Burns vs. Flaviusx

[Flaviusx]

Jim, your mail box is full, but I got your last message, just couldn't reply to it.

[Jim D Burns]

18 June 1943

Quiet turn overall. As expected the cav is lost in Russia. A couple more attacks, but a surprisingly quiet turn overall.

Portugal is going the wrong way, down to 81 now from a high of 90 I think. It seems the allies have run out of diplomats as they haven't got one in a long time now.

Since it's a quiet turn, I decided to show the overall forces. As you can see the axis is very powerful, the allies aren't even close to a 2-1 strength ratio, probably more like 1-1 if you added in all the minors, which I forgot to get included in the screen, sorry. Looks like the US is going to have to go on a massive land army building campaign.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Jim, your mail box is full, but I got your last message, just couldn't reply to it.

Sorry about that, didn't realize I was at the cap. It's empty know, what a pain having to click 150 check boxes, why no select all button?

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: tyronec
The rail links through to Egypt so I think all those ports could work too if you take Syria.
Maybe need a naval invasion of Istanbul to keep Axis out.

Yeah looks like Alexandria makes it in just under the wire at 30 hexes to some adjacent hexes around the capital. But that's only half value (90 instead of 180 for Alexandria), which I think is true for all ports in the middle east, so not going to be able to afford a very big force.

Jim

[GenSlack]

Jim,
As the Soviets, you suffered nothing like the historical encirclement disasters of 1941 yet the Red Army in mid-43 is barely bigger than the Germans. In your opinion, is this yet another strategic WW2 game that gets Soviet manpower and production way out of whack, or inexperience with a new game? Thanks for your thoughts.

[GenSlack]

Great AAR, by the way. Am learning a lot about the game from afar.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: GenSlack

Jim,
As the Soviets, you suffered nothing like the historical encirclement disasters of 1941 yet the Red Army in mid-43 is barely bigger than the Germans. In your opinion, is this yet another strategic WW2 game that gets Soviet manpower and production way out of whack, or inexperience with a new game? Thanks for your thoughts.

It's a balanced strategy game, not an historical one. Designers must make choices and one of the biggest is whether to go for a balanced game or an historical one. Balanced games are easier to design and simpler to play needing far less complex rules systems to deal with historical imbalances that occurred in reality.

That said it's a fun game for what it is and I am thoroughly enjoying it. And I am a player who far prefers historical play over balanced play. If you can accept it for what it is, this is a very good and fun game.

That said there are issues with balance in game. Germany is far too powerful, they can reach their logistics cap far in advance of the allies and this needs to be looked at. Russian manpower is too low, and there is no first winter effect in game which makes the German army (when controlled by a human) absolutely unstoppable in 1942.

I did spend a good chunk of cash and manpower in the first winter that may have helped some, but at best I'd have only had 10 or so more armies in 1942, so no way was I going to stop Germany. Had the blizzards actually hurt German effectiveness and allowed me to damage him in 41 then perhaps 42 would have been more manageable.

But all in all I do not think the Soviets are coming back in this game. What I have on map now will have to suffice till the end of game. Manpower is so low it will never climb above 50% again so new unit builds will be too low experience to make them worth it. Better to save the manpower for the on map army I have.

Jim

[Flaviusx]

In my second PBEM game I want to give the allies a spin and think I would do things very differently than you have with the Sovs and create a more fluid game in the east.

I would in fact let the Germans penetrate more deeply into the Soviet Union than you were prepared to allow and get them to stretch out their line to the point where it would snap during a winter offensive. Ironically, holding the Dnepr line into 1942 didn't really work out for the Soviets imo. This was equally defensible for the Germans and I was never short of forces to defend the entire front line with a full strength corps from top to bottom.

Right now I'm very wary of going too far deep into Russia for this very reason.

[Flaviusx]

Sad news on the Eastern Front as Manstein is killed in action. My first dead general, and it had to be him.

Guderian replaces him in this HQ. Not quite as good, alas.

After suppressing the Moscow fighters, I drop two paras in the woods east of Bryansk. This cuts off the retreat route of two rifle armies which are then shattered in combat.

The paras are pretty exposed here. I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose one of them, but this mass drop dislocates his entire defensive line between Bryansk and Tula. And I don't need more troops to advance here, unlike in central Russia.

The latter has become a kind of no mans land. Neither the German or the Soviets seem inclined to come into contact with the other in clear terrain and no entrenchments. After you, Gaston.

[Flaviusx]

Allied strategic bombing took a noticeable chunk of the German war economy this turn, dropping it by about 30 points. And I had to move an extra fighter to the west to beef up the air defenses.

Right now I'm test driving strat bombing myself in a solo game. 6 total strat bombers.

This is really doing a number on the AI Germans. Every oil plant is a smoking ruin, and so is the ruhr.

Will this work as well against a human opponent? I don't know. But strategic bombing may not be as bad as I first thought. There is still a big opportunity cost problem with them, though. Allied land forces are much smaller at this stage of my solo game (mid 43) than they would be otherwise.

I still lean against a massive strat bomber investment, but it can wreck the German economy if you decide to go this way.

[Michael T]

Finally the penny has dropped. Some around here have known about the potential of a serious strategic bombing campaign since release. But it is too late for the Allies in this game.

Do the math. It's a no brainer.

[Flaviusx]

I'm not totally sold on this strat bombing thing, but it's a valid way to go, if you are willing to delay a European invasion by a year. If you go the other way, the Allies can get back into Europe in strength as early as 1943.

It's not a cost free decision.

[AlbertN]

As it is now strategic bombing is just overpowered, especially with fighters that rarely intercept.

On the Soviet note I'd like to underline that to convert the Soviet Army in an all mechanized, also lots of units are forfeitted for half the cost (units that sure are to be lost as they're crap ... but delay Germans too).

[Chocolino]

Learning a lot from your AAR - though I don't crunch as much numbers as you do. But it is good to understand the general concept - and your discussions makes one aware of it.

As it is now strategic bombing is just overpowered, especially with fighters that rarely intercept.

From my limited experience so far I agree that strat. bombing is powerful - though at a significant cost to the attacker - especially if it is true that the hits by AA guns are under-reported currently in V1.00.02.01 (per Alvaro).

It is even more powerful for the British if you consider that they can attack the crucial Axis oil production (not just your general production).

[Jim D Burns]

2 July 1943

The German para drop is attacked. The lead unit is shattered and the other gets hammered hard losing over half its strength.

In Egypt the British continue their long march back to Alexandra from central Lybia. North Africa is just about completed the withdraw of units back to Britain.

So I decided to go over the ports this turn in north Africa to see what I have to work with in Tunisia. What I did was count from the closest hex to Sicily back to the port to get a bearing on what kind of supply gets to the northern most tip of Tunisia, where I plan to base my air power.

I also deducted 10 points from the ports income to pay for an assumed divisional sized garrison, so for example Casablanca's port income is 120, I subtract 10 for the garrison, then divide the remaining 110 in half due to range from Casablanca's stockpile to units in Tunisia that will be drawing from it.

Port........size...amount reaching Tunisia

Tunis..........5.....90
Sousse........3.....50
Gabes.........3.....50
Bone...........2.....30
Algiers........7.....97.5 (not sure if rounds up or down)
Oran...........7.....97.5
Casablanca...6.....55
Tripoli..........6.....82.5
Misurata.......2.....22.5

Total stockpile in northeastern Tunisia: 573 (did not include fractions)

I will probably leave at least 3 infantry corps in Tunisia plus an HQ to oppose any para drops or landings, so subtract another 100 (I think HQ's only use 10, not sure) and I'm left with 473 to spend on an airforce.

I still need to confirm actual costs with Alvaro, as he stated the costs listed on my chart yesterday were wrong due to bad editing on the manual's stockpile rules, but it looks like I may be able to afford 6 perhaps 7 air units. Much better than I thought yesterday due to the higher costs I was looking at.

The allies begin to pay the high cost of strategic bombing this turn. Our bombers create 11 hits in 6 missions on German oil production, shoot down 1 intercepting fighter and lose 8 bombers. So today's missions cost the allies 80 production in repairs, and most damage caused will be repaired in just 2 turns, with one or two points taking 3 turns. This is going to be a very expensive campaign to keep up.

Sorry no screen cap today, got so engrossed in crunching numbers forgot to take one before ending my turn.

Jim

[Flaviusx]

Ouch. That is expensive.

Tbh, I think you are better off hitting production than oil at this point. More bang for the buck. It's going to be very difficult now to stress the Germans in terms of fuel. This wasn't always the case, but it is now. Too many dispersed sites. They all have 6 points of flak now, too.

The other reason to hit the production centers is the prduction multiplier. Basically, every point of production lost turns into 2 points. Even the little you did the first time around dropped the war economy by 30 points, or roughly 5% of production. If you had 3-4 bombers you could turn this into a 100 production shortfall.

I have found in solo testing that 6 points of flak can inflict up to 3 points of damage on a bomber by itself. So this is a pricey kind of warfare on both sides.

[Jim D Burns]

Yeah but your army is already built, so unless I can reduce you to 20% of income or something I'm not going to effect your production much even if I destroy half of it. You need oil right up until the end of game, that still matters.

This is also part of the reason I think Germany is overpowered, you reach logistics cap too early and all you need production for after that is repairs and an occasional new build.

Edit: You know the more I think about this the more I think strategic bombing is a waste. You already probably have near full silos, so I think I'll forgo bombing until I begin to attack in earnest forcing you to use large amounts of fuel every day. Right now I'd just be burning through repair bills without really harming your economy as there is no real strain on it at the moment.

Jim

[Flaviusx]

Germany shatters another infantry army in the East but attacks are limited this turn due to concerns in the west. I have placed two panzer corps in the East on rails. They are fresh.

Additionally, I commit the panzer reserve and an infantry corps and a fresh HQ to NE France/low countries. The allies are well set up to invade. Intel spots an American paratrooper, as well, and I know how deadly those can be. The West is now on high alert. The allies certainly have good reason to want to do something to reduce German attention to the East. Well, they have done that.

The luftwaffe transfers one its fighters in Italy to Germany for additional aircover. I have 4 fighters now covering Germany and/or France and the low countries. The allies have at least that many fighters on hand. I wonder if they are escort fighters or short legged interceptors. Need to check the combat logs on this next turn more carefully to confirm their range. I think he does have some escort fighters.

[Flaviusx]

How do I attach screenshots to posts here? It's been so long since I did this I forgot how to and cannot for the life of me figure out how to do it.

Never mind, figured out how to do it.

[Jim D Burns]

16 July 1943

Quiet turn overall with nothing much to report. Allies continue to reposition their forces, so figured I'd show a screenshot of England this turn. As you can see the buildup to invasion progresses.

I spent a lot of time going over future plans this turn, and I can say as the allies I am of the sound impression now that spending so much money on naval stuff early game has hurt my timetables. I estimate it has set me back 6 months at least.

So my recommendation to allied players is do not focus on naval unless Germany goes after your navy first, forcing your hand. Being a balanced game you do not have the production to pursue an historically strong navy and you should intend to use what you start with all game if possible.

Sure tech up escorts and perhaps build some if needed, but do not do anticipation builds as I have. It's an utter waste and damages your airforce and land sizes late game where I am now. I could probably have an airforce on map 50% larger than I currently have and at least 6-8 more corps with the US. Believe me, they are missed right now.

Jim