Slitherine

quote:

1) Axis player withdrawing all Germans from Sicily immediately (and also Sardinia/Corsica sometimes).
The easiest fix for this would be that the rule that Italian surrender is checked as soon as any of the islands is under WA control, is replaced by one that says any of the islands has at least 1 WA controlled hex, and does not have at least 1 German CV present (this needs checking for exploits in itself, as would need to make sure a couple of AASUs wouldn't do it. Maybe insist on an 'on map' German unit of at least 1CV...)
Rationale: in RL, Italy was not keen on fighting on, and I do not think would have done so if Germany abandoned it. In game, the WA need a little help, and I think giving the Axis the option to fight to the last Italian is unrealistically flexible. There needs to be a reason not to shift all Ge units out of Sicily, whilst shifting all mobile Italian ones in. At present the Axis player has total freedom (which is too much IMHO)
Option - modifiy the above rule to prevent/discourage Germany abandoning southern Italy, by making the rule be that there must be a German CV within a certain number of hexes of a WA Italian hex (mainland or island). Set the number of hexes equal to the length of Sardinia and one rule fits all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

1) Axis player withdrawing all Germans from Sicily immediately (and also Sardinia/Corsica sometimes).
The easiest fix for this would be that the rule that Italian surrender is checked as soon as any of the islands is under WA control, is replaced by one that says any of the islands has at least 1 WA controlled hex, and does not have at least 1 German CV present (this needs checking for exploits in itself, as would need to make sure a couple of AASUs wouldn't do it. Maybe insist on an 'on map' German unit of at least 1CV...)
Rationale: in RL, Italy was not keen on fighting on, and I do not think would have done so if Germany abandoned it. In game, the WA need a little help, and I think giving the Axis the option to fight to the last Italian is unrealistically flexible. There needs to be a reason not to shift all Ge units out of Sicily, whilst shifting all mobile Italian ones in. At present the Axis player has total freedom (which is too much IMHO)
Option - modifiy the above rule to prevent/discourage Germany abandoning southern Italy, by making the rule be that there must be a German CV within a certain number of hexes of a WA Italian hex (mainland or island). Set the number of hexes equal to the length of Sardinia and one rule fits all.

So the Axis sacrifice a regiment to meet the rule? I presume you don't want to include fortified zones, or otherwise those intending to evacuate immediately sacrifice only 1 AP.
The Germans run because if the Allies don't come ashore on Sicily with 6 TFs on turn 1 then there is a very good chance the garrison of Sicily will be trapped by a landing on the toe.
If I see all 6 TFs come ashore on turn 1 I'll fight in Sicily, but if I don't see all 6 used on turn 1 I have to pull back to meet the threat. The Allies have flexibility in where they land, the Germans need flexibility to meet that.

I defend forward when practical because I think it is the best strategy (under current rules). If the German player wants to give away a bunch of territory without a fight I think that has sufficient consequences. Italians surrender easily enough as it is. Just wait until August and invade The Heel. Defending Sicily when the Allies have TFs free and prepped to invade after July is suicidal for the units in question.

quote:

If any tactic in the game becomes agreed as 'the only sensible way to do it', we have an problem. The gamer needs choices, all with advantages and disadvantages, and these may vary depending on how the opponent counters. Any time there is 'one best way', this principle is lost.

quote:

I am beginning to see comments on the air war that worry me a little, too. I have not played it enough myself, but there are views building that the WA 'has to' bomb only a couple of targets in Germany, everything else being a waste of time. If so, that needs looking at. There must be options there too. If the Ax defends the Ruhr to the hilt (for example), there needs to be a counter - maybe harder work, maybe involving different tactics, but I would hate to find the air war just turns in to a slog. I think the balancing of German industry needs looking at, and a 'transport plan' should be an option that can work at least (in Germany kill the rail if you cant get the industry) etc. Generally the points imperative is driving everyone - it doesn't seem to be possible to do enough damage to German industry to allow an easy invasion of Europe to make up for the loss of MP/HI points, so points bombing it has to be...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Really sad to see the RA modelled that badly, just like other Axis minors the pilots were treated and trained more like an Elite class. Quality was actually good but they often suffered from the limited capabilities of their aircraft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

The RA is fairly strong at start, and can do some things but in the end.....does it really matter? Its not like the allies cant replace any air losses. Your not getting any vps for blowing up allied air planes on the ground..its more of a feeling that you are doing 'something' to the allied juggernaut. Even if the Germans move the whole RA to the coast and use it for a second Battle of Britain all that it will really amount to is a lot of dead Italian planes, and a few dead allied ones. Not much of a dent against the allied bombing.

quote:

So, all the Axis players are recommending the RA is used in suicide raids because they are bored? And since they don't really do anything, the end effect is to train up the WA air units? I am so sorry for complaining, obviously it isn't an ahistorical exploit, its an ahistorical boost to Ax players opponents and an innocent pastime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The air war goes something like this:

The allies bomb whatever HI, Manpower, FUEL, Oil etc they can get to. As well as occasionally hitting U-Boat factories. This is purely for VP reasons.

As 1943 turns into 1944...the allies turn to other targets. The bombing divisor makes bombing HI etc less lucrative, and instead, they will go after things that actually hurt the germans. Oil, Fuel are good for both VP's and hurting. Air factories...armour factories are also on the menu. Railyards for the more competent allied player.

So the game already forces a changing air war.

The allied players do not 'have to' just like they don't have to be allied players in the first place. Its a game. It has victory points. The one who gets the most wins.

Now the Ruhr has a large concentration of both HI and Manpower (among other things). As a famous Russian general said after the debacle at Kharkov in early '42...the Germans can read a map. Its a high source of vps, and is going to be defended accordingly by the competent German.

There are other sources...there are vp stuff clustered around Hamburg..so while you are hitting the Uboats..feel free to get some vps as well. With a bit of work you can make multiple air directives...hit all those scattered cities in the middle. Nobody says you have to hit the Germans where they are strong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Ok, but how does a WA player actually WIN under this method? You seem to be arfuing that you don't need to bomb for VP, look, here's an example of someone who didn't and got a draw. Wooohoo!

quote:

Ok, but how does a WA player actually WIN under this method? You seem to be arfuing that you don't need to bomb for VP, look, here's an example of someone who didn't and got a draw. Wooohoo!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

Ok, but how does a WA player actually WIN under this method? You seem to be arfuing that you don't need to bomb for VP, look, here's an example of someone who didn't and got a draw. Wooohoo!

Presuming equally skilled players, isn't a draw what should happen if VP conditions are fair?

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Ok, but how does a WA player actually WIN under this method? You seem to be arfuing that you don't need to bomb for VP, look, here's an example of someone who didn't and got a draw. Wooohoo!

well as my record so far (in full public view) was a total humping by the AI and a marginal defeat PBEM, I feel uniquely able to comment on 'how to win as the allies' . I think I'll do a Pelton style 'victory' chart as my signature?

pragmatically, I'd be worried if the game was often allowing allied players to do much more than draw (assuming equal expertise/incompetence etc), my take is that the Allies lost/drew and the Soviets won for very good reasons (not least once the Germans really had two fronts on their hands, as the major land power victory was theirs for the taking).

Having said all that, you can win in two broad ways. One is a relentless pursuit of VPs, I now think that done right, the allies can really stack up a VP lead from bombing in 1943 that should carry them over the game. The other is to bring your opponent to the point of collapse.

In this model HI is not really a key target, I've yet to see a game where the Germans have a global supply shortage. But taking out key equipment factories can hasten the decline of both the Panzers and the Luftwaffe (=an easier ground campaign) and take out the rail net. This was implicit from the start but didn't really work and I think players gave up a bit. But with .44/.48 it doesn't matter if the Germans have masses of supply in their major depots, you can stop its distribution if you trash the rail junctions.

so doing that you may accumulate VPs more slowly in 1943 but gain a huge reward in 1944/45 when you have inflicted a historical denial of mobility to the Germans?

I'm not sure about this, not sure there is any perfect strategy, one reason I'm playing the Germans in a PBEM is try and work out where their critical points are.

edit: example of what I mean, in my PBEM with smokindave I bombed his Me-262 factories, really for something to do with 15 Air once the Soviets had Ploesti. Now I never really noticed them as a problem, others report them being a major influence on the late game airwar. So I may have, actually inadvertently, done something quite clever (my usual approach), after all the factories are all in S Germany and pretty vulnerable and once you have trashed Munich and Vienna there are not that many targets in that area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This thread recommends tightening towards history but others have lamented the tautness of the VP conditions imposed for the self same reason.

This is a thought provoking thread for me. What do players really want? Is it history or flexibility? Does it matter as long as you are winning?

I may be unique here, but I want to win in a historically plausible manner... not slavishly following history, but not in a game where real constraints on Germany are not represented. Or the WA for that matter. So winning would be much easier if WA casualties were not -VP, but I would argue against that equally strongly... the WA are not the Sovs and any game that allowed their use in that way (without huge consequences) would turn me off(and no, emptying manpower pools would not be enough of a consequence)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Now we know the Sovs got to Berlin and hence the WA didnt 'win', but from the current bombing I assess they were well beaten on points anyway. Now maybe that's the real reason we stopped at the Elbe

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Now we know the Sovs got to Berlin and hence the WA didnt 'win', but from the current bombing I assess they were well beaten on points anyway. Now maybe that's the real reason we stopped at the Elbe

I have just been considering my earlier statement. It is probably almost impossible to evaluate RL VP (requiring a complete knowledge of SB, casualties etc), but did the WA not win? They didn't get to Berlin, but mostly because they didn't try. Would they if they had tried? I suspect not, and they certainly wouldn't have taken the city with the defenders that were there. But the more real question is could they have done better with any realistic likelihood? How?

I think Italy could have been better - mostly Anzio... a real lost opportunity. Also I guess Kesselring held them back very well for the last year or 10 months - a few extra VPs possible there. But France... mistakes were made (broad vs narrow front, Market Gdn - nice idea, wrong place/time, clearing the approaches to Antwerp) but the German ones were much bigger (Mortain, Bulge, Bodenplatte etc). Thus the net effect was positive to WA I would argue and it would be hard to get many more VPs there (I don't want to leave the German mistakes and cancel all WA ones - not very likely as other than a 'max possible' test).

The only remaining issue is the SB. It could (with hindsight) have been more focused... earlier transport, fuel and oil. Better BC response to NF (the evidence was there, they just didn't spot it), earlier big DTs on P51s. But not, maybe, to a huge extent.

Thus maybe the WA achieved more than a draw in history(as in, they did quite well; that is with no really major disasters, and Hitler batting quite well in WA favour). There is lots of scope for them to do worse without 'losing'.

Maybe we need to think of RL as a WA minor victory? I don't know, what do others think? I think, without Bulge, WA could have been delayed for 3(?) months in early 1945? Not captured the Ruhr by the fall of Berlin?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Since I don't seem to have support on this point, I will duck out of the SB debate. I wait with anticipation for the first few WA victories against competent Axis play (i.e. not WA wins due to huge Axis mistakes), that show a range of ways to do it...

quote:

My opponent is averaging 20 points a turn in strategic bombing, has hurt my rail yards, trashed my oil industry, and does not make pointless ground attacks. He loses maybe 3 or 4 points on a bad turn due to Allied losses.
This is in December '43.