Axis war path against human Allied.

[TaoJah]

Hi !

Whatis considered the current "best" war path as an Axis against an Allied human opponent ?

Poland is obvious

But do you operate half the troops out to get an early Low Country surrender ?

Do you take Denmark (probably) ?

Norway (probably not) ?

Do you take any minors before Barbarossa ?

Go to Egypt before Barbarossa ?

I was just wondering what the current views are...

[Bromley]

I've seen Terif say that you should walk west from Poland rather than operate. You save MMP but also he didn't see any advantage to an early attack on France. Either the weather is against you and you end up taking France at about the same time or the weather is with you and the US readiness rises sooner.

I've only played against him with me=axis, so I didn't see his standard moves (if he even has any in SC2), but from comments he made about my play I think he takes out Egypt before Barbarossa (for access to the Middle East resources).

Likewise, I think he takes any minors that have no/little impact on readiness, i.e. Denmark, Norway (if Allied occupied), Tunisia, Algeria. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a cheeky Ireland attack in there as well.

Not too sure when Greece & Iraq/Syria/Iran get it in the neck. Presumably all other minors become viable options once the US has joined.

[hellraiser]

1. Strong Poland opening = all out attack, rape poland in 2 turns, walk west.

Pros: less operating costs, earlier diplo/tech investments.

Cons: allows France to prepare the defences, possibly invest some diplo in Iraq or elsewhere.

2. LC turn 2 attack.

Transport army near Koenigsberg in west, operate the motor 1 corps from poland near Kiel (for capturing Copenhagen) operate tank and army (those deployed vs poland in the north), move airfleets in striking distance of denmark (the one in west should stay there), move northern HQ west so it can support the troops there. Upgrade the corps in town near LC.

Turn 2 DOW Denmark and LC and capture them. Meanwhile, continue the push towards warsaw - take care to place your units so polish units cannot regroup near the capital.

Pros: engage the french earlier, forcing them to use MPPs to reinforce rather than diplo-ing minors. With a little luck with weather, this can turn into a very early France, but usually they will survive the winter. Morale boost from lc/denmark allows you to be a bit aggro and even kill some frenchies fast. Getting poland in turn 3, keeps the morale ok, allowing you to continue to attack in france.

Cons: higher costs with operating so diplo/researching will be slower.

Ref USA readiness - given the fact that in both cases, usually france falls in spring, it doesn't matter much.

After France, go get Egypt. UK has mucho, you move more + air. UK has too mucho, maybe it's time to Sealion.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on western africa. Due to brilliant minds like mine and possibly Terif's Algeria raping by the allies has become more or less standard. It is a freebie for the Allies and even if eventually Axis kick them out of Algiers, they will still hold Casablanca and when Spain boils to 100% pro Axis they can snatch Tangiers - quite a nice allied foothold. Casablanca is almost impossible to be attacked by Axis on ground (too low supply - learned this the hard way vs the Green Man). So, after France falls, it would be wise to have ready an italian landing force ready to get Tunisia, so you get supply for kicking out allies from algeria (tunis is not ruined by Malta effect).

After fighting for Africa, prepare for russia.

Buy some xtra HQs and the full complement of corps. Or if you like it mixed, mix it. July - august 41 - you must unleash Barbarossa, so you make use of some summer months to reach vital objectives until sibs arrive and supply gets fuxed up. In the mid east - get Iraq, Iran, Syria whatever you can grab. USA probably is in the war by now, so you don't have to maintain a good public image anymore

the rest of the game? Pray for tech and weather and try to attack and defend properly lol.

Further tips on attacking - play Yoda, he will teach you the art of attacking with overwhelming force in the place of his choosing and you will watch him win games despite you making 150 more mpps per turn

For the defence - play Yoda again and try to take France from his Axis - you will most probably fail and learn again valuable tips

[Terif]

In SC2 there is no „best“ warpath when playing against an able human opponent – you can do everyhing once or maybe twice, then he will adapt and develope a counter. Key to victory is to choose your strategy according to the situation and your opponent - especially depending on which strategies you used the last time(s) against him .

Nevertheless there are a few standard strategies for both sides at the moment in V1.05a:

- Allies should always take Norway as soon as possible (usually Nov 19, 1939), there is nothing Axis can do against it without a high risk of loosing the war early.

- Axis can choose: 1) either to take Poland first and walk west or 2) my standard strategy in the meantime is to conquer LC and Denmark in turn 2, Warsaw usually falls in turn 3 (+-1 turn depending on weather and enemy defence abilities). When you take France makes no real difference concerning the goal to win since the earlier it falls, the sooner US readiness increases – sooner or later have both their advantages.

- Germany better always conquers Denmark, or Allies will do it and destroy the german Kriegsmarine in the Baltic

- After France the only standard move is conquering Egypt.

The rest depends on the situation and which strategy you want to use this time :

E.g. If Allies defend Egypt heavily and with their fleet, you can think about a quick Sealion first and to take out Egypt a bit later so UK surrenders. Another option (besides just killing the defenders without mercy... ) against a heavy allied defence in Egypt is to simply leave it to them and concentrate on the continent. If Allies really want Africa they will get it sooner or later anyway and this way Axis can save all the transport and operating costs + don´t need to divide their forces.

To prevent Allies from conquering Algier, there will often be a race between the 2 sides who is there first – and Axis take Tunis and Algier right after France. In many games one of the first heavy battles then take place in the area of Algier that can go in either direction .

In 1.04 another standard was to convince Spain into joining by diploing it. After USA and Russia were in the war, most of the minors then got conquered.

In 1.05a with the changed diplo costs and range, this won´t work any more and Axis will nearly never be able to convince Spain to join. Investing into USA/Russia makes no sense any more for UK, so they will block Spain and with the reduced readiness increase per diplo hit, Axis usually will not get enough hits so Spain would join before USA or Russia comes in and blocks it completely. This lead to so far 2 main approaches now:

1) Axis only attacks Egypt (or even leaves it to Allies) after France and tries to keep readiness as low as possible. This way Axis have extremely low losses, no operating costs and can save a lot more mpps than with an aggressive approach. So at the time of Barbarossa their economy is not that big, but they are very strong in units (while Russia is pretty weak without any readiness boosts by DoWs and Western Allies also not able to do D-day in the next time). USA will be out of the war till mid 1942, so Axis have the power and time to march through till Stalingrad and beyond without too much resistance.

2) Axis choose the aggressive approach, don´t care about enemy readiness and diplo Hungary and Romania (France surrendering and DoWing Russia increases readiness for both those countries, so if all fails, Axis only need 1 hit in Romania so all Axis minors join for sure). This way they can take Vichy and Spain already in 1940 together with most other countries. This was my strategy in the last couple of games – when Barbarossa starts, Axis have conquered all former neutral countries on the map except Turkey (Ireland, Norway and Sweden will be conquered by Allies usually). This way Allies will start extremely strong into Barbarossa, but Axis have already reached all their early goals and can concentrate their firepower in the main theatres.

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. Logically there is not only black and white – often the actual strategy will be something in between. As said at first: it all depends on the situation and the opponent which strategy you should choose .

[ December 19, 2006, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Say hello to my little green friend.

[Jollyguy]

Terif has been gracious enough to play me over a series of games the past couple months, and let me give you a description of what that's like: Let’s see, Terif is the school of sharks, me the helpless prey getting torn to shreds; or how about, Terif is the victorious boxer, hands raised above his head with nary a mark on him, me, the bloody pulp of an opponent lying prostrate on the mat, both eyes blackened, teeth knocked out, and blood dripping from every pore.

However, I’ll tell you this: Playing Terif improves your game TREMENDOUSLY. A few losses against Terif (and mine are piling up, just look at Panzerliga, I’m rrweeks), will elevate your game against any other opponent. I have already incorporated Terif style moves in my other games, and also had the pleasure of seeing how he improvises, as when he says:

“In SC2 there is no „best“ warpath when playing against an able human opponent – you can do everyhing once or maybe twice, then he will adapt and develope a counter. Key to victory is to choose your strategy according to the situation and your opponent - especially depending on which strategies you used the last time(s) against him .”

he really means it's, it's not just a legal disclaimer or something. In our games we have had some crazy lucky diplomacy, mainly that favored me, and that doesn’t dissuade him. He simply reaches into his bag of tricks and extracts a modified strategy that works.

TaoJah, I sense that you’re getting antsy to play human opponents, which I encourage, as that’s where the masterpiece that is SC2 really emerges. If you’re up to it send me a first Axis turn. I consider myself a good but not great player, so it would be an interesting match.

And Hellraiser, I keep asking you for a match but you don’t respond. I’m not sure I could beat you, but I think after getting battered and bruised by the Great One numerous times and still asking for more (through swollen eyes), I could give you a run for you money. If you're available send me an Axis first turn. I prefer to mix tcp & pbem. I’m in Seattle, my recollection is that you’re in the States somewhere? And Liam, if you’re reading, I’m looking for a Friday night, highspeed tcp/pbem opponent, drop me an e-mail

As to the specific question. I have seen Terif’s opening Axis moves several times now, and in 1.05a he doesn’t walk anymore. It involves operating west to hit Denmark and the LC’s on turn 2. It took me probably an hour of a self-hotseating to replicate his moves, but I have it down now, right down to the German corp that is motorized but not at IW and AT 1, which is used to take Copenhagen after the Luftwaffe blasts those poor Danes and separates them from their fine ham.

And I second Hellraiser’s analysis, as he’s always nailed the concepts. The problem as he knows is that when playing Terif it is in the execution, Terif's being great, your’s always a step or two behind...on a good day.

Bob

[Colin I]

Possibly to add that if SC2 Axis strategy isn't responsive to Allied strategy then it isn't a good game - and I think it is. A good game reflects the dynamic between the opponents.

Much of the game is based around the "turning point" when (or if) the initiative shifts from Axis to Allied. Where will this happen? Does it happen through a tech or industrial or military advantage? Does it happen in local theatres or more globally? This is a critical part of WWII and found in other games - Third Riech had the possibility of a double move for Allies for example which could really change things.

I think I would like the game better, though, if in the early stages the Allies had a bit more scope to try stuff without it being suicidal, and in the later stages of the war the Axis had more potential - without wanting to break the overall dynamic of the turning point.

To some extent I don't like tile-specific placement of units and knowledge of the scripts to be critical but more the overally strategic thinking. This bears most on the above discussion and whether there is a perfect Axis template - I'm very happy Terif thinks not.

Of course I could just be bitter my Swedish gambit just went wrong against Jollyguy

[hellraiser]

@Jollyguy - I never play PBEM.

As for TCP/IP...I had no time to play sc2 lately, I will most likely play some games but probably after 1.06.

Haven't played a single 1.05 tcp game so far and it seems (as Terif says above) things are indeed different from 1.04, concerning strategies.

If I will have the time, I will scout for you on ICQ (dunno if i got your no.) these days.

'good run for your money'...hehe, maybe you're overestimating me - I haven't played so many sc2 games so I cannot be considered very good, perhaps you have an edge, having played more MP games than me And I am not from the States...I live in Romania - time differential could be a problem here.

[TaoJah]

1. If I leave Scandinavia to the Allies, wouldn't that give the a DREAM place to start D-Day ? They can transport all US-troops to Norway, and then amphiby from the two ports withing close range of northern Germany.

2. Taking Egypt seems to have only one advantage : the rest of the Middle East. But if you want US readiness as low as possible, you don't DOW them, do you ?

3. Is it possibly to take out Russia before D-Day ?

4. Once Russia surrenders, do partisans keep appearing ? In ALL the places ? Because then I will need like 30 units to prevent this !!!

[Bromley]

3. Not really. I tried a 1940 Barbarossa strategy that worked quite well in 1.02 (corps were better relatively than in later patches). It probably wouldn't have worked even then against experienced people, but cetainly wouldn't have worked more than once.

Under 1.04 two out of three of my 1940 Barbarossas were stopped (all against experience players this time). The third might still succeed (my opponent has been having internet problems, so the match has stalled).

4. Yes. Minor corps (and even armies) are pretty useless in combat though, so not such a big problem.

[Terif]

@TaoJah:

1) Not if the Axis player knows what he is doing :

Axis only need to defend Königsberg and to keep Denmark (2 fortifications with defenders in the sea/land tiles and it is safe). If Germany stations a cruiser in Denmark port, no allied ships can enter Baltic.

Then northern Germany is for one thing pretty much safe against any invasion - protected by the german Kriegsmarine. And even if Allies land there, they have no supply and no hiding while Axis can operats units all around them - so they will simply be crushed from all sides in a short slaughter .

2) If you play the variant to keep allied readiness low, then you will still conquer the Middle East countries, but wait until Russia and USA are in the war (i.e. somewhere around spring/summer 1942 they will be conquered)

- same as with the other still neutral countries like Vichy France or Switzerland.

So as said above, with this strategy you have the choice if you want to conquer Egypt if it is heavily defended, or if you simply leave it on its own and concentrate on the continent since you don´t benefit that much from conquering it as in a more aggressive approach and will have high costs. Depends on the players choice which way he wants to go .

3) Against an able player: No

If Russia falls before summer 1943 (and even this is very early), then the Allied player has done several things severely wrong...

4) Yes, partisans are fully activated, i.e. they will still appear after a russian surrender and Axis have to keep their anti-partisan garrisons.

Nevertheless with Russia surrendered game is over unless 1947 is pretty close or western Allies already sieging Berlin.

Axis then can concentrate on the west and will also far outproduce western Allies. London then usually falls within the next 6-12 months and Axis achieves major victory.

[ December 24, 2006, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[TaoJah]

Thanks for th eanswers.

The whole "leave your German fleet in the Baltic and do nothing with it" seems a bit contre-intuïtive, but I guess that's the way to go to keep a D-Day from Norway out. Blah.

IMHO it's silly that you don't gain any MPP from taking Norway and Sweden, but I guess that's the way it is decided. Again : blah.

Perhaps I should take a new look at the Russian map... If you can't take Russia out, you might as well plan on stopping half-way and dig in somewhere for when the tide turns. Perhaps even buy an engineer or two early on and make them dig a front somewhere. And use your units to take all minors (Spain and Turkey come to mind).

Egypt seems indeed a difficult decision. And to take Egypt, I think that you MUST take Malta out : no need to make Rommel's mistake and try to take Egypt out without decent supply.

Final question for this thread : how the heck do you take Malta out ?

Even with a bought bomber (which will set back your other purchases), you'll have to be lucky to destroy the corps there with all your airplanes, no ?

And what do you do against the the Royal Navy when it attacks any planes there every turn from sea ? Do you sacrifice the Italian fleet or do you take the losses ?

Perhaps attack Egypt from the east, hehe.

[Terif]

You really don´t need Malta to conquer Egypt – you could do it with all your air + bombing it out of order with the fleet, but this would only be a really large waste of mpps and time if you do it .

If Germany sends a HQ to Africa together with air and strong ground forces, that is all you need to conquer Egypt. To be superior to UK in Egypt Axis don´t need much supply - supply 1 so they can move (for the attack/move feature) is enough and a HQ even with Tobruk out of order still provides 5 supply.

The combat efficiency (readiness) comes from HQ support, strength points and the 25% combat bonus when attacking before moving.

So even without any supply your units can strike with at least 75% readiness which is more than enough to take out any defender if you rotate your units in an attack .

Never make the mistake to place your units next to the sea (in any theater) if it is not really necessary and enemy ships are nearby. The desert is large enough, no need to place your air near the water.

If too many Royal Navy ships are in the Med, better keep your italian navy save in port (and think about a Sealion... ). Then you only need them once to screen the seapath when you send your ground troops to Africa - here you could loose a cruiser or two if you encounter blockade ships, but that doesn´t really matter. Your forces have safely reached Africa and that´s all that matters. With enough airpower Egypt will sooner or later always belongs to Axis .

P.S. Little Patch-history excursion:

Till V1.04 Axis (Italy) got additional mpps from Scandinavia when they conquered it and that was also the time when the most interesting battles happened at the northern front and Axis regularly battled for Scandinavia right after France - but since some players found it not right/unhistorical it got changed for V1.05a.

The change of strike range and that it now takes into account land and coastal contours prevents ground units from attacking a ship in Denmark port from Sweden in 1.05a. Before that Axis could not block the entrance into the Baltic if Allies had Sweden and that was a good incentive to conquer/defend it in any case. But now Allies can´t force an entry in the Baltic any more and so this for itself slight change caused a huge strategical change. Without Allies beeing able to enter Baltic, there is no real need for Axis any more to battle for Scandinavia and this theater is now pretty much dead for Action.

Morale of the story: be careful what you wish for...historical accurracy may be good, but sometimes even slight changes have a huge (and not always good) impact in the game .

[ December 24, 2006, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Desert Dave]

Morale of the story: be careful what you wish for...historical accurracy may be good, but sometimes even slight changes have a huge - and not always good - impact in the game

Superb analysis all around Terif,

Though I would disagree with

Some of your sentiments.

IF there is not some adherence

To... historical imperatives,

You may as well be playing

King Kong VS the US Air Forces! LOL!

IOW,

It is FAR preferred to maintain WW-2

Realities,

All the while providing AMPLE opportunity

For "what-ifs"

Than having a game that veers off into

Exploits and mechanical "technique."

IMHO.

Others,

Can and will agree with YOU,

And that's cool.

Hellraiser has made some good points

RE: too many "freebies" for the Allies,

In terms of conquests,

And I personally hope that will be

Changed around in the future.

Though, it's not up to me - never has been,

It's the proper province

Of what the majority of Players

Would most like to have, and

So - we'll see.

And Kuniworth

Has valid concerns

RE: too much GErman experience too soon.

I would expect - just guessing,

That a few of the MODS I have heard about,

Yet in-the-making,

To include unique AI scripting,

Will present some new challenges

WRT to present "exploits,"

IF NOT addressed other-wise.

________________________________________

BTW, just a reminder... the game

Is NOT meant merely for HvsH players,

But,

Inclusively,

For all of those who enjoy solo contests also.

NO apologies... I ALWAYS strive

To insure that those folks

CAN have a REALLY good game as well.

[ December 24, 2006, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Terif]

Yep, it all depends on the viewpoint

I prefer SC2 as a game with many different strategies and opportunities where you can make a lot of choices depending on what your opponent does

Re: many freebies for Allies - one way to see it. But on the other side this gives Allies the opportunity to take the initiative in certain areas and start some action or cause Axis to implement countermessures to prevent Allies from conquering certain nations...resulting e.g. in the race for Algier where it is a cat and mouse game who will get or keep it .

If this would get changed and Allies have a penalty so it is not worth conquering minor countries for them any more, then they will simply lean back in the future doing nothing on their Isle and the middle game could develope into something pretty dull...

Every change has consequences - the question is only if good or bad for gameplay experience and fun .

[Desert Dave]

Re: many freebies for Allies - one way to see it. But on the other side this gives Allies the opportunity to take the initiative in certain areas and start some action or cause Axis to implement countermessures to prevent Allies from conquering certain nations...resulting e.g. in the race for Algier where it is a cat and mouse game who will get or keep it .

Sure, yep,

But OTOH, I must ask?

IRL War, exactly WHEN did the Allies,

Or the Axis,

Attack French Morocco,

Algeria or Tunisia?

And,

IF - NEITHER side

Did it... until Torch,

WHY was that the case?

IOW,

IF there are any changes,

(... and I'm NOT saying there will be - so,

You may well have what you got

From now 0 until Kingdom Come, LOL! )

They would be MINOR.

Again,

If not in default, then surely some enterprising

Soul will do so in an "historically-bent"

Mod, eh?

You are right on

When you advise that EVEN small changes

CAN result in subtle,

Yet lasting impact on the Grand Campaign.

As I said,

I have no more influence on these matters

Than you do,

Or many others on this board.

But,

LIKE YOU,

I am, and have been since first buying

AH's D-Day back in - oh, 1960

Or so,

A genuinely dedicated WW-2 GS gamer.

My own concerns

Are slightly different than yours, but,

Well,

That's what makes the World go 'Round, eh?

DIFFERENT points of reference, and How we view what's COOL. :cool:

[Terif]

Yep

[arado234]

Terif your right about russia.Im playing a pbem right now and russia fell in early 45 but im now doomed.Its late aug 45 and hes on in england.But i will FIGHT TO THE DEATH.As far as the rest of what you said goes,sometimes(which makes total sense) it fun as germany just to go nuts and start attacking everywhere just to see what the englander will do.I did this once and i won the game because i had so many mpps that i out produced him.Plus its alot of fun wiping out the defenceless.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Terif:

If you play the variant to keep allied readiness low

Exactly how long do you wait until you DOW the USSR ? You can wait a LONG time before their readiness is up to 90+, do you wait that all out ?

And once inside Russia : is it a viable strategy to determine in advance where you are gonne defend against the backlash ?

If I know that there will be a turning point no matter what I do, then I might as well prepare for it. Perhaps somewhere behind a river, perhaps so that my HQ are still in supply 10 (altough that doesn't seem to matter THAT much), perhaps dig in a fortess-front on the Russian border with Germany and Bulgary (that may be too far back, but you have the advantage that you can digging it already in early 1940).

There is no need to make the same mistake as Hitler and Napoleon and push too far, just for a few more cities of 5 MPPs, I think.

[arado234]

depending on what the allied player does; if you want to win the game & not just get a stalemate you have to wipe out russia.The best way i found is to do it as fast as you can & keep the commies of balance and just keep pounding him.Watch out for the first soviet winter and dont leave your germans vulnerable to a counterattack.Remember your germans that you started with will have alot more experience than his units and experience can be deadly especially with overstrength units.Now that engineers are cheaper you could build a couple of them and start building forts as fast as you can to make the western allies move at a snails pace across europe while you are pounding russia.Like terif says a big and probably the most important thing is what your opponent is doing.Only you can know that.That has a big effect on how germany should procede.I like also to build a big sub fleet and try and keep america from getting to many guys to england.Subs with high tech are real deadly.