Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Yes thanks, but I need to sacrifice a mech if I want an air unit. Arghh.

And, sorry, you said you will not touch France. But, having to switch units from the Maginot line to have units at 50% in Belgium. Why not put them directly in Belgium?
This is a boring process to do each game imo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Manpower is indeed the real constraining factor for the Germans down the line and why later in the war they end up subsidizing the Axis minors and Italy as a matter of efficiency.

Alvaro mentioned something upthread about infantry not scaling well. I think he is on to something here. And German infantry has a massive 20% experience bonus over everyone else, but even with that infantry just doesn't keep up well with mech in the later years.

This is exactly the opposite of real life, where armor started off strong but struggled later on as infantry AT weapons and such reversed the balance of arms more in favor of the poor bloody infantry as time went on. Combined arms become more rather than less important in time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MagicMissile

1) I think I agree with Harrybanana that balance is not so far off and we havent really seen any games finished with the latest patch so I think changes should not be too big.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MagicMissile

2) I think France campaign is ok and the Germans can afford a fair amount of losses and still launch a strong attack in the east. I just try to take one hexrow per turn in France and keep retreat paths open. Yes 1 corps might be lost but one should not have to lose more. Of course if one push too hard then it can get worse. I aim to take Paris last turn of July or first of August. Any faster maybe can be done but would increase risk of losing units. Yes sometimes I feel allied airforce is a bit too strong maybe there something could be done but I am not sure if it is needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Your losses are trivial and you even are a bit ahead of schedule here with a mid July surrender. I figured it would take you a turn longer.

Honestly do not understand your complaints here. This is an excellent position for the Germans. What are you expecting here?

quote:

You are not going to get a late June surrender on France against any kind of competent allied player. So forget that. Human allied players aren't going to be as stupid as the historical ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

See here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4937739
German losses - Land: 382 - Air: 175

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Manpower is indeed the real constraining factor for the Germans down the line and why later in the war they end up subsidizing the Axis minors and Italy as a matter of efficiency.

Alvaro mentioned something upthread about infantry not scaling well. I think he is on to something here. And German infantry has a massive 20% experience bonus over everyone else, but even with that infantry just doesn't keep up well with mech in the later years.

This is exactly the opposite of real life, where armor started off strong but struggled later on as infantry AT weapons and such reversed the balance of arms more in favor of the poor bloody infantry as time went on. Combined arms become more rather than less important in time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The tweak Alvaro applied to heavy armor tech seems like a nice modest adjustment, nothing too crazy. I'm happy to see how that plays out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Heavy armor defense and tanks have been reduced by one by 1945.

Their progression was slowed for the other years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

In the PBEMs I have played, what has jumped out in particular is the size that the UK/Commonwealth war machine can grow to in a very short space of time.

The UK can survive battle of France with few losses, and basically match anything the Axis can throw at them in N Africa and Middle East in 40/41 (especially with the help of the disproportionate amount of bad weather in these zones that thwart offensive action). By the summer 41 the UK can easily field 5 mech/armour corps and many more inf corps. Did UK have 5 mech/armour corps even by 1945 irl?

And then the Canadians in the same time frame can field easily 3/4 inf corps - a bigger army than either Romania or Hungary at their point of entry to the war.

I also feel the ease of invasions is too high, its possible to put ashore as many corps in the game in 42 as were put ashore at D-day in 1944.

Possible tweaks (not suggesting all of them at once):

Reduce UK/Canada production

Further increase landing ship cost and/or landing ship build time

Don't allow UK to turn off repairs/upgrade to naval units (simulate necessity/desire to keep the empire connected/protected)

Decrease UK manpower

Decrease UK starting experience for ground units

Increase manpower/production Germany gains from conquering certain countries (representing huge amounts of willing conscripts/press-gang conscripts/slave-labour/captured equipment etc)

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Alvaro, in my last two games vs Allied Opponents of equal or greater skill. I find that the Axis can survive well into '42, do some damage but there it ends. The situation is about this, the Allies know they can give land and have time and the Allies can land anywhere they want with an army they can afford to lose and rebuild within a short period of time. So no matter what the Allies will always win when the opponents are of = skill by '43... Unless the Axis player makes zero errors, then I think the possibility of survival in '44 is doable.

No strategy or tactic I can see on 1.9 would change this the Axis are short about 10 or 15 Corps to defend against the Allies in the West and are hard pressed in late '42 and early '43 to hold. Not to mention Italy is just a royal pain and most Axis have to garrison here with all her finest units and with all those ports you do it at your peril. The only way the Axis win this game as it was is utterly wiping out say the Soviets in '41... Total Destruction ...

Of course is a VP Win still possible I saw one in AAR, so if the Axis play for time I don't know that possibility is there depending on the skill level?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


The best game for both players is the nail biting one that goes to the last turn, and last objective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


The best game for both players is the nail biting one that goes to the last turn, and last objective.

Hmmmmm

This is what happened in my first game vs sveint. I think that the stress took 5 years off my life, and I don't have many of them to spare these days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

In the PBEMs I have played, what has jumped out in particular is the size that the UK/Commonwealth war machine can grow to in a very short space of time.

The UK can survive battle of France with few losses, and basically match anything the Axis can throw at them in N Africa and Middle East in 40/41 (especially with the help of the disproportionate amount of bad weather in these zones that thwart offensive action). By the summer 41 the UK can easily field 5 mech/armour corps and many more inf corps. Did UK have 5 mech/armour corps even by 1945 irl?

And then the Canadians in the same time frame can field easily 3/4 inf corps - a bigger army than either Romania or Hungary at their point of entry to the war.

I also feel the ease of invasions is too high, its possible to put ashore as many corps in the game in 42 as were put ashore at D-day in 1944.

Possible tweaks (not suggesting all of them at once):

Reduce UK/Canada production

Further increase landing ship cost and/or landing ship build time

Don't allow UK to turn off repairs/upgrade to naval units (simulate necessity/desire to keep the empire connected/protected)

Decrease UK manpower

Decrease UK starting experience for ground units

Increase manpower/production Germany gains from conquering certain countries (representing huge amounts of willing conscripts/press-gang conscripts/slave-labour/captured equipment etc)

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I'm wondering whether there ought to be a similar capacity for air and armoured production as there are shipyards.

Ie depending on the country, they can only have x amount of armour units in production at any point in time. Call it vehicle plant capacity. This would be a) historical, b) set at levels to prevent players building nothing but armour

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

In the PBEMs I have played, what has jumped out in particular is the size that the UK/Commonwealth war machine can grow to in a very short space of time.

The UK can survive battle of France with few losses, and basically match anything the Axis can throw at them in N Africa and Middle East in 40/41 (especially with the help of the disproportionate amount of bad weather in these zones that thwart offensive action). By the summer 41 the UK can easily field 5 mech/armour corps and many more inf corps. Did UK have 5 mech/armour corps even by 1945 irl?

And then the Canadians in the same time frame can field easily 3/4 inf corps - a bigger army than either Romania or Hungary at their point of entry to the war.

I also feel the ease of invasions is too high, its possible to put ashore as many corps in the game in 42 as were put ashore at D-day in 1944.

Possible tweaks (not suggesting all of them at once):

Reduce UK/Canada production

Further increase landing ship cost and/or landing ship build time

Don't allow UK to turn off repairs/upgrade to naval units (simulate necessity/desire to keep the empire connected/protected)

Decrease UK manpower

Decrease UK starting experience for ground units

Increase manpower/production Germany gains from conquering certain countries (representing huge amounts of willing conscripts/press-gang conscripts/slave-labour/captured equipment etc)

Have the Axis players in your game built large numbers of U-Boats? If you build an historical level of U-Boats (say 6 to go with the 3 the Germans start with) then I think you will find that the Brits and Canadian are too busy in 1940 and 1941 building MS and escorts to build large armies and LSs. You can keep them even more on the ropes if you send in the German surface fleet to raid the convoys (though you risk losing ships doing so).

Have your Axis players attacked the British hard in Egypt? Historically the Brits were forced to use a lot of production here replacing losses and using supply trucks.

If you don't build U-Boats and press the Brits in North Africa then I don't think you have any right to complain that the UK is too strong in 1941 or 1942. Historically if the Axis didn't do these things than the UK would have been a lot stronger in 41 and 42. If you want to go All-In on Russia that is fine, I do the same thing, but then you can't complain about British invasions all over the place.

As for the Canadians (of which I am one) you are correct that in the game the Canadians can build a much larger army than they did historically. But that is because historically Canada spent a high percentage of it's production on ships (by Wars end we had the 3rd largest navy in the World) and air units (I read somewhere that about 25% of Bomber Command were Canadian). Had Canada concentrated on building army divisions rather than naval and air units we could have had a much larger army. I think Australia (with about 80% of Canada's population and far less production capacity) built 15 divisions during the War.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Heavy armor defense and tanks have been reduced by one by 1945.

Their progression was slowed for the other years.