Best time for Axis to start a war (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> The War Room



Message


wargameplayer -> Best time for Axis to start a war (12/6/2006 2:48:55 AM)

There are a lot of schools of thought I have heard.

From.
A. As soon as possible. Say early 1941 start a war with Russia then move to attack the US around the historical period.
B. Do it right when the resource benefits respectively run out. That's summer and fall of 41 for the USSR and spring 41 for the USA respectively. With attacks for Russia Winter 1942 and Fall 41 for the USA.
C. As late as possible. Basically wait until the readiness is going to bring them into the war anyway. Estimate as best you can but do everything you can to delay it (delayed attacks and new wars where possible).

I think I am at B because I think that corresponds pretty closely to C anyway unless you have been super lucky with your rolls. Any other opinions?




Uncle_Joe -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/6/2006 3:46:53 AM)

Note that with 'B', 9 times out of 10 those resources that Russia is gifting to Germany dont mean a thing to Germany (or Russia). You likely already are at maximum storage and all your factories are working to capacity. So, that should not currently be a factor in calculating an optimal time for a DoW.

IMO, its generally to Germany's benefit to delay as long as possible before attacking Russia. The benefits are numerous, but here are a few of note:

1) The game is on a fixed timetable. As long as either Germany or Japan survive until the end, the Axis will win. So, it is generally favorable to reduce the amount of time that the Allies have to conquer you.

2) Economy. Germany's econ is fairly on pace with the Allies in the early game but that rapidly disappears as the Allies multipliers for being at war kick in. At the beginning of the game, the Allies are likely wasting Pop points left and right due to shortages of resources where Germany is likely using all of hers. Giving the Allies resources to match the pop doesnt seem like a good idea IMO when you are already max'ed out yourself.

3) Research cap. Until Germany is at war with US or USSR, the cap is in place. This helps Germany keep her tech edges over the Allies longer. Once the cap is gone and the multipliers kick in, the Allied tech can really start to roll. Keeping the tech and multiplier low for a longer period also pushes back the A-bomb potential which really helps Japan's survival.

4) Certain very beneficial events for Germany (like Spanish Activation) require Germany to not be war with the US etc. The longer you put off the war, the more chance of getting a favorable event.

5) Extra time vs the UK. If you dont attack Russia until 42, then you can spend almost an entire extra year pounding the UK. You can bomb their factories and resources and attack them in the Med. In extreme cases, you can take England. The more damage you do to the WAllies in 41, the longer it will take for them to recover and turn the tables on you when the US finally does get in (which is a double whammy considering the fixed end date).

On the other hand, Japan's econ really struggles without the US gift resources. So once those dry up in Sp41, Japan really takes a hit. But even there, on the plus side, if the Japanese dont 'surprise attack' the US anywhere, it will likely be years before the full US industry kicks in which can really level the playing field for Japan's weak econ. IMO, though, that is playing with fire and its probably best to plan on attacking the US with Japan by Sp/Su42 at the latest.

So, given the above, I believe that it is almost always in Germany's interest to delay as long as they can without surrendering the initiative. This might involve needing Spies to keep a closer look at the WR numbers, but even without Spies, you can generally calculate how long you have.

Luckily for the Allies, in AWD they actually have some say in the deal (unlike WaW where Germany was the sole decider of the entire course of the war). There are two basic things that Russia can do to alter the equation:

1) Repair the rail line in Eastern Poland and begin moving units in. For ever non-Militia unit they move in, their WR goes up by 1 at the end of the turn. By continuously adding units each turn (they can only move 1/turn), they can pretty much keep Germany 'honest' and on a 41-ish timetable. The big disadvantage for Russia here is that she will likely lose all of the units she commits on the first turn of the war to little or no gain (since they will be victims of the surprise attack rule). Secondly, making those moves deprives Russia of her ability to reinforce Leningrad or Stalingrad or to form any strategic depth behind the initial lines (usually leading to units being cut off and destroyed).

2) Russia can queue up a few Factories on turn 1. If she does this, she will begin realizing payoff in Su41. Every turn Germany doesnt attack past then, Russia is gaining 2 PP/factory she built. Of course once Germany does attack, those factories will likely go idle due to resource shortages. And again, if Germany does attack in 41, you will be weaker since you will have spent early resources on factories that have no paid off yet.

The end result is that Russia has to decide how much to risk in the early game to put pressure on Germany. If she goes 'all in' and Germany attacks in 41, its likely that Russia could be overrun fairly quickly. On the other hand, if she doesnt commit at all, Germany enjoys all of the above benefits for free if she so chooses.

But the operative thing is that it is now a decision to be made by BOTH sides. Your challenge is to evaluate what the enemy is doing to implement your plans to best capitalize on the enemy actions.

Hope it helps!





wargameplayer -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/6/2006 5:54:04 AM)

That's a great piece of analysis.

The big trade off for me for Japan is the 11 or so resources and consequently production you get by taking Indonesia. Now if you go after China it brings the USA in anyway. Perhaps if you went after Russia, since the resources aren't too difficult to get and its only 5 point increase in WR. Maybe a joint German/Japanese attack is the way to go. Locking up the resources in Russia from both ends then just leaving the US alone then grabbing Indonesia when you are ready.




wargameplayer -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/10/2006 1:08:47 AM)

I'm doing a game now. And I see what you mean about the extra resources. 

Wheras Japan has no resources at all cuz it's stuck in its little box until it attacks russia or USA.  I have England and am about to take India and Africa in a PBM game and it's summer 41.  I can't tell what the war readiness is but it's beween 17=26 for both russia and USA. I am trying to decide now who to attack really. I might wait a bit and get some more units built. Im low on infantry as usual and I have some planes coming.  And I could go for the the USA or the USSR. I am thinking of having Japan attack the USSR also but I have to time it real perfect like so I have a few turns before the USA enters. The way the readiness is it seems like I will be at war with USA soon after a declaration on Russia unless I do it really soon.  If the real USA readiness is closer to 18 or so I have a lot more time than I think but I doubt it.  The game balance is really good. Always lots of real trade offs. Ideally I'd love to attack Russia with Japan and have 2-3 turns to exploit Russia. Repair a few resources and then attack the USA for the easy 10 resource grab in Indonesia and threaten Australia. The allied player has almost no carriers being built so I should be able to hold him off in the pacific while I gobble up the pacific.  Russia in the east for germany should be a real problem. My oponent builds lots of air and tanks.





christian brown -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 1:18:05 AM)

This is precisely why "honest" players do not do this...............it is in a sense, a cheat, clearly not a way to AV........I HATE IT.




wargameplayer -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 1:38:01 AM)

What specifcally are you referring to?

I'm not sure how timing the attack on Russia or the USA could be construed as dishonest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown

This is precisely why "honest" players do not do this...............it is in a sense, a cheat, clearly not a way to AV........I HATE IT.





christian brown -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 2:18:43 AM)

Well, the bottom line is that the longer you wait, the shorter the time is that the Allies have to crush you before the end dates, as UJ so succinctly put it above.  If I were in a tournamant for money or something, I would "delay" as long as possible as the axis...........the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.................this is why I NEVER do it against a human, because it is no fun.




wargameplayer -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 2:30:53 AM)

The Allies have a way to game this by building up eastern Poland so they can keep them from delaying too long.


I prefer to play without AV actually altho the last few pbem games I intitially thought I set it up without AV but it got reset to on somehow. The main reason I delay an attack is it gives me time to grab resources in Africa and set up some strategic positions, maybe even get the british out of Gibraltor to give myself more breathing room when I attack Russia.  In this current game I took the UK so I wanted time for the factories there to pay forthemselves with supplies/research etc. 

The real cost for delay is the lack of resources japan gets by staying put.  It's not an isignificant cost as there production can quickly ramp from 12 to the 20s within a few turns of launching the attack on the US. 12 production doesnt exactly keep you rolling in the aircraft carriers.











christian brown -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 2:46:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKAR
 The Allies have a way to game this by building up eastern Poland so they can keep them from delaying too long.


I disagree, this comes at a high price..............all those precious units will be lost on turn 1 of Barbarossa, the only thing it ensures is a reasonable timeline for getting them engaged in a reasonable timeframe......




wargameplayer -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 3:47:29 AM)

Well I wasn't debating with you whether the price was high or not. I just said they had a way to speed up the war--which is a fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKAR
The Allies have a way to game this by building up eastern Poland so they can keep them from delaying too long.


I disagree, this comes at a high price..............all those precious units will be lost on turn 1 of Barbarossa, the only thing it ensures is a reasonable timeline for getting them engaged in a reasonable timeframe......






GKar -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 1:08:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKAR
The Allies have a way to game this by building up eastern Poland so they can keep them from delaying too long.



Huh? I never said that... [&:]
Be careful with your quotes, guys...




christian brown -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 3:49:35 PM)

Wow, what the heck am I smoking?  Deepest apologies, GKAR. I have no idea how I misquoted you (alcohol consumption?!) but it never should have happened, I'm sorry.




GKar -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (12/11/2006 4:41:44 PM)

No problem, I was just wondering what's going on.




paulhager -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (1/4/2007 5:21:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown

This is precisely why "honest" players do not do this...............it is in a sense, a cheat, clearly not a way to AV........I HATE IT.


One of Hitler's many mistakes in WW II was declaring war on the U.S. after the Japanese attack. It was not "required" by the pact with Japan - note that Japan never declared war on the Soviets. I don't see how it is a "cheat" if the game rewards the Axis for keeping the U.S. out of the war longer. That's what the Axis should have done in reality.

A good historical strategy game provides ample opportunities for what if's. If the '39-'41 scenarios greatly favor the Axis in the event the Axis player doesn't involve the Americans then play '42 and later scenarios.

There is a larger issue with any historical simulation: if it is at all accurate, the players will enter it knowing much more than the actual participants/combatants and this will pretty much guarantee different outcomes. In a Gettysburg simulation (and I've played several over the past 40! years), no rational Confederate player is going to launch the equivalent of Pickett's Charge.

Most Gettysburg games are pretty tightly scripted since Gettysburg was a meeting engagement. Hence arrival times of various units are fixed, with "what-if" scenarios altering some of the arrival times. Consider a simulation of Chancelorsville. This was more in the nature of a campaign, with Lee reacting to Hooker's plan. The plan, itself, was brilliant - on paper. Now, a person executing this plan in a computer simulation would do so flawlessly. Thus, Sedgewick wouldn't dither in front of Fredricksburg but would push forward as his standing orders required. Properly executed, Chancellorsville should have been a huge Union victory, ending the Civil war in 1863. So, would it be a "cheat" if a game accurately recreated the situation and the Union player made optimal choices and either crushed the Army of Northern Virginia or forced the Confederate player to abandon his defensive position without a fight?

What we're really talking about is a philosophical issue about historical simulations: what constitutes an "accurate" simulation? The more constraints a scenario designer places on the players, the easier it is to replicate the historical outcome. There is nothing wrong or right about this approach. The alternative is to place few constraints on the players, allowing a greater scope for ahistorical outcomes. A good game should have a variety of scenarios that encompass both philosophies.




Uncle_Joe -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (1/4/2007 6:35:59 PM)

quote:

A good historical strategy game provides ample opportunities for what if's.


While I definately agree with this in theory, there are important things to watch for. Namely, with hindsight 20/20, the players will obviously correct the mistakes that they can that were made by the original participants. So, if those 'corrections' come with no cost in the game, they become the default way to play and thus we are no longer playing 'what if' every game and instead we are playing 'always do'.

To me, the best games drive towards the historical, but allow for ahistorical play with some sort of associated in-game cost. Otherwise the game quickly spirals away from the subject matter. Using Gettysburg as an example, perhaps the 'best move' is for the South to withdraw after Day 1 and threaten DC? Should the game allow this? If so, you are no longer fighting the battle. But if it doesnt allow it, then are the players being 'scripted' and not being allowed their 'what ifs'?

Also IMO 'what ifs' have to cut on both sides of the equation. There is a general tendancy amongst WW2 gamers to want to allow the Axis to correct their mistakes in the name of 'what if', and yet be content to watch the Allies play out their historical hand. Sure, the 'best move' for Germany would have been not to DoW the US when Japan did. But what if the 'best move' for the US is to DoW JAPAN before Pearl Harbor? Or to DoW Germany in 1941 and help Britain out? Why is it OK to allow Germany her 'optimal move from hindsight' but the Allies arent accorded the same freedom?

So when designing a game, the 'what ifs' have to be very carefully controlled IMO. Allowing players to deviate from the historical at no cost will quickly result in a game which no longer resembles its original subject matter. A case in point would be HoI1 in which even minor countries historically could become major players. By way of example, it was quite possible to play Argentina in HoI and become a major participant in WW2. Thats fun and all, but if I'm playing a game about WW2, I DONT want Argentina to be a power!

Thus is the thin line that had to trod for AWD.... [;)]




wargameplayer -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (1/4/2007 9:51:30 PM)

I hear ya on allowing more What if's.

This game is not a 100% what if oriented simulation really. War entry is really a huge part of the game and the german when fighting Russia and the UK in terms of what tactics to use, when to build, when to fight and when to just stay put. The multipliers are just too huge. Variables like a neutral US or a neutral USSR (never coming in) or early Entries by the US are really difficult to put in without a lot of thought imo because it's all so connected.

I think a variant where the US enters early or the US enters super late (you would have to have balance so it goes either way) could possibly work but there would have to be some sort of resource or production penalty for Germany if it goes late. Or maybe a boost.

The staying neutral is also a historical variant that is possible. But I don't know how you would preserve game balance with that. I'd love it if it were possible though.




WanderingHead -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (1/4/2007 11:30:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
The staying neutral is also a historical variant that is possible. But I don't know how you would preserve game balance with that. I'd love it if it were possible though.


Could change victory conditions based on events.

The most commonly discussed one was to have the game end date be some number of turns after USA+USSR are in the game, instead of a fixed date. In this way, Axis delay strategies do not help by reducing the amount of time the Allies have to force Axis surrender. Then delay would hurt the end-date conditions, because without conquering large parts of Russia and the DEI the Allies will generally have more production behind the scenes so they'll get stronger if the USSR and USA are left out.




paulhager -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (1/5/2007 1:33:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

A good historical strategy game provides ample opportunities for what if's.


...

To me, the best games drive towards the historical, but allow for ahistorical play with some sort of associated in-game cost. Otherwise the game quickly spirals away from the subject matter. Using Gettysburg as an example, perhaps the 'best move' is for the South to withdraw after Day 1 and threaten DC? Should the game allow this? If so, you are no longer fighting the battle. But if it doesnt allow it, then are the players being 'scripted' and not being allowed their 'what ifs'?


Apropos of this, a couple of weeks ago, I finished Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen's trilogy that begins with Lee taking Longstreet's advice and doing just that after Day 1. I'd recommend it: GETTYSBURG, GRANT COMES EAST, NEVER CALL RETREAT

quote:


Also IMO 'what ifs' have to cut on both sides of the equation. There is a general tendancy amongst WW2 gamers to want to allow the Axis to correct their mistakes in the name of 'what if', and yet be content to watch the Allies play out their historical hand. Sure, the 'best move' for Germany would have been not to DoW the US when Japan did. But what if the 'best move' for the US is to DoW JAPAN before Pearl Harbor? Or to DoW Germany in 1941 and help Britain out? Why is it OK to allow Germany her 'optimal move from hindsight' but the Allies arent accorded the same freedom?


The ultimate what-if would have been for France or France+Britain to have stopped the Nazis from militarizing the Rheinland in 1936.

In any case, I quite agree that what-if's cut on both sides of the equation. I wasn't making a definitive statement either way, just observing that the tension exists.

With respect to your specific example, one could argue that the political constraints on taking military action in a representative democracy are much greater than those that exist in a cult-of-personality dictatorship. The fact is that America was very isolationist prior to the Pearl Harbor attack and there was a huge amount of inertia in the system. Once roused, the basic superiority of the system won out over Hitler's dictatorship and Japan's military oligarchy - with a little help from "Uncle Joe" Stalin, of course. So, I'd argue that the Allies really didn't have as much freedom of action as Hitler. Having said that, Hitler was his own worst enemy and granting Nazi Germany freedom of action likely means Hitler wasn't running things. Consider what things might have been like had German fascism been more along the lines of Italian or Spanish fascism by which I mean, fascism without the poison of anti-Semitism. The Nazi repudiation of all things Jewish included what they called "Jewish Science" - that is, quantum physics. A disproportionate number of the top physicists in the world were Ashkenasi Jews. Seeing the rising anti-Semitism, most of them left Europe. Many of them ended up as major contributors to the development of the A-bomb in the U.S. Could fascism have prevailed in Germany without Hitler and without anti-Semitism? Ah, now there's an interesting what-if.

There's another what-if I play with the collapse of the Weimar Republic: what-if, instead of a parliamentary system using strict Proportional Representation, it had used single-member districts and first-past-the-post voting like the British system? I think it's a safe bet that the Nazis would have never come to power with just that change in place.

quote:


So when designing a game, the 'what ifs' have to be very carefully controlled IMO. Allowing players to deviate from the historical at no cost will quickly result in a game which no longer resembles its original subject matter. A case in point would be HoI1 in which even minor countries historically could become major players. By way of example, it was quite possible to play Argentina in HoI and become a major participant in WW2. Thats fun and all, but if I'm playing a game about WW2, I DONT want Argentina to be a power!

Thus is the thin line that had to trod for AWD.... [;)]


Again, we agree. One aspect of all of this is we are all oddball history buffs and we're willing to pay money to play sophisticated wargame simulations against each other. There are enough of us that some other oddball history buffs are able to make a living creating these games for us. What-if the Nazis had won WW II or the Soviets had won the Cold War? I seriously doubt there would be things like personal computers and the simluations that run on them today. Ain't capitalism wonderful...




Uncle_Joe -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (1/5/2007 9:14:37 AM)

quote:

With respect to your specific example, one could argue that the political constraints on taking military action in a representative democracy are much greater than those that exist in a cult-of-personality dictatorship.


Absolutely, and in fact such arguments were indeed brought up in the beta when this subject arose. But really Hitler had to abide by the political and domestic realities of his rule as well. He had to 'sell' the war against the Russians to his people and had to maintain national morale just as any leader/government had too. He didnt declare 'total war' until late '42 I believe mostly because of domestic concerns.

So, while the leaders of the Axis nations might have enjoyed a higher level of policy control, it still certainly was not a carte blanche. But on the other side of the coin, Allied nations are 'frozen' into some pretty stupid positions. I think a good 'optimal decision' for the US would be to NOT have their @$$es hangin' in the breeze in 41. [;)] They wouldnt even have to do anything 'aggressive' to be in better position than historical (which was pretty dreadful in the Pacific). Reinforcing the island bases and consolidating the fleet under air cover would be priorities as a player if their were no restrictions.

The upshot is that even a democracy or non-belligerent nation could easily enact 'what ifs' to their great benefit if allowed. So the argument against 'total control' doesnt really stack up IMO. In the end, the fact remains that if the game is going to resemble WW2, then design decisions had to be made that ensured that players couldnt deviate TOO far from the historical without some sort of imparted cost.

In fact, that is why the entire system of Russian movement to East Poland to increase WR is in place. Without that (or some other factor), there was very little incentive for Germany to attack Russia in '41. The benefits of delaying the attack are spelled out above in this thread. So, for 'optimal play' the ahistorical became the norm and thus the historical war would rarely be fought. As I stated above, I think 'what if' is great, but I'm really not fond of 'no brainer'. [:)]




wargameplayer -> RE: Best time for Axis to start a war (1/5/2007 9:39:25 AM)

Well perhaps if the event occurs perpahs provide a different War Readines scale. Have production kick in later or earlier to balance out the impact of a country entering later or earlier. something to noodle on.
quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
The staying neutral is also a historical variant that is possible. But I don't know how you would preserve game balance with that. I'd love it if it were possible though.


Could change victory conditions based on events.

The most commonly discussed one was to have the game end date be some number of turns after USA+USSR are in the game, instead of a fixed date. In this way, Axis delay strategies do not help by reducing the amount of time the Allies have to force Axis surrender. Then delay would hurt the end-date conditions, because without conquering large parts of Russia and the DEI the Allies will generally have more production behind the scenes so they'll get stronger if the USSR and USA are left out.






Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.640625