The Last Two Years (Stjeand Welcome)

[Harrybanana]

Forces and Casualties

Stjeand and I agree on just about everything with respect to Warplan. The one thing we disagree on is whether or not the UK is too strong. Stjeand thinks it is too strong, while I think it is just fine.

[Nirosi]

This really worries me. In almost 3 years Russian national air experience has only increased 4% (from 35% to 39%). And it is not like I haven't used the Russian air force. They have sustained 358 casualties, the 2nd highest number of casualties of all the combatants.

The experience gain for the Soviet air force seems very very very random from game to game. In my game with stjeand, it actually went to 46 (!) by November 1941 (!). And then nothing more until august 42 (when I resigned)!

It is usually very slow, but also from game to game I have seen wild swings where by mid 43 it can still be under 40 or maybe close to 50[X(]. Usually the former however...

[stjeand]

I am shocked by the Russian manpower...it is insanely high with their losses. They should be down around 30% but instead have no issue. That is worrisome if they can hold out as they did in this game. IN fact all countries should be low on manpower...especially the UK and the Russians. Both stated in everything I have read that they had nothing left...what was marching was what they had.
Germany was down to less then 10%.
But I guess if more games can make it to 45...and they can actually be fights we will see if there is a real issue.

Outside that it was a fun game.

I wish the rules had not changed in the middle...But when you have to upgrade you have to upgrade.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

I am shocked by the Russian manpower...it is insanely high with their losses. They should be down around 30% but instead have no issue. That is worrisome if they can hold out as they did in this game. IN fact all countries should be low on manpower...especially the UK and the Russians. Both stated in everything I have read that they had nothing left...what was marching was what they had.
Germany was down to less then 10%.
But I guess if more games can make it to 45...and they can actually be fights we will see if there is a real issue.

Outside that it was a fun game.

I wish the rules had not changed in the middle...But when you have to upgrade you have to upgrade.

With respect to Russian Manpower:
1. Barbarossa didn't begin until 1942. This meant that I was able to "save" additional manpower during the extra year by building additional large corps. Then after Barbarossa I could disband these corps from time to time and regain the Manpower. This is why the Russian Force Pool shrunk from a high of over 2200 to only about 1800 by Wars end.
2. Russia has had very few casualties for the last several turns of this game and I haven't built any new Russian units in quite a while. So it has been gaining about 36 manpower per turn for almost 6 months now.
3. Russian casualties in this game are a pittance to what they were historically. In game terms, historical casualties were probably more like 5000 to 7000.

With respect to British Manpower, I found this on the web (not sure if it is accurate or not)

"The reduction of the British infantry divisions in the 1944, was ultimately a POLITICAL decision, not a military one. Churchill decided to built up the Navy, and keep the RAF at a fairly large size, while industrial/Farm production was kept at full blast. The Army, especially the infantry was given low priority. The British had perhaps 20 divisions (UK Only) fighting on the Western Front and Italy. Compare that to WW 1, where you had 50 UK Divisions on the Western Front alone in 1918. And this was after, the British army had suffered 500,000 KIA in 1914-1917. Throw disabled through wounds and POW's and the Uk permanent losses up through 12-31-17, must have been at least 1,000,000. Yet, the British maintained 50 infantry divisions and fought massive battles in 1918, including the German Spring Offensive and the final 100 days.

Compare that to 1944-45, where the permanent Army losses were only 250,000 through May 1944. And KIA in the NW Europe Campaign were only 30,000. The British had gone to war in 1939 on the understanding there would be no more Sommes or Pascahandeles. And Churchill was willing to take only a certain amount of Army losses. The other point, which someone else made, is that given the much larger size of the Soviet Army and the US army, it made no sense for England to twist itself into knots trying to put another 10 Divisions in the field. Better to just concentrate on the Navy and RAF and keep up the standard of living."

At the end of WWI the British had an army of 3.8 million. At the end of WWII it was only 2.9 million. But they had 1,000,000 men in the RAF.

[stjeand]

I guess time will tell...

Fix one issue create another is normally how it goes.
Basically need to get to a point where two equally skilled opponents will have a stalemate in Russia...
Though of course...luck will come into play...weather, battles and so on...

Then deal with what comes next.



I think the big issue for the UK / US will be when Japan is added to the mix.
Right now neither side has to worry about building units, shipping units, using MS there and so on...
Once they do I think they will come in line.

For example...air is WAY more useful in WPP than in WPE...just because of the naval aspect.

[Harrybanana]

This game is over with the Allies capturing Berlin on the February 23, 1944 Turn; so less than 3 month ahead of Historic and 5 months ahead of the Game's End. Some might say that this proves that the game is balanced, but I would disagree. I think it proves that the game is a bit unbalanced in favour of the Axis. Consider the following:

1. The Axis lost approximately 700 PP due to the Garrisoning Rule changing in the middle of our game.
2. Even more importantly the Rule change delayed Barbarossa until 1942. Personally I think a 42 Barbarossa should only be a possible winning strategy if the Axis spend 41 conquering at least 2 of 3 of Great Britain, the Middle East or Gibraltar. In this case the Axis didn't even try to do any of these.
3. Yet launching Barbarossa in 42 the Axis were able to capture both Leningrad and Moscow and could have done much better but for the fact that the units isolated near Leningrad were still in supply.
4. Historically in 1943 the Allies were advancing everywhere. But in this game the Russians were only able to make progress in the South. The Western Allies were only able to make progress in Europe because the Axis player did not defend the Netherlands as well as he should have. A mistake that Stjeand says he will not make again.
5. In 1944 the my opponent made, IMO, another mistake when he defended too hard in Russia and not hard enough in the West. If you look at the Front lines in May 44 Stjeand really could have retreated 2 hexes per turn on the Russian Front and I still would not have gotten close to Berlin by the end of the game.

So but for the Garrison Rule change, the Leningrad Bug, the Netherlands mistake and the Russian Front mistake the Axis would probably have won this game. At least that is my take on the game.

In fairness though I should add that one thing which went the Axis way was the BOA. From 1939 until the Spring of 1944 (when the U-Boats withdrew from battle) the Germans sank almost 700 MS and 58 escorts. That is over 9000 production.