My 1€ Ticket

[boudi]

I just resigned as Allies from a game against aareeke, august 1942.

Congratulations to aareeke, he's a very good player : He knows exactly what to do in order to crush Allies in every fronts, and perfectly manage the supply rules :

My 1€ ticket, from 1939 to 1942 :

1) He evacuated italian East Africa in 1939 in order to reinforce Libya. i think that before to be at war, naval transports would be forbiden to Italy.

2) Malta still be undefendable against Axis air power.

3) He reinforced DAK with 2 more tanks in Africa. Keep Egypt became impossible, even with fortifications built by french engineers. Moreother due to DEI bug, it was impossible to stop his supply at his ports with Royal navy. No matter, what would have become the british battleship under the overpowered axis bombers ? he had several HQ in Africa in order to maximise his supply when mine was destroyed by his port blocus.

4) He sent all his U-Boots at the north edge of the map, in order to protect them with his bombers, based in northern Norway : it became impossible for UK to help USSR with convoys for a long time. i tried in spring42' with carrier support, and i lost one of them, hit by several U-Boots.

5) December 41' he easly took Hawaï. So without these 4 level 12 ports Pacific war was allready lost for USA.It's too easy for Japan to take Hawaï, because USA can't add units on the islands before the war. Japan should not be able to attack Hawaï on land. After this conquest it's easy to keep several japan corps on the islands, then it's impossible to take back the islands and the so necessary ports.

6) As usual USSR collapse in spring 42' due to Axis Air power. Every soviet units has to be hit by 3 or 4 air attacks before the ground attacks by panzers. As a result starting spring 1942 i lost 4-5 soviets units per turn, for light casualties for germans. After a soviet front collapse, isolated soviet units are esaly surrounded and destroyed next turns. 58 soviets units lost in august 42, none german units...

7) starting spring 42, Japanese air power systematically attacked supply sources in south China. Chinese fighters are a joke (i lost one in a single turn) and AA guns (units and cities) level 2 can't do anithing to stop these bombings. With a level 1 ou 2 in supply the whole south chinese army was out.

Then i gave up.

My ideas :

1) No naval transport for Italy before at war,
2) Axis air power is far away too strong (I counted no less than 8 german bombers on the map ?!!) .The game need a rule like, an idea, units and supply sources can be attacked by only one plane unit. this could save Malta (and Egypt) and rebalance the war in USSR. Or maybe double or triple the effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns. (my soviet units had level 2 in AA guns, it's a joke and a wast of ressources)
3) The impossibility to supply allied air units (UK and USA) in Soviet Union and China helps too much Axis side. If i could sent UK and US fighters in USSR and China the game could have been different.
4) The impossibility to explore land coast with naval units, introduced by a patch, not remember which, is from my point of vue a bad idea.

It's only my ticket, and don't want t begin a flame war... [:)]Sorry for my bad english too.

[EarlyDoors]

Hi Boudi.

I sense your pain, been there many times. It can be avoided sometimes especially now DEI bug is patched.

As allies, you will lose wherever you are attacked. The trick is to threaten him elsewhere so that forces are diverted. Actively defending France gives you time to build up forces/ capture Tobruk. If he chooses to challenge in Egypt then throw off the timetable for Yugoslavia / Greece / USSR.
Do not waste mpp on air for China / France / ussr / India instead spend it on ground forces
All the while delay, delay, delay until you can start to strangle from 43 onwards

Strategically the Arctic convoy route is second only to preventing sea lion .
On the plus side if he sends bombers to Norway then at least they are not hitting Ivan

I think I probably agree about the navy lack of exploration point. It would be good if S&I also revealed empty resources (with ports!)

[Jackmck]

To win against experienced axis players, the allies can't stick with historical guidelines- they must be aggressive and take risks to go on the offensive against the Axis. Still, I agree with you that the game is imbalanced in favor of the Axis but this is mostly in Russia and China. I don't think your ideas would be good to address the balance- rather they might then make it more imbalanced.
For the 1939 scenario I'd make the Russia's a little bit stronger- maybe with additional units available after they are invaded. This won't help a poor player to avoid defeat against a much better one, but otherwise it helps balance the game and make it more realistic between equal players.
I'd suggest adding a shock army and a HQ which appear six turns after Russia activates, and another shock army and rocket artillery twelve months after. For China i'd look at increasing US tensions when Japan takes Chungking and Sian - or tying the embargo to when Japanese units get within three hexes of either instead of fixed on the historical date.

[Marcinos1985]

In my opinion, Axis is favoured, but not that much, maybe 55:45. But to make Axis work, player needs a good tactical skill, which majority of playerbase doesn't possess.

Balance in this game is a delicate matter and really boils down to Eastern Front. If Germany gets stuck there, Allies will win majority of the time. But against skilled player putting up a good defence is very challenging. Infantry Weapons tech discrepancy makes a big difference and breakthrough in this tech swings games hard.

I personally think Russia has too few units in production que, in no way it resembles their ability to gather reserves. What is more, their delivery at fixed date is a problem, because they arrive really late. I think game is balanced against Axis attack in June, but you may get attacked in April as well, 2 more turns make wonders for Germany. And lack of tanks is worrisome, IRL Soviets had and advantage in number, in this game they may get attacked by 8-9 tanks, while having 2 in the field. Oops.

Additionally, comparing to WiE, Siberians are really weak. Hard to tell why.

[Cpuncher]

Looks like you ran into a superb player. You sure this aareeke is not Fafnir's 2nd account?

In terms of Hawaii, US should always replace the fighter with an Army or SF. Make sure both units are fully dug in with full AA upgrade. For that Japan will need about 4 LRAT and more than 1 turn to take Hawaii. Be sure to have units in transport distance if Japan didn't capture all ports on the 1st turn. It's gonna be a tough fight, and Hawaii may still fall, but US will have a decent chance. Should Japan fail, it's gonna be a huge blow to her.

On the other hand, I do think Hawaii should be allowed 3 land/air units, unless there is something else that prohibits Japan from taking Hawaii on war break out.

I do agree Russia needs additional buffing, esp more tanks. To balance, may need to reduce the impact of US entering the war.

[pjg100]

I think the game is fairly well balanced now. When playing Axis I am always acutely aware of the ticking clock, USSR mob and the world of pain the US is eventually going to deliver. It's constant anxiety and pressure, which is as it should be.

One thing to think about regarding Hawaii - yes JA can take it but then they have to garrison it. And, to be certain of taking it you need to devote most of your LRAV to the task, which has an opportunity cost elsewhere. When I have taken Hawaii it has been costly to garrison, requires an HQ and several army/SF land units. Those units are just sitting there, protecting your investment, rather than supporting an invasion of India or Australia. If you don't garrison it properly the US will just pull the same thing on you in reverse in 1942, with overwhelming CV and SF power.

Losing Hawaii doesn't cripple the US, it's just a setback. You can take it back in 1942/43 if you want, or just go around it through the southwest Pacific. I had a game against Lonerunner a few months ago in which I took Hawaii, sent my fleet back to the Home Islands to reinforce and upgrade, then had to rush them back out to defend Hawaii from his marauding BBs, CVs and marines. I narrowly won a multi-turn CV slugfest that could easily have gone the other way.

If he sent 2 tanks to NA, and invested the MPP to push you out, then his Barbarossa should have been underpowered. Not sure why Russia collapsed so soon. What was your defensive strategy?

[ThunderLizard11]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

I think the game is fairly well balanced now. When playing Axis I am always acutely aware of the ticking clock, USSR mob and the world of pain the US is eventually going to deliver. It's constant anxiety and pressure, which is as it should be.

One thing to think about regarding Hawaii - yes JA can take it but then they have to garrison it. And, to be certain of taking it you need to devote most of your LRAV to the task, which has an opportunity cost elsewhere. When I have taken Hawaii it has been costly to garrison, requires an HQ and several army/SF land units. Those units are just sitting there, protecting your investment, rather than supporting an invasion of India or Australia. If you don't garrison it properly the US will just pull the same thing on you in reverse in 1942, with overwhelming CV and SF power.

Losing Hawaii doesn't cripple the US, it's just a setback. You can take it back in 1942/43 if you want, or just go around it through the southwest Pacific. I had a game against Lonerunner a few months ago in which I took Hawaii, sent my fleet back to the Home Islands to reinforce and upgrade, then had to rush them back out to defend Hawaii from his marauding BBs, CVs and marines. I narrowly won a multi-turn CV slugfest that could easily have gone the other way.

If he sent 2 tanks to NA, and invested the MPP to push you out, then his Barbarossa should have been underpowered. Not sure why Russia collapsed so soon. What was your defensive strategy?

Agree about Hawaii - in competitive MP match the better bet is to go hard after Burma and India - they deal big blow to Allied MPP. Losing USSR in '42 sounds doesn't seem right - OP was doing something very wrong.

[Jehamiah]

One should be careful on opinions based on a single MP game. I believe Dev is widely open to script changes, but based on consolidated data.
As the OP mentioned, he faced a clever Axis played and was defeated by his non conventional gameplay.
I would recommend the OP to start another MP game as axis against another experienced player, and apply the exact same strategy described.
Either it is an auto-win, or there will be something to learn.

[calcwerc]

I have played a lot of games, and I am still very far away from the level of the best players. But currently it is my impression that game balance is basically very good. When I loose as Allies, I always have the feeling it is because I made wrong choices in the game, not because it is unbalanced. I feel that I improve for every game, especially when I loose.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

I think the game is fairly well balanced now. When playing Axis I am always acutely aware of the ticking clock, USSR mob and the world of pain the US is eventually going to deliver. It's constant anxiety and pressure, which is as it should be.

One thing to think about regarding Hawaii - yes JA can take it but then they have to garrison it. And, to be certain of taking it you need to devote most of your LRAV to the task, which has an opportunity cost elsewhere. When I have taken Hawaii it has been costly to garrison, requires an HQ and several army/SF land units. Those units are just sitting there, protecting your investment, rather than supporting an invasion of India or Australia. If you don't garrison it properly the US will just pull the same thing on you in reverse in 1942, with overwhelming CV and SF power.

Losing Hawaii doesn't cripple the US, it's just a setback. You can take it back in 1942/43 if you want, or just go around it through the southwest Pacific. I had a game against Lonerunner a few months ago in which I took Hawaii, sent my fleet back to the Home Islands to reinforce and upgrade, then had to rush them back out to defend Hawaii from his marauding BBs, CVs and marines. I narrowly won a multi-turn CV slugfest that could easily have gone the other way.

If he sent 2 tanks to NA, and invested the MPP to push you out, then his Barbarossa should have been underpowered. Not sure why Russia collapsed so soon. What was your defensive strategy?

I agree. It has taken me many games and much learning to finally get to a game where I am finally winning as the Axis and finding an allied player that is finally not quitting on me. You have to defend against invasions all over the place as Axis while trying to maintain a two front war and it is not easy.

I have taken Hawaii before but in my current game my opponent just ignored the garrison rule and threw everything in there. I destroyed some planes and ships but would never crack that nut so I just went around it. And yes if I had taken it I would have had to garrison it which would have thrown off other plans.

As Germany I went the Spain route and through North Africa invading Russia without my most elite Panzers. It was quite a risk and made the early invasion of Russia most difficult...

[calcwerc]

Perhaps one thing which I think needs patching for Russia, is a trick Fafnir used as Axis against my Russia and I recall that I have read about it in another AAR (I of course absolutely respect the effort Fafnir puts into finding these possibilities and play the game at its limit): He begins Barbarossa in February or March 41 (we played by ELO rules). This has the effect that russian winter event is triggered before his units are in the area where they take casualties. That is not how this event is intended to work, and shouldnt be hard to fix in a future patch. The advantage of early Barbarossa should rather be the possibility for more efficient warfare in spring and summer of 41 than a gamey workaround to the russian winter strikes-event

[rafaelmbaez]

Very interesting thread.

My only comment as Allies, as I am still very very new ( only 4 PBEM games ) its that time is key.

You need to put maximum effort in delaying Germany in France ( without risking a Sea Lion ) so Barbarrosa in 41' is as late as possible.

[EarlyDoors]

yes russian winter event can occur in jan-mar 41

also surprised that the event reduces the strength by around 1 pt of a load of german units
i'd always thought that all those explosions were russian towns/settlements/cities having supply reduced by 1-5 points
in the same way as Indian revolt / australian coal strike etc

atm it doesn't seem to impact the germans much

[Elessar2]

I am of the definite opinion that there should be a LOT more partisan hexes (both kinds). On both the Chinese & Russian fronts I can shut down ALL partisan activity with a relatively modest investment of garrisons/minor units etc. It's worse on the World map because one garrison can cover 7 hexes. I just checked: given the historical June '42 fronts, the Germans and Japanese only need 7 each (behind the given front lines): there's a space in China that can cover THREE partisan spaces. Only 350 MPPs of garrisons you say-sounds like a bargain to me.

Scorched Earth should likely be a LOT more punitive, but the issue there is how to balance the time it takes a city to resupply itself.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

I am of the definite opinion that there should be a LOT more partisan hexes (both kinds). On both the Chinese & Russian fronts I can shut down ALL partisan activity with a relatively modest investment of garrisons/minor units etc. It's worse on the World map because one garrison can cover 7 hexes. I just checked: given the historical June '42 fronts, the Germans and Japanese only need 7 each (behind the given front lines): there's a space in China that can cover THREE partisan spaces. Only 350 MPPs of garrisons you say-sounds like a bargain to me.

Scorched Earth should likely be a LOT more punitive, but the issue there is how to balance the time it takes a city to resupply itself.

Disagree. I have run out of garrisons as Japan and Germany in my current game...

[Malagant]

Boudi, I'm just curious: did you guys have Soft Build Limits enabled?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

I am of the definite opinion that there should be a LOT more partisan hexes (both kinds). On both the Chinese & Russian fronts I can shut down ALL partisan activity with a relatively modest investment of garrisons/minor units etc. It's worse on the World map because one garrison can cover 7 hexes. I just checked: given the historical June '42 fronts, the Germans and Japanese only need 7 each (behind the given front lines): there's a space in China that can cover THREE partisan spaces. Only 350 MPPs of garrisons you say-sounds like a bargain to me.

Scorched Earth should likely be a LOT more punitive, but the issue there is how to balance the time it takes a city to resupply itself.

I agree with all this, though one of my constant and highly respected Axis MP opponents, (Tanaka), does not haha [:D]

[Elessar2]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

I am of the definite opinion that there should be a LOT more partisan hexes (both kinds). On both the Chinese & Russian fronts I can shut down ALL partisan activity with a relatively modest investment of garrisons/minor units etc. It's worse on the World map because one garrison can cover 7 hexes. I just checked: given the historical June '42 fronts, the Germans and Japanese only need 7 each (behind the given front lines): there's a space in China that can cover THREE partisan spaces. Only 350 MPPs of garrisons you say-sounds like a bargain to me.

Scorched Earth should likely be a LOT more punitive, but the issue there is how to balance the time it takes a city to resupply itself.

Disagree. I have run out of garrisons as Japan and Germany in my current game...

Easy enough to bump build levels in the editor (since I have been alluding to such changes). Point is the Axis can shut down the partisan parade relatively easily, during those periods in the game when it matters.

[boudi]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your interest.

i will try to answer to some questions. the best thing would have been for aareeke to answer , hope he sees this thread, even if he has to be hard on me it doesn't matter.

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Boudi, I'm just curious: did you guys have Soft Build Limits enabled?

Fortunatly not.

ORIGINAL: pjg100
Not sure why Russia collapsed so soon. What was your defensive strategy?

I think that is one the main questions. What was my strategy with USSR ?
At the 1st turn i started to research level 1 in infantry weapons. Then, turns after turns, I researched, by prioryties, AA techs, infantry warfare (the bonus is free on the map, you don't need to upgrade your units with MPPs). Same with armored warfare (in order to have the 2 hits per turn) and aerial warfare.
I researched too advanced tanks and advanced fighters. Next command & control, spying (1point) and industrial technologies (1points) this from 1939 to 1942.
of course when i had level 1 infantry weapons i started immediatly to search level 2.

On the map, because there are several forest hexes in front of Moscow, allready given defense bonus, i built a line of fortifications behind the Dnepr starting behind Kiev to Kehrson. This line was finished when my opponent launched Barbarossa, more or less. When the line was finished i started to build some entrenchements in front of Moscow.

Next, my strategy on the map. I defend the fortification line of courses, supported with one HQ.

One of my HQ could command 5 units, i had 3 HQ, later, automn 41' i think, 4 HQs. One for the Leningrad front, Two for the Moscow front, and the last for the Dnepr front.

I managed every turns in order to have 5 units per HQ under command, on the front of line. (i allways play with manual option for the HQs)

i tried to don't move units in front if not necessary, in order to don't lost the entrenchement bonus.

If possible, i tried to put units on defensive hexes : cities, forest, marsh or behind a river.

I tried to don't leave a unit alone, because she become easyly surrounded : so i I gave up to the Germans several western cities : Minsk, Vitebsk etc...

I tried to counter the german strategy in northern Norway, by sending 2 garnisons and 2 corps against Petsamo, with no result even against air units.

My opponent focused his forces on the Moscow road. He had many units all long the russian front, from Narva to Kherson. From spring 41' to spring 42' everything was going pretty well. I was backing up slowly, losing a few units but not much. I attacked its most weak units, the Italians, behind the Dnepr, with some results.

Spring 42' disaster begins. Sudenly i started to lost 3, 4, sometimes 5 units per turns, on the Moscow road, hit by bombers and tanks. i don't know why. Losing that many units per turn caused the disintegration of the Moscow front. Moscow falled. Then i had to fight 3 or 4 german units with a single one. Game in Russia was over...

I obtained level 2 in infrantry weapons much too late. In fact it was too late, june 42' i think. Desaster allready began. It was impossible to upgrade my units because all were on the front line. However, I had started the search as soon as possible as already explained.

Next. I had only one answer about the german strategy on the north edge of map, against UK-USSR Convoys. it seems impossible to counter ? i had only one answer, from EarlyDoors : "On the plus side if he sends bombers to Norway then at least they are not hitting Ivan ".
If he is right, i think that is not sufficient. Because lossing the whole MPPs from artic convoys is a disaster for SU : Sovit Union loose arround 250-280 MPPs per turn. She can't no longer survive...

And what about China ? When japanese bombers started to hit supply sources, Chungkind and Kunming, the south chinese army was no longer supplied, and became fragile as glass. AA guns (units and cities) and fighters were usless. Again strategy impossible to counter ?

About Hawai, i have to say that if Japan need to garnison the island next, it is a very small price to cut the route of the Pacific to the whole US navy. In order to advance the US Navy needs harbor level 10. Hawai, west coast except, has the only ones. and 4... It's a desaster for USA.

[calcwerc]

Three advices which I think would have helped you a lot:
a) After infantry weapons research, build an engineer. Two engineers to make fortresses are necessary.
b) Infantry warfare research should be timed so it is available when war begins. But it wouldnt be my earliest priority. Instead double chit aa-research. You will need AA lvl 2 by 1941-42 to counter Luftwaffe.
c) I would consider to make my defence in a much deeper line to give my opponent supply problems and avoid encirclements. I know that expert allied players have the defence line you use (see educational AAR from HamburgerMeat or Taifun) or maybe even more forward, but they are excellent tactical players, which it is hard to compete with. I at least prefer a more 1812-tactic. It is my observation that Russia mostly can afford to loose 1 out of 3, but not 2 out of three: Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad. If I loose 2 I mostly break, if I loose only one (even Moscow), I hit back an will be in Berlin by 1944-46.