The state of the Afrika Korps

[HamburgerMeat]

Hi everyone,

Just coming back to this game after a hiatus, has the script spawning for the Afrika Korp changed? I remember that Allied players were exploiting the script so that the Afrika Korp would spawn completely surrounded by allied forces, and then be promptly destroyed the following turn. Is this still going on, and/or have any successful counter strategies been developed other than hoping Italy does a better job?

[Markiss]

I don't recall having seen this lately. With Sealions so common now, the "move all units to Egypt and attack the Italians" strategy has fallen from favor. UK might as well put out the welcome mat for the Germans.

If the Italians don't move any troops to Libya, you could still do it, I guess. You could give it a try...might catch someone unaware.

[PvtBenjamin]

I don't think the Afrika Corp placement script changed but everyone agreed to a Gentlemans agreement not to take advantage of it.


The issue revolves around Gazala I believe.

If the Allies hold Gazala the Afrika Corp is placed in Tripoli, if not Benghazi.

The situation you are concerned about is the Allies control the area and bypass Gazala forcing the placement in Benghazi and then attacking the AC newly placed in Benghazi.

I don't recall exactly but everyone agreed not to take advantage of the Gazala loophole.

[HamburgerMeat]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I don't think the Afrika Corp placement script changed but everyone agreed to a Gentlemans agreement not to take advantage of it.


The issue revolves around Gazala I believe.

If the Allies hold Gazala the Afrika Corp is placed in Tripoli, if not Benghazi.

The situation you are concerned about is the Allies control the area and bypass Gazala forcing the placement in Benghazi and then attacking the AC newly placed in Benghazi.

I don't recall exactly but everyone agreed not to take advantage of the Gazala loophole.

Ah, so maybe I should preface that requirement before joining a game. Thanks for explaining!

ORIGINAL: Markiss

I don't recall having seen this lately. With Sealions so common now, the "move all units to Egypt and attack the Italians" strategy has fallen from favor. UK might as well put out the welcome mat for the Germans.

Wow, Sealion is the normal strategy now? Is it due to French 1939 invasions and more time for the Germans to bombard southern England?

Seems like a big gamble, with all the air/sea power the UK has to destroy any amphibious landings. I guess Germans have to buy a paratrooper on turn 1, and get an Italian paratrooper for a total of 4?

[Markiss]

Want to see how easy Sealion is? Play Fafnir. He does it every time. He will even tell you he is going to do it. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Nothing. Even if you plan to stop it from the first turn.

Of course, not everyone is Fafnir, but many try to emulate his playing style. Hence, Sealion is no longer an obscure tactic. It is a real possibility, he has taught an entire generation of players how to do it successfully. Ignore it at your peril.

[El_Condoro]

... everyone agreed not to take advantage of the Gazala loophole.

I have never even heard of this and I have played a few games. In one of my games going on now, the Brits took Tobruk and Gazala and the DAK deployed in Tripoli. It wasn't a big deal as I have since retaken Tobruk but is this the 'loophole' referred to?

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

... everyone agreed not to take advantage of the Gazala loophole.

I have never even heard of this and I have played a few games. In one of my games going on now, the Brits took Tobruk and Gazala and the DAK deployed in Tripoli. It wasn't a big deal as I have since retaken Tobruk but is this the 'loophole' referred to?

hehe

Well it was a couple years ago Sugar was playing someone in a widely viewed AAR, everyone may have been a stretch.

IMO the best result of the DAK is the Axis gets to decide where they want placement but Bill thought that would be tough to program if I recall.

To my knowledge there were are two ways to game (loophole) the DAK, people viewing the AAR agreed to not take advantage of the loopholes. I'm not sure if this changed, there are multiple DE's on the DAk.

1) Just take Gazala, bypass Tobruk forcing Tripoli placement. I think the agreement was to only force the Tripoli placement if the Allies held both, which ElC was the case in your game.

2) Allies Control the entire area (Tobruk ++) and not take Gazala forcing the DAK Benghazi placement and crush the DAK when they are placed.

[El_Condoro]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the summary.

Programming a DE for the Axis player to decide where to place the DAK would be easy (I think, he says uncertainly) - the 'Do you want the DAK to deploy?' then goes to another DE asking 'Where do you want to deploy the DAK? Tripoli = YES; Benghazi = NO. Or something along those lines. The problem might be in how to determine if the ports have supply 5+ but I don't think that's checked now, anyway. I'm sure I'm missing something, though.

[PvtBenjamin]

I think there is an Italy placement possibility also.

[BillRunacre]

There was a loophole whereby the Axis didn't always receive all the DAK units, and so we changed the engine to allow for alternative deployment locations so that the Axis should always get all the units.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Markiss

Want to see how easy Sealion is? Play Fafnir. He does it every time. He will even tell you he is going to do it. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Nothing. Even if you plan to stop it from the first turn.

Is there anything about this we should be aware of, i.e. in terms of changing anything in game?

The reason I ask is that Sealion shouldn't really become a default strategy.

[Markiss]

I don't think so. You have already done some things, like start the French units on the Maginot line entrenched to try and slow down the fall of France. I have not seen anyone but Fafnir pull off a Sealion on a regular basis, but he can do it without fail.

I don't think you need to change the game for 1 player. Frankly, if you made a Sealion impossible, he would just come up with some other unbeatable strategy. Then you would have to make that impossible. No sense chasing your tail on this, he is just the best, and that's ok.

[Fafnir]

There is already a change in place which makes Sealion only possible if UK does not take preparation for it (eg. removes all units to Egypt or let port cities without units).
The change was that you now can create and un-load an amphibious transport in the same turn.
Previously with this you could cross the channel in the same turn without interception risk.
Now UK can attack the amphibious transport in it's turn so that option is gone.

[Markiss]

Do you mean that you have given up doing Sealions?

Or are you arguing that it is already hard enough, and shouldn't be made harder?

I expect the latter is the case, just want to be clear on what you mean.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

There was a loophole whereby the Axis didn't always receive all the DAK units, and so we changed the engine to allow for alternative deployment locations so that the Axis should always get all the units.

Following was the beginning of the discussion

If possible IMO it would make more sense for the Axis to be able to select where they wanted to place the DAK.

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

What to do with the DAK?

Depending on who holds what in NA, the DAK spawns in different places.

Tripoli (Allied) + Gazala (Allied) = Trieste
Tripoli (Allied) = Benghazi
Tripoli (Axis) + Gazala (Axis) = Benghazi
Tripoli (Axis) + Gazala (Allied) = Tripoli
etc.

This means it's possible to game the system to get the DAK to spawn in a favorable spot. Example, if I omit to take Gazala, take the cities behind it and reduce Benghazi's port and city to 0. The DAK spawns trapped and crippled. Sugar could still select not to spawn the DAK but given they appear on his turn he could operate the plane out, and by itself is still worth the price because it allows him to go over the unit limit. While it's not game breaking (like taking all of the UK but not London) but it still feels cheap as heck.

What says you, dear reader? Should I take Gazala or not? (Sugar, you can chime in too)

[Fafnir]

It's fine now as it is. It was too easy before (with same turn disembark).
Now UK may not completly prevent it but it may be too expensive for Germany and may take too long.
On the other hand it's not so hard that the UK can be careless.

Currently I would only do Sealion if the UK makes a mistake e.g. like letting a port city unguarded so
you can take it with paratroupers.

When playing the allies I rarely see any attempt for Sealion and none that had paid out for Germany.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks for clarifying with regards to Sealion. We certainly don't want it to be impossible, nor too easy, so if things are now about right then that's good to know. [:)]

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

If possible IMO it would make more sense for the Axis to be able to select where they wanted to place the DAK.

I understand, but it's actually an immense minefield to script something like that given there are so many variables involved, and there can be no loopholes whatsoever.

The easier option, which was adopted in our WWII: World at War game, was to make them deploy in Europe and the Germans have to ship them across to Libya themselves.

This is more accurate, but has its own downsides, e.g. players would form the DAK and then send it to the Eastern Front or elsewhere, whereas having them arrive in Libya virtually guarantees that they will see action where it is intended.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin



IMO the best result of the DAK is the Axis gets to decide where they want placement but Bill thought that would be tough to program if I recall.

Sorry Bill. I thought from your response that this wasn't your recollection.

I think the DAK is best off as it is with the Gentlemans agreement discussed above.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

If possible IMO it would make more sense for the Axis to be able to select where they wanted to place the DAK.

I understand, but it's actually an immense minefield to script something like that given there are so many variables involved, and there can be no loopholes whatsoever.

The easier option, which was adopted in our WWII: World at War game, was to make them deploy in Europe and the Germans have to ship them across to Libya themselves.

This is more accurate, but has its own downsides, e.g. players would form the DAK and then send it to the Eastern Front or elsewhere, whereas having them arrive in Libya virtually guarantees that they will see action where it is intended.

Interesting discussion and curious why the two games are done differently in regards to DAK? Is it map size? I know that in WAW I always send DAK to Russia because it is easier and Russia is more important so it kind of feels gamey. Whereas in WIE you must fight historically in North Africa because of placement. Just curious why the decision events are different in these two games and why? Don't really know which is the better option or the best solution.