Next patch ETA (and some release notes)

[Joel Billings]

1.025 - Rule - Added an optional rule to game option screen that charges ground units 1 extra supply when they move over a 2MP land border.

This impacts the Japanese squeeze. We recommed this game option be used in any new game.

Liberation rule changes will impact all alliances equally.

There have been many op fire bug fixes (maybe not all detailed in the notes above) including the English Channel. The rules are that units in combat aren't Op fired at by units in the area where the combat just happened. A bug was making them immune to all op-fire in their next area moved to.

[Grotius]

I like the new optional rule for extra supply if you cross a 2-MP border. Not only might that discourage Japan in Russia, but it will also make it harder to do the Mideast gambit that I seem to be so fond of. [:'(]

[dobeln]

Just coming from a lost game - my (Axis) opponent took home an auto victory in fall 42, by going after the Middle East, Africa and Spain. Russia was never attacked, and Britain was still standing.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: dobeln

Just coming from a lost game - my (Axis) opponent took home an auto victory in fall 42, by going after the Middle East, Africa and Spain. Russia was never attacked, and Britain was still standing.

What did you do to stop him? [;)]

I try to find Axis opponent who will try this on me to see if I could stop them, but seems they all prefer to go double team on Russia [:(]

O.

[pyrhic]

yknow i was just thinking, maybe this is too easy because the med is too easy for axis. The game lumps the german and italian armed forces together, and qualitatively on many levels they were different. In much of the game it doesnt make much difference since italy can't produce tanks or inf, however they can produce ships. The italian navy was large, particularly in comparison to the size of the country, however in terms of training, e'sprit de corps, in the ships themselves, and in the willingness of the naval forces to engage in combat, they were (arguably) below the levels of the other fleets. The point i'm getting at is maybe they shouldnt have 3 HF and 3 LF and 2 SS at the start of the conflict? (if i remember correctly). Maybe they should have less and/or lighter fleets to model this better?

Thoughts?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: pyrhic

yknow i was just thinking, maybe this is too easy because the med is too easy for axis. The game lumps the german and italian armed forces together, and qualitatively on many levels they were different. In much of the game it doesnt make much difference since italy can't produce tanks or inf, however they can produce ships. The italian navy was large, particularly in comparison to the size of the country, however in terms of training, e'sprit de corps, in the ships themselves, and in the willingness of the naval forces to engage in combat, they were (arguably) below the levels of the other fleets. The point i'm getting at is maybe they shouldnt have 3 HF and 3 LF and 2 SS at the start of the conflict? (if i remember correctly). Maybe they should have less and/or lighter fleets to model this better?

I think they should have 3HF and 3LF really, which is what they have. Some of their battleships were modern, and beautiful looking, on par with anything Germans had, though mismanaged. That's where the player steps in - we manage them better than Italian admirals did [8D]

They were numerically superior to RN in the Med, *prior to Taranto*. Now, the Taranto is hard to get playing as UK but by no means impossible (I tried many times during beta, with *some* success). First condition for a good Taranto is that Italian player sit still [;)] Most of them don't. Also I think CV air could use some additional "boost" in parameters... generally, not just WA CV air, but I may be wrong here.

OTOH, greatest Italian successes came from using their frogmen special forces, and since that's hard to simulate in a game of WAW scale, it can be used to rationalise some numerical values some may think are overrated otherwise.

Best thing Axis player can do is to attack UK Med fleet with Italians right away, pre-emptying Taranto, Matapan and whatnot. Italians historically did most nothing, inviting the disaster from troublemaking Brits.

I think this part of the game works very fine, way this game plays out in the Med is a good historically founded lesson on naval aggressivity - Mahan and Cunningham (aggressive commander of UK Med fleet) himself, would endorse!

O.

[SeaMonkey]

Just coming from a lost game - my (Axis) opponent took home an auto victory in fall 42, by going after the Middle East, Africa and Spain. Russia was never attacked, and Britain was still standing

This is exactly the plan the Admiral Erik Raeder presented to OKH, although Spain was suppose to join and not be conquered. Operation Sphinx was to provide the parameters necessary for the Axis to win the war, or at least bring the WA to the negotiating table. One problem though, USSR. In my opinion the auto-victory conditions should not be in effect until USSR has been activated as the conflict between these two behemoths was a foregone conclusion and a major event of WW2.

[pyrhic]

Yes, and no, oleg.

I think the med plays out pretty good too. However, it's becoming a foregone conclusion that it's axis territory. Unless the allies commit a substantial portion of it's fleet (which it pretty well cant do due to supplies), the axis controls it.

There are certain abstractions that should be taken into consideration: 1) the willingness of the italian high/naval command to expose its capital ships, 2) the inability of the German high command to issue direct orders to the italian navy, 3) the technical quality of the ships, 4) the crew. You add those up and you have an italian navy that historically performed conservative maneuvers and displayed more strength on paper than on the sea.

In game, the reasons it might be downsized would be the same that you downsized the finns in your mod - historically, they were not as effective as they could have been. Objectively, why give italy only militia? could they not train to higher standards? were not some of their divisions highly regarded? Had they made changes in doctrine and loadout, might they not have been better soldiers? You start to paint yourself into a corner when you use history as an example for one decision(the finns) and then refuse to use it in other places. You are right, the finns were never going to overwhelm the russia arctic just like the italian navy was never going to risk it all against the vaunted royal navy.

I do agree that air power vs naval power, and in particular carrier power needs to have greater emphasis. The overwhelming lesson from ww2 in regards to naval combat is that control of the air dictates control of the sea.

[dobeln]

"What did you do to stop him?"

What I could do. ;P

Still, here is a more complete picture:

1.) He did the usual Spain + Gibraltar grab. I really couldn't do much there, despite him botching the Spain attack somewhat. (I rescued 2 inf + 1 AAA from Spain as his initial assault faultered.

2.) I managed to put up a rather tenacious defense of the Eastern Med and Egypt, but in the end failed. He then broke out into the Indian Ocean and savaged my convoys there.
Also, he grabbed large chunks of eastern Africa as well as southern Persia and Iraq.

3.) He conquered China with Japan.

4.) He pretty much ignored the threat from Russia, instead building up his airforce, and making sure that the UK was under continous assault from German air forces. This, combined with aggressive sub warfare meant that the UK was very, very hard pressed through the entire game. I had a large airforce in the end (I always try to build to be able to counter an air offensive against the UK), but he still managed to grab Scotland in the end. (I had him cut off and decimated when the game ended)

5.) Tada - AW in fall 1942, without the Soviets or the US ever firing a shot.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: pyrhic

I think the med plays out pretty good too. However, it's becoming a foregone conclusion that it's axis territory. Unless the allies commit a substantial portion of it's fleet (which it pretty well cant do due to supplies), the axis controls it.

If it weren't for Barbarossa, Axis would control the Mediterranean. They had every advantage of position and material. The only problem with Axis operations in the Mediterranean was the low priority they got.

There are certain abstractions that should be taken into consideration: 1) the willingness of the italian high/naval command to expose its capital ships, 2) the inability of the German high command to issue direct orders to the italian navy, 3) the technical quality of the ships, 4) the crew. You add those up and you have an italian navy that historically performed conservative maneuvers and displayed more strength on paper than on the sea.

In this game, you're the OKW and Comando Supremo and you decide whether to risk your ships or not. One of the big reasons for inactivity of Italian navy was the lack of fuel. Real life resources in France or Sweden could not fuel the tanks, bombers and battleships like they do in GGWAW.

In game, the reasons it might be downsized would be the same that you downsized the finns in your mod - historically, they were not as effective as they could have been. Objectively, why give italy only militia? could they not train to higher standards? were not some of their divisions highly regarded? Had they made changes in doctrine and loadout, might they not have been better soldiers? You start to paint yourself into a corner when you use history as an example for one decision(the finns) and then refuse to use it in other places. You are right, the finns were never going to overwhelm the russia arctic just like the italian navy was never going to risk it all against the vaunted royal navy.

Finns still got their four infantry units, only some of them are now less good. It could be argued that German heavy fleets should be downgraded because if you look under the hood of popular stories, German capital ships did not achieve much during the war and spent most of it running away from the Royal Navy and hiding in Norwegian fyords. So, instead of reducing the number of Italian heavy fleets, German (historically both German and Italian) heavy fleet capabilities should be reduced.

Where Italian navy exceled was the antisubmarine capabilities of their destroyers. They were much better than their Japanese counterparts for example.


Drax

[5cats]

IMHO, the Bismark, Tirpitz and 4 unfinished sister ships were mucho better than anything the RN had! Pound for pound, they exceeded the RN in every catagory (except numbers). Faster, stronger, better guns, the whole package!
Like the Yamato and Mushashi, it's kind of hard to imagine just how much better they were then the WA fleet because they never really engaged in 1:1 combat. Except for the Hood of course, and it went to the bottom without the Germans getting a scratch.
In GGWaW terms: Axis 1Hvy 1Lt fleet vs WA 2Hvy fleet. Combat result: WA 1 Hv Fleet destroyed.
A rude joke: Only the British can call 20 guys beating the hell out of 1 guy a "great victory".

[MarcelJV]

Do you think if you had the rest of your turn to stop the 70 pp need that you could have prevented the AV from happening?

[dobeln]

Yes, that would have been a virtual certainty as that was the turn that the USSR entered the war, and the Soviet army was much superior to the Axis one. (He got AW by nabbing one russian resource)

[pyrhic]

reducing german sea capabilities for its capital ships would be a fair compromise.

There were multiple reasons why the italian navy didn't have the med under complete control. Personally, and certainly its arguable, I think it had more to do with the navy's unwillingness to fight and the mentality/training of the crews. This should be reflected in the numbers. You have a large fleet that is mostly untried and is reluctant to go head-to-head with the british.

[Drax Kramer]

Bismarck and Tirpitz were upgraded WW1 designs which was a consequence of pause in German shipbuilding caused by the Versailles Treaty.

Neither of them had any clear advantage over British KGV class battleships and were inferior to US South Dakota class, not to mention the Iowas.

If you add the fact that German destroyers (the inherent part of every GGWAW heavy fleet) lacked range and were inferior to British and American counterparts, there is little reason to assume German Heavy Fleets were as capable as their Allied opponents.

Finally, if you want to include the "soft factors" like quality of the admirals, aggressiveness and the willingness to risk the capital ships and accept the losses, then German heavy fleets were in serious disadvantage.


Drax

[pyrhic]

again, i agree.

fyi, 'soft factors' are already considered in the abstraction of the forces of other armies. Remember, in 1940 on paper, France alone was on parity with german forces. Those 'soft factors' made the blitzkrieg possible and are really why allied ground troops start at a disadvantage...

[MarcelJV]

ORIGINAL: dobeln

Yes, that would have been a virtual certainty as that was the turn that the USSR entered the war, and the Soviet army was much superior to the Axis one. (He got AW by nabbing one russian resource)

Based on this do you think a change to test conditions at the end of the game turn would be enough of a change to balance out the game again.

[dembe73]

Im not sure I wouldnt be able to stay at 70 for a whole turn because the Russians would retake Kiev. In the first turn after the US and Russian entry there were still options to advance at low cost in India, I could still repair South-Africa for 3 more resources with the Axis and take Luzon and Java or venture into undefended Australia or even strike the Japanese into Russia.

It takes at least 2 turns to get to any resources in the original Axis countries,first stop is Rumania which is a nice defence line to hold. Getting some from the Japanese is at least equally difficult.

I didnt grab Norway,Sweden or Greece (but got Portugal for free because of allied invasion of Azores) and got Angola for free as well because of the same reason. It just didnt feel like a victory.

On topic: those patches sound great. I have encouncered quite a few of those bugs and am really happy they get fixed. My compliments to your responsiveness to the users.

[GenTroy]

Can you please fix the Bomber/Paratrooper problem??? You take a man attached to a Bomber and drop him into Enemy terrortory and yet the Bomber still attacks? You shouldn't be able to do both. The amount of men that would be on those planes would have the Bombers striped down so they wouldn't be Bombers anymore.

GenTroy

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: GenTroy

Can you please fix the Bomber/Paratrooper problem??? You take a man attached to a Bomber and drop him into Enemy terrortory and yet the Bomber still attacks? You shouldn't be able to do both. The amount of men that would be on those planes would have the Bombers striped down so they wouldn't be Bombers anymore.

GenTroy

This is an abstraction that assumes that some % of the Heavy Bomber unit is made up of transport planes and that the bombers would go along to support the para unit being dropped by those transport planes.