sub-strategy IMHO : you don't know in advance that he will build them and when you see them, it's too late to research the technology and upgrade the fleet. Besides, you got TWO fleets to upgrade, the US and the UK. Not gonne happen...

On the other hand, the Axis can do something about the bombing strategy : build all German fighters with advance fighter 4 or 5 (which is a viable thing to do anyway) and place some in Europe with a HQ.

[Liam]

Terif you're speaking of some artwork with U-Boats! I have had them wreak havoc on my Surface Fleets, only because the player had amazing dice!

I do not know how you'd personally utilize level4-5 Subs in the late game and what 6 of those puppies even at the cost could do, I'm sure in the right hands they're deadly as they can dive quite a bit and inflict a hell of a lot of damage. Not just but they can hit a port...

In my 4 of my games vs Rambo, which I have about equal skill level to we have had major U-Boat warfare. They were quite deadly if the Axis got Level4 in 1940 which ended the game as at the time I was having Battleships sunk in London Port, earlier version of SC2... The other games I probably didn't utilize my U-Boats well enough, but I used the fear tactic alone to keep the Baltic and North Sea a place he must defend! He adapted well to my strategy in another and sunk my entire U-Boat Command Xs 7 or 8 boats. I split them up and with the American fleet and ASW, GLR I still couldn't contest for Naval Dominance.

I don't think making U-Boats cheaper would make the game more interesting I think making them weaker vs Surface ships and more powerful vs Raiding Commerce and more Commerce Lines would be very interested! The Entire German Economy was blockading in WW2, something we just don't simulate in SC2

As for Bombers, usually when I see these wonder weapons at a higher level along with Rockets it's because one side has won. I do not see subs-Bombers-rockets generally used in highly competitive games where one side fears losing. those extra 3-4 armies, 6-7 corps, 2 tanks, HQ, airfleet...that is X10 more valuable and an entire Army Group... I've seen countless times though where Bombers and Subs are great for Recon or precision strikes

[Jollyguy]

I’m siding with the Master here, as he’s right as usual. He sees the game holistically, as one large whole. So he’s right, reduce sub cost too low and you unbalance the game. Alterations to the game engine can’t be done in a vacuum, all aspects must be considered. I’m a proponent of gradual, well thought modifications.

And Terif’s strategy of hitting a resource hex with two or three bombers in tandem is the way to go, but something that never occurred to me. The first bomber takes AA damage, the other two drop their loads undisturbed. Next turn repair one, use the other two, so-on and so-on, effectively negating an AA upgrade at moderate cost, and/or forcing the Axis to pull valuable air units from the Eastern Front. The things you pick up reading Terif’s posts!

Too bad I’ll be taking a break, I’d like to try out this strategy. But it's just another example of how SC 2 continues to surprise with its depth of variable strategies.

Bob

[Blashy]

Liam, port defense vs. uboats needs a HUGE upgrade.

The strategy of slaming ports to sink ships while in port is totally ahistorical. Uboats entering ports was a virtual death trap (nets, mines, lookouts, patrols).

No one please bring up the VERY VERY few port attacks by uboats, if it had been so easy the whole fleet at scapaflow would have been sunk in port.

Gibraltar is very big and uboats had a very difficult time getting through.

That needs to be address seriously.

A Liam`s last paragraph is bang on.

The goal IMO is to have ALL units be of equal value in terms of usefulness that goes for tech as well. This is NOT the case at this time.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

As Allied, there isn't alot you can do against the sub-strategy IMHO : you don't know in advance that he will build them and when you see them, it's too late to research the technology and upgrade the fleet. Besides, you got TWO fleets to upgrade, the US and the UK. Not gonne happen...

On the other hand, the Axis can do something about the bombing strategy : build all German fighters with advance fighter 4 or 5 (which is a viable thing to do anyway) and place some in Europe with a HQ.

That is simply because the port defense vs. subs is not high enough. Ships in ports should be virtually untouchable vs. subs (meaning subs would take extreme casualties). As it was in WW2.

This way a smart player would port his ships and those he can not he might hide them somewhere.

Then he can invest in ASW.

[Jollyguy]

Now on this I agree with Blashy. BB's simply get ravaged in port by subs, when in reality only in a few spectabuar instances did this happen. So improve that for the Allies and give the Axis something in return.

Bob

[SeaMonkey]

Perhaps we should have an ASW upgrade ability to ports on the level that triple A can be assigned to resources presently.

[Liam]

Yes, it is true, ports offer no refuge for your ships! Submarines would sacrifice their own lives in most cases being used on Ports, i.e. Alexandria port would consume the Italian Frogmen, The equivelant British used a sublike device used to kill the Tirpitz in it's Fjord sleeping ground, Japanese MiniSubs at Pearl Harbour all were lost...

I recall hearing of 1 case of a U-boat dealing a deathblow to a ship and escaping in WW2 history in Port...

I think what Blashy brings up about utilizing every unit available makes perfect sense. It can all be game balancing if used properly, you will not imbalance a game by utilizing more units it's just what capabilities you assign them. Perhaps they're just a tad bit overpowered now... Engineers were not utilized till some of us here suggested a reduction in cost! Now look, few go on without them!

Lastly on the subject of wiping a resource out with multiple bombers, this doesn't neccessarily ring true for 5 cities, but is deadly on 1 target. So again making Bombers very good at precision strategy. I suppose you must take in to account what AA research and upgrades cost the enemy. In a U-boat situation the ASW research and fear alone in both tactics... Neither are game breakers, but definitely difficult the first time you see them performed!

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Now on this I agree with Blashy. BB's simply get ravaged in port by subs, when in reality only in a few spectabuar instances did this happen. So improve that for the Allies and give the Axis something in return.

Bob

The Axis need nothing in return, this is an exploit that needs to be corrected.

[Bromley]

But not at the expense of balance . This would be a perfect opportunity to argue for a balancing reduction in sub costs .