Yugoslavia 1939 ?

[stjeand]

Perhaps players are placing to many UK troops in France. I rarely if ever lose the Middle East and only do if I play play poorly and forget to garrison with a few small corps.

As for Vichy more than happy to have the Axis invade...Having them have to garrison all of the African coast means less troops for Russia. I do NOT like to attack due to the cost of units required. The UK will have 4 corps there...and the French one or two...With that attack Germany won't be able to attack Russian in 41 successfully. Far to high a cost...to much oil.
I normally hold France until September...so there is no time to take Vichy without rain and highly worn armor.

Once a player learns the correct defensive tactics it should happen less and less if at all.

With the UK navy migrated to the Med the Italian navy will be sunk and all ports can receive no Axis supplies permanently. That will surely slow the Axis down when their units get no replacements or efficiency back.
Again...priorities.

If the UK send 2 corps to the Middle East and then have 3 or 4 for Africa IF it is invaded....

[kklemmick]

Perhaps players are placing to many UK troops in France. I rarely if ever lose the Middle East and only do if I play play poorly and forget to garrison with a few small corps.

I'm not sure who you're playing against, but it takes me nearly the entire UK army to deter a Mid East attack (let alone defend against one) which leaves the UK mainland open to invasion. I usually put no more than 2 corps in France itself, and they usually get out early in order to get to the Middle East in time. Basically, you need to defend every port with a small corps or more, and have 4-6 full corps defending to make this something the Axis has trouble doing IMO.

The problem is that once ashore in Syria (even with the UK capturing it first and garrisoning the ports), you need to have a significant army, with armor, in order to even have a chance to knock them back, and once they're able to get armor ashore it's game over. You can't effectively stop both the attack from Syria and from Libya with the forces the UK can muster by then, when the Germans can bring in 6 armor corps.

I take out Vichy France for the production mostly. You can get it one turn, and with less than 5 losses if you set up for it in time. Yeah, it forces you to go grab North Africa, but that also puts taking Gibraltar in play. ncc1701e looks like he may have ruined my plans there though with 6 AA in Gibraltar, but I'm going to be interested to see how that plays out.

[ncc1701e]

I am rediscovering the joy of playing Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided. In this game, sea transportation of supplies and the risk of naval/air interception from Malta really counts. Axis has real problems to supply Africa and Middle East.

[stjeand]

If an Axis player is going after Africa that means they think France is simple...sometimes it is...sometimes it is not.
I have decimated the entire German airforce before in France alone. Then an attempted attack in Africa might not be wise knowing you have no airforce for Russia.


I have been away to long so am slowly remembering. There are only 2 ports that units can land and attack. Others will require a move, which is prevented by a ZOC, 2 HQs can cover those. So now you have a single large corps at best against a small corps with air support and likely naval. Extremely rare for that attack to succeed, infact pretty much impossible.

Now not saying that it is not possible but highly unlikely.

I must have been away to long playing WPP...I have not seen this succeed against a seasoned player in a LONG time and a failure means a lot of lost points.

I am less seasoned but know the tricks to keep the Middle East safe. Though things are different against each player.
I think I have only lost the Middle East once or twice in about 50 games as the Allies...And that was early when I was clueless regarding Syria and how to defend ports.

Perhaps I need a refresher.


As for Vichy...

The points Vichy returns is tiny. 6 per turn is hardly worth the garrison required. You need nearly a dozen troops to cover Africa and France...IF you don't care about Africa then you save there but that creates new issues.
The VP is worth more though. And you open up Africa for free UK deployment which in 40 is not that big a deal but by 41...it is getting dangerous for Italy to have the UK that close.

But that is me.


And that is why we play the game.

[stjeand]

I am rediscovering the joy of playing Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided. In this game, sea transportation of supplies and the risk of naval/air interception from Malta really counts. Axis has real problems to supply Africa and Middle East.

Only if the UK control Malta and the air. If they did not it would not go that way at all.

[ncc1701e]

I am rediscovering the joy of playing Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided. In this game, sea transportation of supplies and the risk of naval/air interception from Malta really counts. Axis has real problems to supply Africa and Middle East.

Only if the UK control Malta and the air. If they did not it would not go that way at all.

Yes but, in Warplan, not taking Malta is really not that impacting on your supply network.

[kklemmick]

I am rediscovering the joy of playing Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided. In this game, sea transportation of supplies and the risk of naval/air interception from Malta really counts. Axis has real problems to supply Africa and Middle East.

Only if the UK control Malta and the air. If they did not it would not go that way at all.

Yes but, in Warplan, not taking Malta is really not that impacting on your supply network.

It's impacting me in our game, because the stupid Italians run their one North African resource right under your bombers. I usually take out Malta easily with blockades and aircraft, but with the 6 AA you put there it's not clear that losing the aircraft is cost effective in this case. :/

But overall, yes, I don't think the Axis has a hard time at all in North Africa. There are plenty of ports and you can't interdict them all.

[MagicMissile]

Hello,

I usually put some French corps in ports in 39 both Atlantic and Mediterranean ports. You should have enough time to get a French corps or 2 into Yugoslavia making conquest a bit harder as well as properly garrison the ports in Syria/Cyprus. Of course this will only help until France falls but might make some difference. I have never done or played against 39 Yugoslavia. Seems to risky for me but I might well be wrong .

/MM

[michaelCLARADY]

The placing a couple French corp in Yugo has occurred to me also. Even holding that one south Yugo port would make the next step German invasion of Greece more chancy. Next time I see the Yugo Gambit I will IMMEDIATELY switch my Brit production from escorts to infantry corp. Should help in the M.E. and might even make it possible to bog the krauts down in their Greek campaign. If Greece can survive to the 1940 fall rains their long term changes get much better.

[stjeand]

So I just battled kklemmick in Yugoslavia...

Poland fell as expected...on turn 2. Nothing new there...
And then I believe it was turn 3 that the invasion of Yugoslavia started...

I think it went well for the Allies...not so well for the Axis.
It took until mid March 1940 for Yugoslavia to fall...Not sure of the Axis losses to be honest but I am sure it was half dozen air units and maybe 20 to 30 land, mostly infantry perhaps a few armor?...the UK lost 3 bombers, as Yugo forces are expected to lose. I believe the Axis gain is 8 points per turn AFTER the capital recovers...1 for the northern city (sorry forget the name), 5 for Belgrade and at this time 1% which likely works out to 2 points...total of 8 per turn.
I did move a French Corps and a Canadian Corps there...as well as a UK Bomber but to be honest...neither corps did much other than hold the port on the Med...and the bomber only bombed 4 times, just to slow down the panzers and really I think it only affected movement once...but surely bothered efficiency.

After watching him battle through...I myself will never try this.
I could have put 3 French corps there and other things that would have made the invasion even worse...I will save those for the future.

He did well keeping the Yugo army unable to repair and receive oil...

But the Yugos fought hard and really slowed the Axis advance around Belgrade.

Now the German army has had no rest and needs to rail from Yugoslavia to France...as well as all the air units which also have little to no rest, though probably got some pretty good experience overall.
Honestly the good part to this early attack would be the experience bonus IF losses are low enough that when repaired what was gained is not lost.

[kklemmick]

So I just battled kklemmick in Yugoslavia...

I'll chime in from my side.

This was definitely the worst I've done here, but I still think it was worth it. I think my total losses were about 25 factors, mostly infantry, plus maybe 8 air or so. Call it 300-350 PP worth of losses. The 8 PP I get won't pay for that for nearly 2 years, and most people normally pick it up in late '40 I guess, so assuming you could do that with fewer losses it's overall a resource loss. That said, my armor didn't have anything else to do, and I don't think it'll be any worse for wear by the time I attack France. The big win wasn't the port this time, since stjeand covered the ports I like to sneak into, but rather that I don't have to do this later, so I'll have more time for other things come 1940. We'll have to wait and see whether that works out or not. I do agree that more French troops there could have made life hard. It might be interesting to try it again against that tactic. I mean, if the French troops held until summer, then those are troops that won't be defending France, so I would be ok with that, honestly.

It's worth noting that in this case the main reason I didn't get it earlier may simply be luck and not because of the additional corps he shipped in. Normally I'd move infantry forward during a rain turn, then hit Belgrade from 3 hexes with Infantry 4 times, then swap for armor and do up to 6 more attacks. This normally will be enough to pop Belgrade in one turn (so the Yugos can't switch out the defending corps). What happened in this case is I was getting snow weather, so was taking the opportunity to attack instead of reposition, and never ended up setting up the killing blow.

If I'd been 1 turn faster I would have been able to set up an invasion of Greece too, which I prefer to do, but as it was I decided to recall the armor to France "early". Greece will often get clear weather in March and April making it possible to pop in 2-3 turns - although it's always a risk and this has gone poorly for me before (I think michaelCLADITY held me off until June).

Overall, yeah, I think it's not a clear win or lose here. I prefer to do it and even with the losses I took this game I am happy with the outcome - But this really depends on your play style and future plans.

[kklemmick]

I think my total losses were about 25 factors, mostly infantry, plus maybe 8 air or so.

After looking at the casualty records, it's likely my losses were higher than that. Probably more like 40, possibly even 50. I know I only took 6 armor losses because I was tracking those, but it looks like infantry losses were pretty high. So again, only worth it if it can open some future doors.

[ncc1701e]

Now the German army has had no rest and needs to rail from Yugoslavia to France...as well as all the air units which also have little to no rest, though probably got some pretty good experience overall.

Curious to know how it will end for you. For me, Middle East is taken, Baku is taken. Stalingrad and Moscow are not far away and this is November 1941. Near the end...

[ncc1701e]

The main thing is that after Poland in October 1939, Germany did not had any oil reserve. Something the game is not capturing. Attacking Yugoslavia right away is, well this is a fiction game.

[Shellshock]

The main thing is that after Poland in October 1939, Germany did not had any oil reserve. Something the game is not capturing. Attacking Yugoslavia right away is, well this is a fiction game.

German ammunition stocks were depleted as well. Consumption in Poland exceeded production in September 1939 by a factor of seven. One of many reasons why German Army chiefs argued for a breathing space when Hitler demanded an attack in the West in the Fall of 1939. Ultimately, bad weather decided that argument.

[ncc1701e]

The main thing is that after Poland in October 1939, Germany did not had any oil reserve. Something the game is not capturing. Attacking Yugoslavia right away is, well this is a fiction game.

German ammunition stocks were depleted as well. Consumption in Poland exceeded production in September 1939 by a factor of seven. One of many reasons why German Army chiefs argued for a breathing space when Hitler demanded an attack in the West in the Fall of 1939. Ultimately, bad weather decided that argument.

Indeed but the game is not capturing ammunition stocks. I assume it is abstracted in "supply". The problem is that there are plenty of "supplies" everywhere.

Definitely, WP2 will have to change this.

[Shellshock]

Indeed but the game is not capturing ammunition stocks. I assume it is abstracted in "supply". The problem is that there are plenty of "supplies" everywhere.

Definitely, WP2 will have to change this.

If it can be implemented hopefully something far simpler than the supply system found in some of Gary Grigsby's latest works. Setting up depots and managing freight and rail capacity is a degree of administration most players probably wouldn't care for.

[ncc1701e]

If it can be implemented hopefully something far simpler than the supply system found in some of Gary Grigsby's latest works. Setting up depots and managing freight and rail capacity is a degree of administration most players probably wouldn't care for.

I agree. The problem is that there is never a middle layer. It's either too simplified or too harsh. But, given our modern days' examples, any wargamer must have knowledge of what an ammunition stock is needed for. If you are not prepared for war or for a given operation, logistically speaking, you must be doomed.

A wargame must capture this.

[stjeand]

Efficiency is supposed to be to contain all that...

Perhaps if the units started out with a lower efficiency that could show lack of supplies.


NOW you would likely have to reduce the efficiency of the Polish units also...but would make sense.
Yugoslavian units start at 70% if I remember...

As for oil that is tougher...Germany used a lot of air in Poland...normally I use no air.
So not sure how you would cover that other than to start them very low and provide a boost in say January or February so they have enough to attack France. But that would be possible.

Then again I was fine with the attack on Yugoslavia...though it could get really bad if France had sent over a few corps...they might have held out even longer and could have ended the war. But that is a risk.

[stjeand]

For me I think that the efficiency needs to be split up a bit...A little too generic...

Something like...

Morale
Supply
Readiness

Not sure all 3 but that to me is what makes up efficiency.
Experience would affect all those also to an extent.

But that is a discussion for another thread.