Matrix Games Forums

I am currently playing someone who pulled all his tanks and AF from Poland on the first turn to attack Holland in Oct '39. He will slowly take Poland with his Armies & corps (5 turns maybe). Nothing against the person who is using this strategy but its an embarrassment to the game that this is possible and time for a resolution. Of course this was no where in the realm of possibilities in the actual war, no "what ifs" here.


I propose that German National morale fall 10% every turn after 3 (Axis) that Warsaw isn't captured..

I believe Taxman also complained about this "strategy" several months back.

In RL, I think a gambit like this would have emboldened Stalin, at least making the Russians feel more secure. Perhaps an increase in their mobilization, instead of (in addition to?) a German NM fall.

Agreed, good idea.

Again nothing against the person using this strategy, its the game that should make it prohibitive.

So for the failure of the Axis attack in Poland not only go they get to attack Holland in Oct '39 but Italy enters much much earlier. That makes sense.

Its very unfortunate that this strategy is still possible at this stage of the game.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I am currently playing someone who pulled all his tanks and AF from Poland on the first turn to attack Holland in Oct '39. He will slowly take Poland with his Armies & corps (5 turns maybe). Nothing against the person who is using this strategy but its an embarrassment to the game that this is possible and time for a resolution. Of course this was no where in the realm of possibilities in the actual war, no "what ifs" here.


I propose that German National morale fall 10% every turn after 3 (Axis) that Warsaw isn't captured..

I believe Taxman also complained about this "strategy" several months back.

If he takes too long then the USSR will start mobilizing by 3-7% per turn.

It's possible that we could have this start occuring sooner, but if the penalty is too high or happens too soon then new players who are learning how to play and fail to take Poland quickly will be more likely to rage quit than continue playing.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

So for the failure of the Axis attack in Poland not only go they get to attack Holland in Oct '39 but Italy enters much much earlier. That makes sense.

An Axis attack on the Netherlands would move Italy 3-5% towards the Axis when the Dutch surrender, which could at most bring them in one turn earlier.

I could add in a check for Poland to have surrendered for this to apply, that would fix that part. [:)]

more likely to rage quit than continue playing.

And also discourages alternate strategies, such as West First. I don't understand the beef with a player attacking any of BeNeLux early [as long as the repercussions are reasonable].

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

more likely to rage quit than continue playing.

And also discourages alternate strategies, such as West First. I don't understand the beef with a player attacking any of BeNeLux early [as long as the repercussions are reasonable].

Currently there are no repercussions, only benefits. Its a gamey tactic to take of advantage of Poland being very easy for new players. Wouldn't there have been significant repercussions of Poland surrender taking much longer or attacking Holland in Oct '39? The entire timeline of the game is based on Poland first, the French/Brits have near nothing early.

One solution would be like the US prior to war entry. The Axis has to have 3 HQs, 2 tanks & bombers east of Glogau (179 vertical) until the fall of Poland. If they don't SU mobilization goes up 10% per turn. This would have no impact on new players as long as they know the rule.

At least the French/Brit Production numbers & reinforcements (HQ/tank) should be greatly accelerated if Holland, Belgium or Maginot Line are attacked prior to February.


Amended: There is the benefit of SU & US mobilization increasing for attacking Holland earlier. The is no benefit from Belgium because war isn't declared.

Is there really a benefit to occupying Holland? I don't know, but I would think that because BeNeLux was Neutral based on the theory that both sides would honor that Neutrality, that if any of the three were attacked that the other(s) would join the other side.

Wouldn't there have been significant repercussions of Poland surrender taking much longer

Nobody expected Poland to be an easy/quick victory, except maybe Guderian. I can't imagine what sort of repercussions would have occurred if Poland had held out for two months.

the French/Brits have near nothing early

That could be an issue but I can't say without looking into it because I haven't played stock SC in many years. Basically thought, historically they both had about everything they would ever have at start [some call ups were required to fill out formations].

At least the French/Brit Production numbers & reinforcements (HQ/tank) should be greatly accelerated if Holland, Belgium or Maginot Line are attacked prior to February.

If there are events that raise French/Brit Production prior to May 1940, then this would seem to make sense, but would probably depend on what those increases are based on.

Thanks for the comments. Unlike vs AI the PBEM players will take advantage any loophole.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Is there really a benefit to occupying Holland? I don't know, but I would think that because BeNeLux was Neutral based on the theory that both sides would honor that Neutrality, that if any of the three were attacked that the other(s) would join the other side.

People declare war on Holland and not Belgium. The next turn Belgium declares war so the Axis doesn't get the mobilization penalty for declaring war. I can argue this should change also (no mobilization increase). Lets remember the German offensive was so quickly successful because of the surprise blitzkrieg ("Fall Gelb") cutting the Allies in half. The Allies were more prepared for the traditional attack on Holland.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Nobody expected Poland to be an easy/quick victory, except maybe Guderian. I can't imagine what sort of repercussions would have occurred if Poland had held out for two months.

If the Germans moved all of its tanks, all bombers, most fighters , 2/3 of its generals and all paratroopers to western Europe instead of attacking Poland do you think Poland would have surrendered in early November? The game is set up to not lose new players in Poland which is fine but creates a loophole.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


That could be an issue but I can't say without looking into it because I haven't played stock SC in many years. Basically thought, historically they both had about everything they would ever have at start [some call ups were required to fill out formations].

In "the game" The Brits & French start with no tanks, the French one 5 str HQ. They are given them over time in the game for game play not historical accuracy. When the time line is accelerated many of the reinforces a rendered useless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_France

excerpt - "At the start of the war, France had one of the largest tank forces in the world along with the Soviet, British and German forces. The French had planned for a defensive war and built tanks accordingly; infantry tanks were designed to be heavily armoured. Within France and its colonies, roughly 5,800 tanks were available during the time of the German offensive, and some when they came into contact were effective against the German tanks."

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

If there are events that raise French/Brit Production prior to May 1940, then this would seem to make sense, but would probably depend on what those increases are based on.

There are several DE 301, reinforcements, French Production for example. The accelerated timeline greatly impacts multiple events past the fall of France from "All of France" to Sealion to Egypt to Barbarossa.



thanks again

On the same note...if an Axis player here can get a French and BeNeLux surrender in six weeks, as historically done, I'd like to see it.

ORIGINAL: Hartmann301

On the same note...if an Axis player here can get a French and BeNeLux surrender in six weeks, as historically done, I'd like to see it.

Hard to convince the Allied player to trap the BEF in Calais and rely solely on the Maginot line

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

ORIGINAL: Hartmann301

On the same note...if an Axis player here can get a French and BeNeLux surrender in six weeks, as historically done, I'd like to see it.

Hard to convince the Allied player to trap the BEF in Calais and rely solely on the Maginot line

[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 1

Show me a game without the BEF that ends in six weeks

A reasonable attack (all in Poland/ France Spring '40) in the game ends with a French surrender in the end of June which happens to match the historical result.

Im all for historical variations in the game, as others have pointed out if the game follows history the Allies win.

My issue is the game is constructed (decisions/reinforcements etc) for the traditional Poland fall '39 France Spring '40 and doesn't compensate for the "gamey" army/corp attack on Poland coinciding with the tank/bomber/HQ attack on Holland => France.

IMO the game is currently very balanced, pulling tanks/bombers & HQs and attacking Holland France in October gives the Axis an unintended large advantage that should be corrected for.

As a big fan of variability I think an interesting take on this would be a 50% chance per turn of the Soviets beating Germany to Warsaw (after they invade) if Germany still has not captured the capital after 3 turns. The result could be a less favorable border for Germany and having to split the plunder with USSR (both sides would receive MPP via decision as there is no plunder for scripted surrender otherwise). It could also be a morale loss for Germany and morale bump for USSR.

I don't anticipate it to be even considered in the game but it would be interesting.

What an insightful idea. Both historical and effective.

The only issue I see is setting the number of turns. 3 is fine for experienced players, but I would hate for a new player to be punished for being new. But if you make it longer, it could be exploited by shark. Hmmm...have to put some thought into that.

I think we need to bear in mind that what could be great for experienced players keen to try out different strategies, and who have a decent knowledge of the game, isn't necessarily what would work for new players, soaking up their first impressions and quite likely to give it a negative review if they don't like it.

Maybe what's really required is a 1939 Campaign for experienced players?

Agreed as often the negative reviews revolve around exactly that, e.g. that the game forces you to play in a very forced/restricted manner which is not enjoyable for first time players and for those that want to try out various alternative strategies.

I would just like to put in a vote for leaving the system as it is. Withdrawing units from the Polish campaign before it's over is not something I've ever done (typically because one can usually win in two turns anyway whether in solo play or PBEM), but I would hate to see too much more channeling of the possibilities.

I also disagree with the assertion that attacking the Low Countries in fall 1939 is "gamey." It comes with certain advantages for the Axis, but it can backfire against a competent opponent. If I remember correctly, Hitler urged OKH to attack earlier than May 1940--which could have been an example of one of his lucky hunches or a disastrous gamble.

I understand some players' desire for a more historical experience, but I think that can be achieved through "house rules," rather than imposing these preferences on everyone

And some players desire a chance to play the game without getting steamrolled early.