AlbertN
Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
|
End of 1942 - EuroAxis Discussion.
Screenshot is of the "Force Pools" of the Euro-Axis. So pratically what I can effectively build.
Euro-Axis is what I favor, compared to the frustration of Japan.
Japan, I feel that is very much lottery alike. So is the nature of Naval Combat. Even more, Naval Combat with Carriers included.
First you have the Search rolls and the Surprise determination. You could find, not find or be found even ... first big variable. Second you'd have the Air-to-Air combat. Then the Anti-Air and then the Naval Armour saves.
It's all odds, percentages, and whatnot - surely. BUT the swings are pretty massive.
Admittedly, that is the only thing that on the long run gives a hope to the Japan otherwise it would be purely outgunned. But it is also something that could lead to a Midway prematurely.
Though, meanwhile for Japan you are on a loose schedule with a big variable of the US Chits more than the dream - realized in this game but not always - of conquering China; the Euro-Axis has nations to conquer and objectives to reach.
About the "Timetable".
I've heard many who claims Axis is on a timetable, and that BP losses are not too important. I sort of realized that meanwhile you're on a Timetable, you must pratically "perfect" the game with Euro-Axis in order to excel.
Bad rolls can always happen, but the "timetable" factor can lead to the ruin of the Euro-Axis.
1) If you rush an attack at low odds just to run quicker ... well if the attack goes wrong you're stuck for the whole turn with a helluva of troops.
2) There is only -that- much that the Euro-Axis can produce. Each BP lost is lost forever. The more you lose, the slower you go and the less pressure you can apply. So exponentially, a few "hex-grabbing" attacks that cost me units will slow me down immensely later on because I've less troops to attack with - so I can do less or worse (if not both) attacks!
Euro-Axis seems in a delicate situation where they must carefully balance their effort and decide when to attacks. You cannot veritably go too slow, but the excess of speed can backfire much worse than going too slow.
The Barbarossa '41 vs Barbarossa '42 + Med Dilemma.
I exclude Sea Lion to start with. I feel the Axis cannot pull it off in general. Maybe, a lucky case every blue moon, but in general the odds are extremely against it.
Besides, as soon as an Axis unit is into UK the US gets 1.5 Chits! The UK could let Axis land just to get that benefit (and added production too).
So I exclude the Sea Lion from my tactics and strategies. (Ontop of having to rely on Sea Battle lottery, where I do not even have carriers but only short range land based planes to provide aircover!).
Barbarossa '41 has its merits - namely the fact the US don't get as many chits as a Barbarossa '42 going to close the Med.
Averagely they'd get 1 off Gibraltar, 1 off Suez, 1 off Spain, and maybe 1 more because of Portugal.
3 Chits are a lot, especially in terms of helping the USA to gear up quicker.
Also, to engage in Spain implies potential losses for Germany. To assault Gibraltar losses or even failure - all units which should be rebuilt.
In 1941 also the Soviets are much weaker than in 1942.
Though, if Axis goes in Soviet Union in '41, they boost Soviet production already (Homeland attack and presence), and meanwhile the Soviets are weaker, Germany is weaker too. (They've a year less to produce, and they'd produce less without Spain). Because Spain and Portugal are a total of 5 resources and 2 factories - against 1 resource provided for free as long as Germany has Paris.
So in 1942 the Germany would have a whole 1941 of production at 1:1 ratio with more resources and factories; meanwhile the Soviets keep to a lower % of production because they're not attacked.
This can offset the US chits to an extent, pratically what the USA gains first is not given to the Soviets by not attacking them.
Then there is the strategical focus. By closing the Mediterranean the Axis ensures Italy is better protected, it won't surrender as quick and can keep producing over time.
The added beaches in Spain / Marocco can be pratically defended with the units that otherwise would be needed to protect Italy, Balkans and so forth. - The only drawback is that if the Allies seize Gibraltar suddenly, the Axis are caught pants down! (I underline the suddenly.)
Long in short - extra production from Spain and safety of Italy for earlier USA entry is something that in my books is a no brainer.
The Wolfpacks & the Navy.
As previously mentioned, Naval Battle is a lottery.
For Germany in the specific, it's even worse. To activate their navy they need to not operate properly via land. And they have already air rebase issues once they're against Russia.
Surface Navy - especially with the intrinsic limits of their crappy carriers - in the end of the day is not that worth.
In this specific game I prefixated my own mind to not produce new ships. I can repair some, or finish these in the Construction Pool.
Submarines are a slightly different tale. They require less time to be built, and are not bombardable either when kept into a Major Port. That is pratically the new concept of fleet in being for the Euro-Axis: submarines.
The submarine combat is screwed - really. Technically convoys do not need escorts for ASW combat by now. Thus, submarines are stealth ships that go fight surface combat, and that is what forces the W.Allies to put escorts in the seas.
Yet, it is a bit pointless to produce submarines before that timeline. Because you need land forces. You can move regularly your land units, you cannot move your submarines. And even if you move them, then you struggle to find the convoys. And if something goes terri-wrong you lost your submarines. 1-2 submarines won't do much alas. You need loads of them.
And if you produce loads of them - well less planes for you. Or less panzers.
The Italian Force Pool
As the same is worth for UK and CW, so is for Germany and Italy.
Germany has finished pratically the "regular" units to be produced - as you can see it has TERRs, ARTs, divisions of sort and so forth.
It is relevant to realize that for how weaker to their German counterpart, Italian units still fight appropriately in defensive battles / shore guard.
Pratically my swings are that Germany fuels resources to Italy; and some BPs to help them produce their Oil Rigs in '40.
In 1941 it's Italy who fuels BPs to Germany, and produces little (I had it producing 5-6 BPs and giving 5-6 BPs per turn to Germany for the '41 whole).
That is a way to try to min/max efficiency.
Italy with 5 can produce 1 LND3 or 1 NAV3 or the ATR - which is in function of Barbarossa. Germany can focus on land troops, fielding all the panzers, infantry, etc, for Barbarossa time (in 1942).
Once Barbarossa starts Italy can start to produce regularly. That means pratically that Italy is undermanned in its dedicated sectors (hence in the previous games my friend went into Marocco), but in 1942 after the first turns (Where Germany needs to probably churn out new planes, panzers and O-Chit) Germany should start to help Italy back.
In general it is more efficient to start producing Italian units (INF, MOT, etc) than to waste 4-5 BPs in a not so strong Germany division of sort.
Italy also can provide a healthy amount of planes that you can move around without the limits of the Luftwaffe - which are heavy. Italy can take combined impulses or air impulses until they do not need to operate via land a lot (Which usually means the Allies land in their sectors, for me usually Marocco that is not too relevant; or southern Spain - which is more important due to Gibraltar access).
Leningrad, Astrakhan and similar "pockets"
In the probably false tracks of this game where Axis is quite beefed up due to its successes - for the Axis it is important to liquidate pockets of resistance. Even a relatively insignificant place as Astrakhan can require up to 4 units to "shield" it. 3 of these units or even all 4 could be used elsewhere - this is the main reason for which it's better to invest into the seizing them down.
All units you keep screening these cities are otherwise pinned there for a long time when they could be needed elsewhere.
Do it when you still can before it's too late. Which for me means Winter '42 usually.
Being spread all over the place.
Once Axis conquered enough territories, they've to defend them.
I found myself suddenly piloting up old 1939 or worse planes. Even the HS123 or the Ju86 can do something.
They're sacrificable. They've 2 points of bombing - which all that you need for a Notional "buffed" by the ZoC. 2 + 2 = 4.
If your puny and obsolete bomber can slip through, it will make the landing painfully harder in many cases. At least a premature landing like the ones my opponent is (wrongly) doing.
Sure you rely on the luck of your plane to go through but that forces the Allies to think twice before to try to land.
On the other hand this means the Luftwaffe is spread all over - with limits in air rebases due to Russia advance - and once '43 is reached the Allies will point a finger somewhere, throw all their airpower there meanwhile you would have 1-3 fighters there, and 1-3 per sector the W.Allies can land.
The Condor revealed magnificent in defence too with their extreme range of intervention.
Climb well and enjoy the landslide later.
This is the absolute concept of the Axis - in general - in most WW2 games. Use well your turns when you're on the top of the tidal wave. The more you exploit the momentum, the easier will be to resist later on when you gradually turn to be the underdog.
Each early success, conquest, saved troop because of luck or ... because you did not rushed and attacked an impulse later better ... is an extra troop you'll have for later on.
Other Conclusions.
If I look at history - WiF seems to allow the Axis to have a wet dream of conquest. Which it is something I like.
I twitch the nose at other things (like the 1942 German "poor" planes - compared to the Brits and the US they've less top notch planes whereas it was actually the opposite.) but in many games I played the Axis is artificially hindered in worse ways.
Soviets - though - I've to try them at some point. They're what looks like the black sheep always taking the beating. But I suspect my friend misplay them. Cannot say for sure until I try them out in person. (And when it happens, they'll get a Lend Lease of BPs or resources!)
From the historical perspective too I think the W.Allies - especially USA - is extremely strong (but in this game, the W.Allies and Soviets played in function to get the US in as soon as possible so it could be because of that).
Here CW wasted tons of resources (troops and planes) in not very needed battles (Marocco first of all) and the USA is loitering in S.America. IF the CW had their Marocco troops and US would not have been in S.America they could have probably landed and claimed a nice foothold in France.
With my mindset - that is pratically absurd. Late '42 US made Torch, landing pratically unopposed against Vichy defenders!
It's probably all game balance - but I dread of what a focused US can do, if they just want to land in Europe. Enough AAR got me to see Germany on its knees by the end of 1943.
 Attachment (1)
|
Printable Version
RE: Cohen vs Enrico - AAR nr.4 (Alas Again Restarting!) - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread