Suggestion: deploy units only in homeland

[Deadmoon]

I find too easy to reinforce fronts as, once you buy a unit you could deploy it everywere, even in the more remote russian city if you control it. I find the idea of instantly raising a motorized corps in the middle of the steppe quite...absurd.

I think military units should only be deployed in homeland cities, not conquered ones. Then use strategic deployment to displace them to the front.

Much more realistic IMHO.

[cpdeyoung]

The British should still be able to build in Egypt as Cairo represents Commonwealth troops coming through the Suez, otherwise I  think it makes sense.
 
Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

The British should still be able to build in Egypt as Cairo represents Commonwealth troops coming through the Suez, otherwise I  think it makes sense.

Chuck

I agree with Deadmoon, with your modification, Chuck.

[balto]

The Axis presently is almost impossible to win as is.  You put this in, it makes their almost impossible task, more impossible.

[gwgardner]

Great suggestion.

It's rather ludicrous the way, in my current PBEM, I'm producing infantry and placing them directly into the frontlines, practically.

Not only should the placement be restricted to the homeland, but there should be a lag, depending on the size of the unit, etc.

Balto, I understand your concern about the current weakness of the Axis, but overall if a variety of the suggestions that have been presented lately are enabled, more play balance may result.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: balto

The Axis presently is almost impossible to win as is.  You put this in, it makes their almost impossible task, more impossible.

Balto, the solution is to tweak what we can, then worry about game balance. First, the Germans lost part A of the war (1914-1918) and then they lost part B (1939-1945.) As a German Foreign Office functionary is reported to have said in late 1914, "I have heard that Siam is friendly to us!" It is fairly difficult to win a war when the whole world is out to get you.
However, one way we can try to re-balance the game is to increase the German tech levels at the begining of each scenario. I have repeatedly made the argument that the Germans were technologicaly ahead of the Allies in practicaly every catagory and stayed that way throughout the course of the war. I can make a strong case for German superiority in artillery, armor, submarines, and warships, and a good case for aircraft. Historicaly, they maintained that superiority at the begining of each scenario.
The other way to balance the game is to remove the mandatory declarations of war by the US and the USSR. If Old Adolph hadn't been such an idiot and insisted that German should recreate the hostile alliance against Germany that it had created in the First War, it might have had a chance.
And if we had a politics/unrest rule (as I have been lobbying for) the Germans could try to take out the UK before Dec 1941. If they taken Malta instead of Crete, and given Rommel a second Panzer Korps in North Africa, and perhaps brought (bought) Franco into the war thus taking Gibraltar, Churchill would have been removed from office and a Vichy style government would have sued for an Armistice.

[milazar]

Totally disagree that it is almost impossible to win as the axis. I found it quite easy and I played Germany and Italy on Very Hard and all of the allies on very easy (+100% PP). Reinforcing on the front line was a huge help to germany. But the big issue is the ease with which I surround the computer players and their inability to run a decent invasion.

[balto]

Milazar, I am thinking you have seen my many posts.  Would care to challenge me with you being Axis?  Not trying to be a jerk, but I would wipe your out before the first quarter of 1942.  It is not that I am good, is it that the play balance is that bad.  In a friendly way I am saying to you, walk the way you talk.  To assist you, we will use Chuck's house rules which help the Axis.  Without Chuck's rules.., you would be gone before 1942.  Once again, your defeat would have nothing to do with your skills, it would have to do with the industrial juggernaut knows as the USA.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: milazar

Totally disagree that it is almost impossible to win as the axis. I found it quite easy and I played Germany and Italy on Very Hard and all of the allies on very easy (+100% PP). Reinforcing on the front line was a huge help to germany. But the big issue is the ease with which I surround the computer players and their inability to run a decent invasion.

Milazar, the question is whether you can win as the Germans against a human opponent (well, at least minimally human. An IQ of at least 60 and no uncontrolled neuro-muscular conditions. I, for instance, am still going to destroy Glenn regardless of his completely overbearing optimism and my inexperience and total lack of knowledge concerning anything that happened after 1866. [8D]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: milazar

Totally disagree that it is almost impossible to win as the axis. I found it quite easy and I played Germany and Italy on Very Hard and all of the allies on very easy (+100% PP). Reinforcing on the front line was a huge help to germany. But the big issue is the ease with which I surround the computer players and their inability to run a decent invasion.

It is easy to beat the AI from either side. Against a Human it is extrodinarily difficult to win as the Axis without adjusting the PP's.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
I can make a strong case for German superiority in artillery, armor, submarines, and warships, and a good case for aircraft. Historicaly, they maintained that superiority at the begining of each scenario.

That is a great simplification. Germans in 1939-40 used ground breaking tactics, had great communication between units (e.g. radios in every tanks) but actually looking at the equipment theirs was not superior. Quite the contrary, e.g. the French had much better tanks. Their success came from the way the used them, not from what they had. In the game terms it of course depends on what exactly does each tech represent.

[cpdeyoung]

I believe the Americans gave nothing away to the Germans in artillery, both in quality of equipment, and in doctrine. The Soviets used a different doctrine, less flexible, but their artillery was much feared.  The British also had artillery which was much respected.  Artillery specialsts may argue about who was "best" but I do not find anyone arguing for a 'clear' superiority for the Germans.
 
Anraz quotes Stalin as saying "Quantity has its own quality", and by war's end the Soviets had 50% of all artillery in the world. As this is factored into Soviet Infantry unit strength I think the game models it properly.
 
Chuck
 

[James Ward]

If you look at Levels encompassing all things, not just the technical aspects of weapons, then Germany held an edge early. They had superior training, superior leadership and used superior tactics. 

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Marty,
 
I have always believed this superiority to be the case too.  The warfare level is another indication.  In the PBEM Gary's units are clearly superior for the same level of technology.  His units have the tremendous flexibility given by increased action points.  Action points are the neglected factor.  More action points give operational superiority, which means Gary's units can get from one part of the front to another, and tactical superiority, which means he can manuever into hexes I just can't get into.  That one or two hex extra movement is huge!  It is a big part of why Gary can make breakthrough attacks and my Soviets cannot.  Various comments on the board lead one to believe my Soviets are lagging the performance standards set for them.  My only suggestion is to try it yourself.  I am planning on beating Gary, but folks, decisive defeat of the Axis before 1942 simply will only happen if you are playing a child.
 
Take a look at the wonderful way this game models the actual situation that obtained in the early war.  My Soviets can make an offensive in selected sectors of the front, but they will get a bloody nose from powerful counter attacks.  Those occasions where Gary cut my Guards Armored Corps off caused a sickening drop in my stomach.  One or two more hexes, one or two more SP, and I would have been crushed.  Without those units I would have seen a blitz through my lines which would have changed the whole course of the game.  I must look carefully each turn : which of my flanking infantry corps could be blown away and allow him to surround a group of high value units.  Find a good Axis player and give the Soviets a try, and please do it before you recommend too many improvements to the Axis.
 
The Germans fought wonderfully well in a terrible cause, and the Axis player in this game can fight wonderfully well also.
 
Chuck
 

[balto]

Chuck, 
Isn't it about time you support all your posts in this Forum that deny there is a GIGANTIC play balance issue and challenge me with you as the Axis.  I will even give you the benefit of your house rules which help the Axis.  I will even do an AAR, with a one turn delay.  You will get the crap kicked out of by the first quarter 1942, guaranteed, actually, I think be the end of 1941 you will be toast, but I will guarantee the 1st quarter 1942 rout.  And for the 100th time, you know why I will kick your butt - the reason is because the game is horribly unbalanced, it is not because I am a better strategist, in fact, I am sure you are better then me.   So what say you, you seem to be the WW2:RTV guru, and I am just a mediocre player.., lets put your fantasy to rest that this game is remotely balanced.
 
Here is a summaryof your house rules:
USA can send anything to neutrals (not including Russia)
I do not want Vichy.
When Lend Lease kicks in, 50P to Britain, 50P to USSR via Murmansk and 50P to USSR via Blck Sea (you claim that can be done, I did not know that).
After 1941, unlimted PP transfer.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung
One or two more hexes, one or two more SP, and I would have been crushed.  Without those units I would have seen a blitz through my lines which would have changed the whole course of the game.  I must look carefully each turn : which of my flanking infantry corps could be blown away and allow him to surround a group of high value units.  Find a good Axis player and give the Soviets a try, and please do it before you recommend too many improvements to the Axis.

Just looking at the AAR, you have never been in danger of being crushed. The Soviets lost millions of men between June and December 1941, the equivilent of 3/4 of all your forces on the map. You have caused more losses on germany than they have, almost 50% more in fact, many due to counterattcks. Historically this just did not happen. Gary is not an incompetent opponent, in fact he has done well to get as far as he has in Russia considering he is at technical and PP disadvantge. When the Soviets can mount counter attacks and push Germany out of their territory, as is happening in the South, 6-7 months after they enter the war the only question is will the Comintern win or the Western Allies.

[cpdeyoung]

Historically this just did not happen.

When the Soviets can mount counter attacks and push Germany out of their territory, as is happening in the South, 6-7 months after they enter the war the only question is will the Comintern win or the Western Allies.

Certainly good to know!  From inside the game it seems a bit different.  It is May 1942 and I can hardly get three 7-1 attacks in a turn. It is difficult to see the quality of Gary's units from my snaps, but I assure you the opportunities are few and far between.  When I say it is tough down here in the field I am not talking theory.  I am not trying to "shape" the game.  I am telling you it is tough.
 
PP advantage? Perhaps, but the Soviets cannot build an Air division in a turn.  I might be able to build an Air army by July, which I would hide away since Gary's tech level is far higher, and he has much more. I am very happy if I have enough PP to uplevel a single Tank unit per turn. Building a L1 Tank division is a real feat.  In what way are my units any better than Gary's?  I don't get it.
 
Perhaps Gary and I are near parity in ground forces.  Now all I have to do is find some way to push an enemy roughly as strong as I am back a good distance when I seem to be able to grind out a hex, perhaps every two turns.  As Gary pulls back his lines will become shorter, and far stronger, and progress will be even slower.  I see a very strong determined enemy, and one who has every chance of being on the offensive at any point.  Yes, I have an advantage in SP ratio, hard won, and reversable as soon as I am on the offensive.
 
I am not holding vast forces in reserve for that great opportunity.  I am on the front trying to get somewhere, and the slow pace I am setting is not by choice.  How many units have been cut off this game?  This is not the AI I am playing.
 
I have not addressed the Western Front.  I have probed the coastal defenses.  I may try a small invasion in a few months.  Wish them well, for the Soviets could certainly use the help.
 
Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I believe the Americans gave nothing away to the Germans in artillery, both in quality of equipment, and in doctrine. The Soviets used a different doctrine, less flexible, but their artillery was much feared.  The British also had artillery which was much respected.  Artillery specialsts may argue about who was "best" but I do not find anyone arguing for a 'clear' superiority for the Germans.

Anraz quotes Stalin as saying "Quantity has its own quality", and by war's end the Soviets had 50% of all artillery in the world. As this is factored into Soviet Infantry unit strength I think the game models it properly.

Chuck

As Marty say, all of that is factored into the term "tech level." As far as artillery goes, I was using the term used on the tech screen -- which to my mind is more acurately called infantry.
If you really want to determine superiority of tech level do this little Gedankenexperiment:
1. Pick a date, any date. Let's say April, 1943.
2. Take a single Nazi unit, of any type. Then pick an Allied unit of equal size. Anything you want, an infantry company, a Fw 190 A6, the Tripitz, a Panther tank.
3. Place them together in a dark place, shake vigorously, return in 24 hours.
4. The inevitable result will be speaking German.
That's how you determine tech level![:-]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

From inside the game it seems a bit different.  It is May 1942 and I can hardly get three 7-1 attacks in a turn.

The point is at this time in the game you shouldn't be able to get 3 x 7-1 attacks in 2 months!
Certainly the Germans should be having trouble mounting them across the line but they should at least be able to mount a sustainable offensive at a point of their choosing. It will be interesting to see if it happens, it will take some good play to make that work!

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

From inside the game it seems a bit different.  It is May 1942 and I can hardly get three 7-1 attacks in a turn.

The point is at this time in the game you shouldn't be able to get 3 x 7-1 attacks in 2 months!
Certainly the Germans should be having trouble mounting them across the line but they should at least be able to mount a sustainable offensive at a point of their choosing. It will be interesting to see if it happens, it will take some good play to make that work!

Amen!