Russian NM - A tale of 2 games

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

If you still have 6 Armour and 12 Mechanized than the loss of Moscow is not that critical. Especially since I assume you will also be receiving the Siberians. The Red Airforce is looking pretty battered, but otherwise you are in good shape. The UK even has enough MS to send maximum LL to Russia, which I assume you are doing. Looking at the map he has not cut the Murmansk rail line so that is very good for you. When the US enters the War and they also maximize LL to Russia this will more than make up for the loss of Moscow.

I was lucky and I put all the Finns out of supply the two-three first turns of Barbarossa with a Cavalry corps and a Paratrooper corps. So... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

You didn't say where the UK invaded or how its offensive in Africa is doing. But looking at Force strength I assume the BOA has already been won by you.

You are right. I think I am fine now with the BoA and I am trying to take Tobruk right now.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Germany can easily afford to build 6 subs, spare 1 panzer corps in NA, and still throw in a dozen or more mobile corps in the Soviet Union. That's an all in or near enough. The sub investment is very much worth it now and will keep the UK on the backfoot for 2 years. The allies will have to spend several multiple times the cost of those subs to deal with them. It is absolutely cost effective to do this, far more than building two extra mobile corps in lieu of the subs.

Subs are dirt cheap compared to what it takes to deal with them.

This also effectively shuts down lend lease until the Americans come in.

Yes, the Italians can typically spare a couple mobile corps themselves to the East in addition to the above. (They do need to put something in Libya to hold down the British. A single mobile corps, 1-2 mountains corps, and a small German contingent will do the job.)

This is fairly typical play now.

Revert the experience nerf, please. I'm done with PBEM until the Sovs get this back.

I agree. With the UK weaker, that is a good thing, I hope not to have anymore a second front opened in Europe in 1941. Remember, the Soviets were alone in 1941, 1942 to mid 1943 with Italy.

They were helped with PP from USA/UK but still they have defeated the German army. They won the war in Europe for me.

@Sillyflower, if you are reading, what do you think of our current game? I am the Axis in this one. Do you think I am a much better player because I am a much better player or because your Red Army is nice and gentle?

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

What needs to be fixed IMHO is to give the UK more shipyards so they can build more MS, escorts and LS simultaneously. The same for the US.

Well, here I disagree with you. On the Allies side, this is our role to build shipyards for UK, USA and Canada if you think there is a need. USA can build plenty of shipyards, escorts and MMs while they are still neutral.

Once the UK shipyard bug will be solved, UK will have to build shipyards. Canada is there to build escorts, MMs or Infantry Division. Again, this is a choice for the Canadians.

You want the Allies to perform D-Day in France in 1941. Fair enough. But, in that case, you will lose BoA.

Shipyards will be fine once the UK shipyard bug will be fixed imo.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

IF the Allies don't invaded in 42 than the USSR is lost...and I mean a mainland invasion...
Africa can fall in 42 to the Allies if is has too...
The Allies have to take major pressure off the Russians.

I agree with you if the Axis perform a variation of the Russia All-In. Which I still maintain is not what they did historically. But if they don't perform a Russia All -In than I think Russia can survive without a major Allied invasion of Europe proper in 41 or 42. But I admit there is the possibility that I am wrong.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

This thing is that, tech level 1941 or 1942, I am very far from armies at the 40%+ experience. I would be very pleased to just reach this level. So far, as I said, I am barely at 32% experience for my deployed rifle armies.

My best armies are at 35%-34%:

You are right, my mistake. I meant to say that you want to have your highest experience armies with tech 42. All of my built armies are built with the highest tech available. The reserve armies that come on are left at 39 tech unless and until they gain experience to at least 35% (40% before the change) and hopefully better.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

What needs to be fixed IMHO is to give the UK more shipyards so they can build more MS, escorts and LS simultaneously. The same for the US.

Well, here I disagree with you. On the Allies side, this is our role to build shipyards for UK, USA and Canada if you think there is a need. USA can build plenty of shipyards, escorts and MMs while they are still neutral.

Once the UK shipyard bug will be solved, UK will have to build shipyards. Canada is there to build escorts, MMs or Infantry Division. Again, this is a choice for the Canadians.

You want the Allies to perform D-Day in France in 1941. Fair enough. But, in that case, you will lose BoA.

Shipyards will be fine once the UK shipyard bug will be fixed imo.

Historically the UK did not just build MM and escorts; they also built BBs, CVs, etc. In the game there is no way they can do this because of the ahistorical reduced number of shipyards they start with. I don't want the Allies invading Europe in 41 unless the only units the Germans have garrisoning France are an infantry division in each port. If that is the case than I don't think the Axis player has any right to complain if the UK does in fact invade France.

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I agree with you if the Axis perform a variation of the Russia All-In. Which I still maintain is not what they did historically. But if they don't perform a Russia All -In than I think Russia can survive without a major Allied invasion of Europe proper in 41 or 42. But I admit there is the possibility that I am wrong.

Well here I will agree.
But I have not seen anyone other than you not perform a Russia all in...or so it appears. I could be wrong here also.

Though admittedly I am not a great Allied player...still have to figure out quite a few things because I do not play them all that often.

My belief still seems to be that I would like the USSR a little stronger and the other Allies a little weaker to be more...historical. Though it would take a lot of testing to find the balance.

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Historically the UK did not just build MM and escorts; they also built BBs, CVs, etc. In the game there is no way they can do this because of the ahistorical reduced number of shipyards they start with. I don't want the Allies invading Europe in 41 unless the only units the Germans have garrisoning France are an infantry division in each port. If that is the case than I don't think the Axis player has any right to complain if the UK does in fact invade France.

I agree...but I think the issue is that the UK would not do that. The UK would not build BB and CVs, while useful I think that they are not what the UK needs.

IF the UK gets more shipyards...then the "free" MS they receive from countries being attacked should be adjusted accordingly.

i.e.

Norway provides the UK 48 MS when attacked...IF I remember reading about Norwegian shipping they have 4.8 million tons of shipping. That is how Al comes up with the numbers...
There is one huge issue with this...

To ship to Africa takes multiple weeks. So 1 MS would in 1 turn travel to the Middle East / Suez...then it would take 1 MS during that time to travel back. Due to time constraints that means it takes 2 MS to move there and back in 1 turn. So in essence you require 2MS for each 1 point coming from those locations.

This included the US and South America...and it is probably longer to travel to India / Australia...and it is definitely less to travel from the UK to the USSR.

This would be very difficult to address game wise...so Al made a simple conversion.

BUT this conversion gives the Allies a ton (no pun intended) more shipping than they had originally.



I would say IF it was possible to address that...then giving the UK more shipyards would be fine with me.

They would have to build more and more escorts and transports...while Germany will have to build more UBoats to keep up...IF the Axis is to keep pressure on the UK to build more shipping.

BUT you would have to cut the received transports in half to make sense.




What is interesting is...in WPP Alvaro decided to force the US, UK and Japan to build specific units...while likely reducing their PP to compensate. BUT that takes away choice...
I suppose that could happen in the UK / Germany but that changes the game.

Who here builds the Tirpitz or the Graf Zepplin? That would be a waste of resources as we all know. Instead Germany builds more Inf / Armor...
In the Pacific if the Japanese focused on armies they could , perhaps beat China and that would free up a LOT of units elsewhere...Though probably to late to slow the US navy down.


It is easily addressed in a mod if you wanted to test something like this.

[CHINCHIN]

The game does not take into account the ships lost during the invasion, Norway for example lost 116 ships, most of them merchant. I believe that the merchant marine of all the minor countries should be lowered taking into account this circumstance.

[Nirosi]

Who here builds the Tirpitz

I always assumed it was included in the Bismarck counter. The manual does say a battle squadron includes two such ships and some escorts (Just like the Littorio includes the Vittorio V. etc. etc.). Why the Tirpitz name is still in the build names is actually puzzling...

[Nirosi]

To ship to Africa takes multiple weeks. So 1 MS would in 1 turn travel to the Middle East / Suez...then it would take 1 MS during that time to travel back. Due to time constraints that means it takes 2 MS to move there and back in 1 turn. So in essence you require 2MS for each 1 point coming from those locations.

This included the US and South America...and it is probably longer to travel to India / Australia...and it is definitely less to travel from the UK to the USSR.

This would be very difficult to address game wise...so Al made a simple conversion.

You are right about that of course in the real individuel routes. But that is true for all MMs even the UK ones at start. However we do not know how it was handled in the design. For game purposes what counts is how many MMs did the UK have and was that sufficient to ensure a steady flow (and if yes what percentage of it). If the answer is yes, it then make sense to consider all other MMs (From Norway for example) at the same ratio since they will do the same job by eventually replacing the same amount of losses of UK's original MMs.

Or to put in other way, they were probably calculated to represents an average of all routes.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Who here builds the Tirpitz

I always assumed it was included in the Bismarck counter. The manual does say a battle squadron includes two such ships and some escorts (Just like the Littorio includes the Vittorio V. etc. etc.). Why the Tirpitz name is still in the build names is actually puzzling...

This is funny because I have exactly the same understanding. The Tirpitz is coming with the Bismarck in 1940.
Perhaps Warplan was originally designed with 1 ship and escorts. And later, it was changed to 2 ships plus escorts.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

My belief still seems to be that I would like the USSR a little stronger and the other Allies a little weaker to be more...historical. Though it would take a lot of testing to find the balance.

The testing were already performed. I remember few posts from Flaviusx that leads to the introduction of a Soviet based experience at 35%. He is also at the origin of the idea of the Soviet infantry rifle corps conversion to half armies.

The balance was quite nice with 35% for the Soviets imo.

New players will be crushed with 30%. Old players too? I am still interested by the feedback of Sillyflower on our current game.

[ncc1701e]

Since we are talking a lot about "going all in" in this thread. [:D]

[sveint]

I've started many games since I came back but none of them are at a point yet where I can decide if the Soviets are too weak.
In the one game I've gotten far enough (and am playing the Allies), the Soviets seem fine.

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
New players will be crushed with 30%. Old players too? I am still interested by the feedback of Sillyflower on our current game.

Wow...calling sillyflower old...

Man you are in trouble now.

[Nirosi]

Wow...calling sillyflower old...

Man you are in trouble now.

Should we ask Alvaro to moderate the discussion or should we just take out the popcorn?

[ncc1701e]

I think Alvaro is just counting the points to know if he is coming back to 35% or not. [:D]

[ncc1701e]

I should say he is counting the Poker chips. This game, Warplan, is a game of numbers finally.

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Who here builds the Tirpitz

I always assumed it was included in the Bismarck counter. The manual does say a battle squadron includes two such ships and some escorts (Just like the Littorio includes the Vittorio V. etc. etc.). Why the Tirpitz name is still in the build names is actually puzzling...

This is funny because I have exactly the same understanding. The Tirpitz is coming with the Bismarck in 1940.
Perhaps Warplan was originally designed with 1 ship and escorts. And later, it was changed to 2 ships plus escorts.

Well lets examine this...

Germany had:

Deutschland (counter in game)
Hannover,
Schiesien (counter in game)
Schleswig-Holstein

So far so good...two ships per counter.

Scharnhorst (counter in game)
Gneisenau

It continues well

Bismarck (counter in game)
Tirpitz (name in game)

So yes it should be included with the Bismarck if the statement holds true.


I suspect the name is there because it is probably the only other known name if they decided to build a battleship.