Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: nnason

Hey I was the recipient of one of those early attacks and I am working on a counter that doesn't devastate the Brits preparation for Egypt.

It looks like its a popular tactic with some folk. My argument is it shouldn't be possible or have larger negative implications. There is no argument that the Germans could have attacked England before France fell.

It forces the Brits to withdraw the BEF early which hurts the French morale.

The game is much better served if intelligently debated than posts by bombastic know it alls like Ktonos who think they win by ridiculing.

I didn't say it never happen - just that it didn't happen in my games. A strong indicator that this is NOT a popular tactic.

Yes, most of the games I will check the ports in Netherlands and Belgium and have the intention to check the seas east of UK. Any transport embarking from the Danish ports has a slim chance to land in England, and even if it does it won't take a port, merely the town north of London. Will UK crumble with 1 army landing? Can the Germans spare 3-4 or 5 air strikes to the UK when they are still dealing with the French army?

On the other hand should the game deny the German player of attempting this?
"The British don't have a single ship patrolling North Sea. From Edinburg to London there are only 2000 militiamen defending the island"
"Great! Embark 2 divisions and 200 shallow boats in merchant ships and invade the east coast~
"Uh...my fuhrer..we can't...we can't do that"
"Why so?"
"Uh...it saiz 'access denied'"

Lets talk about bullshit...Dorky

If you defend that area with the RN, you run the risk of getting it crushed by German air power.

Yes, after France falls. German cant spare his bombing runs on anything else than French defenders. Not only that, but before France falls how many German air can be based along the coast?

But most importantly: You don't need to defend. You need to scout the area and retreat ships in safe distance. If the Kriegsmarine is out you have to attack it. And if the German player concentrates his air on the ships he will have a slower advance in France.

This scenario will play out in 1 in 100 games. And if the actual war was re-fought 100 times, in 1 we would have UK invaded by Germans before the fall of France.

The issues are the benefits you'll get from this strategy: when France finally surrenders, Britain is also about to fall completely with Syria in german hands, and the usual downsides from DoWing Tunesia and Algeria to get Spain are not existing.

This way Britain has to fight on 3 theaters: England, Libya and Casablanca, with Egypt pinced from 2 sides. Yugoslavia won't join the Allies, if London is in german hands and gladly join the Axis, freeing troops aginst Russia, and Greece isn't a threat any longer as well, cause the DE depends on the yugoslavian DE.

Probable benefits: France surrenders including Algeria, Tunesia and Syria, Yugoslavia joins the Axis, Spain joins the Axis without the costs of the DE, Greece isn't a threat anymore, and should the Allied player be so stupid to move the brit. capital to Alexandria to improve supply in its main remaining theatre, GB will also surrender after the fall.

Russia doesn't get the persian convoy, and even the northern convoy won't help, especially after the destruction or surrender of the RN.

Next issue is the french NM: it`s probably not even necessary to take Algier, the NM usually gets to 0 earlier, and Algier can't be supported by the already overstretched Brits. The fighting value of the french is even worse than the italian, with their NM totally crippled, so essentially the Brits are on their own for a long period.

My suggestion would be to stiffen France' resistance in case the "Take all of France" decision. The downsides of Seelöwe are strictly enough imho.

A simple solution is to make port strength 0 when conquered by Axis from Le Havre to Holland, increase 1 pt per turn. To argue that the Axis could have taken Holland or Belgium or Calais and two weeks later, while still at war with France, mount a major amphibious assault on GB is just silly

There is only one spot (Calais to Dover) where Germany can do an amphibious assault without risk of getting attacked.
So UK has to defend Dover and/or may attack the port in Calais so this can't be done anymore.

If the UK does not defend itself and sends out all navy elsewhere it has to take the consequences.
Doing this would be not historical so the results are also not historical.
Futhermore if Axis and Allies have to react historically why does anybody expect a different outcome to the historical one.
I think this is the strenght of this game that you can try out 'what if'.

When playing as Allies I see only about 2 in 10 times Sealion and half of them are a failure.

Not accepting Vichy while doing Sealion may only be an option if the Allies make mistakes e.g. remove all Units from UK, Tunesia, Algeria.

ORIGINAL: Fafnir

There is only one spot (Calais to Dover) where Germany can do an amphibious assault without risk of getting attacked.
So UK has to defend Dover and/or may attack the port in Calais so this can't be done anymore.

If the UK does not defend itself and sends out all navy elsewhere it has to take the consequences.
Doing this would be not historical so the results are also not historical.
Futhermore if Axis and Allies have to react historically why does anybody expect a different outcome to the historical one.
I think this is the strenght of this game that you can try out 'what if'.

When playing as Allies I see only about 2 in 10 times Sealion and half of them are a failure.

Couldn't agree more. Thats exactly what I am saying. UK has to defend itself or potentially face the consequences. If Dorky wants to move every single allied ship to mediterranean to destroy the Italian fleet he can't whine if he can't stop a random invasion on England before France falls.

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

A simple solution is to make port strength 0 when conquered by Axis from Le Havre to Holland, increase 1 pt per turn. To argue that the Axis could have taken Holland or Belgium or Calais and two weeks later, while still at war with France, mount a major amphibious assault on GB is just silly

This isn't a "what if" its ridiculous

The only (Fafnir) argument is its part of my game strategy so its ok


Ktonos is there a reason you always have to be a condescending jackass

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

This isn't a "what if" its ridiculous

Yes it is. Every strategy game on historical wars is in essence a "what if"

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

Ktonos is there a reason you always have to be a condescending jackass

Only with you Dorky. You have been disrespectful towards many people here, and every other post of yours is condescending. A bit hypocritical to demand others to behave themselves with you, yes?

I am very interested in the subject under discussion, but find the bickering rather distracting. Please cut it out so we can concentrate on considering how to make the game better. [:)]

As this discussion affects both our recent games and is being discussed in the forums for both games, can I also ask that all discussion of it is continued in this thread:

tm.asp?m=4573694&mpage=1&#4574133

It'll make it easier to track everyone's thoughts and hopefully get us a wide enough viewpoint on whether or not we should change anything here.

Thanks

Bill

Hey everyone,
Gaming is fun and sometimes even relaxing. Some of us are way way to serious.

I am sure the developers appreciate all constructive comments. Sarcasm is not needed to place emphasis on our issues.

I for one can find many things to be improved in SC3 but I also find many more things I love about the game. I play for the love and put up with the needed improvements. As for improvements the developers must be lauded for their very diligent listening to us and then implementing changes. "1.16 Beta" is a good example of listening to the fans.

Some of us need to dial down their emotions and just say what you don't like and constructively how to fix it. And maybe your improvements will be incorporated into a mod (like the ongoing Beta Navy mod) or into another incremental SC3 improvement.

I didn't get a chance to read everything here, but how did Estonia not get annexed by the Soviets?