Pelton(Axis) vs Baelfiin Axis Victory Resigned

[Peltonx]

Turn 5 VP’s this turn: -7 Total: -46
Troop ships lost: 10 Cargo: 79

Been wanting to try a little different defense of both Sardinia, Corsica and Southern Italy to see how far forward Germany can defend.
So putting some divisions in danger.

On Sardinia 2nd Fallschirmjaeger Division is transported to the island and
supplies are flown in to both ports. 24th Panzer Division is transported to Corsica and the LW sends in some more groups.

[Peltonx]

Turn 6 VP’s this turn: -3 Total: -49
Troop ships lost: 19 Cargo: 98
WA’s have 1 division and 3 regiments cut of at the port of Tortoli as they are using a TF to block supplies. The LW will keep fling in what it can. There are 6 divisions on Sicliy that’s it at this point zip going on.
I am guessing this is the latest Allied tragedy, as I have never seen this many divisions on Sardina. Why would they be here? Better here then on mainland.
Rommel has FZ built just inland of all the possible invasion beaches and The Toe Line is being built.

[Q-Ball]

I see Baelfin did 3 landings on Sardinia; where did he land otherwise? Sicily? (Edit: Looks like that's the case). Look how Baelfin arranged the Sardinia landings; 2 Amphibs were pulled immediately to prep elsewhere

At least you are using units scheduled to withdraw (24 Pzr and 2nd Fallschirm), so if they get destroyed it won't kill you long-term.

But when the Allies land that much on Sardinia, all you can do is run. And Sardinia has so many airbases, he can isolate Corsica or make you lose 100s of planes to save 24 panzer.

Maybe it would have been worth a shot if he doesn't land on them initially

[Peltonx]

Turn 7 VP’s this turn: -9 Total: -58
Troop ships lost: 21 Cargo: 118
Looks like 90th GD and 2 regiments of the 2nd Fallschirmjaeger Division are doomed heheh. See what happens on Corsica, Sicliy is looking better as ports have just been taken.
So holding the islands is not a good idea.

[Peltonx]

Turn 8 VP’s this turn: -7 Total: -65
Troop ships lost: 26 Cargo: 146

[Peltonx]

Turn 9 VP’s this turn: -14 Total: -79
Troop ships lost: 30 Cargo: 148

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I see Baelfin did 2 landings on Sardinia; where did he land otherwise? Sicily?

At least you are using units scheduled to withdraw (24 Pzr and 2nd Fallschirm), so if they get destroyed it won't kill you long-term.

Yes large landing Sardinia and small one Sicily.

[Seminole]

Rommel has FZ built just inland of all the possible invasion beaches

That's what I'm planning as well, because of the extra costs of building on the coast as well as the advantages that go to the invader on the coast.



Would you be able to airlift out your paras?

[Baelfiin]

Can I post here?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Can I post here?

Yup

[Peltonx]

Turn 18 VP’s this turn: -9 Total: -134
Troop ships lost: 53 Cargo: 338

WA’s have high interdiction over the landing area.
The LW moves back into bases close to the landing area so that next turn should see
1000+ plans over the landing area. Hopefully they can destroy allot of troop ships.

The game is on a knifes edge much like WitE, the lose of a few divisions will make counter attacking and Italian invasion a bout impossible.

The LW can lock down the shipping lanes, but with out a little luck from weather or WA just being green it be very hard to push them back into the sea.

But I wanted to test limits of Germany and now I know just what they are. Hard to believe just 3 or 4 pocketed German units are the difference from carlkey's failed invasion vs Bealfiins.

The difference is me not the player skills of allies as they are about equal.

[Baelfiin]

Carls vp's are much better than mine, so I would say he is the better player.

Luftwaffe is pretty vicious on the troop transports coming in to land.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Carls vp's are much better than mine, so I would say he is the better player.

Luftwaffe is pretty vicious on the troop transports coming in to land.

Each game is different and so are player skills on both sides of the coin.

Some are better at the ground game, others at air war and others at exploiting or playing on the edge of the rule sets.

You have better skills on the ground and carlkey better in the air + he is simply better at exploiting the rule sets.

I also gave him 220 pts from garrison mistakes.

His air war is better because he knows how to get more milk from the cow because of a few "exploits" of which I have posted in the dev forums, but have not been fixed yet.

[carlkay58]

Baelfin, my VPs include Pelton's garrison mistake and the VP error in one of the versions that overstated the VPs from Bombing.

Pelton - I have not knowingly exploited anything - I have just used what I have found works over the past few years of playtesting the game. So yeah I probably am doing some exploits.

[Seminole]

Pelton - I have not knowingly exploited anything - I have just used what I have found works over the past few years of playtesting the game.

If I'm not mistaken, what he meant by 'exploit' was your move that negated the garrison requirements, and then them snapping back in place (I guess the hex converts back to German if unoccupied? Was it a case of him having naval patrol sufficient to isolate it, so it flipped? - clarification would be nice since its an AAR afterall...

If you were trying to bait him into moving forces in hopes of 'gaming' some VP by evacuating when he couldn't relocate, I'd agree that's gamey, but I think there are ways to deal with it.

[carlkay58]

I landed on the Channel Islands because it was there for the taking - he pulled his garrisons off. I have left the islands garrisoned - I really have no idea what that might do for the Axis garrison requirements. I do know that those islands make excellent aircraft carriers and have expanded the air bases (temporary because of the invasions expanded to level 3) to the max and have been using them very nicely against his forces in Brittany.

While those islands are nice to have, they are not worth the cost to gain them if they are left garrisoned by the Axis. Sometimes I think Pelton has over thought his positioning at times. For example, if a German division is left in Messina it takes two to three months for the Allies to take them out. In the meantime the Sicilian invasion will not trigger an Italian surrender check until it falls. You can get the Italians to surrender otherwise, but it will take more effort from the Allies than just capturing all of Sicily. Assaulting Messina is expensive for the Allies. Only two hexes to attack from, it is easily kept in supply, and will not surrender until it is totally cut off.

The Axis player has no victory conditions himself so everything is driven by the Allied VP. Everything the Axis can do to lower the Allied VPs is important to the end. Allied losses are a large part of lowering the Allied VPs. -1 VP for every 1,000 US or 800 Allied casualty accumulates extremely fast. Note the VP totals in most of the games. Losing 10 to 20 VPs to assault Messina is a lot of VPs - almost more than the VPs the Allies get from Messina for the entire game.

That is the driving point behind Pelton's Axis strategy. And it works well.

[Seminole]

For example, if a German division is left in Messina it takes two to three months for the Allies to take them out.

Decent application of air power makes any single battle a crapshoot. If you're taking two or three months to take Messina I can probably point to something(s) you're doing wrong.

The Axis player has no victory conditions himself so everything is driven by the Allied VP.

I think the way they chose to show VP in the main campaign has caused some angst, but it strikes me as largely perceptual. Having two sets of positive VP accumulations over the same subject matter (the way most of the scenarios work), or having one set both negative and positive over the same subject matter isn't really different.
The Axis must manage their garrison requirements, with the option to increase them for extra VP. Screwing them up is costly. The Allies 'drive' this only in the sense they put the utmost pressure on the Axis to deter excessive garrisons.

I haven't even played through a full campaign game, so I'm in no position to render final verdict on the VP system. I just think it's pretty cool how they've used it to help steer historical considerations.

I'm reserving comments on play balance (and thereby VP balance) for when people get more experience with the tools at their disposal.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Baelfin, my VPs include Pelton's garrison mistake and the VP error in one of the versions that overstated the VPs from Bombing.

Pelton - I have not knowingly exploited anything - I have just used what I have found works over the past few years of playtesting the game. So yeah I probably am doing some exploits.

Me too [:)]

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

For example, if a German division is left in Messina it takes two to three months for the Allies to take them out.

Decent application of air power makes any single battle a crapshoot. If you're taking two or three months to take Messina I can probably point to something(s) you're doing wrong.

The Axis player has no victory conditions himself so everything is driven by the Allied VP.

I think the way they chose to show VP in the main campaign has caused some angst, but it strikes me as largely perceptual. Having two sets of positive VP accumulations over the same subject matter (the way most of the scenarios work), or having one set both negative and positive over the same subject matter isn't really different.
The Axis must manage their garrison requirements, with the option to increase them for extra VP. Screwing them up is costly. The Allies 'drive' this only in the sense they put the utmost pressure on the Axis to deter excessive garrisons.

I haven't even played through a full campaign game, so I'm in no position to render final verdict on the VP system. I just think it's pretty cool how they've used it to help steer historical considerations.

I'm reserving comments on play balance (and thereby VP balance) for when people get more experience with the tools at their disposal.

It needs a very small tweak towards allies I would say, but one very small tweak can turn into a uber tweak over 100 turns.

[Peltonx]

Turn 35 VP’s this turn: -6 Total: -270
Troop ships lost: 138 Cargo: 1002
WA’s bomb a hex 31 times, then attack 3 times. The hex holds and WA’s suffer 8k in loses.

Other then that bad weather rules the battle field.

As new units arrive they start digging in for an invasion on the Northern French coast and just to NE and NW of the battle line in Italy.