Cheezy Moves, Wished I Thought of Them.

[Maximeba]

Well, my buddy (playing the Axis) just defeated France. I'm thinking I have time with Russia, as it will take him some time to move his entire army from France to the Eastern Front or it will be very expensive paying for those smp's. Wrong, all he has to do is make sure the Axis army is in Vichy France at the time of surrender. The computer will knock all those German and Italian units into the deployment box. All he has to do is deploy those units in cities on the Eastern Front at no expense to either Germany or Italy.

Another thing I noticed, the Italians can send supplies from Italy to Africa (Tripoli) using convoys and those supplies can be interdicted if the Allies have a naval presence in the sea zone (Central Med). Yet troops will be sent from Italian Ports to the port of Tripoli and no interdiction will be made. Are troops easier to get across than supplies?

Not sure how these can be addresssed or even need to be addressed but they sure seem to be wrong to me?

Allies for Ever
Wes

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Maximeba

Well, my buddy (playing the Axis) just defeated France. I'm thinking I have time with Russia, as it will take him some time to move his entire army from France to the Eastern Front or it will be very expensive paying for those smp's. Wrong, all he has to do is make sure the Axis army is in Vichy France at the time of surrender. The computer will knock all those German and Italian units into the deployment box. All he has to do is deploy those units in cities on the Eastern Front at no expense to either Germany or Italy.

Hello, I am just a gamer like you. I agree this is too easy. One suggestion I think would be that upon Vichy creation, the Axis troops in Vichy France can only redeploy in occupied France (not Vichy) or that the program automatically deploy them somewhere in occupied France (not Vichy). But is it doable in the game I do not know.

This way if germans, if they want to attack USSR, they first have to move to the east themselves and using SMPs, it will take many turns this way.

Another thing I noticed, the Italians can send supplies from Italy to Africa (Tripoli) using convoys and those supplies can be interdicted if the Allies have a naval presence in the sea zone (Central Med). Yet troops will be sent from Italian Ports to the port of Tripoli and no interdiction will be made. Are troops easier to get across than supplies?

Not sure how these can be addresssed or even need to be addressed but they sure seem to be wrong to me?

Allies for Ever
Wes

I did play a game as the british where I did attack Vichy France in 1940, and the Axis sent a lot or armored corps in Syria to attack me. I did send a strong fleet in eastern mediterraean, and on few occasions I was able to fire at Axis transports and sunk them, but rarely. I must say there was also a strong italian cover fleet, I don't know more.

[Maximeba]

Michel,
Are you saying that Troops that are transported from port to port in the same sea zone are interdicted by enemy fleet in the same sea zone? If so I have not stopped the Italians from sending troops to Tripoli. I don't recall ever seeing troop transports interdicted.
It also seems to me that Axis troops getting a free ride is wrong. It seems to me that it should cost something to get them out of the deployment box. Or maybe they should go to the closest friendly city in France or Germany. Then make the Axis use those smp points.

Allies for Ever,
Wes

[NefariousKoel]

Perhaps that was an indirect way of modeling the surprise attack of Barbarossa? [;)]

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Maximeba

Michel,
Are you saying that Troops that are transported from port to port in the same sea zone are interdicted by enemy fleet in the same sea zone? If so I have not stopped the Italians from sending troops to Tripoli. I don't recall ever seeing troop transports interdicted.

What I saw in my example of a conflict in Syria-Palestine-Egypt, I saw a lot of Axis corps appearing there and attacking me, the british.

I sent a strong fleet in Eastern Mediterranean and there was a lot of naval battles with the Italian fleet. In at least 2 battles I saw italian transports, and my ships did fire at them and they were sunk. But, it was decided automatically, I did not choose the targets myself. You could also have bombers doing naval missions against enemy shipping in the sea zone.

[Flaviusx]

It's pretty cheesy, yeah, but redeployment space in Poland is limited. You're not going to be able to plant the entire Wehrmacht next to the USSR from the deployment box in one turn with only Konigsberg, Warsaw and Lublin to funnel the units through.
 
 

[Maximeba]

Well, I finally figured out how to take care of the Italians and Germans in Africa. Supply was going thru Tripoli and I had my fleet in fleet mode not raider mode. I switched to raider mode (no supply getting thru now) and what a difference when the axis have no supply coming from Italy. Those powerful German armor units are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. It cost me a few ships but it was well worth it.


Wes
Allies for Ever

[Manalishi]

.. all he has to do is make sure the Axis army is in Vichy France at the time of surrender. The computer will knock all those German and Italian units into the deployment box.

Been checking on this and have discovered that it is true for everyone. When a nation is conquered, all foriegn units not of the conqueror's nationality get removed to the deployment box, available on the 2nd turn after conquest.

Not exactly historical, but at least it is consistent.


  <M>

[Chocolino]

Another thing I noticed, the Italians can send supplies from Italy to Africa (Tripoli) using convoys and those supplies can be interdicted if the Allies have a naval presence in the sea zone (Central Med). Yet troops will be sent from Italian Ports to the port of Tripoli and no interdiction will be made. Are troops easier to get across than supplies?

True that you can send troop transports from harbor to harbor without interception if there is just one sea zone in between. That works also across the English Channel for example. Agree, could be improved. But in the end it turns out that the troops on foreign soil will help you little if you can't supply them. And supply is subject of raiding of course. Let the Italians send all the troops they like to N. Africa. Then you destroy the Italian merchant marine and they are sitting ducks. (look at the disaster that befell Italy in the AAR "Time of Writhe" because the Italian player - yours truly - did exactly this mistake)

The computer will knock all those German and Italian units into the deployment box. All he has to do is deploy those units in cities on the Eastern Front at no expense to either Germany or Italy.

One more reason in favor of gwgardner's house rule on deploying units only in home countries (see his recent post in this forum). But it requires that both players agree to the rule in PBEM as the game system does not enforce it.

[Maximeba]

The N. Africa part of this game is just about over. In one turn the Italians lost over 137 stp's. The entire Axis army was out of supply. Armor units that had a combat strength of 8 went to 1. Many units were destroyed or on the verge of destruction. So my clever Axis opponent decided it was better to disband units and get some pp's back instead of losing everything. The problem I have with this new tactic is how can you disband something when you are basically out of supply? All units were in the low single digit for supply. I guess it will be a tactic I will use in Russia, so I won't whine too much.

As far as deploying units that are currently in play I have no problem with the current system. I think new units should have to start in home country and then be deployed the next turn. Also units that are being forced into the deployment box due to an event such as the above should also have to start in the home country. The way it currently stands 18 units can be transferred to the Eastern Front at no cost to the Germans. As a matter of fact, Dave even mentioned to me he was trying to delay the fall of France so he could get as many German troops into Vichy Fance. Kudos to him; I would have done the same thing.

Allies for Ever
Wes

[Manalishi]

I agree that disbanding isolated units is pretty cheezy because if you cant get the unit out, how do you get the PP value out?&nbsp;As the engineer of the situation, I find it frustrating that&nbsp;the owning&nbsp;player can get ANY value from this predicament. I feel that if they disband an isolated unit, I should get the PP, not them! Have they not effectively surrendered? Shouldnt I be the recipient of&nbsp;any PP value since now I am in possession of their remaining manpower and equipment?
&nbsp;
Rescue them or leave them isolated until they are destoyed.
~
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; <M>&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Plainian]

Great idea! Not sure how easy it would be to implement if its not 100% clear who should gain the PP's.

ORIGINAL: Manalishi
..... I feel that if they disband an isolated unit, I should get the PP, not them! Have they not effectively surrendered? Shouldnt I be the recipient of any PP value since now I am in possession of their remaining manpower and equipment?

Rescue them or leave them isolated until they are destoyed.
~
  <M>  

[doomtrader]

The idea of forbidding to disband surrounded unit seems worth to be considered.

But I don't see a reason why the one who surrounded should get any PP. He won't be an owner of manpower, I can't imagine a Polish or French soldiers fighting for Germans, what is more he must spend some resources to build POW camps, he must put some soldiers to guard them and also spend something to feed them (we assume that international law is obeyed). Of course some of the equipment might be used, but I would rather expect that soldiers will rather destroy their tank that just give it away to enemy.

[Manalishi]

doomtrader: I was just being sarcastic about the defender or capturer getting any PP value for an isolated unit. I truly think no one should get any, and as a house rule, to not allow the disbanding of isolated units.
&nbsp;
Furthermore, on that same note, I think a player should not be allowed to disband frozen units either, although this one is a bit more sticky. I suggest this because I envision a French player stripping Africa and the Middle East to subsidize his army on the Continent. Kinda cheezy. But, if frozen units are undisbandable (by house rule or otherwise) then the likelihood of a preemptive French offensive into Germany in 1939 or 1940 is near impossible unless the French choose the correct Maginot event. I dont recommend selecting that event. I tried it. It was horrible. I was disbanding every&nbsp;remaining frozen unit I could find, and even some&nbsp;active units, all the while begging the UK and the US for cash.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
SO... it is sort of a toss up on the frozen units.
&nbsp;
undisbandable&nbsp;- is that even a word?
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; <M> &nbsp;

[Uxbridge]

Not being able to disband a unit is much worse a problem, than being able to do it in not so honourable situations. The AI won't do it (I take it) and if you're playing a PBEM, you can make up house rules with your opponent. Sometimes you have to disband units, however, if only to get the space needed to operate other units. Disbandment is therefore good.