Matrix Games Forums

Alright, I see you guys point and it is a good one, but I'll just agree that we will disagree, respectfully.

Bizarre things happening in wartime are sometimes stranger than fiction, that I think we all agree upon. The scale of those occurrences are indeed skewed in comparison to those of WaW actions, although the consequences, perhaps similar to a degree. It does take some imagination, I confess.

I'll leave the discussion with these things to contemplate.

HB, I agree that the 1rst AB landing zones were contributory, but to me the big undermining of MG was the failure of a timely arrival of the 30th Corps, specifically Guards Armored.

Tell those guys that flew those P-38s that intercepted Yamamato about timing.

And after Mussolini was captured, I'm sure Otto Skorzeny thought it was probably impossible to rescue him, but Hitler didn't.

Yep, I think we are on the same page on this, just different paragraphs! [;)]

On the examples:

HB, I agree that the 1rst AB landing zones were contributory, but to me the big undermining of MG was the failure of a timely arrival of the 30th Corps, specifically Guards Armored.

No doubt here. So many little things went wrong and added up to a large SNAFU.

Tell those guys that flew those P-38s that intercepted Yamamato about timing.

But did this have any HUGE effects on the outcome of the war? I would argue almost none at all. The Japanese were already losing by that point even with Yamamoto in charge. His death might have changed a few things, but the overall course of the war was probably not affected a whit. This is considerably different than the 'cheese' attacks that wipe out German or Italian or Russia production en masse.

And after Mussolini was captured, I'm sure Otto Skorzeny thought it was probably impossible to rescue him, but Hitler didn't.

Self delusion cant be effectively modeled yet! [:D] The fact remains that it was an impossible mission. I can think that my 2 Infantry can hold out against 10 all I want, but they wont and no amount of my believing or wishing it so will change that. Thats why I think the game should be based on the probably, not the possible.

And that's why I think the game does a decent job of WW2 simulation.

The possabilities are represented as well as the improbabilities.

UJ, no one can predict the consequences of the loss of a human being or "what if" occurrence to the ultimate outcome of the deviating circumstances. I don't own a time machine or crystal ball, at least one that effectively works[:D].

Obviously the preponderance of evidence seems to support your conclusion, but there is always the element of "Murphy", the "Butterfly Effect", whatever, it is as real as life itself and its existence cannot be denied.

All I'm saying is that a mechanism exists in the game to counter your definitive "cheesy" moves. It is up to you to plan accordingly, yet I realize you couldn't possibly inact provisions for every potentiality, you have to imagine them first and "accidents" will happen if you don't.

I will not bring up the many arguments of presenting a "What If" simulation in a game, you as I, have heard enough. We play these games for fun, mostly, but there are some underlying lessons, experiences and tools that directly reflect upon the exercise that is our worldly existence and it is enlightening to examine and ponder those subtleties.

If you happen to get one of the Crystal Balls or Time Machines up and working, let me know! [;)]

so I suppose another example would be german tanks actually making it to the cacuces? or perhaps germany capturing moscow? or perhaps german subs eventually strangling britain? or how about if operation sealion is actually pulled off?

these events never happened, so should we model the game to the extent that these objectives are impossible? I think there has to be room to change history, otherwise everyone would play the allies, since they would always win.

I get what you guys are saying, but IMO the surprises are the only chance that the axis have to win (not counting the neutral land grab strategy). I think if its not for these surprises, then the allies have no reason to spend resources in areas they would never otherwise invest in. therefore all the weight of allied production is surgically applied into the one weakness that the axis couldn't manage to cover and still manage to mount an offensive.

IMO without FOW the axis will never, ever win. this is of course considering equal players. I'd be glad to 'put my money, where my mouth is' and anyone can challenge me with no FOW and I'd post here again if the axis scores a win, thus eating my own words.

aletoledo,

Well, I think you missed the point somewhere in there and this has been beaten to death, so I'm going to let it lay and decompose in peace. [;)]

Look me up once TCP/IP is up and running. I dont really have the patience for PBEM at this point...I totally lose continuity and play very poorly in them.

I gotta agree with Aletoldeo here. What bothers me about no FoW is the players can see others research and the like. I would be ok with a setting where the map was visible to all but production was not. You gotta keep each other in the dark at least a little!

If there was a way to 'fog' research but have an open map, I'd be all for that. But since there isnt, I'm having no problems with no FoW. The only place I dont care for not having it is some of the Pacific battles, but even there, both sides knew where the other was making a play within a 3 month period.

Also, since its a UGO-IGO system, there is no proper 'reaction' to enemy actions. So, IMO, the reactions you DO get to take should be efficient on your turn.

But this is akin to having a debate on religion. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', only a difference of pure opinion. Something tells me that neither side is likely to convince the other to change either.. [;)]

I gotta agree with Aletoldeo here. What bothers me about no FoW is the players can see others research and the like. I would be ok with a setting where the map was visible to all but production was not. You gotta keep each other in the dark at least a little!

and I agree with that. if it was just the map being visible I'd have no problem with no FoW games then. its just that I don't like the research and production screens being viewed.

If there was a way to 'fog' research but have an open map,

I figured a way to 'fog' production. just produce, then immediate place on hold several different units of each type. this way when they look at the production screen they'll see 10 miltia, ten infantry, ten armor, ten fighters, etc... the problem with this is that your research will get more expensive, but at least you won't chew up and production.

I have probably the biggest problem though with the research screen still being visible. for example, I like to play a little trick. I'll neglect german sub warfare until the WA player doesn't invest more than a single point at most into anti-sub. then I'll slowly invest in japanese subs, yet not advance even a point until I think the WA player has given up even looking at the axis subs (since he's wiped out the german subs. then I'll max invest in japanese subs a turn or two before I produce them. this will essentially help me sweep the pacific before the WA gets a chance to restart his sub research. without this FoW, any investment into sub warfare by japan is wasted.

But this is akin to having a debate on religion. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', only a difference of pure opinion. Something tells me that neither side is likely to convince the other to change either..

true, but every discussion helps us improve our knowledge of the game and hopefully leads to better play.

ORIGINAL: aletoledo
then I'll slowly invest in japanese subs, yet not advance even a point until I think the WA player has given up even looking at the axis subs (since he's wiped out the german subs. then I'll max invest in japanese subs a turn or two before I produce them. this will essentially help me sweep the pacific before the WA gets a chance to restart his sub research. without this FoW, any investment into sub warfare by japan is wasted.

my my my....what an interesting passage [:D]

Now you all know my stance on paratroopers and I have already heard how the Axis can beat up on the Allies(AV 70) without going after the USSR and before US entry, so what to do?

I'm playing my first time as the WA and it occurred to me to try the RDF on Germany. So I build my paratroopers, along with a priority defense in UK and Cairo, against a human, Gibraltar is a lost cause. Now I've started my Hvy Bombers and teched their land attack value, and started teching my paratroopers for 7 ev and attack.

Now I should have all this completed by Spring 42, is it to late?

If not.... I take Norway and/or Denmark with the RDF and bring the Royal Navy into the Baltic or threaten W.Germany from Norway with teched range on my 5 Hvys.

Now if I keep them in UK, ...well all of France's resources are at the disposal of my RDF, not to mention a few other likely places for deployment to ruin the Axis AV.

So my question to you veteran H to H players, is this a viable strategy to avoid early Axis AV?

If you are teching bombers and paras (and building them) that early on, its quite possible for an aggressive Axis player to take England. IMO, defense of England has to be the early priority and then secondarily, putting Germany off balance all the way through '41 if it looks like they are pursuing the 'neutral bully' strategy.

The hardest thing is that they can pursue that strategy AND still have a very credible threat to invade England. Since they arent planning on really fighting Russia and/or the US, all of their builds and research are focused on what they need to suppress England and quickly take and exploit the neutrals.

At any rate, I think it would be tough to develop the RDF against an aggressive Germany player who is pursuing an AV strat. IMO, you'd be playing right into his hands as you'll be VERY weak early on while teching. If the Axis is pursuing a more 'standard' strategy, bombers and paras might be a nice surprise for him once he is knee-deep in Russia.

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I get what you guys are saying, but IMO the surprises are the only chance that the axis have to win (not counting the neutral land grab strategy). I think if its not for these surprises, then the allies have no reason to spend resources in areas they would never otherwise invest in. therefore all the weight of allied production is surgically applied into the one weakness that the axis couldn't manage to cover and still manage to mount an offensive.

IMO without FOW the axis will never, ever win. this is of course considering equal players. I'd be glad to 'put my money, where my mouth is' and anyone can challenge me with no FOW and I'd post here again if the axis scores a win, thus eating my own words.

Aha! So that's how you beat me!

So UJ, what would be considered a pre-emptive UK defensive alignment(naval assets) to avoid Sealion? What ground/air unit minimums would have to exist in Scotland and England to avoid invasion?

It depends on what Germany places nearby. If you can keep Germany busy in the Med the risk for a Sea Lion drops drastically. If you see tactical bombers in the Netherlands a huge flag should go up in your head. If you catch site of a Panzer in Netherlands its almost postivley coming in my opinon.

So it seems that the UK should put together Fighters and Artillery, perhaps some AA also. Take some of the Hvy and Light fleets into North Sea leaving the two carriers in the Irish sea to cover the North sea assets with CAGs and UK based fighters. Sub/torp attack rating teched up in three turns(CAGs), all the while Paras and Hvy bombers in the production loop, with Eastern US providing research. Is spring 42 to late for the RDF?

The thing is to get these started early(paras & hvys), depending on circumstances, they can be delayed a turn or two, doesn't seem to tough to get a decent WA forces from Africa, India, and Australia into Cairo by turn 2, substantial by turn 3. Only takes 18 PP to get Para ev/attack to 7, ground attack hvys to 6 (3 turns).

My experience with an aggressive German player is that if he REALLY wants to take England, you have to build almost exclusively defense in the early game or else he will take it.

For me, so far, thats meant that all the Commonwealth builds Fighters and ships them to England. England builds some Fighters, some Infantry, and runs a few Tanks through the queue. I usually hold production on the Tanks until I see if I will win the air war or not.

The US builds supplies and researches. Against a serious Sea Lion, I research ASW for LFs, ASW for CAGs, and then start cranking up the Fighters (especially getting range 2 for Fighter sweeps over France/Low Countries). Anything left goes into teching up Infantry defense so they arent as vulnerable to being bombed before invasion.

In essense, the whole goal of the German Sea Lion that I've seen is to win the air war, and then use the air power to smash the defensive troops, and then move in with a minimal force and take the territory. If the German ups his Tac Air Torpedo rating by one, you can have a seriously hard time keeping a fleet alive to interdict movement. At that point, I feel you must have a LOT of Fighters to protect the fleet and to keep England safe.

Note that I generally dont care if the Germans manage to get into Scotland as long as its painful and as long as I still have a fleet in being that can drive their transports out and strand the invasion forces. A pile of planes, a few Infantry, and then the Armor that you've been holding should be sufficient to hold off anything they managed to get into Scotland.

At any rate, there are probably plenty of variants that a good Axis player can throw at you. Germany can feint into England and then take Gib and Suez (and into the Middle East) or they can try the opposite. They can also keep England under siege while pulping nearby neutrals. But the WAllied player cant afford to guess wrong. If you are busy defending Suez and teching up non-critical items, you could easily fall victim to the massed air power followed by the para and possibly supported by a few landings.

If the German doesnt seriously threaten Sea Lion, then the RDF concept seems pretty workable. It would be unpleasant to say the least for Germany to have to worry about that kind of threat in '42. Of course if they have managed to take out many neutrals, they are probably nearing AV so your RDF better be capable of taking what they have in range.