2 Things that should be changed in AE

[Przemcio231]

Hi after some playing i found 2 things really annoying and by my opinion broken.

1) High level sweeps... there is no defense against it[:@]


2) After Ground Combat units forced to retreat take some losses just becouse they retreated and this is wrong as it leads to a Blitzkrieg
especialy in china where after 2 combats chinise units lose nearly all of its AV.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Hi after some playing i found 2 things really annoying and by my opinion broken.

1) High level sweeps... there is no defense against it[:@]

There was no defense against this in real life either. This why High altitude performance dictated the Air War, and aircraft design reflected a need for higher and higher ceilings and performance. Even today there is a premium on High altitude performance.

2) After Ground Combat units forced to retreat take some losses just becouse they retreated and this is wrong as it leads to a Blitzkrieg
especialy in china where after 2 combats chinise units lose nearly all of its AV.

When LCUs retreat under duress, it is assumed that they are retreating because they are incurring losses, not taking losses because they are retreating. You are viewing this in reverse.

[TheTomDude]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

2) After Ground Combat units forced to retreat take some losses just becouse they retreated and this is wrong as it leads to a Blitzkrieg
especialy in china where after 2 combats chinise units lose nearly all of its AV.

This is why you shouldn't put everything you have on the line. It's called defense in depth. If you put all units on the line and you have no 2nd line of defense, you'll be screwed like you would be in real war as soon as the enemy breaks through. So if you have space to set up a second line of defense (like in China) I suggest to do this. This is one major step forward for me in land combat in AE. I really like it.

[ny59giants]

Ground combat requires you set up your defense like I had to do in some old board games with a "exploitation phase" after the ground combat. In Russia, you had to have troops two hexes back and have continuous ZOC to prevent armor units moving into you rear and cutting off huge amounts of troops. [;)]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Ground combat requires you set up your defense like I had to do in some old board games with a "exploitation phase" after the ground combat. In Russia, you had to have troops two hexes back and have continuous ZOC to prevent armor units moving into you rear and cutting off huge amounts of troops. [;)]

What?!?!?!?! Planning for gorund combat?!?!?! that's crazy talk. Just mass all your unit in one hex and push everything off the map. Tactical Reserves, rearguards, and a well protected flank is for sissies....[;)]

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Ground combat requires you set up your defense like I had to do in some old board games with a "exploitation phase" after the ground combat. In Russia, you had to have troops two hexes back and have continuous ZOC to prevent armor units moving into you rear and cutting off huge amounts of troops. [;)]

You've gotta be talking about Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich. Wow, what a game that was/is! Remember when the initiative would flip-flop so that the Allies would get back-to-back turns? The German player had to really think about defense in depth, both in Russia and in France, because the back-to-back turns gave the Allies the chance to seize the initiative and orchestrate some massive armored encirclements.

[WLockard]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Ground combat requires you set up your defense like I had to do in some old board games with a "exploitation phase" after the ground combat. In Russia, you had to have troops two hexes back and have continuous ZOC to prevent armor units moving into you rear and cutting off huge amounts of troops. [;)]

What?!?!?!?! Planning for gorund combat?!?!?! that's crazy talk. Just mass all your unit in one hex and push everything off the map. Tactical Reserves, rearguards, and a well protected flank is for sissies....[;)]

In another forum I participate at, we put sarcasm in green.

[Swayin]

Yes, when the eggshell pops in AE, it gets ugly quickly.

[vaned74]

I was thinking more about the old GRD/GDW Europa series (Fire in the East/Scorched Earth/Fall of France, etc). Which by the way they have a game title out covering the China theater from 1937-late 1941 - it's a huge map - takes about half a bedroom to play...

[ny59giants]

You've gotta be talking about Third Reich and Advanced Third Reich. Wow, what a game that was/is! Remember when the initiative would flip-flop so that the Allies would get back-to-back turns? The German player had to really think about defense in depth, both in Russia and in France, because the back-to-back turns gave the Allies the chance to seize the initiative and orchestrate some massive armored encirclements.

Actually Dan, I was think of a "Europa" series game that was called "War in the East" (actually it was in German, but I cannot remember the spelling of it). The turns were 1/2 month each and often most of the Russian army was wiped out in the first few months by using this "exploitation phase" movement. In late '42, Russia was saved by the Siberian troops (white counters with red lettering).

Another was called, "Stalingrad" by SPI. The German panzer divisions came as 3 regiments and were very effective after the inital breakthrough.

[vaned74]

"Drang Nach Osten" - was struggling to remember it too.

[ny59giants]

"Drang Nach Osten" - was struggling to remember it too.

I knew what the name was, but I was afraid that my WITP/AE brethren would come after me with pitch forks as I couldn't remember how to spell it correctly.

Does anyone know if the whole "Europa" series was ever completed?? I had many of the earlier pieces (Poland, Norway, and France).

[vaned74]

A lot of it was. I used to collect the series but unfortunately got started after Fall of France, Case White, the original Narvik and Their Finest Hour games were released - so these were very hard to come across or had to wait for the remakes.

The original outfit was bought by GDW and then I think the designers separated from GDW and formed GRD which I think has changed again - Hamilton Simulations or something like that. I'll dig up the link. They made a Great War series and a "Glory" series covering the Pacific. I have two of the Pacific titles (maybe the only two...) - the conflict in China to Dec 41 and the Phillippines campaign. I'll have to say that the China 37-41 game is very good for modelling the problems the Japanese had in China - low unit density, lots of terrain, and lots to try and hold - makes the actual point of the spear very narrow and light indeed.

I'll see if I can find my link to their website. Used to have it in favorites.

[vaned74]

http://www.hmsgrd.com/

The company that makes Europa, sells it now.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Hi after some playing i found 2 things really annoying and by my opinion broken.

1) High level sweeps... there is no defense against it[:@]

There was no defense against this in real life either. This why High altitude performance dictated the Air War, and aircraft design reflected a need for higher and higher ceilings and performance. Even today there is a premium on High altitude performance.

2) After Ground Combat units forced to retreat take some losses just becouse they retreated and this is wrong as it leads to a Blitzkrieg
especialy in china where after 2 combats chinise units lose nearly all of its AV.

When LCUs retreat under duress, it is assumed that they are retreating because they are incurring losses, not taking losses because they are retreating. You are viewing this in reverse.

To be exact, they are retreating to reduce their losses incurred. The Japanese often did not retreat, which resulted in nearly 100% losses.

Incidentally, during the Weimar period, the German Army developed a delaying defence using high-firepower mobile units that allowed them to chew up their opponents pretty much as long as their opponents insisted on advancing frontally, giving up ground very slowly. It was used by Rommel in North Africa and by the 8th Army in Russia. To defeat it, the Red Army had to abandon frontal attacks and use high-intensity bombardments to pin down the defence combined with high-tempo mobile tactics to penetrate it. When we decided to adopt those tactics in the 1970-80s, it forced the Warsaw Pact to reassess their war plans--we heard their senior leaders were most unhappy with the change.

[Dili]

There was no defense against this in real life either. This why High altitude performance dictated the Air War, and aircraft design reflected a need for higher and higher ceilings and performance. Even today there is a premium on High altitude performance.

Certainly not so clearcut. We don't see many Mig-25 and 31...
Also Soviets forced the Luftwaffe to play at low level.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Ground combat requires you set up your defense like I had to do in some old board games with a "exploitation phase" after the ground combat. In Russia, you had to have troops two hexes back and have continuous ZOC to prevent armor units moving into you rear and cutting off huge amounts of troops. [;)]

What?!?!?!?! Planning for gorund combat?!?!?! that's crazy talk. Just mass all your unit in one hex and push everything off the map. Tactical Reserves, rearguards, and a well protected flank is for sissies....[;)]

That's a problem I unfortunately have with the AI. A division pushed me out of Chengchow and then advanced on Loyang, but a counterattack on the empty Chengchow base surrounded them and now there is one less Japanese division. Same thing is happening at Nanning, a corps is being put into place tomorrow to surrounded two Mixed regiments and a Independent infantry group that tried to cut the road East of Naning (there was a rearguard there) will soon find a cavalry corps blocking it's retreat.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: WLockard

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Ground combat requires you set up your defense like I had to do in some old board games with a "exploitation phase" after the ground combat. In Russia, you had to have troops two hexes back and have continuous ZOC to prevent armor units moving into you rear and cutting off huge amounts of troops. [;)]

What?!?!?!?! Planning for gorund combat?!?!?! that's crazy talk. Just mass all your unit in one hex and push everything off the map. Tactical Reserves, rearguards, and a well protected flank is for sissies....[;)]

In another forum I participate at, we put sarcasm in green.

Its why the Airdales sit back well behind the frontlines or at sea on their luxury yachts.

What shade of Green should we use?

[Mynok]

Irish green. Obviously. [:D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Dili

There was no defense against this in real life either. This why High altitude performance dictated the Air War, and aircraft design reflected a need for higher and higher ceilings and performance. Even today there is a premium on High altitude performance.

Certainly not so clearcut. We don't see many Mig-25 and 31...
Also Soviets forced the Luftwaffe to play at low level.

Yes they did to some extent, particularly when they went on the offensive. But the SOV paid dearly for that as well. However, they had both more planes and more pilots as well. Attrition worked in the air and on the ground for them.

Haven't read nor talked with any war vet pilot though who would want to give up elevation...then or now. Elevation equates to energy and energy management is the key for A2A combat theory.