Wildest game ever - Yoda(allies) vs Hellraiser(Axis)

[Liam]

I agree Germany could've possibly won by being aggressive and so lucky that she would've pushed her Enemies into an early grave before they raised their guard. Even a 150 LBS man can knock out a 250 LBS Heavy Weight if that Heavy Weight sits there and lets 50 Jabs, 150 Uppercuts, and 50 Heavy Rights in? No Without answering really with much else... Having 2 or 3 Times the Strength of the the enemy means nothing.

The Loop is a bit of a tough thing, it ties up Axis resources, Africa is a Jugular of the Allies and Axis. Controlling is nothing and everything

Also attacking 1 Location for the Axis is not so easy, I do not think that it's all about the offensive and forget all the defense. I think the Axis have to pick the most cost-benificial Attacks they can find and pick off so many enemy that they take Experience and Wealth combo and win. That or get extremely lucky and trap enough of the Allied resources in a spider web and feast on their weak points. Do the Allies have a weak point? I think that the USSR is too decked out in 1942! It's able to retreat all the way into the USSR, build up for the best defense and almost outdo Axis by 1943 completely even in the Air! I have done it anyway, in fact in a game vs JollyGuy I think I went on the offensive in the Summer of 1941 as Axis against his full Barbarossa Invasion force I lost most of rebuilt in '42 and invaded Germany..

Axis require a Very experienced player, Allies also but they are stronger longterm. Axis are deadly if Allies give them a breech position

Tough game, it's kewl. BTW: The Axis are represented by Superior Equipment, doctrine and despite a lack of numbers it doesn't matter. It's abstract. The Allies had likely 100 times more ships at sea than the Axis, you cannot really represent that in gameplay. If you gave the Russisans and Americans what they had, the Axis would be invisible on the map. However you should reduce the Russians to Minus 2 IW, USA no Army tech till 1941, and UK shouldn't be able to perform D-Day alone.. They had No Army historically for such a purpose! Bomber Command is there and employed properly can cut 10% of Axis resources per game very Historical.. Abstract

Originally posted by hellraiser:

I tend to disagree here a little bit

The superiority of a doctrine over another and exceptional training can lead to surprising results against a very rich and numerous enemy

Germany could have won the war or at least find herself in a very good position at the end of it. My opinion... I don't want to elaborate on this because it would take time and it's quite a well known debate subject

[SeaMonkey]

That's right Liam, a tough game to master, its beautiful. The quality vs quantity thing is the quintessential question, always debateable.

As far as the loop. Here's the thing, the Red Sea would have to be traversed by the Allies, a natural bottleneck. Easily mined and patroled especially with subs. The land route from the Horn? Well there's no way the Axis could be surprised by a large invasion and naval force.

Sounds pretty gamey in my book.

[Blashy]

Oh come on, Germany and this doctrine thing people have.

People have this idea that Germany's commanders were ten times better than the Allies which is a load of crap.

Both sides had equally matches commanders. For one if Germany's commanders were so damn better they would have gotten rid of Hitler after it was obvious he wanted to make military decisions yet he was a complete idiot at this task.

And this comparison to a big guys vs. a small guy is irrelevant, we're talking about a freaking war here.

If you're equally matched in tactics and your enemy outproduces you SIX to ONE in airplane. Read it again SIX to ONE, Russia alone produced 50% more AFs and UK produces 23% more.

Add being outproduced FOUR to ONE in tanks alone.

SURE you have a chance... in fantasy bunta land.

The numbers were simply OVERWHELMING and Germany's commander as talented as they were, they were not good enough to overcome those odds.

Holding Germany and a little extra was a possibility had Hitler not being the one driving. That's the best you can do. But DEFEAT the Allies, forget about it.

Just have a look at these numbers and explain how you overcome those odds.

NOTE: Don't diss Wikipedia I used that link but the information is the same everywhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

[TFL]

@Blashy

You are right that the allies were out producing the axis hugely at later stages of the war. If the Germans were to win they would have done so in 41 or latest 42, and at the time they were not outproduced _that_ badly. Also at the time allied had no experienced troops or commanders to speak of.

My point is that I agree with hellraiser that if germans had had a bit more success early, they could have forced soviets and/or UK to peace even before the US entry to the war. Since they didn't, all was lost and they could just as well have surrendered before '43 and saved a few million lives. In SC2 also the game is most of the time over if allies start gaining momentum.

[hellraiser]

Exactly

[Liam]

Interesting debate, again leaning toward the Great Wars of our passing century. Those that shattered and shook the world forever. Changing us as well forever.

Remeber Hannibal and his nation, was watching him on the History Channel, 40 thousand men poured into Italy. First an impossible task, second he defeated everything the Romans sent at him. Technically speaking Rome VS Carthage is like Lithuania VS Russia. However he bested them every time... Despite being outnumbered, outgunned and in the end outwitted as the opponent went to his Supply sources, cut them off, then forced him to fight on ground not of his choosing, used his own weapons against him and utterly destroyed his Country forever had the Carthaginians taken Rome and sued for Peace maybe it would've changed nothing or maybe it would have. The Greeks subjegated Greater Numbers with only a few thousand Men. Superior Quality Not Quantity, as other have pointed out. Why American's defeat 500,000 Iraqis with 100,000 Men. Superior Training, Commanders, not just General Level, Squad Level. That the Germans were the best, is debatable, but that they employed their men in the right places is not. During '40 Blitz into France, French and British went to Belgium, Germans cut South, cut them off and Game Over for France. One among many unbelievable victories. The French and British were evenly gunned, even though they lacked Armoured Warfare, it was all over too quickly to be mere luck. Though it was a big factor too and as in SC2, the Germans used the offense to perfection. How is that Rambo Surrenders with 6 Allied Fighters vs my 3. 2 Allied Bombers vs my 1. 3 Tanks vs my 3... 50 land units vs my 35? Why... Soon to be doubled in special units over mine...

Because I destroyed him utterly before he could deploy any of these advantages in the field, moraly and in game.. Like WW2

[hellraiser]

WoW ! You're my hero! Can I touch you?

[Blashy]

Ok, one using old wars is not accurate.

Wars when it was men vs. men could be won by a better trained unit and better tactics. And most of all you can't used different ERAs to compare. In Greece the Italians did not want to fight, we all know that, Italians wanted nothing to do with WW2.

And don't compare the game as is to history Liam (you vs. Rambo_, the Allies are not getting their due in production so you can't reinforce and you're not facing the proper numbers (4 Bombers, 8 Western Allied AFs, full US troops available in game, a front in Italy, Russia and France, etc... AND more of everything on the Russian front alone).

Now about Germany not being "THAT" outpruduce in 1941.

1941:

Allies: 14000 tanks to 3800

Allies 42000 to 11000

Manpower: 8.5million to 7.5million

1942 is MUCH worse.

So the minute USSR enters the cause is lost, USSR alone severly outproduce Germany in 1941.

IF! Germany had earlier sucesses? Where? They beat up everyone else prior to Barbarossa, except for the Battle of Britain which even though UK was taxed and thought it was on the break, Germany was just as taxed on their side and stopped as they could not keep up (both sides had no idea they were both so exausted).

I'm speaking in terms of THIS game, in this game UK, USSR AND USA WILL join. In this context the idea that Germany can DEFEAT one of them is not realistic. What is realistic and could have easily occured is Germany managing to sign a peace treaty on favorable terms by keeping enough terroritory by mid-late 1945.

[Liam]

Blashy, I mentioned The Iraq War in my posting

That is modern! It's concievable the American's lost what a few hundreds dead in the whole "offensive campaign?" It's also concievable she could've defeated a Much Larger Force with 50,000 Men or just Air as she did in the 1st Iraq War. Politically getting peace after the Iraqis all starved to death? Military Strategists believed we required at least half of what the Iraqis had in Manpower, we were grossly overestimated them. In terms of Tanks we had little better than half, and more aircraft. The Iraqis were considered Battle Hardened. I am not sure American's lost a single Tank in the largest Armored conflict in history? If they did probably due to a mechanical failure

LOL

Of those tens of thousands of Allied aircraft how many were in the field? Did the Allies even have that many trained Pilots? The British had a lot of early series tanks as did the Reds, that isn't where they lacked Numerical Edge. The Battle of Britian 2 or 3 to 1 in the air? It is quite possible Fighter Command would have ceased to exist, What the Reds and Americans produced is irrelevent it wasn't being used in any large scale to help the Allies in the combat zone. The Soviets required many months till they started producing WW2 Series Fighters, meanwhile their entire Airforce was destroyed on the ground while the Germans raped the USSR. Pretty much the same with the rest of Europe. Yes, if the Europeans would've employed some effective tactics, they all outnumbered the Germans together, if they'd of fought together. It wasn't till 1942 where numbers counted and quality in the opposition caught up. It's sort of like Chess Blashy, when I put all my Key pieces in position to whoop your rearend, if you haven't made a move, it's very likely I'll kick your arse Now doesn't mean you can't get your units out the door and fight but you better hurry because 1 Knight can trump your King... and no wargames and real life aren't the same but for the last century or so they've been used pretty successfully for an idea of what real life is... I'm sure SC2 type games are played at West Point!

In real life you've politics, actual supply and logistics we cannot calculate, chance, etc...? Hmmm, some of that is simulated. Perhaps the Germans were lucky bastages, is that why Hitler upon conquoring France, "Jumped a GooseStep?" Probably because he couldn't believe what the German's couldn't do for 4 years was done in a few weeks against a Numerical = Foe... Why? He Gambled and Won

Originally posted by Blashy:

Ok, one using old wars is not accurate.

Wars when it was men vs. men could be won by a better trained unit and better tactics. And most of all you can't used different ERAs to compare. In Greece the Italians did not want to fight, we all know that, Italians wanted nothing to do with WW2.

And don't compare the game as is to history Liam (you vs. Rambo_, the Allies are not getting their due in production so you can't reinforce and you're not facing the proper numbers (4 Bombers, 8 Western Allied AFs, full US troops available in game, a front in Italy, Russia and France, etc... AND more of everything on the Russian front alone).

Now about Germany not being "THAT" outpruduce in 1941.

1941:

Allies: 14000 tanks to 3800

Allies 42000 to 11000

Manpower: 8.5million to 7.5million

1942 is MUCH worse.

So the minute USSR enters the cause is lost, USSR alone severly outproduce Germany in 1941.

IF! Germany had earlier sucesses? Where? They beat up everyone else prior to Barbarossa, except for the Battle of Britain which even though UK was taxed and thought it was on the break, Germany was just as taxed on their side and stopped as they could not keep up (both sides had no idea they were both so exausted).

I'm speaking in terms of THIS game, in this game UK, USSR AND USA WILL join. In this context the idea that Germany can DEFEAT one of them is not realistic. What is realistic and could have easily occured is Germany managing to sign a peace treaty on favorable terms by keeping enough terroritory by mid-late 1945.

[Blashy]

The Iraq war is also a good example.

Tech was on the side of USA... HEAVILY.

So troop numbers are irrelevent. Yes they did not need that many to destroy the Iraq army... but as a few Generals who WERE consulted and it is recorded stated they would need about 400k troops to win the PEACE.

In WW2 both sides were matched in technology and leadership (Ok I give a "slight" edge to German commanders). When you are virtually dead even and being outproduced 4-1 in tanks and 6-1 in AFs, overall for everything it is 4-1... You will loose. Your best hope is putting up such a good fight that the enemy will accept a peace treaty because too much blood is being spilled.

They might not have had ALL those units in action at once, but they did not have the supply issues the Germans had, sure they had there own issues here and there (the Allies) but overall they were just pooring in.

That is where the current campaign lacks IMO.

As Western Allies you can't do NA, then Italy while at the same time have 2 million men for D-Day AND have at LEAST 3 Bombers with ALL the US AFs in Action.

What I'm saying is not increase the available units, I think the limits are good and represent what you said about not EVERY unit produced was in action. But the units that ARE available should pretty much all be in action by 1944.

The units I mean are USA: All corps, HQs, Armies, Tanks, Paratroops, AFs, Bombers.

USSR same as USA except switch the bombers for all the rockets or a mix of rockets and bombers.

By summer 1943 USSR should have those units IN play and USA should pretty much have all of them by the end of 43.

Then what happens is all they have to do is keep reinforcing and have the production that permits them to continually reinforce and repurchased dead units.

While Germany can reinforce but struggles to buy new units.

That's representing USA/USSR production and not gimping it .

[Liam]

Remeber, real war is UNPREDICTABLE! That is why The Allies went into Iraq so cautiously in the First Iraq War. We didn't know if 1 million so called Iraqis were going to defeat us or not. Technology was considered behind but not so much that they couldn't make up for it in experience and fighting with superior numbers. As in The D-Day invasion, it was a bit unheard of to launch an invasion with the intentions of landing Millions of soldiers on a coastline with Heavy Equipment! It took some practice I think in Sicily and in the Pacific for the Allies to buildup confidence. Noone had ever committed such a Massive Operation, and believe me a lot of resources went into it. It would be a lot cheaper if we'd of Taken Spain or Italy and gone in from Transport bases rather than having to capture them on Mainland of Occuppied Europe. Noone was certian how the casaulties would be, and that type of operation had failed before so many were afraid that we'd be kicked back into the Ocean. Remeber there are Firsts in Warfare!

Western Allies cared about things like Figures. They cared about the Overall Politics. The British wanted to mantain Empire. The Russians wanted a DMZ between any new Threats that might Emerge after the War, hence the Iron Curtain. Germany didn't have the Numbers your right for a long war... She had a few gambles up her sleeve and she had to cash in fast on those either politically or by crushing her Neighbors.

Kind of symbolic of SC, eventually you will dwarf the Germans if you do nothing but IT and Production. The Germans can't counter it. They have to capture everything they, and destroy everyting in the first 2 and half years of war... They did plunder a vast amount of resources in WW2. Just because their #s were low, doesn't mean it was what it appears. Many of those tanks, aircraft you speak of sat on the Rack and were never employed by the Allies.... Being the situation was tedious, They had to deal with an occuppied Continent, it's hard to bring #s to bare. Meanwhile the Reds could, Amphibious warfare was in it's infancy for Modern soldiers.

Think hard about the losses in the USSR, facing only Germany, there are not so unevenly matched. Considering the poor state of the Soviet Military in 1941. Also the speed of the German army in the early days of WW2. If not for some VERY hardcore casualties and great tenacity the Germans were on the brink of inheriting all of European Russia. That is about likely 90% of the valuable resources of the USSR! Didn't happen! The gambles grew too daring for Hitler and he was not willing to take it all the way. Like Hannibal who wouldn't take Rome, maybe neither could and knew it, maybe they gambled the wrong strategy and lost, we shall never know the former.

Originally posted by Blashy:

The Iraq war is also a good example.

Tech was on the side of USA... HEAVILY.

So troop numbers are irrelevent. Yes they did not need that many to destroy the Iraq army... but as a few Generals who WERE consulted and it is recorded stated they would need about 400k troops to win the PEACE.

In WW2 both sides were matched in technology and leadership (Ok I give a "slight" edge to German commanders). When you are virtually dead even and being outproduced 4-1 in tanks and 6-1 in AFs, overall for everything it is 4-1... You will loose. Your best hope is putting up such a good fight that the enemy will accept a peace treaty because too much blood is being spilled.

They might not have had ALL those units in action at once, but they did not have the supply issues the Germans had, sure they had there own issues here and there (the Allies) but overall they were just pooring in.

That is where the current campaign lacks IMO.

As Western Allies you can't do NA, then Italy while at the same time have 2 million men for D-Day AND have at LEAST 3 Bombers with ALL the US AFs in Action.

What I'm saying is not increase the available units, I think the limits are good and represent what you said about not EVERY unit produced was in action. But the units that ARE available should pretty much all be in action by 1944.

The units I mean are USA: All corps, HQs, Armies, Tanks, Paratroops, AFs, Bombers.

USSR same as USA except switch the bombers for all the rockets or a mix of rockets and bombers.

By summer 1943 USSR should have those units IN play and USA should pretty much have all of them by the end of 43.

Then what happens is all they have to do is keep reinforcing and have the production that permits them to continually reinforce and repurchased dead units.

While Germany can reinforce but struggles to buy new units.

That's representing USA/USSR production and not gimping it .

[Blashy]

I totally agree with your assesment Liam.

As you said, the AFs were not all used, that goes for all other units as well. But that is where lies the difference. If an Allied unit was destroyed they had a replacement quite fast, much more so than Germany.

They also had more units on the field than Germany and I don't find this is well represented in the default campaign.

Of course it is not since Hubert's goal is to make the game 50/50. If you do that, you have no choice but to gimp the Allies somewhere.

[Liam]

If the West wasn't concerned with casualties, the War probably would've ended in 1944. With a German or Russian Doctrine toward Death and such. Though those Western Societies are what breed such productivity also, even dwarfing the Soviets.

The Allies are quite powerful if they're used correctly. I think Tech and some very powerful land units with experience is what makes the Germans so deadly. In SC terms. You really must employ the maximum land power to knock out the Allies. Allies have time but cannot give up their Bread Baskets

[Sombra]

Reading all the AARs I notice that the tech is usally "maxed" out already 1941-1942. I think its either a sign of tech to important and/or to few upgrades

[Blashy]

Yes Tech maxing out early is an issue.

I tried having one chit limits for tech level 3 or less and 2 chit max with tech level 4-5 and it helps alot but it still a little too fast.