Closing some ahistoric exploits (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West



Message

HMSWarspite -> Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/16/2015 4:28:31 PM)

I have been watching the AAR with interest and there are a few tactics developing that I consider exploits. I think there are easy fixes for several of them

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.

2) Axis 'using the RA up' at game start. Any AAR from Axis now pretty much instructs you to get the RA shot down in aggressive attacks because 'you lose it anyway'.
Some form of debit/ill effect to the Axis once RA losses exceed a certain level. Either just a larger effect on air units for their losses, or enforced disbandment of RA units if not near a German presence. Either a collocated GE air unit, or a GE ground unit on their air base. I am not quite clear on this one, but it is just ahistorical the way it is now. I would have suggested a German VP loss (WA plus) for RA losses above a certain level per turn - simple but I think we have been told it wont happen.

Anyone else think these are outside of reasonably plausible history? Anyone got any others? I am considering one based on massive Allied losses in large LB raids. Consider Schweinfurt in RL, and yet we see accounts of 100+ 4E being lost, with the only effect being on the pools. I don't want more VP losses for WA, but the loss of 1000+ airmen in even the largest single mission should have some effect on something (it should not be a 'feast and famine' game where I just tread carefully for a few weeks until the losses are made up)



loki100 -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/16/2015 5:44:28 PM)

fully agree with #1 and #2, as you say Italy wanted out and anything could have been the trigger, including a feeling that the Germans were abandoning them.

how to code as a rule is a different problem [;)]

less sure about the strat bomber thing. One option is to feed aircrew losses into the VP mechanism but adjust the land loss impact.

To me, its a rule meant to reflect the relatively casualty adverse mindset of the US and the UK and agree, posting long lists of dead and lost aircrews was not what they wanted to do.

On the other hand, if you manage to trash one of Bomber Command or 8 Air they can be out of action for about 4 weeks ... that is actually quite a cost in terms of accumulating VPs ... don't forget that damaged planes wreck morale along with actual losses.



Q-Ball -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/16/2015 7:33:38 PM)

There's no question IRL the Germans had a political reason to fight on Sicily, one that doesn't exist in-game. I agree with that one.

Exposing the RA is also ahistorical, though it's not as much of a game changer; overall the RA is pretty ineffective. I have less of an issue with it being used aggressively.




RedLancer -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/16/2015 7:52:41 PM)

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?





HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/16/2015 10:02:47 PM)

I am not arguing to force the players so follow history, just that certain choices shouldn't be slam dunks. In the same way the WA can invade anywhere (including outside air cover), the Germans should be able to withdraw to Germany if they like. However, WA invasions outside fighter range have consequences, (in fact the Axis options), Ge abandoning Italy should have consequences.

As to the RA issue, yes I agree that the RA isn't worth much, so it being routinely thrown away just irritates me slightly. I guess the 'give the players options' angle would be to make the (post surrender) Italian Axis pilot pool and aircraft to be a fraction of the RA at surrender?

The SB thing was just a thought. I have always wanted fixed tour lengths for pilots (player set) and training/morale level of (trained) replacements is a function of pilots completing their tour and 'going home'. This would model the loss of the LW and IJN/IAF pilot quality - look after the AF and the trainees benefit. That would address my concern... get the AF trashed and you lose those 'tour end' pilots eventually.




LiquidSky -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 12:15:40 AM)



Germany abandoning Sicily does have consequences. It allows the Allies the freedom to invade elsewhere. In fact I see it more common for Sardinia and Sicily to be invaded at the same time...or toe. 'Locking' the Germans into a deathtrap island would be an allied dream.

Besides...the Germans had no intention of 'defending' the island. The entire battle was one of withdrawal to Messina and finally Italy. So history doesn't even support you...its against you. They were quite pleased as it was to have lasted on the island as long as they did.

The RA is a tough one. I myself am quite guilty of mis using it greatly. In one game I used it to bomb allied airfields. In the last one though I used it more intelligently, and parked the whole thing on Sardinia to help defend it.

Next game I plan to even misuse it further and send the whole RA to northern France to use against Britain.

Realistically though, the RA was less then enthused to fly anymore, and probably a lot of those squadrons can be removed from the game. The germans were quite annoyed at the lack of activity by the RA.

As a German player I want the Italians to surrender...and fast. I want all those juicy construction units fixing industry back in Germany...not languishing on some beach as a useless speed bump...well..not even a bump, more of a rough patch. So its not much of an 'incentive' to try and keep them in the game longer.




Seminole -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 4:10:06 AM)

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.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 5:20:28 AM)


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.


Ok, the '1CV' idea needs some work (maybe a CV equal to 10% of Italian CV on island or something). Your point on uses for the RA makes my case though (thank you, even if you are joking as I suspect!). It will be a pity if things like that have to be sorted after they become a source of complaint on the board.
As to the land battle, I am not trying to force the Ax to defend forwards, far from it. I am just reacting to cases I have seen where all German forces are evacuated from Sicily as fast as they can drive and every mobile It unit crammed in. They only act as speedbumps, and it may even be useful training battles for the WA to increase morale, but it is not realistic and probably helps Ax unreasonably. An evacuation of the island; fair enough. A forward battle; again fair enough. It is just that the Ax can delay the WA by a couple of turns and enhance the defence of the toe, by fighting to the last Italian whilst removing Germans. I think the nature of the war by this point is that if the Ax wants the Italians to fight they must be supported by Germans.

even 2 turns delay in Salerno/mainland invasions makes a big difference to the WA. I have not seen a AAR where the WA has walked a victory (H-H).

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.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 5:29:54 AM)

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...


Not sure what the answer is there...



LiquidSky -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 6:04:20 AM)



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.


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.




Seminole -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 6:09:59 AM)

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.


I've had about a dozen or so games started in the '43 GC as the Axis. I've defended 'forward' in each case (never retreated immediately to the Volturno Line, etc), and the farthest I've had an opponent play without resigning or disappearing is turn 70, so I'm not sure the 'one best way' concern is truly a legitimate one.

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...


Has anyone tried a 'transport plan' since the patch that changed the reach of rail capacity and added the potential for a damage divisor to supply deliveries? As I said, I haven't seen opponents focus on railyards. They seem to focus on rail interdiction when they go after the transport network, and in light of the rule change I'm not sure that is the most efficacious. The WA have lots of air groups, but they have even more choices. Factor in trying to work around Axis defensive allocations and I'm not sure that there is 'one best way'. I do promise to try and find it when I take up Ike's mantle next.
Also, I think the change of being able to assign engineers to cities is going to alter the effectiveness of a narrow stategic bombing campaign.



LiquidSky -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 6:19:27 AM)



My Railyards have routinely been bombed..although maybe not much over the last couple of turns.

Here is what they look like in the Locations/Industry tab of the CR...in descending order of RailYard size.

I have to say there is a noticeable effect on my replacement/supply net. But the problem is keeping the rail yards suppressed involves continuous bombing. It can't be collapsed like it was in France after DDay.

[image]local://upfiles/29532/D5B07791ABC843058FA85ADD470CD8D6.jpg[/image]



Denniss -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 6:43:18 AM)

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.



Q-Ball -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 12:35:14 PM)


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.


I have found the Italians do fairly well, when equipped with a modern plane, like the Veltro, Saggitario, or Centauro. The problem is there are not enough of those models. They do pretty poorly in the C202 Macchia, or the other 1941 generation of A/C. So maybe it is like RL.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 8:45:55 PM)


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.



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. [;)]



Seminole -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 9:11:02 PM)

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.


You can set them to training instead of fighting the WA and the losses seem about as bad... [:D]



HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 9:45:49 PM)


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.


I think you will find that WA needs every VP it can get, and thus there is only one way to play the air war - for max VPs. Thus you cannot try many (if any) alternate strategies and hope to win. So, for example, in RL knocking every railyard in Germany would cripple the economy (using rail as a proxy for all transport, and ignoring the practicality of actually doing it), but in game is a non-starter because of the lack of VPs. You have to run an optimised VP bombing strategy, because you need all the dozen or so points per turn for 1943 (less just under 100 U boats points).

From Middlebrook and Everitt: BC targets (main raids) for 1943:
July: Cologne x 2, Gelsenkirchen, Turin, Aachen, Montbeliard (Fr - Peugeot vehicle factory), Hamburg x3, Essen,Remscheid.

moving on. October:
Hagen, Munich, Kassel x2, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Hannover x2, Bremen, Leipzig,

By no means all the Ruhr or Hanover area, but admittedly, all MP, but then again, every large city has MP.

8th AF 4E raids (July)
Le Mans and Nantes Aircraft Factory (No VP in game)
La Pallice U-Boat Pens (lets count as UB target in Germany)
Poix/Abbeyville Ducat Airfield (no VP)
Caen/Carpiquet Airfield (no VP)
Le Bourget Airfield (no VP)
Villacoublay Aircraft Factory (no VP)
Le Bourget Airfield (no VP)
Amiens/Glisy Airfield (No VP)
Hamburg Aircraft Factory (no VP?)
Hannover Railroad (no VP)
Heroya Industry (Norway so out of game)
Bergen Port (ditto)
Trondheim Industry (Ditto)
Warnemunde Aircraft Factory (no VP)
Hamburg Industry (HI?)
Kiel Port (No VP)
Hannover Industry (HI?)
Kassel Aircraft Factory (No VP)
Oschersleben Aircraft Factory (No VP)
Warnemunde Aircraft Factory (No VP)
Kiel Shipyards (UB?)
Kassel Aircraft Factory (No VP)
so 4/19 (relevant) targets were VP in game.

Repeat for October gives about 11/22. 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[X(]



LiquidSky -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/17/2015 10:46:21 PM)



DISCLAIMER: I am an allied fanboy. I love playing the allies in this game, and figuring out how to beat the axis.

In my recent spat of games, I have played the axis. The reason is to try and figure out their capabilities. I don't really like playing them too much, as I feel they don't have the range of options that the allies have.

The number one priority for the allies in bombing is destruction of the Luftwaffe. With no Luftwaffe, everything else is easy.

So while bombing an airfield doesn't yield vps directly...it will help immensely down the road. Same with bombing rail yards...no vps, but the invasion and breakout will be a lot easier. Those panzer divisions have like 30 or more CV. Afterwards they hover in the 10-15 range. All due to non-vp bombing.

The early game should be a pursuit of vps. The multiplier is just too good and invasion too far off to worry about bombing the rails etc....and their are a lot of targets, including the Ruhr. I defended the Ruhr heavily with fighters, but it does take time to build the airfields to put those planes on. And you have to transfer the AA to protect those cities (and airfields). So it is not an automatic 'I Win' button for the Germans. Also, what I did came as a surprise as it was new.

Faced with something new you have two choices....you can try and get it changed by crying history, or you can solve the puzzle. As it happens I will be starting a new game as the allies soon, so you will be able to read an AAR about how I crack this particular nut.

I should add that it doesn't matter to me what the rules are....give me a set of rules with a victory condition, and I will figure out the best way to achieve it. Changing the rules and/or victory conditions wont stop that.

It may not be 'historical' or even useful, but the death of the RA is not an exploit. It doesn't gain you (or prevent the allies) from getting a lot of vps. In the grand scheme of the game, they are only in play for a small percentage of the time.

And you are wrong...dead wrong about the allies only having to bomb for vps.

I haven't come to any formal conclusion yet about the balance of victory points. I haven't lost a game yet and I have played both sides a couple of times...Every time I have played I have figured out a counter to some common strategy and have invented a couple of new ones.

Things I have noticed as the axis in this game (due to bombing). VP's were kept low from a combination of protecting high valuable areas, and the use of construction units to repair all damage to vp damage, as well as transferring all unessential AA to these valuable targets.

Half my aircraft factories were damaged to severely damaged...I was running out of planes.

A lot of my rail yards were damaged. Replacements and supply were not flowing to my front.

A bunch of my AFV factories were damaged....my panzer divisions averaged around 30 tanks each. I still had a bunch of panzer brigades which I was going to disband over the next couple of turns which would have fed around 200 panthers into them, along with a lot of motorized infantry, so all was not lost yet.

Despite having some great successes and some really good experienced fighter squadrons, my Luftwaffe fighters were at about half what it could be. Although I was accelerating their death by bombing Allied units for VP's...instead of sitting and trying to protect all my factories. I figure that come early '45, I would have been down to around 1000 highly experienced pilots flying around 800 non damaged fighters. All the low experience guys die off.

When I look at the allied vps in my game (sitting around -450, and dropping)....I notice that the allies gain 10-11 a turn from city points. So over the course of the final 30 turns, he will gain about 400 vps by just hitting end turn.

Bombing can add about 30-100 more depending.

That would make the game we are playing a draw, given a modest loss of around 10 casualty vps a turn. Of course if he wants to up the city points, it will cost him casualty points to do so..and as the Germans, I will seek means to cause him some.




HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 7:09:54 AM)

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! [&:]



loki100 -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 10:21:55 AM)

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' [8D]. 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.



Seminole -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 2:12:55 PM)

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?



HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 5:12:04 PM)


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?

Not quite: hypothetically a game could be set up so as to be bistable - hard to hold to a draw, but evenly balanced such that over the long run, wins are balanced between both sides. I think this game is not particularlyset upto avoid draws though so I think we can ingore that effect ;).
The generic criterion is that results are even (having filtered out the Pelton effect - if a skilled and prolific player only ever plays one side, they need to be filtered out of the results before checkiing the distribution)



HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 5:14:13 PM)


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' [8D]. 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.


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...



HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 5:20:06 PM)


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)





HMSWarspite -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 5:39:28 PM)

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[X(]



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?



loki100 -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 6:20:29 PM)


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[X(]



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?


picking up on some of this and comparing it to WiTE. The consensus is, esp in PBEM, that history disappears once you move a counter. I sort of both agree and disagree with this, like you I have nil interest in completely ahistoric or implausible strategies.

Thing is, in the real Soviet-German war both sides racked up masses of serious mistakes and you can argue they sort of roughly balance out. A Soviet player won't allow a Kiev disaster, nor engage in a Kharkov offensive, a German player won't allow a Stalingrad or do a Kursk offensive. Those major events really determine the broad flows of the war. Since they are relatively even, you can still get a balanced game (whatever that may be) without them, just one with a different flow.

I'd share your analysis of 1944, there were significant allied mistakes but they pale before the German miscalculations. So a German player who dodges Falaise/Bulge etc will inevitably be in a better position and the allies have less things to put right. So sort of, played intelligently, there is more for the Germans to gain? Which tends me to thinking the game should be ending in a draw ...

re Berlin, we know with the advantage of hindsight and more recent Soviet research that there was simply no way could the Soviets risk war with the Allies. The economy was in a mess and they could have faced mutinies. But I think the allies let them have Berlin for a few reasons once it was clear they could reach it.

It avoided the risk of war by mistake - though I think events around Prag were a bigger potential flashpoint given the Soviets were clearly racing the Americans for the city and carried on their offensive after the notional cease fire. It also got caught up in issues such as the fate of Vlasov.

In part, the last thing you wanted was the command and control problem of two totally different military philosophies engaged in city fighting at the same time. Actually Chuikov's memoires are full of grumbles at allied pows turning up at his HQs wanting guns to go and fight the Germans. He scarcely had enough German speaking translators to handle interaction with the German population and troops and odds on his front line units would have shot out of hand anyone behind their lines with a gun who couldn't speak Russian. Also the Red Army was simply better at the task in hand,it had weaponry developed for the task and a combat discipline used to the demands of intense urban combat.




Harrybanana -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 6:45:51 PM)

Obviously the Allies won the War; but I think it is very difficult to say that the Russians "Won" more than the Western Allies did. The Russians took Berlin and thus ended the War and also ended up with pretty much all of Eastern Europe. But the Western Allies ended up occupying the far more valuable chunk of Germany (not to mention Japan).

In any event, I don't think the issue is who "Won the War" but rather who historically achieved the most with what they had. In my opinion:

1. Given the start date of WitE the Germans were the winners. If the War in the East was refought 100 times with the same forces and relatively equal and competent leaders on both sides I think in 90% of the cases you would see Berlin falling much earlier than it did historically. The reason being that historically the German leaders out performed their Russian counterparts, especially for the first 5 months of the War. I say this even knowing about Hitler's later mistakes. Just my opinion.

2. Given the start date of WitW the WA were the winners. Again because if the War in the West (from July 43 on) was refought 100 times with the same forces and relatively equal and competent leaders on both sides I think that 75% of the time the WA would not get as far as they did historically. Historically the Germans simply made more mistakes than the WA. Again, just my opinion.






rickier65 -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/18/2015 8:35:07 PM)


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...


I'm not sure what the SB debate refers to, but reading back to your original post, your first suggestion dealing with the need to keep some German unit in Sicily in order to avoid Italian surrender seemed reasonable. though I'm not sure I would want it 'hard-coded' which would reduce some player flexibility.

Do you know if there is a way in the scenario editor to accomplish this?

Thanks
Rick



decourcy2 -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/25/2015 3:10:51 PM)

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.

Obviously his bombing points will go down in '44 but he will continue hitting new targets with both closer bases (Italy), and better escorts (P51B10s and P38J/Ls) which, I suspect, will still keep his bombing points at 14 or so per turn. For 52 turns.

I still feel that much of the problems people are having as the Allies are due to inexperience with a side that requires more finesse and maybe some poor play.



Seminole -> RE: Closing some ahistoric exploits (8/25/2015 3:35:35 PM)

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.


With respect to mitigating strategic bombing, what has been your approach?
Did you pull in the far flung AAA and assign engineers to major cities? If any of the latter, how much?

My game that is just getting off the ground with NOSB (he's been gone a while, I suppose real life taking its toll) and a rematch I'm about to get rolling with S2Tanker will be the first games that I put an emphasis on shoring up my N. European air war, so I'm interested in the efficacy of different things people have tried.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625