Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Taking the NA colonials away from France definitely helped. But I honestly never found France hard even before then. France is easy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Another question, what are you planning for "the Western Allies are too strong in 1943"?

Quite honestly, the UK has too much production too early. This plus the fact that now Germany has to face Netherlands, Belgium, France at the same time.
The United Kingdom starts with 158 PP, it is bigger than the USSR with 135 PP.

Understood UK needs to buy ships but they are not suffering enough from U-Boats. In John Ellis' book (page 280), UK had invested in:
1939: 22 destroyers, 5 escorts
1940: 27 destroyers, 109 escorts
1941: 39 destroyers, 87 escorts
1942: 73 destroyers, 71 escorts
1943: 37 destroyers, 79 escorts
1944: 31 destroyers, 55 escorts
1945: 13 destroyers, 7 escorts

Who honestly is buying DD groups to pursue the U-Boats? Me, as Allies player, never.

And, I have plenty to buy tanks, mechanized, airborne units in 1941..
UK production is too strong too early imo.

I agree with Oxfordguy's comments above. The UK and the US have already been considerably nerfed with the last few patches. Or more correctly, the nerfing of the CVs ability to sink subs has considerably increased the effectiveness of the U-Boats. If you have read MM's recent AARs you would know that from mid 1940 on almost all of the UKs (and Canada's) production is being spent on escorts and MMs. In my current game against MM where I am the Allies it is now September 27 1940. Canada has used 95% of its production on escorts. The UK did build some army units along with escorts and MM. I have not has any spare production to build new air units; which of course historically the UK did. I anticipate that most of the UKs production over the next couple years will be spent on escorts and MM.

IMHO this has gone too far. The Western Allies in 1943 should be very strong. Historically, by the summer of 1943 they had way more ships, planes, men and tanks in Western Europe than the Axis. So much so that the US wanted to invade France in 43 and they very nearly won this argument. But i don't think that will be the case in future games.

I agree with your post that in the game the UK does not build nearly as many combat ships as it did historically. But this is also true of the Axis. The next game where I see the Tirpitz sailing the high seas will be my first. Part of the problem with this is that they are just too damn expensive; especially compared to the bang you can get for your buck spending the production elsewhere. I agree with Oxfordguy that the cost of building an escort group represents the construction of both destroyers and frigates. I believe patrol groups area actually primarily light cruisers. I would like to see it where a each nation receives certain levels of production in each of the areas of army, naval, and air. In other words, instead of, for example, Germany starting with 200 production that it can spend on anything; it would receive 120 production to spend on army type builds (which would include supply trucks), 30 to spend on naval units and 50 to spend on air units. Meanwhile the UK's production would be split 50% naval, 30% army and 20% air. But if you did this then you would have to be able to spend on building units in stages. So if an armour costs 400 and takes 15 turns to build than you would spend 27 production per turn to build it. Players could also invest production to increase their capacity in each area (lie building shipyards).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you reduce British morale France will be even easier than it is now, and the Axis might steamroll Egypt to boot. Also, what gamey stuff in 1940-1? What I have found is the BoA soaks up so much production that the UK is definitely on hold until the Americans come in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Flavius, 15-20 Mechs and Armor are insane! You have to do something... Come up with something better? Or resign the Axis against any competent Allied opponent every Winter of '43

As Axis you cannot build that many armor and Mechs and you start with 4!
Now Russia has the same number by late '43 ... Just too much!

Somethings gotta give! Somewhere!

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Not sure what Subs do now but I put 6 out in my last game and the entire Kriegsmarine and Sveint sunk them all! Bad luck? I hope not but I fear that the Atlantic War just is a bit too difficult... Axis can't bite that off and build enough armor and air/infantry to handle the rest of things!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I agree with Oxfordguy's comments above. The UK and the US have already been considerably nerfed with the last few patches. Or more correctly, the nerfing of the CVs ability to sink subs has considerably increased the effectiveness of the U-Boats. If you have read MM's recent AARs you would know that from mid 1940 on almost all of the UKs (and Canada's) production is being spent on escorts and MMs. In my current game against MM where I am the Allies it is now September 27 1940. Canada has used 95% of its production on escorts. The UK did build some army units along with escorts and MM. I have not has any spare production to build new air units; which of course historically the UK did. I anticipate that most of the UKs production over the next couple years will be spent on escorts and MM.

In your game versus MM, I don't see you investing heavily in Merchants or in Escorts using UK production. Only Canadian are building escorts:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4928467

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Right now the changes are what I have said.

Mech/Armor does seems to be the main driver of action here on all fronts. While the Axis are limited the Allies generally are not. But we have to see with the new oil adjustments with 1.00.09 for the Allies. I know I now have to manage oil a little as the UK until the USA can give me some. As the US I am building more MM, ES, SY, LC, TR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think France is fine as is. It's not what I'm looking at. It just irritates me when people say "fight harder in France" in order to balance the Germans. Um. No.

France is easy and ought to be easy.

These expedients you recommend will not make a lick of difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Not quite. I said that from mid 1940 on almost all of the UKs production will go towards escorts and MS. So from the beginning of the game until March 1 1940 (6 months) the UK production was used almost exclusively to build new army units and build up the understrength units that the UK starts with. But from April 1940 on all new UK production has been escorts and merchant marine. In reviewing my AAR I see that I forgot to record my builds for several of the turns in the spring and summer of 1940. When I next get a turn I will try and remember to take a screenshot of my production queues. Also I am afraid that I may have waited too long to start building escorts and MM with the UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

HarryBanana, my precise figures I cannot quote. Previous to 1.9 but both Sveint and MagicMissile had no issues placing that number of Mechs/Armor in Spain in 1943. I don't see what would change now? Production is exactly the same and I would be -2 Mechs and a Cas for buying the U-boats and repairing them?

At some point the Allies use to get GREAT at getting U-boats too, so their effectiveness seemed to always disappear in almost every game I played by Winter '42... That or just as swamp of reinforcements from the US/Canadians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

Starts with two and one in the deployment queue

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But they are all 20 at full strength and by the time Barbarossa starts they will be at 20. I wonder if this is a little too good for the Soviets. You can literally build one such corps every turn for two years.

That's a lot of armies. You wouldn't even have to build more of them. Just set production to reinforcements.

I think it would be better if they converted to small armies regardless, and force the Soviet to merge them into full armies.

You are right. That will destroy the entire production mechanism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The allies have no real ability to make the Germans bleed in France.

If you are very lucky and the German overtextends you might snipe one mech corps or somesuch thing. That's really not much. In the air the Luftwaffe is more dominant now than ever before.

I wish people would stop advising allied players to throw away the British military in France. It doesn't work. The most you can realistically hope for is to draw it out until early August. You will certainly not bleed the Germans in France.

If the German is foolish, he can bleed himself by extending operations in the latter half of 1940. But that is beyond the allied player's control. If the German is wise and limits himself after France and builds up you cannot stop this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

What was this strategy? I'd have to see it to believe it. I especially do not understand how he inflicted so many losses on the Luftwaffe.

If there is a secret sauce here, fess up, don't just give me generalities about what is possible. I want to know exactly what the deal is here.

It is very frustrating to me that you insist that France can be fought for and force the German to bleed and yet you don't explain how. Because I don't see it.

Give me a proper explanation, and I will even play you another game.