France, '40

[Pford]

Unless I'm missing something, it seems unlikely that the German player can repeat the sequence of historical events in '40 leading to the conquest of France. At least in a single season. It appears in the game that the Germans need to invade the Low Countries in a preceeding turn in order to threaten both Eastern and Western France. Otherwise, the Allied player can load up EF with enough units to render German success a low statistical probability.

[christian brown]

IMHO, the game rules are set up to accomodate fairly "realistic" combat, movement, etc.  Duplicating the May 1940 sweep of the WA is really tough, because you are trying to repeat an astonishing feat of arms.  This said, loading up a mass of armor in W Germany along with the para to take over W France along with support units for taking over the Low Countries is in fact possible, it has even been done to me in a PBEM.......the trouble lies in the fact that certain things: poor staff coordination, national rivalries among the WA and neutrals, lack of good communications, surprise, poor WA intelligence about the Ardennes build up, the Germans plan itself, etc. do not  find themselves at all easily into a game of this nature.  Nice observation by the way, and I tend to agree with you that Germany almost never acts in the game like they did historically, particularly with France falling in Winter oftentimes.....and Norway of course is generally left alone.  Perhaps thinking of this along the lines of "well that was stupid, I could have done it better myself" is the positive way to look at this.......

[GKar]

I was wondering about the same thing in my first Axis game: How to conquer both TLC and France in one turn?! Then I decided that it isn't really necessary, but I'll try what Christian suggested in one of the next games. [:)]

[Tom Grosv]

ORIGINAL: christian brown

.....and Norway of course is generally left alone. 

Been thinking about Norway. I always left it alone in WAW but I'm not so sure in AWD. It strikes me that if Norway goes Allied leaning then taking it has a good chance to tilt Sweden and Finland your way if they are already pro/lean. Also, taking Norway adds the chance random political events of Sweden Axis Coup and Finland Coup that have Norway being German controlled as a condition. At 2% each that's not a lot of chance but with a 3% for Spain, 2% for Sweden and 2% for Finland maybe one of them could occur in the game.

[christian brown]

It strikes me that if Norway goes Allied leaning then taking it has a good chance to tilt Sweden and Finland your way if they are already pro/lean. Also, taking Norway adds the chance random political events of Sweden Axis Coup and Finland Coup that have Norway being German controlled as a condition. At 2% each that's not a lot of chance but with a 3% for Spain, 2% for Sweden and 2% for Finland maybe one of them could occur in the game.

This is indeed the major reason to take it, the other being your ability to put some air and surface fleets up there if the Allies start sending lend-lease.  All in all, a very expensive place to occuppy when the possible benefits are counted up.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: christian brown
Duplicating the May 1940 sweep of the WA is really tough, because you are trying to repeat an astonishing feat of arms.

Of course, I don't mean the 1940 Scenario. This is starting in 1939: 'Total War'. In the '40 scenario the Germans have a 70%+ chance of KOing France; the game setup gives them a slam dunk.
Another thing I noticed is that loading the '40 campaign there are 36 units in France, but in the '39 scenario the Germans ended up facing 46 units in Spring, 40.

[christian brown]

Another thing I noticed is that loading the '40 campaign there are 36 units in France, but in the '39 scenario the Germans ended up facing 46 units in Spring, 40.

Wow!  I never played the '40 and did not know, most curious, I have to assume this was vs the AI?

[Pford]

Yes, against the AI. Must be the French colonials, lol.

[templeton]

ORIGINAL: christian brown
Norway of course is generally left alone. Perhaps thinking of this along the lines of "well that was stupid, I could have done it better myself" is the positive way to look at this.......

Should the Allies then be more pro-active in taking Norway and threatening German Iron-Ore coming from Sweden (was this not the imperitive for securing Noway?)

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: christian brown

...Germany almost never acts in the game like they did historically, particularly with France falling in Winter oftentimes.

That's brings up another thing that bugs me; the facility of launching attacks in Winter. Shouldn't there be greater penalties on the CRT or a double supply cost for armor units? Especially in northern regions. Historically you had the Russian counter-offensive in '41/2 and the Ardennes desperation gambit in '44. What else?

[Uncle_Joe]

Should the Allies then be more pro-active in taking Norway and threatening German Iron-Ore coming from Sweden (was this not the imperitive for securing Noway?)

The problem here is that currently, Germany is flush with way more resources in the early game than she needs. So, cutting off free trade is largely worthless. Germany doesnt have a whole lot of incentive to go out and claim resources in the early game since she cant store them anyways.

In the future, its possible that Germany's early resource levels might be looked at and if that happens, then perhaps some of the historical conquests will make more economic sense.

That said, I still think that allowing the Allies a free ride into Norway can be a Bad Thing for Germany.

[christian brown]

ORIGIANL: Uncle_Joe
In the future, its possible that Germany's early resource levels might be looked at and if that happens, then perhaps some of the historical conquests will make more economic sense.

This is basically a call for a German NMRC, (Non-Military Resource Consumtion) which I used to support, it now appears unnecessary as Germany does not really have the advantages I once thought it did (I used to play the Allies a LOT and kept getting decisive losses.)  This said, I still believe Germany should not get quite so many advantages.....it makes for REALLY BORING play for the Allies for some 8+ German turns and allows for some "super strats" like a massive HB build up which I totally reject.   Just my 2 cents......
I want to see a game where Germany has to play really well, instead of just throw around its' power.....this happens quite a bit, mind you, but I've also been playing against the real "brains" of the business.............if you look closley, there are still some very distinct differences between WaW and AWD as concerns German power.....I.E.it makes it slightly easier for them....

[Uncle_Joe]

To me, its not really about how 'powerful' Germany is per se. Its more about what should be critical decisions in the early game that arent present due to the plethora of resources. Germany couldnt care less about Sweden's trade or securing resources in the Balkans or ME in 39 or 40 (on into 41 or whenever they attack Russia). This, in turn, makes trying to get Trade Agreements rather worthless since the resources will be lost anyways. Yes, once you hit x3 with the DoW, you'll need them, but in the early game its just one more thing not to bother with.
 
I would like to see Germany's resources balanced such that she wants and needs to secure extras in the early game if she wants to have a full supply when the x3 kicks in. The easiest way is the NMRC (if it can be made to work for Germany). From there, its just a matter of tweaking and testing a bit to find the 'sweet spot'. But currently I think the early game is sort of bland because Germany has no need to go out secure more resources to feed the machine. Instead, you see the 'extreme' strategies that you've mentioned (like insane bombers, or blitzes into Turkey etc). If the early resources were 'fixed', Germany would have more incentive to go after places like Norway and Greece as well as trying to make TAs with neutrals.
 
If this were to somehow weaken Germany, it wouldnt be terribly hard to balance it back with some more starting supplies or covert assets. Ideally, it would also allow a reduction in the Germany factory cost and add another potential decision for Germany in 39...ie, whether or not to expand the industry base.

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

The problem here is that currently, Germany is flush with way more resources in the early game than she needs. So, cutting off free trade is largely worthless. Germany doesnt have a whole lot of incentive to go out and claim resources in the early game since she cant store them anyways.

Yes, I noticed the same thing. Germany can fuel all factories until the war with the Soviets, that's a bit weird, but well - war was declared anyway, so back at work! [:D]

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: christian brown

I want to see a game where Germany has to play really well, instead of just throw around its' power.....this happens quite a bit, mind you, but I've also been playing against the real "brains" of the business.............if you look closley, there are still some very distinct differences between WaW and AWD as concerns German power.....I.E.it makes it slightly easier for them....

With the games played so far - a limited experience, admittedly - I've got the impression that the Axis (read: Germany) might be a little bit stronger than it should be. But maybe that's just me.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
To me, its not really about how 'powerful' Germany is per se. Its more about what should be critical decisions in the early game that arent present due to the plethora of resources.

I agree.

I'm still lobbying for German NMRC!