Tourney game: Fafnir (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis)

[room]

Congratz to both players! Awe material !

[Dorky8]

I will say that Fafnir had an advantage because some of Sugar's strategies are well documented here in the AAR. That being said everyone else had the same advantage and couldn't beat him.

[Taxman66]

That would make a heavy early UK Tech investment at the cost of (nearly) not buying any units less risky.

[Dorky8]

Correct

If you pull back the BEF there isn't much need for more than the AA (a handful of garrisons maybe an army). Need AA research @ 2.

Upgrade to Monty.

[KorutZelva]

well shit. [X(]

[bfcj]

Original: Sugar

Russian Inf. at lvl 3 is ridiculously strong...

What am I missing here? My understanding was that Russian Inf units were inferior to equal-level units of other nations. I got this from stats like below:

[Taxman66]

You are comparing effectively equal levels with the IT army at 2 and the Russian at 3.

The IT has a better hard attack (by 1), and the Russian is 0.5 better on defense against Tanks/light armor.

[bfcj]

Right, so what's with Sugar's comment "Russian Inf. at lvl 3 is ridiculously strong..." ? Is it the +0.5 tank defense?

[bfcj]

What's funny about Fafnir not maintaining a strong garrison in the UK is that when he beat me (destroyed, humiliated, ...) he had German troops in the UK before he'd finished dispatching France.

[Fafnir]

That has multiple reasons.
- Surprise - most players do not expect a UK invasion if the battle for France has not ended.
- It delays the fall of France. Once France has fallen, the US gets a mobilization bonus
- Some players move after Sealion France units to UK. This may be an opportunity to get whole France.
- Not sure about this: If London falls before Paris it will not get the french fighters from the US.

On the downside you have to deal with that nasty France navy.

[Taxman66]

Fafnir, it's a TAC and a Maritime Bomber, no fighter; and yes controlling London will prevent the transfer. However, I believe the USA will get a free TAC & Med Bomber when they join the war.

You may be delaying the US Mobilization bonus, but you are also delaying the very large bump up of German MPP, not to mention the plunder. Earlier fall of France also can mean less MPP spent operating planes (you might be able to get some of them there via normal movement) if your next target is Malta.

[bfcj]

I think you are correct about the French fighters, as I don't recall getting them.

I learned another hard lesson, in that units in production queue are lost when UK gov moves. I had an HQ, fighter, and several inf waiting to deploy in Egypt (easier than deploying in UK then transporting) and then they were gone. I suppose it makes sense, just wish I'd have remembered that from reading the manual. I'll never forget it again...

[Dorky8]

ORIGINAL: bfcj

What's funny about Fafnir not maintaining a strong garrison in the UK is that when he beat me (destroyed, humiliated, ...) he had German troops in the UK before he'd finished dispatching France.

ORIGINAL: Fafnir

That has multiple reasons.
- Surprise - most players do not expect a UK invasion if the battle for France has not ended.
- It delays the fall of France. Once France has fallen, the US gets a mobilization bonus
- Some players move after Sealion France units to UK. This may be an opportunity to get whole France.
- Not sure about this: If London falls before Paris it will not get the french fighters from the US.

On the downside you have to deal with that nasty France navy.

The fact that the game allows the Axis to amphibiously attack England almost immediately after (before French surrender) the surrender of Holland/Belguim is complete and utter BS. The game loses all concept of historical reality here.

This isn't an attack on your strategy Fafnir, a great player will use all strategies at their disposal.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

The fact that the game allows the Axis to amphibiously attack England almost immediately after (before French surrender) the surrender of Holland/Belguim is complete and utter BS. The game loses all concept of historical reality here.

Maybe if we reduced Germany's at start Amphibious Transport Build Limit from 2 to 1, then if they invest heavily in researching Amphibious Warfare they might be able to put 2 rather than (currently) 3 units into Amphibious Transports by the spring/summer of 1940.

What does everyone think of such a change?

[LLv34Mika]

IF the Germans make a Sealion attempt it usually happens with the Fallschirmjaeger units. They just bomb everything they can and when a port is free the capture it and bring in some troops. So I think that wouldn't make much difference but would take away the pretty unrealistic thing of just placing troops into boats even tough the Royal Navy is still a serious threat (superior threat!!!)

Together with the changes you made with the latest beta patch it is more realistic now. I'm speaking of the U-Boats. That was another part of the sealion tactics. The Germans can spam the channel with U-Boats to prevent the RAF from attacking amphibious ships. Even if the Germans risk placing the U-Boats right in front of the Channel coast it doesn't matter. Due to the high dive chance you can not sink a single sub in one turn even with all destroyers and fighters/bombers (that will be intercepted by the Germans... the better fighting Germans!). And even if you sink one U-Boat you can be sure that the tactical bombers, medium bombers, fighters, the other subs, the rest of the Kriegsmarine and probably one or two maritime bombers will sink 4 - 5 ships every turn for every sub you may sink.

In history those U-Boats would have been on a suicide mission doing that. Not in SC. So if an Axis player really wants to try Sealion there is always this chance. The downside of that plan is that you will need your units and your bombers there instead of North Africa. But you can not prevent it. The British will have ~3 fighters at this point. Maybe a fourth one but not more. The Germans already start with 3 fighters and will have at least 3 bombers... maybe more. If you send all your carriers to stop the incoming invasion that might help but it is still a risky mission because fighters have almost no actions points left after their second attack.

All in all I have to say that I'm not really sure what to think about but my first thought was that it is no big change since every invasion starts with bombing, bombing, bombing and paratroops.

Other thoughts?

[Dorky8]

There should be a very large penalty for the Axis Attacking GB before the fall of France. It is very possible here and in reality it was absolutely out of the question before France surrendered. Sealion isn't realistic with overwhelming strong subs either.

[bfcj]

When playing the AI, invading the UK results in a significant increase in US mobilization, but not against another player. Why the difference?

[Ktonos]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Maybe if we reduced Germany's at start Amphibious Transport Build Limit from 2 to 1, then if they invest heavily in researching Amphibious Warfare they might be able to put 2 rather than (currently) 3 units into Amphibious Transports by the spring/summer of 1940.

What does everyone think of such a change?

Game works just fine as is. My only consideration regarding the German ability to invade via sea is that the Royal Navy has no chance of intercepting the transports enroute; but this is just a nitpick. If this was broken then most of the games would have a Sea Lion. And they don't. A Sea Lion is attempted if the Allied player is complacent with UK defense, or if he entirely focus elsewhere. If this was the case in the real war there is a high chance that the Germans would Sea Lion

By July 1940 British player can have a corps in London with 5 entrenchment, another in Southampton and either an anti-air or Modgomery HQ to support them.

ORIGINAL: Dorky8


The fact that the game allows the Axis to amphibiously attack England almost immediately after (before French surrender) the surrender of Holland/Belguim is complete and utter BS. The game loses all concept of historical reality here.

How? Allied player has sea control. Especially with the French fleet still alive, this ought to be impossible. Only chance is that the German player deploys transports on the two Low Countries ports and surrounds them with German ships or subs. If he uses ships he will lose them, if subs, its one or two attacks before they "submerge" leaving the port with the transport open to attack.
What can happen, as Mika sais, is to use Paras for this, not amphibious transports. The furthest that Paras can reach London, is only from the Belgian/French borders.

Never seen this done to me in all my games. Please don't misinform the devs.

[Dorky8]

Looks like Fafnir knows how to do it, ask him

You check all the ports from Belgium to Denmark every turn? how?

know your facts before you spew BS

so I'll re-post mu original post read it

ORIGINAL: bfcj

What's funny about Fafnir not maintaining a strong garrison in the UK is that when he beat me (destroyed, humiliated, ...) he had German troops in the UK before he'd finished dispatching France.

ORIGINAL: Fafnir

That has multiple reasons.
- Surprise - most players do not expect a UK invasion if the battle for France has not ended.
- It delays the fall of France. Once France has fallen, the US gets a mobilization bonus
- Some players move after Sealion France units to UK. This may be an opportunity to get whole France.
- Not sure about this: If London falls before Paris it will not get the french fighters from the US.

On the downside you have to deal with that nasty France navy.

The fact that the game allows the Axis to amphibiously attack England almost immediately after (before French surrender) the surrender of Holland/Belguim is complete and utter BS. The game loses all concept of historical reality here.

This isn't an attack on your strategy Fafnir, a great player will use all strategies at their disposal.

[nnason]

Hey I was the recipient of one of those early attacks and I am working on a counter that doesn't devastate the Brits preparation for Egypt.