First, I have enjoyed this game a lot. Played the vanilla many times, stopped for a while, then installed the mod. Only playing against the AI. Since I cannot even beat that, I must be doing everything wrong.
Is it simply impossible to "win" as Axis?
I read through threads and AARs and see Axis players do Sealion, build labs and then invade Russia in May with a force of 50 corps. How is this possible? Where does the money come from? I cannot even get close to that. My results are so far from what I read about that it's like I am playing a different game.
So after I launch my (late, underpowered) Barbarossa in July or Aug '41, by mid-'42 the Russians have seemingly 100 infantry corps, 10 fighters and infinite everything else. There is no way to get to Moscow (though I can do very well in the South). Of course, I run out of oil. My strategy so far is to use the Italians in the ME. The AI is dumb enough that the Brits are beatable, but the Italians are so weak that it takes forever. By the time I take the oilfields, we are at zero oil and have to ration every turn.
Meanwhile, in the West, the Americans and the Brits build an enormous navy. I block the channel with subs but wave after wave of transport comes and it is impossible to stop them all. I try to have another wolfpack of subs in the north to stop the Murmansk convoy but that is expensive. Again, where is all the money supposed to come from?
Oh, and is it normal to have 2-3 or more partisan units spawn every turn? There is no way to keep up with them.
I have read the manuals, the strategy guides (that I have found) and many, many threads. What I read just does not square with what I actually experience in the game.
I must be doing everything wrong
Moderators: firepowerjohan, Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core
It is definitely possible to beat the AI at almost every level, it's just a matter of how to do it. The methods I use are:
Combined arms attacks.
1)First naval attacks (if possible), then air attack, to knock down any entrenchment levels and also to reduce effectiveness of the defenders.
2)Then ground attacks. If the target is in open terrain, armour attacks first, then infantry/motorized. If in restricted terrain, the opposite.
3)Exploit holes.
One important rule is "mass. not driblets". Say you have a line of 10 enemy units & you score 30 hits on them from your attacks during a turn. It's better to kill three units, open a hole & blast through it, surrounding or cutting off other units than it is to score 3 hits on each enemy unit. Out of supply or reduced supply units are MUCH easier to kill than fully supplied units.
Speed is also of the essence. France is worth 15 PP per turn to Germany. If it falls on, say, Feb 8 1940 instead of May 18 1940, that's over 90 PP extra available for new builds. Blitzkrieg, not sitzkrieg, is how the Germans win. That said, it's better to spend a turn or two preparing to make a massive attack, than it is to attack with insufficient force, but even 2 turns of prep is a luxury for the Axis in the early (pre Russia) stage.
Simply put, if Allied production minus losses per turn is greater than Axis production minus losses, the Allies win, otherwise the Axis wins. If there's any "secret" to victory that's it.
Jyri
Combined arms attacks.
1)First naval attacks (if possible), then air attack, to knock down any entrenchment levels and also to reduce effectiveness of the defenders.
2)Then ground attacks. If the target is in open terrain, armour attacks first, then infantry/motorized. If in restricted terrain, the opposite.
3)Exploit holes.
One important rule is "mass. not driblets". Say you have a line of 10 enemy units & you score 30 hits on them from your attacks during a turn. It's better to kill three units, open a hole & blast through it, surrounding or cutting off other units than it is to score 3 hits on each enemy unit. Out of supply or reduced supply units are MUCH easier to kill than fully supplied units.
Speed is also of the essence. France is worth 15 PP per turn to Germany. If it falls on, say, Feb 8 1940 instead of May 18 1940, that's over 90 PP extra available for new builds. Blitzkrieg, not sitzkrieg, is how the Germans win. That said, it's better to spend a turn or two preparing to make a massive attack, than it is to attack with insufficient force, but even 2 turns of prep is a luxury for the Axis in the early (pre Russia) stage.
Simply put, if Allied production minus losses per turn is greater than Axis production minus losses, the Allies win, otherwise the Axis wins. If there's any "secret" to victory that's it.
Jyri
Thanks.
Re: combined arms, I definitely do that. Am able to kill a great many Russian corps but not enough. My units are far more powerful than theirs, I just don't have nearly enough.
I try to encircle at every opportunity. It's hard at times. Also, I find that as I try to creep around flanks, sometimes I end up encircled myself. Not fun.
Speed: I can get Poland in two turns and Denmark by turn 3. By that time the weather is too bad to try Norway. But I can get started in Holland on turn 2 or 3 at the latest. I generally have France by April. Feb seems impossible to me. How do you do that?
When the weather turns I take Norway wiith two corps then by July or so I land in the UK. First Southampton, then once the port is open, London. SH takes two turns, London another two or three after that. By this time I have at least four tac air units. I spend all my $ on labs and air.
I land six corps in the UK and it takes bloody forever to take it all. And actually I don't. I never take Aberdeen or Norwich, and I take Plymouth when I can (useful port) but sometimes the damned partisans keep me too busy. My $.02: the game spawns way too many partisans.
So most of the army that took France is now freed up. Some are in the UK. I send three corps to take the continental Vichy cities (for the PP) and three to help take Yugo. That always takes forever as well. "Zone of control" makes surrounding Belgrade a tiresome and time consuming endeavor.
Then two corps amphib to Greece. Takes two turns after landing, usually.
Meanwhile I am upgrading every chance I get to make sure I have higher quality (two labs in every category). And with the rest of the money I buy corps, corps, corps. Three additional tanks, three additional mech, the rest foot. I am never ready to go by June 22, and I don't see how I could be. What should I not be buying? Fewer labs?
Then more air, then more subs so I can seal the channel, hunt the Murmansk convoy, and deal with transports. But I am finding that even with 12 (!) subs plus the two surface fleets, I don't have enough in the water to deal with the ginormous allied naval assault.
Re: combined arms, I definitely do that. Am able to kill a great many Russian corps but not enough. My units are far more powerful than theirs, I just don't have nearly enough.
I try to encircle at every opportunity. It's hard at times. Also, I find that as I try to creep around flanks, sometimes I end up encircled myself. Not fun.
Speed: I can get Poland in two turns and Denmark by turn 3. By that time the weather is too bad to try Norway. But I can get started in Holland on turn 2 or 3 at the latest. I generally have France by April. Feb seems impossible to me. How do you do that?
When the weather turns I take Norway wiith two corps then by July or so I land in the UK. First Southampton, then once the port is open, London. SH takes two turns, London another two or three after that. By this time I have at least four tac air units. I spend all my $ on labs and air.
I land six corps in the UK and it takes bloody forever to take it all. And actually I don't. I never take Aberdeen or Norwich, and I take Plymouth when I can (useful port) but sometimes the damned partisans keep me too busy. My $.02: the game spawns way too many partisans.
So most of the army that took France is now freed up. Some are in the UK. I send three corps to take the continental Vichy cities (for the PP) and three to help take Yugo. That always takes forever as well. "Zone of control" makes surrounding Belgrade a tiresome and time consuming endeavor.
Then two corps amphib to Greece. Takes two turns after landing, usually.
Meanwhile I am upgrading every chance I get to make sure I have higher quality (two labs in every category). And with the rest of the money I buy corps, corps, corps. Three additional tanks, three additional mech, the rest foot. I am never ready to go by June 22, and I don't see how I could be. What should I not be buying? Fewer labs?
Then more air, then more subs so I can seal the channel, hunt the Murmansk convoy, and deal with transports. But I am finding that even with 12 (!) subs plus the two surface fleets, I don't have enough in the water to deal with the ginormous allied naval assault.
One "error" you're making is upgrading every chance you get. I usually only do an upgrade when an increase at least 2-3 levels is available. It costs the same PP whether you increase one level or 10 levels, so you want to get the biggest bang for the buck when you do a tech increase.
While taking France that early is possible (with luck), I was just esing that as an example on why speed matterand it would require a lot of luck to achieve.
One thing. I'm assuming you're playing the AI. Pay close attention to how the AI reacts to certain moves. You should start to see standard responses to certain events, which you can then trigger with a few units, while your main thrust moves into position to take advantage of the AI's predictability.
Jyri
While taking France that early is possible (with luck), I was just esing that as an example on why speed matterand it would require a lot of luck to achieve.
One thing. I'm assuming you're playing the AI. Pay close attention to how the AI reacts to certain moves. You should start to see standard responses to certain events, which you can then trigger with a few units, while your main thrust moves into position to take advantage of the AI's predictability.
Jyri
Argueable. I slightly dislike winter operations as axis (burns normal ammount of oil with reduced effect) and in france 1940 your main advantage over allies are tanks and bombers , you don't want both of em to have reduced effect, i think. So attack penalties to all units in winter will lead to increased casualties and i think you would spend for repairs something more, than this 90 spare PPs. Also difference is rather between early June (seitzkrieg) and late april (blitzkrieg), I refuse to image FEB paris fall, allied player should do something really strange to make it possible, like remove his units from france of destroy them trying to attack german border fortifications.JyriErik wrote:Speed is also of the essence. France is worth 15 PP per turn to Germany. If it falls on, say, Feb 8 1940 instead of May 18 1940, that's over 90 PP extra available for new builds. Blitzkrieg, not sitzkrieg, is how the Germans win. That said, it's better to spend a turn or two preparing to make a massive attack, than it is to attack with insufficient force, but even 2 turns of prep is a luxury for the Axis in the early (pre Russia) stage.
Also i have seen axis (played both by me and mine opponent)often being stopped in dnepr/dvina position in 1941. Than its advicealbe to retreat away from severe winter zone to avoid efficiency loss and useless casualties, and roll soviet army by panzers in 1942 one more time, it can help.
And (never tried this one) maybe its good idea NOT to do barbarossa, instead you can prepare defensive positions in soviet borders, while destroying western allies once and for all. Allied player supposed to prepare his troops for defense of USSR before war, not for offence, so he would be troubled left with lots of his INF in rear areas and no barbarossa at all.
OK, maybe it would help if I ask some specific questions.
Everybody seems to say that you should do Norway ASAP. That assumes either good weather or taking Denmark in one turn (turn 2). Everyone just takes for granted that Denmark falls in one turn. Well, not for me! I use both fleets, one bomber, one fighter, and two corps. Maybe one time out of five Denmark falls in one turn. Maybe. If it does, then you can go for Norway on turn 3 (that is, load the transports). But then you land on turn four and reach Oslo by turn 5. If you take Denmark in two turns, chances are the weather will not allow you to offload on turn 5.
But even if it does, winter will certainly be in effect the following turn. Ships can't attack Oslo. There is no way to have a third tactical bomber by this time, unless you buy no labs. (But everyone says to buy labs!) So your two tacs should be fighting in the West. (Because speed is of the essense!). If you try to take Olso in winter with only two corps they will be ground to dirt and the capital will reinforce to 10 by the beginning of every turn. It is impossible. At least for me. But not for everyone else!
Again, I have read nearly every thread on this board and it just does not seem to describe the game I am playing. I realize you all are better than me but the math does not add up. This is only one (of dozens) of examples. Every player but me has maxed out labs, 12 air squadrons, 100 corps, an armada of subs, plus Manstsein, Guderian and Rommel--all by May '41!
WTF?
Everybody seems to say that you should do Norway ASAP. That assumes either good weather or taking Denmark in one turn (turn 2). Everyone just takes for granted that Denmark falls in one turn. Well, not for me! I use both fleets, one bomber, one fighter, and two corps. Maybe one time out of five Denmark falls in one turn. Maybe. If it does, then you can go for Norway on turn 3 (that is, load the transports). But then you land on turn four and reach Oslo by turn 5. If you take Denmark in two turns, chances are the weather will not allow you to offload on turn 5.
But even if it does, winter will certainly be in effect the following turn. Ships can't attack Oslo. There is no way to have a third tactical bomber by this time, unless you buy no labs. (But everyone says to buy labs!) So your two tacs should be fighting in the West. (Because speed is of the essense!). If you try to take Olso in winter with only two corps they will be ground to dirt and the capital will reinforce to 10 by the beginning of every turn. It is impossible. At least for me. But not for everyone else!
Again, I have read nearly every thread on this board and it just does not seem to describe the game I am playing. I realize you all are better than me but the math does not add up. This is only one (of dozens) of examples. Every player but me has maxed out labs, 12 air squadrons, 100 corps, an armada of subs, plus Manstsein, Guderian and Rommel--all by May '41!
WTF?
I don't seen anyone going for Norway ASAP. It often happens after fall of france, if happens, to remove french fleet.
As you said, you have troubles with PP destribution, so i don't know why you want to go for norway? Norway is needed to place ships and plains to hunt northern soviet convoy. But if you don't have 2 spare bombers for example, why you want to have norway? Just to spent more troops to garrison it?
Also i hardly understand, where all your PP's gone. Since you conquered france for example on June, you have ~ 1 year to collect PPs and build your army.
Well, you spend some on repairs, but you still have ~1000 to build up your barbarossa force. If you still have troubles, minimize your action on secondary fronts. Nowray is useless if u don't have spare planes and ships, Yugoslavia is useless in all ways but troops training (attack 0 eff partisans with your corps for experience), Greece is useless, unless you want to place bombers for africa on Crete (and this way you also need african korps itself - do you have spare forces?). So try to minimize your action and just prepare for barbarossa.
As you said, you have troubles with PP destribution, so i don't know why you want to go for norway? Norway is needed to place ships and plains to hunt northern soviet convoy. But if you don't have 2 spare bombers for example, why you want to have norway? Just to spent more troops to garrison it?
Also i hardly understand, where all your PP's gone. Since you conquered france for example on June, you have ~ 1 year to collect PPs and build your army.
Well, you spend some on repairs, but you still have ~1000 to build up your barbarossa force. If you still have troubles, minimize your action on secondary fronts. Nowray is useless if u don't have spare planes and ships, Yugoslavia is useless in all ways but troops training (attack 0 eff partisans with your corps for experience), Greece is useless, unless you want to place bombers for africa on Crete (and this way you also need african korps itself - do you have spare forces?). So try to minimize your action and just prepare for barbarossa.
On spending, I buy nothing but labs and air and repairs for what seems like at least a year. Max out labs in '39 to one each ASAP. After that build a series of tacs (at least three and I like to build four, for a total of at least six). This alone takes many turns. I repair units when they get to 6 or less. This is expensive because at least 2/3s of them are in combat at any given time.
When '39 gives way to '40 I start to build labs again until I get to the max (2 in each). My thinking is to get that research really humming. Should I not do that? It eats a lot of money.
Then I start with the fighters, four more. Then armor (three more) and mech (three more) then three top leaders: 2 x 110 and 1 x 125. Then tons of corps. Just pluggin up the eastern front at that rate takes well longer than June '41.
I take it this is all wrong?
When '39 gives way to '40 I start to build labs again until I get to the max (2 in each). My thinking is to get that research really humming. Should I not do that? It eats a lot of money.
Then I start with the fighters, four more. Then armor (three more) and mech (three more) then three top leaders: 2 x 110 and 1 x 125. Then tons of corps. Just pluggin up the eastern front at that rate takes well longer than June '41.
I take it this is all wrong?
Example: Current game against the AI, took France Feb 8 '40, took London in June. Currently have built, as new units, only two tactical bombers. Have labs maxed out at 2 each across the board. Have not upgraged anything (am waiting until I can upgrade three levels at once). Have had to do lots of repairs, especially on air and naval units. It's July '40 and I just now placed the order for my 5th tac. Haven't yet bought any generals beyond Rundstedt.
Also, I skipped Norway (for now) but have taken (most of) the continental Vichy cities.
Also, I skipped Norway (for now) but have taken (most of) the continental Vichy cities.
It's March 14 '41, I have bought no leaders and no corps. Still trying to keep up with labs and build up the armor and mech. Have bought four armor and (so far) one mech. Plus three additional fighters and four tac.
This is really a frustrating joke. The gap between what I read about in AARs and what I experience is a mile wide. I have EVEN LESS than half of what I am supposed to need and I see no possible way to get any of it.
What the hell is going on? What I am doing wrong?
It can't be speed. France on Feb 8? London by June? Come on!
Still have not taken Norway, also I skipped Yugo and Greece. Starting to think that was a major mistake. I need those points, don't I?
This is really a frustrating joke. The gap between what I read about in AARs and what I experience is a mile wide. I have EVEN LESS than half of what I am supposed to need and I see no possible way to get any of it.
What the hell is going on? What I am doing wrong?
It can't be speed. France on Feb 8? London by June? Come on!
Still have not taken Norway, also I skipped Yugo and Greece. Starting to think that was a major mistake. I need those points, don't I?
-
schwerpunkt
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
- Location: Western Australia
What you have built by Mar 41 is quite advanced actually as it is impossible for the Germans to build up in everything (the later labs are very expensive). The trouble with AARs is that you usually do not get to see a players entire build strategy so you dont get to see what they arent building. Germany's build-research strategy up until Barbarossa is full of compromises and sacrifices so dont be concerned.patton wrote:It's March 14 '41, I have bought no leaders and no corps. Still trying to keep up with labs and build up the armor and mech. Have bought four armor and (so far) one mech. Plus three additional fighters and four tac.
This is really a frustrating joke. The gap between what I read about in AARs and what I experience is a mile wide. I have EVEN LESS than half of what I am supposed to need and I see no possible way to get any of it.
What the hell is going on? What I am doing wrong?
It can't be speed. France on Feb 8? London by June? Come on!
Still have not taken Norway, also I skipped Yugo and Greece. Starting to think that was a major mistake. I need those points, don't I?
As an example of what I am saying, I usually only get to build two TACs before Barbarossa but I do build a couple of leaders and about 5 INF corps.
As discussed in a previous thread, there is no need to do Norway, Yugo and Greece in CEAW as the build points are not great, there is no political downside to not doing them and the partisans in the latter two can be annoying.
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
You can try to be the Allies against me and then I can show you the power of the Axis. 
If you do Sealion then you will be weaker elsewhere (Middle East and Russia). It's as simple as that. So many good Axis players ignore Britain (except strategic bombing) and maximize their force for Barbarossa. They even ignore Iraq and maybe only go to Port Said.
If you do Sealion then you will be weaker elsewhere (Middle East and Russia). It's as simple as that. So many good Axis players ignore Britain (except strategic bombing) and maximize their force for Barbarossa. They even ignore Iraq and maybe only go to Port Said.
Amusing
Thanks for your post.
I've had the same feeling, many times, reading the AARs and suggestions. As you say, the advice usually seems to involve not invading Russia with less than 20 panzer and 100 infantry corps, and enough bombers to strafe the Ruskies all the way to Kamchatka.
I've had the same feeling, many times, reading the AARs and suggestions. As you say, the advice usually seems to involve not invading Russia with less than 20 panzer and 100 infantry corps, and enough bombers to strafe the Ruskies all the way to Kamchatka.
I think you are asking for too much, or have a wrong idea of an Axis "Win" in GS. I find it very difficult to achieve "world domination", but that's the point of CEAW-GS. Its aim is to be a realistic simulation of WWII warfare on a grand strategy level. No matter how efficient the Germans would have conquered Europe, in NO WAY would they have been able to do a Sealion AND a strong Barbarossa. Stop trying, it's not possible. If you do invade the UK, you have to forego other smaller nations in order to start a half-decent Barbarossa in June. If you read the AARs carefully, there is none that succeeded in both Sealion and Barbarossa. Even Supermax's occupation of the US did not let him win against the USSR - if the game would have continued after May 1945, he would have probably lost due to sheer number inferiority and manpower shortage. However, from the standards of CEAW-GS it was an ultimate.patton wrote:It's March 14 '41, I have bought no leaders and no corps. Still trying to keep up with labs and build up the armor and mech. Have bought four armor and (so far) one mech. Plus three additional fighters and four tac.
This is really a frustrating joke. The gap between what I read about in AARs and what I experience is a mile wide. I have EVEN LESS than half of what I am supposed to need and I see no possible way to get any of it.
What the hell is going on? What I am doing wrong?
It can't be speed. France on Feb 8? London by June? Come on!
Still have not taken Norway, also I skipped Yugo and Greece. Starting to think that was a major mistake. I need those points, don't I?
So, the game is balanced enough to not let you conquered the world. It's your choice where you focus, but don't expect to win in every theatre.
-
gchristie
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:02 pm
- Location: Maine, USA
I don't play the AI, and have played a few PBEM games, so take this for what it is worth.
First, I'm not sure there is one answer to your question. The more experienced players do seem like wizards, and I don't expect them to reveal all their magics in the forum, though I am very grateful for the advice they do give. My thinking is that they do a remarkably good job tactically as well as strategically, and they manage to move aggressively as the Axis while conserving their PPs by minimizing their casualties. This is something I am getting better at with practice, but it is hard to teach given circumstances vary constantly. So, less PPs on replacements means more for other things. But I'm probably not telling you something you don't know. Making sound strategic decisions is key, and something more easily replicated for us less experienced players, it's the tactical game that takes longer to master, IMHO.
Second, I find as the Axis that if I try to replicate historical German gains in 1941 and 1942 then I'm always coming up short - though I am getting better as I play more. If my Barbarossa goal is to be a hex or two from Moscow by the first winter turn, as Guderian did, then I might as well give up. But if I can eliminate large numbers of Russian units, especially offensive units, then I consider my progress to be quite good and I've got a real shot at a strong 1942 offensive which i believe is one of the keys for Axis victory.
Third, as others have said, it is a matter of focus. There was a thread started by Supermax, I believe, where the pros argued the merits of skipping Yugoslavia altogether, and only taking Norway or Greece for strategic purposes and not for PPs. Don't think it's possible to conduct successful Sealion and astrong Barbarossa from what I've read and from my experience.
These I find are all good rules of thumb. There is very little margin for error playing as Axis against other players, and you need a sound strategy from the outset that you try to stick to. Lot's of tough choices, which is what makes this game a winner in my opinion. Losing is a bitter experience, but I think I learn more from my loses than I do from my victories
From your posts you sound pretty frustrated, but I encourage you to hang in there. You're bound to getter better and when you win, victory will be all the sweeter and do your namesake proud !
Regards.
First, I'm not sure there is one answer to your question. The more experienced players do seem like wizards, and I don't expect them to reveal all their magics in the forum, though I am very grateful for the advice they do give. My thinking is that they do a remarkably good job tactically as well as strategically, and they manage to move aggressively as the Axis while conserving their PPs by minimizing their casualties. This is something I am getting better at with practice, but it is hard to teach given circumstances vary constantly. So, less PPs on replacements means more for other things. But I'm probably not telling you something you don't know. Making sound strategic decisions is key, and something more easily replicated for us less experienced players, it's the tactical game that takes longer to master, IMHO.
Second, I find as the Axis that if I try to replicate historical German gains in 1941 and 1942 then I'm always coming up short - though I am getting better as I play more. If my Barbarossa goal is to be a hex or two from Moscow by the first winter turn, as Guderian did, then I might as well give up. But if I can eliminate large numbers of Russian units, especially offensive units, then I consider my progress to be quite good and I've got a real shot at a strong 1942 offensive which i believe is one of the keys for Axis victory.
Third, as others have said, it is a matter of focus. There was a thread started by Supermax, I believe, where the pros argued the merits of skipping Yugoslavia altogether, and only taking Norway or Greece for strategic purposes and not for PPs. Don't think it's possible to conduct successful Sealion and astrong Barbarossa from what I've read and from my experience.
These I find are all good rules of thumb. There is very little margin for error playing as Axis against other players, and you need a sound strategy from the outset that you try to stick to. Lot's of tough choices, which is what makes this game a winner in my opinion. Losing is a bitter experience, but I think I learn more from my loses than I do from my victories
From your posts you sound pretty frustrated, but I encourage you to hang in there. You're bound to getter better and when you win, victory will be all the sweeter and do your namesake proud !
Regards.
"Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart."
~Anne Frank
~Anne Frank