A newbie Axis playthrough: Summary, comments, and questions

[DrZom]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73


One question about the location of the Atlantic Wall: Do you place the fortifications on the shore hexes - or the hexes inside the shore hexes?

I have considered the question, and in my practice games I have taken the advice Clausewitz gave on defending against river crossings. Do not fight on the river's edge, but allow your opponent to land. That allows you to hem him in and destroy him with no line of retreat.

Being like you a relative new player, I have not been able to test the theory against a human opponent. It does work against the AI if you have the troops to man your fortifications, which rather depends on events in Russia in my brief experience.

Let me know when you are ready to try your first PBM. I would rather play my first against a noob like me. [:)]

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: DrZom


I have considered the question, and in my practice games I have taken the advice Clausewitz gave on defending against river crossings. Do not fight on the river's edge, but allow your opponent to land. That allows you to hem him in and destroy him with no line of retreat.

Being like you a relative new player, I have not been able to test the theory against a human opponent. It does work against the AI if you have the troops to man your fortifications, which rather depends on events in Russia in my brief experience.

Let me know when you are ready to try your first PBM. I would rather play my first against a noob like me. [:)]

Sigh; my post timed out. Anyways, thanks so much for this well-reasoned advice.

As for MP games, thanks for the invite, but I cannot commit. First, I generally do not engage in a lot of MP play for a variety of reasons. Second, I am currently recovering from a life-threatening illness, so I still have stretches where I am practically unable to get out of bed. So I will not be a very reliable partner.

[DrZom]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

As for MP games, thanks for the invite, but I cannot commit. First, I generally do not engage in a lot of MP play for a variety of reasons. Second, I am currently recovering from a life-threatening illness, so I still have stretches where I am practically unable to get out of bed. So I will not be a very reliable partner.

The offer remains open for when you recover. Get well.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: DrZom

The offer remains open for when you recover. Get well.

Thanks!

[wobbleguts]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Comments/questions:

Please understand these are tentative and cautious observations, given that I am a newbie who literally played his first (half-) full game.


2. Also as noted above, I think I should have gone for a full conquest of France, rather than accept the institution of the Vichy regime and thus a partial occupation. I think I need southeastern France to more easily help Italy, as well as to control Mediterranean.

Why? You can always conquer Vichy later if you want to.

3. To beat yet another dead horse, I think Italy has been made too weak,

Italy WAS weak. Weak economically/militarily/culturally for war. A British officer was asked to report the number of Italians who surrendered after an early battle. He said 'We have about 5 acres of officers and 200 acres of other ranks'. I think the game has got Italian strength about right.

6. The diplomacy sub-game seems so random that I did not know how to conduct especially as Japan. I consistently put 3 chits in Spain and 2 chits in Turkey; yet neither allied with me by early 1943. Should I have invested elsewhere? More importantly, where am I investing as Japan? It is difficult to find natural allies for Japan in Asia - as is still the case today in real-life.
.

I agree. Diplomacy is very hazy. I have used it to keep the USA out of the war while playing as axis powers and it gained me some time. But why on earth would you be spending diplomacy points on Turkey and Spain if you are playing as Japan?.

Anti-tanks seem to be too situational to be useful; either make them more well-rounded - or make their skills yet more potent.

Have found no advantage whatsoever for anti tank units in my few games.

. Submarines seem disproportionately strong relative to other ships. It seems like you need tons of destroyers to sink them, and even that is up to RNG, because I have seen submarines dive on consecutive attacks. One submarine should not cause this much havoc - nor take this many assets to counter.

Submarines are sneaky. They attack and go underwater. I think the game has got their defense values roughly right. Upgrade your ships to destroy them. IMO, Maritime bombers on the other hand are way to powerful. Have you tried them?

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts


Why? You can always conquer Vichy later if you want to.

LOL, I did not consider this at all. Is there a negative to doing this?

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

Italy WAS weak. Weak economically/militarily/culturally for war. A British officer was asked to report the number of Italians who surrendered after an early battle. He said 'We have about 5 acres of officers and 200 acres of other ranks'. I think the game has got Italian strength about right.

I am aware, and I've acknowledged this fact multiple times. But sometimes historical accuracy must be balanced with game-play balance, and I feel Italy's current state is not good for the game. But I understand also that I am a newbie, and that I may feel differently later.

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts


I agree. Diplomacy is very hazy. I have used it to keep the USA out of the war while playing as axis powers and it gained me some time. But why on earth would you be spending diplomacy points on Turkey and Spain if you are playing as Japan?.

Oops. I posted too quickly. I meant I did that as Germany, but I had no idea where to invest as Japan. Can you recommend where I'd invest for both countries? I opened a separate thread on this topic, by the way; so you can answer there instead, if you'd like.

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

Submarines are sneaky. They attack and go underwater. I think the game has got their defense values roughly right. Upgrade your ships to destroy them. IMO, Maritime bombers on the other hand are way to powerful. Have you tried them?

Again, I am trying to balance historical accuracy and game-play balance here regarding submarine strength.

As for maritime bombers, I have only tried them against land targets.

[pjg100]

Maritime bombers are useless against land targets. They are very powerful against naval (surface and sub) targets, particularly when upgraded. They are also relatively cheap.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

They are very powerful against naval (surface and sub) targets, particularly when upgraded. They are also relatively cheap.

They also raid convoy lanes better than the other classes of bombers when put in raider mode. Keep a German maritime bomber up in Norway where it can chew on the UK-USSR convoy route in good weather anyway. It'll pick up a lot of experience on the cheap too.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

Maritime bombers are useless against land targets. They are very powerful against naval (surface and sub) targets, particularly when upgraded. They are also relatively cheap.

I see; I used them against land targets only because there were no maritime targets yet as Japan, and I all my air was concentrated on Barbarossa as Germany.

ORIGINAL: Platoonist


They also raid convoy lanes better than the other classes of bombers when put in raider mode. Keep a German maritime bomber up in Norway where it can chew on the UK-USSR convoy route in good weather anyway. It'll pick up a lot of experience on the cheap too.

LOL, I did not realize air units can hit convoys! As an aside, is economic warfare really useful as Axis? I can see it being useful for the Allies, since they have a lot more money and hence can afford to continuously lose units, but for Axis? I did not even use U-boats against convoys, since I wasn't sure if the tradeoffs were worth it.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

As an aside, is economic warfare really useful as Axis? I can see it being useful for the Allies, since they have a lot more money and hence can afford to continuously lose units, but for Axis? I did not even use U-boats against convoys, since I wasn't sure if the tradeoffs were worth it.

It's been my observational experience that as U-Boats get more advanced in their design, they seem to take a heavier toll on MPP loss when sitting on convoy lanes. They don't turn into Akula-class attack boats, mind you but they do some do do somewhat better than at the war's outset. They certainly do pick up experience as well.

The best experience I ever had with my U-Boat fleet was when playing as the Euro-Axis I set them up in a north-south picket line across the Atlantic, in about the area where you mostly likely expect long range transports from the United States making a straight line for North Africa to cross. I must have timed it just right. My submariners ambushed and sank a US HQ and US Army unit in transit and caught up with and sank a corps later. I doubt if this would work against a wary human player, but the AI often pushes its amphibious and transport fleets out across the Atlantic with no ships scouting ahead to make sure the route is safe.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

It's been my observational experience that as U-Boats get more advanced in their design, they seem to take a heavier toll on MPP loss when sitting on convoy lanes. They don't turn into Akula-class attack boats, mind you but they do some do do somewhat better than at the war's outset. They certainly do pick up experience as well.

The best experience I ever had with my U-Boat fleet was when playing as the Euro-Axis I set them up in a north-south picket line across the Atlantic, in about the area where you mostly likely expect long range transports from the United States making a straight line for North Africa to cross. I must have timed it just right. My submariners ambushed and sank a US HQ and US Army unit in transit and caught up with and sank a corps later. I doubt if this would work against a wary human player, but the AI often pushes its amphibious and transport fleets out across the Atlantic with no ships scouting ahead to make sure the route is safe.

So do you have U boats moving around in large groups? I am afraid to do that in case they get jumped by a huge fleet.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

So do you have U boats moving around in large groups? I am afraid to do that in case they get jumped by a huge fleet.

No, I usually spread them far and wide. One in the South Atlantic, maybe one in the Indian Ocean, one moving in and out of the Caribbean when the US enters the war. I often keep one in the Mozambique Channel between Madagascar and Africa to try and pick off any troops Mr. Churchill is sending around Africa to Egypt.

What works for me is to have them chew on a convoy lane for a turn and them disappear for two or three turns into a more desolate part of the ocean while shifting positions and then return to chewing some other length of the same convoy lane. We want to keep the enemy guessing by not staying in the same area for too long. The Allies can't be everywhere so hiding out in the wider reaches of the ocean usually works. Try to keep the Allies playing whack-a-mole and trying to guess where you will pop up next. “He who defends everywhere, defends nowhere.” – Sun Tzu

That base in the Canary Islands that Franco gives you comes in handy too. Just be careful to scout it out first.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist


No, I usually spread them far and wide. One in the South Atlantic, maybe one in the Indian Ocean, one moving in and out of the Caribbean when the US enters the war. I often keep one in the Mozambique Channel between Madagascar and Africa to try and pick off any troops Mr. Churchill is sending around Africa to Egypt.

What works for me is to have them chew on a convoy lane for a turn and them disappear for two or three turns into a more desolate part of the ocean while shifting positions and then return to chewing some other length of the same convoy lane. We want to keep the enemy guessing by not staying in the same area for too long. The Allies can't be everywhere so hiding out in the wider reaches of the ocean usually works. Try to keep the Allies playing whack-a-mole and trying to guess where you will pop up next. “He who defends everywhere, defends nowhere.” – Sun Tzu

That base in the Canary Islands that Franco gives you comes in handy too. Just be careful to scout it out first.

Thanks for the extensive directions. I will try to do the same, too, then - as well as try to get a maritime bomber on Norway.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Addendum on the Barbarossa slog: I just checked the editor, and USSR gets 52 additinal free units during Barbarossa, if AI is playing them. No wonder it seems like a zombie fight.

Good grief, do not buff USSR further for the single player experience sake...

I posted something similar just recently in the Steam forums in that this is not necessarily the case.

Most of the UNIT events are on an as needed basis and are scripted to only appear if required as determined by the current game situation.

All this means is that not all listed events will necessarily fire and only under the right conditions to maximize optimal game play.

For example, if the Axis player is very good and drives deep into the USSR early, the USSR may get some help to slow down the advance. If the Axis player is not driving that deep, some of that help may not execute.

The bonus units can also be disabled at any time via OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS and then turning off any of the objectionable UNIT events.

Another way to achieve this, e.g. in order to provide the absolute minimum number of units the AI will receive for free is by selecting the GREEN difficulty mode and then resetting the MPP bonus back to zero.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Torplexed
I've noticed the AI in this game and its sisters seems fond of making a lot of attacks at less than optimal odds when it might have been better if it just stood passively on the defensive and conserved its strength. This has the effect of leaving weakened units here and there stuck out on the front line which you can punish further or maybe destroy in your turn.

Unfortunately this is actually purposeful. Generally the AI knows a good attack from a bad attack, but early on there was quite a lot of criticisms directed at it from early reviews that the AI was behaving poorly.

For example, when invading France one of the best things the French AI could do in order to slow down the Axis AI advance was to simply sit tight along defensive positions and force the Axis player to slog through with attacks.

The reaction was that the AI was "doing nothing", because it was not attacking back, and was then a poor AI. So now the AI attacks every once in a while to get the feeling that it is doing something, but not all attacks will necessarily be good ones.

It's a difficult piece of perception to get just right as early on when you first play the game, if the AI understands that the best play is to simply defend, the AI comes across as poor because it is not doing much other than appearing to be just 'sitting there'.

But later on, after a few games, the realization that the better move is to indeed not always attack becomes more apparent, but then the AI looks poor because it is making bad attacks.

Maybe in the future there will be a way for us to model early AI versus later AI once a player has played through X number of games so it will look like the AI is learning on the same curve as a human player.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Most of the UNIT events are on an as needed basis and are scripted to only appear if required as determined by the current game situation.

All this means is that not all listed events will necessarily fire and only under the right conditions to maximize optimal game play....

The bonus units can also be disabled at any time via OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS and then turning off any of the objectionable UNIT events.

Thanks for the clarification. It makes me even more inclined to get rid of the free AI units though, since it punishes you to play well. I guess for now I am going to compromise by just clicking off only the free AI that you get at Intermediate or above difficulty.

[wobbleguts]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts


Why? You can always conquer Vichy later if you want to.

LOL, I did not consider this at all. Is there a negative to doing this?

Not for me. I took Algiers and the French went all snooty and said they didn't like me any more. To teach them a lesson I took Vichy as well. Only needed a few units to do it and I now have german towels on every deck-chair.

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

Italy WAS weak. Weak economically/militarily/culturally for war. A British officer was asked to report the number of Italians who surrendered after an early battle. He said 'We have about 5 acres of officers and 200 acres of other ranks'. I think the game has got Italian strength about right.

I am aware, and I've acknowledged this fact multiple times. But sometimes historical accuracy must be balanced with game-play balance, and I feel Italy's current state is not good for the game. But I understand also that I am a newbie, and that I may feel differently later.

Italy is a lost cause, both historically and game wise. However, I think a good what-if game would be if Italy didn't join the war in 1940 and built up more forces/tech and hit the Brits later. Maybe they could have stirred things up?

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts


I agree. Diplomacy is very hazy. I have used it to keep the USA out of the war while playing as axis powers and it gained me some time. But why on earth would you be spending diplomacy points on Turkey and Spain if you are playing as Japan?.

Oops. I posted too quickly. I meant I did that as Germany, but I had no idea where to invest as Japan. Can you recommend where I'd invest for both countries? I opened a separate thread on this topic, by the way; so you can answer there instead, if you'd like.

I don't use diplomacy much. As the axis I try to keep the USA and Russia out of the war for as long as possible.

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

Submarines are sneaky. They attack and go underwater. I think the game has got their defense values roughly right. Upgrade your ships to destroy them. IMO, Maritime bombers on the other hand are way to powerful. Have you tried them?

Again, I am trying to balance historical accuracy and game-play balance here regarding submarine strength.

As for maritime bombers, I have only tried them against land targets.

Submarines could have defeated Britain, but the plucky brits developed technology that would eventually destroy them. You have to develop that tech and upgrade your ships to see results.

Maritime bombers are so powerful in this game that you can destroy an enemy fleet with just a few units. Build/position and hope the weather is good!

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73
Thanks for the clarification. It makes me even more inclined to get rid of the free AI units though, since it punishes you to play well.

I can certainly see why you might feel that way, but it really is to help slow down the snowballing effect where things can quickly go downhill once the tide begins to turn.

Some players find it just right, some too much, some not enough.

It is a tricky thing to get just right for all players and all playing styles which is why we make the options available for everyone to fine tune as they prefer from the defaults.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

I took Algiers and the French went all snooty and said they didn't like me any more. To teach them a lesson I took Vichy as well. Only needed a few units to do it and I now have german towels on every deck-chair.[/b]

I will probably attack Vichy later then. Those 60 or so MPPs are very appetizing. I am not sure what's the best time frame though.

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

Italy is a lost cause, both historically and game wise. However, I think a good what-if game would be if Italy didn't join the war in 1940 and built up more forces/tech and hit the Brits later. Maybe they could have stirred things up?

Italy was overall a mess militarily, but they did have some respectable military assets. In particular, their navy was quite large, and it was not all quantity either. Above all, they had decent, modern fast battleships in the Littorio class ships, and a few other high tier surface combat ships as well. It did have a fatal weakness in lacking aircraft carriers, and I am not sure this could have been remedied in just a year or so.

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

Submarines could have defeated Britain, but the plucky brits developed technology that would eventually destroy them. You have to develop that tech and upgrade your ships to see results.

Ah, anti-submarine technology is another technology I neglected. But with such limited funds as Axis, it's hard to research everything.

ORIGINAL: wobbleguts

Maritime bombers are so powerful in this game that you can destroy an enemy fleet with just a few units.

Glad to know that; and I think that's fair, because I feel carriers are disproportionately strong in this game - relative to both other surface combat ships and land-born air combatants - at least due to the way some nations (e.g. USA and Japan) can amass them. But good to know that there is some non-naval counter to this issue.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

I can certainly see why you might feel that way, but it really is to help slow down the snowballing effect where things can quickly go downhill once the tide begins to turn.

Some players find it just right, some too much, some not enough.

It is a tricky thing to get just right for all players and all playing styles which is why we make the options available for everyone to fine tune as they prefer from the defaults.

As a new player, it was mighty discouraging to kill 10 or more units for several turns in a row and find that the Red Army has gotten yet larger every turn! I felt this was too much, at least at the Intermediate difficulty. It felt like I am playing an RPG, not a historical strategy game. But I do appreciate both that 1) AI obviously does need some "cheats" against the human player; and that 2) balancing the AI is a very difficult endeavor.

I guess I will try it one more go without changing any scripts. Perhaps I might do better this time, since I know the game a wee bit better.