Page 33 of 37
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:57 pm
by warspite1
4th - 25th February 1943
The Daugvapils pocket continues to be reduced slowly. The Germans are actually hurting themselves more by trying to attack out of the pocket (with no rescuers to make this remotely viable) than are the attacks by the Soviets. It can't be long now....
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:44 pm
by Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Skyros
Great AAR, made my transition to the game smooth. Here is a picture you probably have as a reward.
warspite1
[:)] iirc as she appeared during the Spanish Civil War - I believe the red, white and blue on B-turret are recognition markings.
As if She wouldn't be recognized without it. [:D]
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:55 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
Reinforcements
United States
3rd Army in Providence
MPP Expenditure
UK - Fighters
USA - One each of fighters, Tactical and Medium Bombers
USSR - A few upgrades and reinforcements only
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:57 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
I have huge respect for the Poles that fought alongside us in WWII, so although I was not taking on any more units in the Desert, I will make an exception for these boys [&o].
Meanwhile British Commandos raid St Malo and Italian morale drops as a result of the loss of Tobruk.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:07 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
The naval situation in the North Atlantic. Royal Navy units in and around the UK are upgrading.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:07 pm
by Zorch
ORIGINAL: warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
I have huge respect for the Poles that fought alongside us in WWII, so although I was not taking on any more units in the Desert, I will make an exception for these boys [&o].
They should have very high morale. IIRC the issue was that the Poles were short of officers, most of them having been executed by Stalin.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:15 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Zorch
ORIGINAL: warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
I have huge respect for the Poles that fought alongside us in WWII, so although I was not taking on any more units in the Desert, I will make an exception for these boys [&o].
They should have very high morale. IIRC the issue was that the Poles were short of officers, most of them having been executed by Stalin.
warspite1
Current morale is 50%.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:19 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
The Americans continue to press toward Tripoli, and the defending 5th Army reel under a hail of bombs from the USAAF and then initial assaults by the infantry of 2nd Corps.
Meanwhile the British R+R for the proposed landing in Sicily.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:25 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
The Daugvapils pocket is almost liquidated and to the west the 7th Shock Army, supporting the 60th Rifle Corps outside Ventspils, breaks out for Liepaja.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:32 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
Last one tonight. Just to the south, the 1st Anti-Tank unit is still causing a nuisance in Minsk, but it is no more than a mild irritation. Another German army disappears from the OOB at Baranowicze, and 1st Shock Tank Army is outside Brest-Litovsk, the last stop before East Prussia....
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:28 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
In the south the Soviets continue to:
a) Liquidate existing pockets - some quicker than others, and
b) Gradually seep through the gaps of the over-stretched defenders who simply cannot maintain a continuous line.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:31 pm
by warspite1
18th March - 8th April 1943
The Soviets are at the maximum in terms of research, I am limiting further purchases for the moment - and they are sitting on over 2,000 MPP.... The Soviets looks comfortable at the moment - although there are a useful number of German units in the south of the USSR...
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:42 pm
by warspite1
19th - 30th April 1943
Things are going rapidly downhill for the Axis in the Baltics.
1. 7th Shock Army, joined by the 60th and 62nd Rifle Corps, have changed tack, and instead of trying to destroy the Hungarians defending Ventspils, they have moved to isolate the garrison. In so doing the Luftwaffe unit at Liepaja has been badly mauled - with numerous precious aircraft destroyed with the aid of naval gunfire support.
2. The German Army Group North have a Panzerarmee at Sialuai, but 8th Shock Army and 64th Rifle Corps are threatening their right flank as they set out for Memel/Tilsit.
3. With the Daugvapils pocket destroyed, the bulk of the 2nd and 3rd Baltic Front troops will soon be heading for Kaunas.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:48 pm
by Malor
Warspite,
I did the something similar to control unit availability but instead of purchasing land units which are available in a few turns, I started purchasing units with a longer time to delivery (Air and naval). In the long run, you still get units and simulates indirectly the need to switch resources (factories) to produce other things. You can also force yourself when purchasing units to always purchase every available upgrade even if it is not actually required, just to minimize the MPPs available.
I think there is a need to force nations to keep units in or near their own borders just to keep the population happy. For example, Moscow should always be required to have a Corps (Army?) within a few hexes distance for security. Other major cities could also require some unit to be in place. I'm not sure what the penalty should be, perhaps a morale hit each turn or MPP reduction each turn from those cities because of unrest of the people. It would be hard to implement across the board and the AI would probably struggle with it so maybe it only applies to a human side when turned on.
Anything to slow down the pace of the game would be nice. Having this feature as an option to turn off/on for each side so that a human can handicap themselves (turn on) vs. the AI or weaker human opponent (turn off).
Great AAR. Looking forward to the push into Germany.
Malor
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:59 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Malor
Warspite,
I did the something similar to control unit availability but instead of purchasing land units which are available in a few turns, I started purchasing units with a longer time to delivery (Air and naval). In the long run, you still get units and simulates indirectly the need to switch resources (factories) to produce other things. You can also force yourself when purchasing units to always purchase every available upgrade even if it is not actually required, just to minimize the MPPs available.
I think there is a need to force nations to keep units in or near their own borders just to keep the population happy. For example, Moscow should always be required to have a Corps (Army?) within a few hexes distance for security. Other major cities could also require some unit to be in place. I'm not sure what the penalty should be, perhaps a morale hit each turn or MPP reduction each turn from those cities because of unrest of the people. It would be hard to implement across the board and the AI would probably struggle with it so maybe it only applies to a human side when turned on.
Anything to slow down the pace of the game would be nice. Having this feature as an option to turn off/on for each side so that a human can handicap themselves (turn on) vs. the AI or weaker human opponent (turn off).
Great AAR. Looking forward to the push into Germany.
Malor
warspite1
Yes I am adding all the upgrades too. Given the self imposed limits I simply have too many USSR MPP. If the Germans have nothing in Memel the Soviets could be in East Prussia in a couple of turns! [:)]
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:09 pm
by Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Yes I am adding all the upgrades too. Given the self imposed limits I simply have too many USSR MPP. If the Germans have nothing in Memel they Soviets could be in Berlin in a couple of turns! [:)]
You made a slight mix-up in your post. I fixed it for you.
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:15 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Yes I am adding all the upgrades too. Given the self imposed limits I simply have too many USSR MPP. If the Germans have nothing in Memel they Soviets could be in Berlin in a couple of turns! [:)]
You made a slight mix-up in your post. I fixed it for you.
warspite1
[;)]
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:18 pm
by warspite1
19th - 30th April 1943
And further south the carnage continues. The irritating AA unit in Minsk is almost out of troops, and the Germans lose another unit when a Cavalry Corps decides to try outflanking the Soviets again. The Soviet tanks soon put that idea to bed....
Brest-Litovsk is now in danger of being out-flanked from both north and south....
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:39 pm
by warspite1
19th - 30th April 1943
The Soviets are now looking with longing eyes at an encirclement west of Uman....
RE: How the Axis could have won II. Allied AAR
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:44 pm
by warspite1
19th - 30th April 1943
Reinforcements
Soviet Union
A Katayusha that is placed in Moscow
MPP Expenditure
UK - Upgrades and reinforcement
USA - Heavy Bombers and Ground attack research
USSR - Upgrades and reinforcement
