HamburgerMeat (Allies) vs Cpuncher (Axis) Educational AAR (1.06)

[HamburgerMeat]

You usually want to build along river lines, on marsh hexes.

[HamburgerMeat]

As the south requires extensive fortifications, build closer to the front before pulling back. Try to hold a line behind the great river

[eightroomofelixir]

I remember originally this AAR is for a Allies (esp. USSR) defending strategy......well, it is not really possible now (besides the fortification ideas; very helpful indeed! Also, about how many fortifications can be built before 1941 Summer?).

It is quite obvious that Soviets can't really defend a 1940 invasion; the devs could try to do something about it in the future.

I also sincerely don't know if this Axis strategy should fit into the general argument of "Allies is too weak in-game" or not.

I still hope to see a non-1940 invasion Allies educational AAR (or how to defend USSR and China in normal situation) though.

[Jackmck]

Some ideas for game design balancing:

US-Axis tensions increase with each Axis DoW (borrowing this idea from Avalon Hill game Rise and Fall of the Third Reich/Advanced Third Reich(A3R)
- so Dow's on Denmark, Baltic States, and the USSR would increase US mobilization requiring the Axis to consider delay/counter with diplomacy/or accept earlier US war entry. On the other hand, USSR DoW's would reduce US tensions.

A3R also increased US-Axis tensions for each season of active axis submarine warfare- this makes sense and is definitely historically accurate, but I'm not sure how to implement this concept in the game. Maybe a percentage chance each turn of aggravating the US each turn the Germans interdict supplies to UK?

The chances above won't preclude a 1940 invasion, but the Axis player might have to manage actions to control US tensions such as avoiding DoW or seizing Denmark and commerce interdiction by submarines.


More bad weather over China. Look at reducing ability for armies to be fully supplied in mountain hexes of another country, especially those without roads.

Maybe reduce the ability of the Imperial Japanese Navy to attack non coastal land targets. Historically they were not trained and equipped for this and certainly would not work with their rival, the Imperial Army. The game allows perfect joint operations coordination among ground, air and navy forces which is quite difficult even now and more so then due to organization and technical challenges.

[Marcinos1985]

I still hope to see a non-1940 invasion Allies educational AAR (or how to defend USSR and China in normal situation) though.

I would love to see this too - maybe introduce some house rules until this issue will be adressed?

@Jackmck These are all nice features. Good point regarding raiding convys. Norway mobilization rises when their merchants are hunted down, why wouldn't it be similar for UK then?

I see problem elsewhere. German troops take Poland, then teleport to France, take Lower Countries and France itself, regardless of weather, then teleport to the East, take Baltic States, 2-3 turns later they are in Smolensk. They have more units, more experienced and better tech-wise. It's June 1940.

How was China in this game BTW?

[HamburgerMeat]

So this is China from January 1940 - a relative standard scenario when facing a good Axis player. You need to get fortifications up in time around Kweichow and have rotating armies occupy those fortifications with anti air support. At this point most of your units should be occupying mountain hexes. Use your aircraft to help move your units into place

[HamburgerMeat]

I've also been toying with the idea of trying to hold the river behind Changsha: although this is not as great as defensible terrain as the mountain hexes, every turn you can siege down changsha's supply, the longer it will take for the Japanese to mount a proper offensive from Changsha to Kweichow (probably still too ambitious versus a good Axis player though)

[HamburgerMeat]

I have resigned from the game. Cpuncher and I will continue to experiment to see if this strategy can be defeated.

In the meantime, I will find another opponent for a more traditional game (with a 1941 Barbarossa) in order to fulfill the original purpose of this AAR.

[Elessar2]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

I see problem elsewhere. German troops take Poland, then teleport to France, take Lower Countries and France itself, regardless of weather, then teleport to the East, take Baltic States, 2-3 turns later they are in Smolensk. They have more units, more experienced and better tech-wise. It's June 1940.

That's easy: we already have restrictions on amphibs (based on amphib tech). Just tie in operational movement restrictions to the Logistics tech, you get say 34567 operational moves/turn as you go up the tech ladder. The German certainly didn't have the rail capacity to do the above.

[zzmzzm]

Axis have only 3 tanks and 0 MECs in 1940 to attack Soviet, and without troops of HUN and ROM.
If France can hold on 2 more turns, Soviet could have some chance.

[HamburgerMeat]

We will be trying another game with the axis going for the same strategy. But I think for the allied player to have a chance, they have to expect this attack. Allies have to plan from the beginning as if this attack will happen

[BillRunacre]

It will be interesting to hear further on this 1940 strategy, including countermeasures. [:)]

[pjg100]

One tweak that would make this strategy somewhat more difficult would be to advance the trigger date for the USSR mobilization bump due to more than 18 Axis units within ten hexes of Warsaw. Currently, it does not fire in 1940, enabling the Axis to build up and position their units for an early Barbarossa with impunity. Another would be to key the Baltic States annexation event off of the Axis advance into Belgium or France, rather than have it be static for June 1940; that way if the Axis launch an early attack in the west the Russians can shore up their western frontier earlier as well.

[eightroomofelixir]

ORIGINAL: pjg100
One tweak that would make this strategy somewhat more difficult would be to advance the trigger date for the USSR mobilization bump due to more than 18 Axis units within ten hexes of Warsaw. Currently, it does not fire in 1940, enabling the Axis to build up and position their units for an early Barbarossa with impunity.

Didn't know this event does not fire in 1940 before. A tweak will be interesting.

[Cpuncher]

For one, I believe the possibility of an early German invasion of USSR in 1940 must be kept alive, as it keeps the Allies play honest and focus on the main theater of war. In the previous game, not knowing what was to come, H spent much of his Navy and resources in the Mediterranean while practically abandoned France, coupled with good weather every turn (I know this because both my Tac Bombers were not upgraded, as they've been flying every turn), allowed me to take France in February (never done it before), which means it's game over.
I'm sure everyone can see that the whole war is a race between Axis finishing off Russia and USA getting into France. Every single move of either side should focus on that, and everything else is secondary. If UK put all of her efforts into defending France, including maybe losing 2 out of 3 BEF units, then it's quite feasible to hold Paris until May. Remember UK has 6 carrier attacks, 2 strat, and 1 Tac at her disposal, plus the many allied armies on the ground. Should any German army finish its turn in the front on clear ground, with a strength of 7 of less, it can be finished off by the Allies. Sure the allied planes will suffer dearly (and so does the Luftwaffe), they can always spend the next turn reinforce and be ready again. Also any German units on the coast will have its morale completely destroyed by all the allied CA/BC/BBs. For that Germany has to be advancing somewhat cautiously.
Now that May becomes a somewhat critical date, as Russia can annex the Baltic states early June. Sure Germany may send a detachment to take Lithu and Estonia before that, but that may allow France to hold even longer, and that will be risky for Germany, since USSR will be highly mobilized for multiple turns.
Should Germany be able to launch an early 1940 full scale invasion of USSR, it's game over. Germany doesn't really need the additional tanks and Hun/Rom units, as the Russian units are so weak at this time even German corps can walk all over them.
I don't think an early Sealion is too much of a concern. For the Axis, why take an early gamble when you have a safer way to win. For allies, there are so many corps around the world that can be shipped to UK quickly, defending against an early Sealion isn't that hard, even with majority of BEF destroyed (one should always be able to pull the HQ and the planes back).
Mediterranean and Italian N Africa is quite secondary, let alone IEA. Axis should know even if they lose Italy, they can still win, easily if they defeat Russia quickly. For that allies might actually want the Germans to come to N Africa. Since the allies can choose when to seal off the INA ports as you please and can ship anything from around the world to Egypt, it's really a place where the Allies want to bring the fight to, and I hope the Germans are smart enough not to come. Only if they see there is no quick victory in Russia and Italy may collapse too quickly...

[Cpuncher]

On the other hand, I do hope the Devs can make Russia stronger in this game. If anything, this is probably the most unhistorical thing of this game. China may also need to be a bit stronger (allow them even cheaper units, and definitely start Xue to command Changsha. He was the Changsha commander after all. And make those Jap units east of Changsha not so elite. Historically they kept getting beaten back from Changsha). However, historically had Japan been more determined they definitely could have pushed deeper into China.
To Balance it out, maybe lower the impact of USA coming to France. I believe historically Russia could possibly defeat Germany all by themselves, even without D-day. Yes it would be a lot harder, but Russia was so powerful toward the end of the war.

[HamburgerMeat]

You bring up some good points, though the opportunity costs of going for an all-out defense of France gives significant advantages to the Axis:


1. The reduced ability to cover the two hexes around Algiers from paratrooper drops/amphibious landings/traditional pushes coming from Sicily/Tripoli. Currently, the French must keep a significant number of their forces around Algers to prevent an easy "all of France" conquest
2. The reduced ability to keep port supply down in the Mediterranean due to keeping more navy around northern France
3. UK research harmed due to early spending on units.
4. UK research again harmed in order to rebuild units to protect N Africa and the home isles
5. Reduced ability to protect against LRA shenanigans (assuming Italy starts by investing two chits into amphibious warfare). With much of the UK's forces in France or being rebuilt, the UK will have fewer units guarding each of the home island ports. There is a decent chance that, by taking a high strength port, the port will remain with 5 supply, thereby allowing regular axis transports to move in. Although this is a very risky strategy that should only be complemented with a sealion attack, the UK has to consider this possibility

[HamburgerMeat]

I am testing how effective this strategy is with late 1940 invasion of the USSR in another game. I suspect that the extra mpps for russia will be offset by the extra experience the german units will get and the extra time, but we'll see

[Cpuncher]

ORIGINAL: HamburgerMeat

You bring up some good points, though the opportunity costs of going for an all-out defense of France gives significant advantages to the Axis:


1. The reduced ability to cover the two hexes around Algiers from paratrooper drops/amphibious landings/traditional pushes coming from Sicily/Tripoli. Currently, the French must keep a significant number of their forces around Algers to prevent an easy "all of France" conquest
2. The reduced ability to keep port supply down in the Mediterranean due to keeping more navy around northern France
3. UK research harmed due to early spending on units.
4. UK research again harmed in order to rebuild units to protect N Africa and the home isles
5. Reduced ability to protect against LRA shenanigans (assuming Italy starts by investing two chits into amphibious warfare). With much of the UK's forces in France or being rebuilt, the UK will have fewer units guarding each of the home island ports. There is a decent chance that, by taking a high strength port, the port will remain with 5 supply, thereby allowing regular axis transports to move in. Although this is a very risky strategy that should only be complemented with a sealion attack, the UK has to consider this possibility

1. Devs probably should fix the issue of axis 2 hexes from Algiers causing all of France to fall. On the other hand, Italian mpp spendings can be easilly monitored by the allies(I always check every turn each country on the other side how much they spend on Units/Research/diplomacy. By looking at the amount you can pretty much guess what they bought/researched/diplo on major or not). If Italy bought a para at the beginning, you pretty much can tell and leave a corp and the garrison in Algeria. Amphibious landing and ground push are both too risky. Italy really can't risk not putting everything into Inf related research and defending Tobruk.
2. Don't worry about keep N Africa port supply down until France falls. France is a life or death issue facing the Allies while Italy/Med/N Africa is very secondary.
3. Yes UK research will be harmed. It's a luxury the Allies doesn't have ATM. Just make sure Inf Weps 1 is started as early as possible and maybe Inf warfare too. Keep in mind Axis have to spend a lot mpps reinforcing their units in France too, and reform 1 or 2 should any be destroyed. You can think of it as an early help to Russia by reducing Germany's ability as much as possible. Yes it will cost UK dearly, but Allies always have the luxury of having more total MPPs income compared to the Axis.
4. There are so many units around the world (3 corps in East/South Africa, 2 in Aus/NZ, 3 in Malaya, and India has plenty of time to build some) that the Allies can ship to N Africa or Home Isles. I don't see it being a problem. All Axis has is just 3 Paras.
5. I have never seen a port being taken has a strength of 5 or more no matter how high the original strength is. I thought the Devs had made it a given in one of the later versions. Only exception is when you had a naval unit in the port when the land resource next to it is taken. That will make the port higher than 5 when your navy leaves and the port switch sides in the next turn.

And why would Axis risk Sealion when he has a better way to win?

[Cpuncher]

ORIGINAL: HamburgerMeat

I am testing how effective this strategy is with late 1940 invasion of the USSR in another game. I suspect that the extra mpps for russia will be offset by the extra experience the german units will get and the extra time, but we'll see

I think Germany can invade in 1940 up till Oct. If France can defend until August (only possible should Germany make any major mistake and UK throw everything into France, but that's too risky for Allies) then 1940 is probably safe for Russia. So I say a late 1940, like Aug/Sep invasion would be normal.