Question for the players

[AlvaroSousa]

Do you feel Germany has too much rail early. I see many games where they shift their army West and DOW on France very early.

[Radar8717]

Yes it is too easy to rail move German forces to the west to attack much earlier than historically.
I was looking at the editor and trying to mod the German RR move capacity to a lower number than 100,
but I have not figured out how to so yet, or if it's even possible.

[Dr. Foo]

ORIGINAL: Radar8717

Yes it is too easy to rail move German forces to the west to attack much earlier than historically.
I was looking at the editor and trying to mod the German RR move capacity to a lower number than 100,
but I have not figured out how to so yet, or if it's even possible.

It is in the country tab. Select Germany you'll see it under Strategic Rail.

[tyronec]

Yes it is too easy for Germany to take out Benelux and make inroads into France during the first winter, but I don't think the rail capacity is the way to address this.

Poland is too easy to take out, players are moving units towards France on T1. Taking out Poland in two turns should need the whole of the forces in the East, that way you are not going to get transferring them until T3 which should slow things down.

I don't know the history well enough but other games let Axis launch a strong attack in winter '39 against the West. Why didn't Germany attack then.
Maybe their army wasn't ready. Maybe the weather effect was more significant than in the game. Whatever the reason I think the play balance has Axis too strong against France/Benelux during the winter.

I think the rail points for Germany are not far off. Reduce them too much and strategic movement during the game is just going to be too slow.
What doesn't seem right is that every Axis country gets it's own rail points, so for example you can shift over twice as many units down a rail line if they are mixed nationalities.
I think better would be each side has a total rail capacity (would be better to have 3 - West/Soviet/Axis, but maybe that is not possible). Start with Axis around 100 and increase/decrease it a little as Allies come on board/depart.

[Michael T]

This is not a problem unique to this game. Poland is not under powered. The problem is merely hindsight. Also players like to do something with there units.

Players know how poor in fighting capability Poland, the low countries and France are/were. So they can be far more aggressive early. In reality the Germans thought they were in for a much tougher fight.

Most games I have played put rules in place that penalize the Axis politically (by making US entry earlier) or having nice surprise rules. For example GMT's AWAW has surprise rules that kick in as soon as Germany attacks Holland or Belgium. The surprise effects last a few turns. So the thing is if you attack early you waste your surprise benefits in bad weather. The game also has co-operation rules for the Allies. British and French units can't stack, can't fly in support of each other, can't attack together etc etc. These rules are temporary. Plus it throws political penalties as well.

All these things together mean nobody attacks the low countries until the clear weather arrives in Mayish 1940. And then with all the surprise benefits etc the French go under quickly.

I would be very careful if the solution is to increase the strength of the allies. Russia looks very imposing. I haven't done a Russian Campaign yet. But it looks a tough ask. Even with the early attacks in the west by Germany my gut feeling is it won't matter. The battle for Russia will determine the war.

As an aside I note a couple of things. One is the weather. It seems there is just too much bad weather. In my game as allied it's almost June 1940 and it's still raining. My opponent is waiting for some good weather to attack. The weather is a big brake on things. Where is the weather table so we can assess it?

Another thing is so what if the Germans take out Holland and Belgium in 1939. Is France going to fall earlier than it did historically? I doubt it. It's funny how no one really worries that the French never fall by June 1940, that they can go on till late 1940 is quite ok. But if the Germans do anything that might actually give them a chance at an historical end of the fighting against France it's boohooed.

Also the strategic bombing capabilities of France and Britain in this early stage is way overstated. I have managed to demolish the Ruhr and keep it flattened. Why? Because the Allies have more fighters. I think the Allies have Air Superiority and will keep it till France falls.

To sum up. Yeah I agree it's not historical that the Germans can attack the lows in 1939. But does sit matter? Not in my opinion, the other advantages the Allies have more than compensate.

Finally please don't make balance changes on the basis of ANY results from AI games. The AI is not a good barometer to use.

Base balance changes on PBEM. And there have not been enough yet to make any informed judgement. Apart from observing the obvious, that Germany can attack the lows in 1939. If that irks you I would simply make the DOW on the lows not a possibility till sometime later. But then the Germans will go elsewhere. So yeah ban that too. It will then get to the point of why bother starting at all in 1939.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The problem is merely hindsight.

+1

Even historically there is an opening to hit the west before the end of the year. It is, of course, open to debate how ready the Wehrmacht was for that. Hitler thought so, others did not.

So, regardless of whether or not they were actually historically ready is irrelevant to the fact that in GAMING TERMS the player needs the same sort of options as their historical counterparts.

This is how you deal with hindsight--at least to some degree. Sometimes you need things to be just slightly ahistorical in order to provide the threat or emotion of the event. Sealion is a great example. Naturally, most of think--due to hindsight--that Sealion is folly. But it was considered--again the seriousness of the consideration is irrelevant because most importantly is that both sides thought it was at least possible.

So in a game, these options need to be at least possible (the difficultly of course is another issue).

As far as specifically to this case of the railroad, I suspect players are flying--rather than railing--their air units. That's fine. Pay in oil. You'll feel that later. But it does have the side effect of getting perhaps a little bit more combat power over there than was historical.

They'll likely also be conducting more air missions in bad weather. Huge waste. That's fine. Pay in oil. You'll feel that later.

I rail my air and land. By mid Nov I feel like I have enough combat power to start a limited western campaign but am usually hit by weather so I haven't tried yet. I also like to hit more with a punch than dragging campaigns out (something I think Warplan rewards via it's supply and readiness system).

Also, what do those early campaigns look like?

If that had happened historically, I doubt the campaign would have looked anything like what it actually did. My bet would be more of a Schlieffin Plan with a heavy infantry right wing smashing Belgium (probably leave Netherlands alone) but getting stopped by weather. The campaign picking up again in the spring with a panzer dive straight to Paris. So France falling early to mid spring. In my opinion Allied air power would have performed much better in this scenario as well.

What are the players seeing?

Also, if they are getting this kind of prolonged campaign, how much oil are they spending with a prolonged--and likely very intense--air campaign?

Maybe that's the trade off. I guess it depends on what their campaigns look like.

[Michael T]

Good points.

[Flaviusx]

If I had to make one slight tweak to the air situation it would be to make all the German interceptors 1940 models. But I think the allied air can be managed with an aggressive counterair strat starting on turn one. You can wreck one of the French airplanes (I prefer taking on the fighters, but an argument can be made in favor of the bomber) with 2 fighters and a bomber right from the getgo, and if the Allies insist on keeping their fighters in your range, just keep pouncing on them every turn. You should be able to gain air superiority over the Ruhr and make bombing it a very expensive proposition for the Allies.

[Michael T]

I question the Brits even having a strat air unit at start. I think it should be removed.

[Michael T]

As for the fighter v fighter stuff the Germans start with 4 the Br/Fr have 5. The Germans have a 10% exp advantage but it seems to be a minimal effect. As the Brit I can soak off the German fighters at around 1:1 loss rate then pound away with my strat bomber, getting 4 hits every turn. Focus on one city, Flatten it then move on to next. The repairs I keep down with the rest of the tac air units.

[ncc1701e]

Two things maybe:
1. If you want to slow down the Polish campaign without changing anything, add the Warta river on the Polish map. That will slow down a little bit the rush on Warsaw of the Panzer corps in the South West.

2. Historically, there was a pause between Fall Weiss and Fall Gelb because of:
a. The bad weather
b. The lack of oil

[Michael T]

I would be inclined to remove a French fighter as well. Especially in light of the extra ground they get now.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa
Do you feel Germany has too much rail early. I see many games where they shift their army West and DOW on France very early.

I think it's the weather effects that need tweaking not the rail capacity. It needs to be far more punishing to attack in severe weather. I'd double attacker losses in single rain and single snow and triple them in double rain and snow. Only weatherized units should ever contemplate an attack in bad weather.

Overwhelming numbers will do fine in bad weather as losses will be light in such a case due to very high odds but make it hurt to attack in bad weather and people will wait for spring.

Jim

[Michael T]

a. The bad weather

Yes. I would be inclined to remove the chances of 'cold' in the winter and add in more chances of clear in May. My little break out in Nov 39 was due to a 'cold' turn.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I think it's the weather effects that need tweaking not the rail capacity. It needs to be far more punishing to attack in severe weather. I'd double attacker losses in single rain and single snow and triple them in double rain and snow. Only weatherized units should ever contemplate an attack in bad weather.

Overwhelming numbers will do fine in bad weather as losses will be light in such a case due to very high odds but make it hurt to attack in bad weather and people will wait for spring.

Jim

Agree. The bad weather must be more punishing. And this must be applicable to air units as well as ground units. No need to remove some air units if they are on the ground due to weather conditions.

[Flaviusx]

I like these weather tweaks but would want to see the Sovs get an offset to more punishing winter weather besides having to use up a promotion on units. I suppose you could also give the Finns an instrinsic winter bonus to offset this as well.

Winter offensives are a bit too easy right now for sure. Rain I think might be okay in its present state, it's fairly punishing.

[AlbertN]

Germany has not too many rails - especially as more rail cannot be bought.

If bad weather attack is useless unless you attack dummies, you'll get a WW1 front for MANY turns a year.

Presently I do not feel that there are problems, I've played both sides - and with Belgium beefed and Super-France, it's not a big problem. France falls when good weather comes.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I like these weather tweaks but would want to see the Sovs get an offset to more punishing winter weather besides having to use up a promotion on units.

I believe all soviet units are winterized by default, no need to spend promotion points on them. Might be wrong, but I think I read that somewhere in the manual, applied to Finnish units too I think.

Jim

[Michael T]

Yeah the Soviets already get a default winter advantage. 50% I think.

[AlbertN]

I've made a thread too about Allied air superiority.
Germany gets their oil rigs obliterated and their fighters just cannot do anything about it.
The fact Germany has '40 Fighters seems to not impact at all. (Said that already though, techs are way too non influential to the game - and as it is pratically -each- country will be roughly at the same tech level anyhow. Who does not max out let's say Interceptors? Or Assault Infantry? Etc).

Right now in my Allied games I am even thinking to start ship since '39 the TAC the Brits have in Egypt back to UK, since anyhow Allies rule the skies.
I can either bomb the oil rigs of Germany - or dump as many bombers as I can on the spearheads and attack them with my French armada. Especially if Germany pushes, their spearheads will be low on combat value due to abysmal efficiency.

Same problem with Diplomacy. As Allied player I just spam what is Germany trade partners, and boom - Germany loses production.

Right now to me it seems this game gives a lot to the Allies and little to Axis.

I reiterate - if combat in bad weather gets worse than it is now - you'll get players pratically press the pass button in bad weather after shuffling some piece around and not even bothering to attack or trying.

Rail right now is the -last and least- of the problems.