Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.

Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen

schury
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:29 am

Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by schury »

I am not an English native speaker , so if you find any improper words ,just tell me ,I’ll rewrite it.
I am not a noob .I am not interested in games like chess though I know bin is a very good game of its type.so I enjoy eu2 ,vic ,after I conquering the world in those games ,I figured it out that we can make it those the designer don’t wanna us do so .and I tried then made it! Ok ,let’s talk about strategy .it’s quite clear that the axis is comparatively weak .you can’t win the war by regular ways or according to history…that will lead to failure .now you get the idea ,then just start to analyze.
Before starting to analyze in details, I wanna you know that you must give the allied a hard blow before he knows it. the game is decided by four factors: supply ,science ,land force ,navy. you can’t compare almost all there four aspects after 1943.so never waste any time, be aggressive! or just pick the allied……the axis never have enough supply. they need them to repair the captured infrastructure. this is especially apparent for Japan. as to navy, Germany is……linger on in a steadily worsening condition if you make any breakthrough. and the Japanese land force is too weak meanwhile severely lacking of resource! the situation seems that difficult, but the good point is Russia and USA haven’t join the war yet. we can wipe one of them out before we face another one! here comes my comment
1. Germany vs. AI
That’s quite tough , I have to acknowledge ,because Japan helps little under AI’s control. Japan will take the costal Chinese province and the southeast Asia .that means nothing to Germany ,if any. so if you wanna take Germany, then prepare to fight to death.
It seems that the Germany have little choose but eastward or westward.(ok ,maybe you think you can take north Africa and go east, but that’s too risky and rewardless ,so I think you’ll regret that unless some breakthrough is made in this point).what about go east? the computer does this and seems quite good .but, remember you’ll get no help through Japan. It’s not that easy taking Russia, and before you do that, the west France and the Mediterranean sea are under attack! and I think Japan will be dying after you take the whole super large Russia(more grids than the total some of USA, Canada and china). you can’t count on axis country under AI’s control(sigh).so it’s not a very good choice. then only way left is going westward. what to do then? yes you got it, take London first! build transport ship and tactical bomber .upgrade the bomber’s movement to attack London and the ships in Atlantic. then take Canada and give us a surprise is a good idea. if Washington is fallen, then Moscow is nothing but a piece of cake. and the Japan will survive.
2. Japan vs. AI
Ok ,that’s it, I wanna tell you how I have the world under control in 1945.the game setting is normal ,advanced supply. as you can see, Japan have more ships than Germany and most important they have aircraft carriers! that makes Japanese strategy plentiful .
first, take the whole china. seems cool but I have reasons not using Japan to invade my homeland, even in a game. and as a matter of fact, it takes time any gain a little, most of the time they won’t handicap your plan, so let them be. second take the eastern Russia and meet the germens in Ural. if you take this step, then be sure to destroy the whole eastern troop in Russia, then nothing can stop you. but after taking Russia, you’ll find Germany is under siege and the Italy always have surrendered .then you’ll gonna facing the furious WA fleets, good luck buddy. another job is to take the south east. Japan have little land force so if you wanna take the whole islands there and repair the resource you want deadly, you have to postpone the plan of taking china or eastern Russia , I’ m not sure whether you can resume it or not under us fleets’ pressure…..
Then it comes to the point: how can I do it in 1945!?if you are still reading this thread, give me three cheers ,lol. ok, the problem is the USA! you know that! let’s have a look what jape have at first. many transport ships around the east Chinese and some near the islands in south asia.5 heavy 5 light and 4 carriers. do you notice the USA is frozen ?!yes ,the vital problem. now you may got the idea, yes take the mainland of USA ,then it’s horrible production will disappear without trace. you can build supply and several transport ships to prepare the sudden attack. the target will be south west. you know you want to destroy the ships and planes there. Use your light and heavy to support the first attack then send troops and supply as many as possible to USA for another attack towards Washington !!!!Never let them have a break. here lays some tricks about how to use your carriers. if you’ve got a good luck, you can reach your goal by just using 2 of them. then what about the other 2?the advice is never waste any chance like this. the USA fleets’ fate is in your hand. give them an even harder blow! do you notice Hawaii? there just stands a militia ,USA should pay for the carelessness. if you take it, more than half of the USA fleets sinks. I don’t think the left will do a good job except being taken out by your subs maybe. you can move on without my superfluous words , right ?lol.[:D]
Finally if you face human players these strategy still works but harder. you should change your plans according to what your counterparts do. Here’s my experience:
1. Japan never have enough supply, continue build it to repair or move your ships.
2. Assembling all your elite troops to attack as Japan, they have little land force and can hardly suffer any losses, or lack of supply and severely lagged behind in science is inevitable.
3. never waste the manpower. build militia if you have no idea what to build, especially for Japan.
4. good luck!
Here just something about what I know about this game, mistakes are inevitable. please help me to solve it. I’d be very appreciate that. and I wanna say sorry to ,I react to much to him, those days I kept trying and got nothing but failure, that made me feel hopeless and somewhat mad. Lol[:D]
Thank you for reading.[8D]


Image
Attachments
japan.jpg
japan.jpg (95.7 KiB) Viewed 700 times
contact me if you wanna a new game:)
schury
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:29 am

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by schury »

no one wanna say someting about axis strategy?keep it up myself......[:(]
contact me if you wanna a new game:)
User avatar
aletoledo
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:51 pm
Contact:

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by aletoledo »

I guess I hadn't read the whole post previously, because I didn't believe the pic.

I see what you're saying now and have thought about it previously. I haven't tried it yet, but I thought it might be possible.

basically you're saying instead of using your surprise attack against pearl harbor, to use it against the USA west coast. then the USA would never be able to react fast enough to create land troops to defend whatever you transport over.

The only reason I gave up on this plan is that the southwest has a population of like 5 or 6, which seems impossible to overcome without a huge invasion force! if it wasn't for this point I think your plan would be perfect.

how did you overcome the auto-generated miltia during your amphib landing?
schury
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:29 am

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by schury »

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I guess I hadn't read the whole post previously, because I didn't believe the pic.

I see what you're saying now and have thought about it previously. I haven't tried it yet, but I thought it might be possible.

basically you're saying instead of using your surprise attack against pearl harbor, to use it against the USA west coast. then the USA would never be able to react fast enough to create land troops to defend whatever you transport over.

The only reason I gave up on this plan is that the southwest has a population of like 5 or 6, which seems impossible to overcome without a huge invasion force! if it wasn't for this point I think your plan would be perfect.

how did you overcome the auto-generated miltia during your amphib landing?
please believe me!i can send you my save file.i am honest.and i can show you how if you come to my place,lol.that means i am not reckon on save/load,i can make it whenever i want!do you think i modyfied the pic?so sad and depressed[:(][:(][:(][:(]
ok,tell you in details,though i think find it yourslef would be fun.using your fleet to support the landing force,and what is very inportant is destory or damage the planes first by your planes on carriers,or the plane will stop you even if they retreat.when you capture the sw USA,they disappeared[:D]
and i geathered all my land force to the main land for the invasion,i even give up one chinese costal province.
ps:the transport ship can send more troops and supply to USA once you capture one province.and to those auto-generated miltia ,i send a large troop.those militia is nothing but ashes.tell you my way:send all your troops and supply in south west to north central USA,
then send enough militia or infantry and supply from japan to suppress the partisans.then repeat this and make your way to washington!you'll find it's easy,my friend.
tell me if you make it.and do believe me[;)]
ok,i think this schury style maybe not easy for you to accept,cause i saw little people reply it.but i presume that it'll be a mainstream,espacially for japan!!![:D]
contact me if you wanna a new game:)
a19999577
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lima, Peru

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by a19999577 »

ORIGINAL: schury

2. Japan vs. AI
first, take the whole china. seems cool but I have reasons not using Japan to invade my homeland, even in a game. and as a matter of fact, it takes time any gain a little, most of the time they won’t handicap your plan, so let them be.

Actually, this is what I find most interesting in this post, a Chinese national not having a problem playing Japan, given the huge tension between both countries right now...
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by Grotius »

Well done! But hmm, developers, this does raise some troubling questions. There's just no way Japan should be able to take the mainland USA. At the very least, it should be extremely extremely difficult.

Someone mentioned militia popping up in the USA. Does this happen in the US as it happens in China? If so, it seems the effect needs to be intensified to deter this type of invasion.
Image
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by Grotius »

Also, one curious thing: I have as many production points as you (65) having just achieved the Axis' historical conquests plus the Mideast. Did you not repair anything?
Image
schury
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:29 am

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by schury »

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Well done! But hmm, developers, this does raise some troubling questions. There's just no way Japan should be able to take the mainland USA. At the very least, it should be extremely extremely difficult.

Someone mentioned militia popping up in the USA. Does this happen in the US as it happens in China? If so, it seems the effect needs to be intensified to deter this type of invasion.
yes,it's difficult,but i made it.speed and good transfer skills is the key!if it is not difficult,how dare i post it?now i wanna call it schury style,lol[:D]
contact me if you wanna a new game:)
schury
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:29 am

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by schury »

ORIGINAL: a19999577
ORIGINAL: schury

2. Japan vs. AI
first, take the whole china. seems cool but I have reasons not using Japan to invade my homeland, even in a game. and as a matter of fact, it takes time any gain a little, most of the time they won’t handicap your plan, so let them be.

Actually, this is what I find most interesting in this post, a Chinese national not having a problem playing Japan, given the huge tension between both countries right now...
i've played china to beat japan dozens fo time.though with personal feelings,i still treat it as a game,please it is not something related to politics.i love my country.it has bright future and always be friendly to the guests.
contact me if you wanna a new game:)
User avatar
jchastain
Posts: 2160
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:31 am
Location: Marietta, GA

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by jchastain »

Actually, there is no reason to perform "island hopping" at all in the current game. Most islands are simply a waste of time with no strategic value in the game. I think the fix is rather easy - no supplies or strategic movement should be able to pass through any sea where the enemy holds an island. And then combine the sea that holds the aleutians with the one immediately to its south. In that way, there is no path between Japan and the US that allows a direct attack without first taking an intervening island (and giving the US an opportunity to react). Going in either direction, it becomes necessary to blaze a path across the pacific - which in my mind is a good thing. With this rule, the attack on Pearl itself would require their carrier planes to have a speed of 3, so I'd likely give them a few research points towards that goal at the start of the scenario.

The poor Axis does need some playbalance help though. Here we are "fixing" the problem that there is viable strategy through which they might win. :-)

And to the OP, very nice play testing! Well done.
User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by Uncle_Joe »

Dump a plane on any of those islands and the flow of supplies will stop (once the patch fixes interdiction of supplies, that is). Even until then, they cant move Transports along the chain if you have planes on the island. They have to stop and reduce the island. If you have a Flak and a Fighter on an island, it can ruin a few CAGs to take them down. This costs the Allies time. And time is all the Axis needs to win.

Also, all the little South Pacific islands are wonderful bases for Japanese Long Range Bombers. These have a 3 torpedo factor and will smash transports quite well along their route. Take the Solomons and station a few bomber groups there and a Fighter/Flak for protection and you can sever Australia quite easily. The Allies wont accomplish much by going toe to toe over the central Pacific unless they have researched up a decent tech advantage. The Allies have to hit those resource-rich islands and to do so requires movement past the island bases.
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by Grotius »

Ownership of islands also inflicts interdiction points on any naval vessel passing by, even if the island is unoccupied. That's a big reason to island-hop. If you don't own a tiny island in a sea zone you're transiting, your ships all suffer a -1 die roll penalty in combat that turn, and that penalty is cumulative.

I'm glad to hear that supply interdiction will be fixed in the next patch. (Is there some official list of patch notes somewhere?) I had been wondering why I never see Op Fire do anything to supply.
Image
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by Grotius »

The poor Axis does need some playbalance help though. Here we are "fixing" the problem that there is viable strategy through which they might win. :-)
I dunno, in my current PBEM game, my Axis seems well on the way to victory. The victory conditions are balanced to accommodate the hard reality that the Western Allies can and will outproduce the Axis.

I guess what bothers me is the notion that the Western Allied player can't do much to stop Japan from trying to invade the West Coast of the USA, since the USA is frozen. I'm also troubled by the notion that in one move, Japan can do more than attack Pearl Harbor, but can also invade Hawaii and thereby eliminate the US fleet. It was barely conceivable that Japan might invade Hawaii, but it wouldn't have eliminated the US fleet in doing so. And I say this as someone who tends to like to play Japan in both this game and "War in the Pacific."
Image
Dalwin
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:28 pm

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by Dalwin »

My question is not whether or how this coudl be done, but how that could be a marginal victory. Doesn't the Axis having greater production at the end of '46 result in a decisive victory?

As a matter of fact, from memory, I thought an Allied advantage of from 4.01-8.0 is an Axis Marginal. An Allied advantage of less than 4.0 is an Axis Decisive.
User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by Uncle_Joe »

Grotius:

On the 'island OP fire': I believe they will only fire on supplies moving from their sea zone to an adjacent sea zone, therefore places like Malta wont fire on supplies (because its land to sea to land and not sea to sea).

I also dont like the naval units being destroyed when the base is taken. It allows for too many exploits IMO. At the least, they should be sent to sea, OP fired on and then retreated away. Many would be damaged by the OP fire, but that is better than total destruction IMO.

I dont see invading the West Coast to be too much of an issue. Its a huge commitment of resources and is quite easily stopped by the US building a few ground forces in Northwestern and Southwestern US. The Japanese invasion is going across the Pacific and the efficiency of amphibious invaders decline with each region over 2. To come from even the closest Japanese base means, what, 6 zones? That should preclude beating any US infantry in the coastal zones.

Pearl Harbor WAS vulnerable to invasion and it was something the US feared at the time. Whether or not it would have feasible is debatable, but it was a concern that figured into US planning. It should not be made impossible here just because it did happen historically. No, instead the 'cheap' incentive for taking it should be reduced by allowing the ships to retreat rather than stay and be destroyed. Change that and the Japanese have to re-evaluate the cost of doing so rather than taking the SRI's instead.
schury
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:29 am

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by schury »

only one problem:should this thread be stuck?[:D][:D][:D]because i think this schury stream will be over after you modify the game.i find that most of the people wanna prevent this outcome from happening[:(]
contact me if you wanna a new game:)
marc420
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 2:36 am
Location: Terrapin Station

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by marc420 »

I guess the interesting part is that the US is so frozen before the attack. They can build what they want at their 1x production. But that just sits in place where built.

So, with this tactic in the Japanneese bag of tricks, a part of the standard US buildup will need to be defenses on the west coast. The SW seems to build fast enough that this isn't a problem. But the NW could be interesting with its one factory. But then again, if you invade the NW because its weaker, now you are sitting ashore with major US productions centers to your South and East.

In real-life, the US was slow to start building. IIRC, the draft passed by one vote during 1941, and the US was just starting to build up its forces when Japan attacked. On the otherhand, the US was able to change its strategy and reposition its fleets prior to the Japaneese attack. For example, the old Plan Orange idea which dated back to WWI basically assumed that the Phillipines would be abandoned, then the US main battlefleet would sail across and engage the Japaneese. Instead, in the year or so before Pearl Harbor, the US had changed this strategy for one of a strong forward defense of the Phillipines. This is why there was a buildup of native Phillipine troops, whose numbers probably over-impressed the pentagon, and why there was a build-up of B-17s in the Phillipines. The US had changed its strategy to one where the Phillipines would be defended, and that a mass of B-17s would be able to project power from that base. That famous flight of B-17s that came into Hickman field on Dec 7th was just another relay of planes heading for the Phillipines. Most of the rest got destroyed on the ground at Clark AFB.

The same argument can be made for US Navy forces joining the Battle of the Atlantic prior to Dec 1941. The US was coming awfully close to open warfare with the German U-boats even though no war was declared.

The point being that the US was in the process of changing the distributions of its troops prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. This is denied to the WAW player with the idea of Politically frozen areas.

As a game concept, the idea of politically frozen forces seems to be ok. But it does distort things, and may lead to some rather strange strategies that would have been dificult historically. This because the US is rather artificially more frozen than they actually were.

With Pearl, that one militia unit there does seem to be a tempting target. But the problem should be afterwards that the Japaneese player would have a hard time defending Hawaii from a strong attack mounted off the US West Coast.

Anyway, I love this sort of discussion. :) And your English is very good. Certainly much better than my Chinese. I usually take the opinion that until I can speak Chinese better than you speak English, I should compliment you on your excellent English. :) And since I speak zero Chinese, you'll always will get compliments on your English from me!
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington
schury
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:29 am

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by schury »

ORIGINAL: marc420
Anyway, I love this sort of discussion. :) And your English is very good. Certainly much better than my Chinese. I usually take the opinion that until I can speak Chinese better than you speak English, I should compliment you on your excellent English. :) And since I speak zero Chinese, you'll always will get compliments on your English from me!
funny reply.and my msn is silent_hiker@hotmail.com.if you want to learn chinese or japanese.or you wanna discuss other strategy ,you can contact me.[;)]
contact me if you wanna a new game:)
traemyn
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by traemyn »

off topic: I want to learn chinese! [:D]
PDiFolco
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:14 am

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

Post by PDiFolco »

Well, to me the success of that kind of strategy - all out vs the US - shows a couple problems with the game system :

1/ It's way too easy to make a full ocean crossing invasion - something that NEVER was made in history. There should be a limit to the number of zones an invasion crosses -2 for example. This will make island hopping a sensible strategy and prevent a ridiculous, 10,000 km long invasion route [:-]
2/ Once invaded the US should be much meaner, the current militia rise is way too feeble. Historically the US went to war at a slow pace *because* they were not invaded, but should certainly have put a better defense that they give in the game if someone was sailing to New York !

More generally I think there's a general problem with the way attack/defense work, defender really has not much of the advantages it should have (improved resistance, ability to fire first..), and on a DoW attack there's no way the defender can really do to avoid being crushed. Stacked on top of that the high potency of aircraft, that often flatten all by themselves the defenders before any land troops arrive, give very weird results ...
PDF
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War”