Best axis response to Wavell+Gort -> FR?

[jjdenver]

If CW sends both to FR in 39 what's the best Axis response? Any opinions/suggestions? Taking Egypt sounds well but typically IT doesn't want to DOW CW early and even if they do, taking Egypt is a tough go without lots of Axis air avail (which it won't be this early in the war while GE is occupied with France I'm guessing).

[brian brian]

Lotta ways to play the game. You could tell us which units you drew and then we could suggest what hexes to put them in and where to move them, too. First impulse has to be a Combined and Italy can’t DOW anyone. But all options on the table after that and we could order your units a lot of different ways. You roll the dice though - success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.


In all seriousness, the Axis are in charge of the game for at least the first 18 turns. They should play ‘holistically’ amongst their three Major Powers. They set a Grand Strategy, and execute it in every decision they make, from DOW to impulse choice to unit movements to combat choices to their builds. They should not play impulse-by-impulse or even turn-by-turn that much, in reaction to what the Allies do. The Axis hold the Initiative, and they should play that way.

Attacking Egypt is challenging for the Axis and the result of history is known by all players. But there are goals to be achieved there, as there are in many parts of the map.

[TeaLeaf]

I'd suggest (Same as brian brian I guess) you just stick to the plan and not let yourself be distracted by the allied action.
Part of that plan usually involves cracking the allied defenses in front of Paris [;)].
Personally I usually ignore the Brits because the CW puts up a better fight than the French (mainly because of a bigger airforce) and are positioned 'away' from my goal (Paris), but if they are indeed a real obstacle in front of Paris, I'd go through Brits instead of French.

The rest depends too much on the situation.
For example: are both Wavell and Gort in France because Axis pressure on Egypt is lower, or did Wavell just leave Egypt dangerously exposed?
Having said that the Axis should stick to their plan (grand strategy), this early in the game it might be possible to change those plans. Particularly if the axis builds are not too far off.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf

I'd suggest (Same as brian brian I guess) you just stick to the plan and not let yourself be distracted by the allied action.
Part of that plan usually involves cracking the allied defenses in front of Paris [;)].
Personally I usually ignore the Brits because the CW puts up a better fight than the French (mainly because of a bigger airforce) and are positioned 'away' from my goal (Paris), but if they are indeed a real obstacle in front of Paris, I'd go through Brits instead of French.

The rest depends too much on the situation.
For example: are both Wavell and Gort in France because Axis pressure on Egypt is lower, or did Wavell just leave Egypt dangerously exposed?
Having said that the Axis should stick to their plan (grand strategy), this early in the game it might be possible to change those plans. Particularly if the axis builds are not too far off.

To me, the last possible moment that the strategic plan has to be made by the Axis is the first production phase of the game. At start, their are a couple of choices to be made: Poland, Yugoslavia or France. But that decision isn't important for the grand strategy at all.
The moment production starts, your builds need to adress the strategy you want to play: Barb 1941 or Close the Med.

So: if Wavell leaves Egypt in S/O 1939 and Balbo is sitting on the Egyptian border: by all means: attack Egypt, because it suddenly is very vulnerable (however, I would not send Wavell to France in the first turn of the war. To risky. First get the Sydney MIL into Egypt, than send Wavell out, is my strategy). You than assume a close the Med strategy, which means that it is perfectly allright to try something in Egypt.

If you are going for a Barb '41, it's usually better to ignore Egypt...

[TeaLeaf]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

If you are going for a Barb '41, it's usually better to ignore Egypt...

By all means, I Second that! Emphasis on 'usually', yes [;)].
Must be very difficult to resist attacking Egypt if Wavell leaves Egypt while no replacement was sent in...

Well, not that the axis can do a lot with just closing Suez Canal if Germany is going for Barb anyway. So yeah, dilemma!

[brian brian]

I wanted to comment that whoever jjdenver is playing game(s) against, I am sure they signed up to play against him, not a committee of US. My first post in this thread was half in jest, and half serious.

Word in Flames is a game that rewards decisiveness and punishes waffling. I agree with Centuur that Axis policy need not be set in stone as soon as Italy puts their first counter on the map, but the Axis need to coalesce their decision making around a strategy and stick to it. Every country in the game has fun-to-play-with "toy" units - the question is, will they help you achieve your strategic goals? Building INF class units is boring, but they ultimately win the game for every single power.

In a game where Wavell is pulled from Egypt on the first turn, possibly even via a TRS set up that way, I would do this as the Allies - Re-organize some TRS, either via Wavell himself, sailing Gort straight into a port such as Brest, or using the ATR in the UK, on a naval impulse, or maybe even all three. The CW can be a lot more nimble than just sitting there with the BEF waiting to decide what port to land it in. If they build 3 MIL each on the first 2 turns, they have a plethora of options to reinforce threatened areas, and the Axis are usually slow to get in gear. Slower than most Allied players here seem to think, as many of them display an urgent haste to land the BEF in France before the Germans have even crossed one of their western border hexes.

And ultimately, what decides a campaign in Egypt is sea supply, not boots on the ground. The Royal Navy commands the seas, and the Allies should never let the Axis forget this. The key to that is not building a bunch of new ships - just repair all your Damaged ones, all the time, and the Allies will maintain a comfortable superiority. And FTR3 rule the Mediterranean, in this game system.

I have been catching up on the opening turns of the many AARs going on right now, and I was struck by a couple things. One is, every game on this website seems to think "France First" is some sort of imperative. The Axis can do very well in the game by attacking in the West in a historical manner. By then they can have a devastating Luftwaffe, and a large Army that took zero or very little casualties conquering Poland. And you won't be so cavalier about US Entry decision making when you see the USA totally annihilate the Wehrmacht in 1944 and end the game 3-4 whole turns early.

Another thing that caught my attention, and I was recently asked about, is the idea of the Axis building SYNTH plants, particularly early on. Many of the AAR games feature this; at least one or two I have read even had the Italians do this.

[A side tangent - so many games feature a build-up of Italy, at German expense, but then Italy does very little to advance the Axis cause, instead slowly becoming "Fortress Italy". This will hinder the Allies in the mid-game some, but I have to wonder how much pay-off there is for the Axis in that. The Allies could even decide a Germany First policy, not re: Japan, but by just ignoring a strong, strong Italy and defeating Germany. The forces that can do that won't be slowed down very long by a bunch of nifty Italian units. The Japanese/Italian player wins in the Pacific, or not at all. It might seem nicer to your ally in a 2-player game to build up Italy, but Italy had better do something to help the Axis win, not just prolong the existence of Mussolini for an extra 3 turns.]

Which returns me to the point of SYNTH plants for the Axis. The Axis can play To Win, or they can play Not To Lose, which are two different things. Every player should try out the boring "Sitzkrieg" strategy some time, it can definitely work and might be an interesting response to a very adventurous Russian player or western Allies who become overly obsessed with the Pacific. But in general, it is a much better game when the Axis kind of go for it, the way the historical Axis did. Have some confidence, make some attacks, push forward after a bad die roll. Building a SYNTH plant in the first couple turns offers a better ROI over the term of the game, sure. But how much faster will France fall with 2 1940 Stukas pounding them twice a turn in the summer of 1940? That might offer a compound interest return that is incalculable. Ditto for 3 more Japanese INF crunching their way towards Chungking. Build the SYNTH in early 1942 for Germany, and on the turn of war with the USA for the Japanese - build up a maximum smashing force before that, to put the most # of hexes possible between where the Americans and Russians start coming at you, and your home capital.

[Jagdtiger14]

If they build 3 MIL each on the first 2 turns, they have a plethora of options to reinforce threatened areas, and the Axis are usually slow to get in gear. Slower than most Allied players here seem to think, as many of them display an urgent haste to land the BEF in France before the Germans have even crossed one of their western border hexes. And ultimately, what decides a campaign in Egypt is sea supply, not boots on the ground. The Royal Navy commands the seas, and the Allies should never let the Axis forget this. The key to that is not building a bunch of new ships - just repair all your Damaged ones, all the time, and the Allies will maintain a comfortable superiority. And FTR3 rule the Mediterranean, in this game system.

Absolutely!

About SYNTH plants, I've come to the conclusion that a competent Chinese player (in MWiF) can make China a waste of time for Japan. Japan can set up its defense early on, strat bomb Chinese factories, get ready for the big O-chit moment, and build the SYNTH plant in early 1940.
Under no circumstances would I build a SYNTH plant when PM is less than 1, and I agree the best time is 1942 (but not J/F).

[TeaLeaf]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

And ultimately, what decides a campaign in Egypt is sea supply, not boots on the ground. The Royal Navy commands the seas, and the Allies should never let the Axis forget this. The key to that is not building a bunch of new ships - just repair all your Damaged ones, all the time, and the Allies will maintain a comfortable superiority. And FTR3 rule the Mediterranean, in this game system.

Well said. Exactly to the point.

Word in Flames is a game that rewards decisiveness and punishes waffling.

As long as your dice cooperate. If they don't, I found out it's the other way around, unfortunately.
Although I may misunderstand the meaning of 'waffling' (English isn't my native language)...
At least, attacking decicively rolling also decicively unlucky (just a 'DG' result too many rolls will suffice) can easily cost you the game. Especially as the Axis during Barbarossa, or in the Chinese mountains if forced to take some gambles because no high odds rolls are available (anymore).

Or am I 'waffling' now [;)].

[Centuur]

Well, a little bit. Is a low odds attack a good attack? Is it absolutely necessary to make such an attack in the Chinese mountains or on the Russian steppes? Most of the time one should conclude that one is attacking to stay on the offensive only. That's not a good thing to do, because low odds attacks will hurt the attacker much more than the defender. A die roll gone bad might mean that you lose the opportunity to continue your offensive next turn...

[TeaLeaf]

I agree 100%

Regarding the 'waffling' I was jesting. I just almost get an attack of laughter because of that word [:D].
Still not 100% sure what it means. I can interpret it as 'indecisiveness' (i.e. not doing much), but also as doing a lot of things that could be perceived as decisiveness but in fact is not because the person does not know wat he/she is doing (e.g. attacking at low odds without good reason to do so too many times).

[brian brian]

Sorry for the bit of vernacular there. I would have to guess there is an original amusing, semi-famous-ar-one-time story of how the noun ‘waffle’ gained a use as a verb:

intransitive verb
1 : equivocate, vacillate ‘waffled on the important issues’; also : yo-yo, flip-flop

But probably it refers to the motion of turning a waffle iron. I am having trouble dreaming up a perfect game example, but when playing the game, you will know it when you see it.


re: low-odds attacks - these depend on the ever-ticking clock. A bad idea on the first impulse of a July/August turn. But on impulse #13, the first side’s 7th of the turn, they can be a very good idea as your forces have just reached hexes adjacent to an important objective which will likely be reinforced during the start-of-turn sequence. To stay with a food analogy, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Sometimes in WiF, you do have to risk your eggs. Also, nothing tells the Germans in Russia that it’s over quite like a +2 Assault on one of their Panzer spearheads.