Balkans & Norway

Balkans & Norway (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold

Message

targul -> Balkans & Norway (8/26/2007 10:55:40 PM)
I am finding as this game cycles the Balkans are also being ignored as Italy has been. I am not speaking of AI games I am talking Human play. Greece has not been attacked by any of my opponents that I can remember. Norway is no longer attacked used to always be attacked but last half dozen games players stopped. Yugoslavia gets attacked about 50% of the time. Many now ignore most of Russia they head for Moscow then on the Perm without worrying at all about the rest of Russia. They place small flanks to control the Russians but they dont require much since they can use Italians and minors for that job. Also these attacks into Russia are becoming earlier and earlier since there is no weather to prevent it is 40/41 winter. How do most feel about this? Do you feel that it is good to have no consequences for leaving alone what does not effect the win or should these somehow be necessary for the win?

Bossy573 -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 1:35:45 AM)
Targul, My only experience so far is against the AI but my experiences generally correspond with what you point out. I will usually ignore Norway as there is no real strategic benefit to taking it and the AI is most un-Churchillian and ignores it as well. If it was v. a human and the Axis player was ignoring it, I would definitely grab it as it would force the Axis player to more heavily garrison Denmark and the German north coast ports. In the Balkans I always take Yugoslavia but Greece is a pain in the butt to take and again, there is no real strategic benefit to having it. The difficulty the Allied player has in North Africa means there is no danger of a southern front in Greece or Italy. In Russia I have tried the Moscow-Perm strategy while the Russians build up heavily on the flanks and against the AI at higher difficulty levels it never has worked. The weather and the oil situation defeat it every time. I have never tried attacking Russia in 1940 so I wasn't aware there was no weather penalty. That is a "bug" that should be addressed. In the game I am playing right now as the Axis against moderate AI with oil and FOW, I never took Moscow or Leningrad and its is early 1944, the Axis are in full retreat across Russia, the Allies have landed in France and will take Paris next turn. Only in North Africa and the Med. are the Axis in control, which doesn't ruin the game but doesn't give it the correct "feel" at times. Victory conditions can be subject to house rules if necessary but although this is a great game, it remains a work in progress.

Vypuero -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 2:02:27 AM)
Actually I can take Greece in 1 turn by Naval invasion - place Tac bombers on Albania, then send Italian and German units to surround athens, have a couple ships nearby and you can take them in 1-2 turns. Norway stopped because of new allied strategy of big fleet there - it can be countered a coupel ways, but also France is harder too with some new strategies by allies so you need to concentrate there - my intentions are now to usually go for after France falls.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 4:59:22 AM)
I have found that Axis DOW on Norway is really useful for eth allies - you can put English garrisons on the Norwegian mines and the western city and get a few extra points out of it for quite a long time!! :)

targul -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 5:16:17 AM)
So do you think it would wise for the Allies to invade Norway while the Axis is tied up with other things?

SMK-at-work -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 5:22:04 AM)
Not really - if the Axis invades you don't have to fight the Norwegian garrisons - why give the Axis any kind of break at all? I just take it as an opportune windfall if it happens.

VonManteuffel -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 8:01:16 AM)
If you pack most of your defense around Perm, I think it will stop the Moscow to Perm gambit. There is no way he's taking Perm if you have everything there.

Tordenskiold -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 8:59:27 AM)
Hi Targul, from an historic point of view, Norway, Yougoslavia and Greece should of couse be a must for the Axis to capture. It is not true that this has no strategic effect, since you get 5,5 and 4 production points for these countries. IMO it is crucial to get as many production points as possible, thus these countries are important. In the present game I startet in June 22, 1941 and thus did not have to conquer these countries since they alreade are at this point. It is now April 43 and I have captured Leningrad and Novgorod. I have not giving up to capture Moscow and I am just now getting ready for the last push. In the south my troops are right outside Rostov, but it is difficult to get enough hardened German forces down there to capture it. The Allies have tried to invade France several times but I have beaten them every time. In Africa a pure Italien force have taken the whole of Egypt, had to since the British where attacking me there. Not very much to fight for down there compared to the amount of forces needed, but still 3 PP is nice to have. Agree that the weather penalty shoult also apply to winter 1940. BTW playing with OilConsumption ang FOW on.

VonManteuffel -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 9:18:49 AM)
Norway is good for the Allies is because it's close to the UK and one can grab it fairly early without being open to a Sealion. As Axis, I have never bothered with it.

targul -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/27/2007 9:32:26 PM)
Von if you took all your forces and placed them around Perm the Axis would cut through that as if it were butter. You need to damage and batter the Axis as they come forward. Hopefullly saving some of those battlehardened vet prior to that last stand. Otherwise the tech and combat stars will be overwhelming to the Russian hoards.

Irish Guards -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/28/2007 1:54:42 AM)
Yep .. Them Norwegians put up a hell of a fight in 40 ... [&o] IG

VonManteuffel -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/28/2007 6:56:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: targul Von if you took all your forces and placed them around Perm the Axis would cut through that as if it were butter. You need to damage and batter the Axis as they come forward. Hopefullly saving some of those battlehardened vet prior to that last stand. Otherwise the tech and combat stars will be overwhelming to the Russian hoards. I think it's possible to stop a Moscow to Perm run pretty easily. The first PBEM game I played, I lost Perm that way, but since then nobody has come close. Of course one would want to garrison cities and have a force in the south. I did exaggerate when I said "everthing".

Bossy573 -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 2:28:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: targul Many now ignore most of Russia they head for Moscow then on the Perm without worrying at all about the rest of Russia. They place small flanks to control the Russians but they dont require much since they can use Italians and minors for that job. Just a aside, a few years back I read Hitler's Panzers East and the author, R.H.S. Stolfi, theorized that almost exactly this strategy would have won the Germans WWII sometime late in 1941. His basic premise was that taking Moscow would have so completely disrupted north-south communications in Russia that both Leningrad and the Ukraine would have fallen at a fraction of the effort the Germans actually put forth. Further, he stated that the post-Moscow capture of what I think he called the Moscow-Gorki space would have ended any chance at a resurgence and resulted in the disposal of the communist government and a quick Russian capitulation. It was an interesting read. Anyway, Stolfi advocated, in general, the strategy some players are using to knock Russia out quickly in this game. So such a strategy would not seem to be as non-historical as it might first seem.

targul -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 4:59:53 AM)
I do not consider it to be ahistorical at all. My problem is that there is no variable. Moscow-Perm every game will result in players perfecting that stategy and it will result in the kind of games I am seeing more and more. I am advocating making the objectives either Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad which would almost definitely resulted in a Russian collapse or Moscow and a random city of the majors to not let the Germans know exactly what you need. No one really knows the result of a Moscow collapse most postulate that Russia would have continued to fight but that is based on a theory without any real basis. I would prefer the game even allow a small chance that would result in the collapse but that each additional major city would result in an ever increasing chance of there collapse. It would really make for many varied results and lots of options.

VonManteuffel -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 6:38:56 AM)
I also think that Stalingrad should be another Russian Capital, so that the Russians can play a more southern strategy if they want.

PDiFolco -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 11:28:34 AM)
Agree with Targul, Perm looks like a fantasy target. Moscow+Leningrad+Stalingrad would be a more reasonable set of conditions for Russian collapse.

Dave Ferguson -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 11:35:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: targul I do not consider it to be ahistorical at all. My problem is that there is no variable. Moscow-Perm every game will result in players perfecting that stategy and it will result in the kind of games I am seeing more and more. I am advocating making the objectives either Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad which would almost definitely resulted in a Russian collapse or Moscow and a random city of the majors to not let the Germans know exactly what you need. No one really knows the result of a Moscow collapse most postulate that Russia would have continued to fight but that is based on a theory without any real basis. I would prefer the game even allow a small chance that would result in the collapse but that each additional major city would result in an ever increasing chance of there collapse. It would really make for many varied results and lots of options. Historically it could be the diversion of the panzers south and the debacle of the Kiev pocket was what got the germans as close to Moscow as they did. Continuing east in August as Guderian etc advocated had one basic problem, the 300+ mile flank the germans would have to extend as they moved east. There is no doubt that this would have been put under extreme pressure as the russians would have lots of reserves that had not dissappeared at Kiev. This is one what if of the 1941 campaign that fascinates me as I don't think it has been wargamed as part of a strategic east front game. Problem is can CAEW model this? i see a problem in that the germans can construct a 'tortoise' of heavy tech armour which just drives east ignoring what the russians do elsewhere and relaying on capturing cities to maintain momentum. Dave

YohanTM2 -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 1:54:01 PM)
Modders out there or FPB...can this be modded? quote: ORIGINAL: PDiFolco Agree with Targul, Perm looks like a fantasy target. Moscow+Leningrad+Stalingrad would be a more reasonable set of conditions for Russian collapse.

Vypuero -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 4:14:27 PM)
Yes but it may have some unforseen side effects, like Stalingrad may become the new default Capital, if you put in 3.

PDiFolco -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 4:16:43 PM)
In this case we can put Moscow and Stalingrad only. In CEAW like in most games it's rather hard to simulate the "heroic" siege of Leningrad and it usually falls before Moscow.

Syagrius -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 5:07:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bossy573 quote: ORIGINAL: targul Many now ignore most of Russia they head for Moscow then on the Perm without worrying at all about the rest of Russia. They place small flanks to control the Russians but they dont require much since they can use Italians and minors for that job. Just a aside, a few years back I read Hitler's Panzers East and the author, R.H.S. Stolfi, theorized that almost exactly this strategy would have won the Germans WWII sometime late in 1941. His basic premise was that taking Moscow would have so completely disrupted north-south communications in Russia that both Leningrad and the Ukraine would have fallen at a fraction of the effort the Germans actually put forth. Further, he stated that the post-Moscow capture of what I think he called the Moscow-Gorki space would have ended any chance at a resurgence and resulted in the disposal of the communist government and a quick Russian capitulation. It was an interesting read. Anyway, Stolfi advocated, in general, the strategy some players are using to knock Russia out quickly in this game. So such a strategy would not seem to be as non-historical as it might first seem. Very intersting, this must be very good read.

HansBolter -> RE: Balkans & Norway (8/29/2007 5:48:55 PM)
Many authors have speculated on what impact Moscow falling would have had on the Soviet war effort. Several have also speculated on the German army's ability to have taken it without the Kiev pocket distraction. Joseph Miranda, a well respected boardgame designer, authored an article on the subject in a recent edition of Strategy & Tactics magazine that focused on the issue (issue #244...I discovered I still had it in my briefcase). His conclusion was that he didn't think they could have pulled it off, mainly for reasons of supply, attrition, friction and the large Soviet force that would have been extant on the southern flank of the drive as a result of not having suirrounded them in the Kiev pocket. He goes on to point out that even if they had taken it, they would not likely have been able to hold it against counter attack for the same resaons stated above. I tend to disagree with Joe's opinion, but I respect it nonetheless.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375