Burns vs. Flaviusx

[Jim D Burns]

11 Oct 1940

With a couple of quiet turns with nothing of note to report going by, today witnesses the first attack in Africa on my defensive line at El Alamein. A ground strike and two assaults fail to crack the line and the German armor used in the assaults has pulled back towards Tobruk.

My guess is he only has basic supply near the front lines so he must pull back to reinforce. I bring up some reserves to add some depth to my lines and all my troops are mobile again as of this turn. The fighting should be a back and forth attrition fight for the foreseeable future I think.

I now have a full 10+ corps in the middle east and the ANZAC troops have yet to arrive. My strategy with the British was to turn off replacements from the start, this allowed a rapid build up of land forces. I now have replacements set to 1000 and my starting corps are about 2/3rds fleshed out now. Once they finish I'll start building up the airforce.

[Jim D Burns]

25 October 1940

Claude Auchinleck takes command in Africa. He's the best available commander the British have. Only 1 combat point above the previous commander but every little bit helps. I swap out the northwestern most British Corp this turn and pull it back near Alexandria for some needed R&R as it got hammered again this turn. The corp that replaced it has no entrenchments so I don't expect it to hold. I bring the British armor forward in anticipation of a counter-attack next turn should the northwest hex fall.

[Jim D Burns]

8 November 1940

The axis now has 3 bombers dedicated to attack in Africa. Of the six ground strikes, only one scored a hit on the unit in the northwest hex. Then a low 2-1 odd land attack forces a retreat, though the attacker took more casualties in the land combat than I. I decide to leave the hex empty, the unit in the southwest hex has level 2 entrenchments so it should hold up better under the heavy air attacks, and I doubt it'll retreat even if the land attack odds are 3-1 or 4-1.

[Jim D Burns]

22 November 1940

Looks like my opponent has realized that trying to attack through the desert is all but impossible. I like the supply rule limiting port supply within a certain range of hexes personally, I think it's an elegant way to deal with the fact Germany is so overpowering in 1939-1941 on land.

By using limited supply over distance to curtail Germany in Africa, there is no need to make British land units more powerful in game to try and stop a drive on Egypt. This way tech advances allow the British to slowly catch up and become competent later in game.

So Unless Germany has another rabbit to pull out of his hat, things will probably be quiet in game until Barbarossa.

[Flaviusx]

I had to test your defenses. Not surprisingly they are impregnable. The Brits have simply had too much time to sit back and build up, especially since subs are irrelevant and the French fought on their own.

Okay, come at me, bro. Let's see how well this works going the other way.

Meanwhile, I see you have foregone a forward defense in the Soviet Union. I do not know if I agree with this deployment of yours. I have a different one and think the Sovs have good reason to fight forward in this game. But we will see how this shakes out.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Okay, come at me, bro. Let's see how well this works going the other way.

LOL, nice try I know better than to try and attack Germany without an airforce. Were supply possible in Africa, you'd be halfway to Suez by now, Britain just isn't ready to take on Germany yet. I've built quite the land army (compare land strength to see how big it is), but have not had time to build the airforce much, so my Operation Lightfoot shall have to wait a while.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Meanwhile, I see you have foregone a forward defense in the Soviet Union. I do not know if I agree with this deployment of yours. I have a different one and think the Sovs have good reason to fight forward in this game. But we will see how this shakes out.

It's due to the timing, I find my deployment gives the Soviets just enough time to spend on upgrades to make the starting Corp a little more shatterproof (most should reach strength 3 if the inf tech die rolls don't go against me) before you can reach them. Were I to deploy forward more than half would die on the first or second attack and never get enough tech to get to level 3 strength, this line gives one or two more turns to spend on them if I get tech in time.

I think you'll be surprised how well they do in our game compared to what you've seen before. They won't hold ground but they won't shatter as easily either, so their ZOC's will be a pain until enough inf armies arrive to flesh out a solid line. That and the fact I've built a ton of mech to back them up and threaten any kind of overreach by you and the line should be a real nuisance for you to deal with.

Jim

[Flaviusx]

My theory of how to defend the Soviet Union is entirely different than yours and I think the way you are doing it is a mistake, but we will see. I'll give you my secret sauce later once I test yours.

There are many games where the Soviet runaway is rewarded and this has always been a cause for complaint for the panzer pushers.

But I am not complaining.

[Flaviusx]

Oh, and don't think I haven't noticed your airforce in the Crimea. I will be taking steps to secure the Ploesti oilfields from any strat bombing cheese. Although I personally disband the Soviet strategic bombers, but this is getting ahead of myself and what my Soviet defense schema is.

[Jim D Burns]

I'm not running, I fully intend to hold where I am. And I've only pulled back to a river line to give my units a better chance to live for more than one turn while in contact with the enemy. I do not see delaying for 1 or 2 turns before dying along the border as a solid strategic decision.

That said you are the first human test and may blow away my line, if so I'll gladly reprise my expectations, but I still don't "see" any advantage to defending along the exposed border as it just kills off your troops very fast.

Now if your argument is one of historical realities, I agree Stalin would have me shot for this lol. If that is a problem I am happy to play with a house rule concerning a forward deployment, though I'm not sure I have time to redeploy and dig in if I try to move up.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Oh, and don't think I haven't noticed your airforce in the Crimea. I will be taking steps to secure the Ploesti oilfields from any strat bombing cheese. Although I personally disband the Soviet strategic bombers, but this is getting ahead of myself and what my Soviet defense schema is.

Have I done any strat bombing cheese in our game? Having the threat there is completely different than me trying to cheese the game system. Perhaps it would surprise you to know they are set to naval missions. Tacs are needed elsewhere but I want to defend my ports from invasion.

Jim

[Flaviusx]

Nope, not arguing historical relaties here, although certainly Stalin would shoot you for this. I think it is actually not the correct defense given the way this game works. It is actually better here to mostly defend forward imo. And I'm happy to throw away rifle corps as speed bumps. But I'll get to this later.

[Flaviusx]

I think giving the Soviets 2 strat bombers to start with is pretty ridiculous. They shouldn't have those at all, let alone 2. The Soviet strategic bombing ability was a total joke. But even setting that aside, I disband them anyways, and turn the production into ground units.

[Jim D Burns]

The problem is Germany can build a ton of invasion transport and flood the Caucuses on turn 1 of invasion, so I much prefer to keep them as a naval interdiction force.

As to Strat bombing I agree about early war, that's why I don't do it except very rarely to keep you honest with fighter coverage. Once the US strat bombers arrive though, the gloves come off for all nations and their use of strat bombers. Not saying I won't make any attacks, if I see no fighter coverage I'll make you pay, But I'm not going to abuse the ability until both sides have had a decent amount of time to prepare for the air war first.

Jim

[Flaviusx]

If you garrison the ports, those invasions won't amount to much. And I put the airforce in the south anyways, for various reasons.

It's going to take a huge investment in landing craft to make this work, and I don't think the Germans can afford this. Plus the Soviet navy is going to make it difficult to supply. It's a strat that might work only if the Soviet is completely unprepared for it, and only once. It's easy to shut down otherwise, and the opportunity cost to the Germans is big.

[AlbertN]

Each attack lowers the efficiency by an amount of the attackers, and so does marching.
Plus Soviet starting army has lots of troops at 20% experience which I believe to be well under the Soviet average. Thus get rid of them by using them as speed bumps, whilst fatigueing the enemy, to replace them after.

That is what I think the way for Soviets is - but the only MP game I was the Allies in '39 came to an end with the Axis player resigning so...

[Jim D Burns]

20 December 1940

Germany declares war on Vichy France in the height of winter. Marseilles is occupied and the fleet forced out to sea, but the capital stands. With all other Vichy nations joining the allies, Syria's two ports expose the allied rear and are quickly occupied by two British Corps.

The only problem I have with Vichy in this game is the fact the navy goes poof when Vichy falls. A huge part of the reason Hitler didn't occupy Vichy sooner was the fleet. I think the game needs to find a way to keep the Vichy fleet on map to dissuade the axis from this early move.

Perhaps an off map Vichy hex representing Caribbean and African holdings that the capital can move to so Vichy and its fleet can remain in play in the Mediterranean? As things stand now there is no reason not to go into Vichy right away for the axis.

[Jim D Burns]

17 January 1941

With North Africa entering the allied side, I've sent some port guards to guard against invasion, but I'm not willing to send much more. In fact as soon as the fort line near Lybia is broken, Britain will probably pull out of North Africa. There's really nothing worth defending there and Britain lacks the resources to try and adequately defend such a long coast line right now.

I looked at possibly setting up a defensive line behind the river just east of Algiers, but Britain would have to strip 1/3rd of its defensive Corps from England just to line the river. And that still wouldn't give them a reserve either which would make their line very fragile, so its just too costly right now I think to try and hold north Africa.

Vichy still holds its capital after several turns of attacks, but it's the rainy weather that is keeping it alive. The first snow or clear turn and it'll be over in Vichy. A refueled Vichy navy goes back to sea this turn to raid Italian convoys. So far they killed 2 transports I think, hopefully they'll chalk up some more before their nation folds.

[Jim D Burns]

31 January 1941

Lots of naval action west of Italy as the Italian navy sortie's against the Vichy fleet. Italy managed at least two ambushes and actually managed to sink quite a few naval points including sinking one of the Vichy fleet groups entirely. The Vichy fleet still managed to sink 4 convoy points before disappearing at turn end when Vichy surrendered. Tip of the hat to Italy for doing so well even though they were down two BB groups.

After taking a closer look at north Africa, I've decided to change my strategy. Take a look at the river east of Algiers, it is actually a very strong position. With the river assisting defensive battles, I think the British may actually be able to stand up to the German units.

This defensive position appeals to me far more than the open desert hexes west of the fort along Lybia's border, so I have decided to abandon Tunisia to the axis and try and hold at the river line. New forces are being sent to Africa and I will make a fight of it east of Algiers. If anything it will allow me to gauge the plausibility of going head to head with well supplied human controlled German forces in 1941 with the British. It may also draw off a sizable airforce from the upcoming Soviet fight, every little bit helps.

[Flaviusx]

I think you are doing the right thing trying to hold on to Algiers, btw. Was kind of surprised to hear you were considering abandoning French NA. It is a victory point location, if nothing else, and eminently defensible.

But, yes, I'm trying to stretch you in the Med. I can't make any headway in Egypt. The logistics are insoluble against any kind of reasonable British defense. You would simply build up to the point where I get rolled, and you can actually support a much stronger force coming out of Egypt than I can coming in from Libya given enough time.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I think you are doing the right thing trying to hold on to Algiers, btw. Was kind of surprised to hear you were considering abandoning French NA. It is a victory point location, if nothing else, and eminently defensible.

I chalk it up to playing nothing but the AI. I always defend forward vs. the AI and other than Russia I hadn't given a lot of thought about how to defend further back vs. a human. Once I spent some time looking at the map in areas I'd never looked before, I realized I could have made it much tougher for you there had I planned ahead. But vs. the AI I just defended the fort area and never really looked at anything else.

That's why my first instinct was to bail when I realized you'd blow right past the fort. I should have spent more time on it. I still have time, but I've wasted several turns.

Jim