allied too weak in 1939 year ?

archita · Post by **archita** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:21 pm

i have seen that France is too weak:

only 4 corps,1 tank corp and 1 fighter against 11 ( ! ) german corps,3 tank corp,2 motorized corps,2 fighter,2 tactical,1 bomber

Germany can crush France with more half infantry corps and all tanks with more airborne units because polish units are slow withouth tanks and motorized and not good against forstress behind Poznan and german garrisons.

i think that CEAW needs more balance for 1939 year for prevent blitzkrieg '40 into september 1939 year...

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:08 pm

Some people think France is to strong, which suggests you haven't played anyone who has defended France with a strong BEF.

archita · Post by **archita** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:11 pm

BEF is better for next year with more corps and fighters but UK has 1 corp and 1 tank and 1 motorized corp on september 1939 and tanks and fighters are too expensive for 1939 year, if german player attack with main part of corps against France beyond Holland,BEF is rapidly crushed ( underpowered air british power ).

NotaPacifist · Post by **NotaPacifist** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:42 am

The French had no tank corps. They had plenty of tanks, but they were tied to the infantry. As for the Poles, they shouldn't be able to do today what they couldn't in 1939. You wanna win the game in 1939? Why bother?

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:15 am

I would again say you probably haven't played against someone who aggressively defends France.

If you want to see it I can give a you a game (although I am by no means an exponent of BEF defense).

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:35 am

Hi NotaPacifist,

Are you talking about the vanilla version of the game or the CEAW-GS version?

pk867

archita · Post by **archita** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:09 pm

sure but combined tank-infantry-airborne rush german attack into september-november 1939 turns is not easily blockable and allied war production starts too slowly and polish counter-offensive is impossible for fostresses into northern germany ( withouth tanks and airborne ). I see that battleships can't attack coast exe and copenanghen harbour block passage to baltic sea for allied fleet and impossible amphibious assault ( bad thing ).

Clark · Post by **Clark** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:34 pm

archita wrote:sure but combined tank-infantry-airborne rush german attack into september-november 1939 turns is not easily blockable and allied war production starts too slowly and polish counter-offensive is impossible for fostresses into northern germany ( withouth tanks and airborne ). I see that battleships can't attack coast exe and copenanghen harbour block passage to baltic sea for allied fleet and impossible amphibious assault ( bad thing ).

Why should the Polish be able to credibly counterattack?

archita · Post by **archita** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:53 pm

why not ? if german player prefer rush attack against France with major part of units, Poland can concentrate units and attack germans well but i have seen that Poland has not cavarly units, not enough fast units and fostress behind poznan are impossible for conquest ( Berlin is protected by fostresses ). There are polish plans to counter attacks historically.

Clark · Post by **Clark** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:34 pm

archita wrote:why not ? if german player prefer rush attack against France with major part of units, Poland can concentrate units and attack germans well but i have seen that Poland has not cavarly units, not enough fast units and fostress behind poznan are impossible for conquest ( Berlin is protected by fostresses ). There are polish plans to counter attacks historically.

Can you put a little meat on this? I was not aware that Poland had a reasonably sized military capable of pressing into Germany in force in the fall of 1939. Did they have armor concentrated into units? Or mechanized infantry?

archita · Post by **archita** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:15 am

Clark wrote:
archita wrote:why not ? if german player prefer rush attack against France with major part of units, Poland can concentrate units and attack germans well but i have seen that Poland has not cavarly units, not enough fast units and fostress behind poznan are impossible for conquest ( Berlin is protected by fostresses ). There are polish plans to counter attacks historically.
Can you put a little meat on this? I was not aware that Poland had a reasonably sized military capable of pressing into Germany in force in the fall of 1939. Did they have armor concentrated into units? Or mechanized infantry?

nope but Poland had cavarly and tanks too ( two battalions of 7TP enough good against Pnz II ), why CEAW not given a lot of cavarly ?

polish counteroffensive is possible in CEAW if german player left same garrison during rush attack against France.

NotaPacifist · Post by **NotaPacifist** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:25 am

In a strategic game, cavalry isn't much different than infantry except they make bigger targets. Horses don't go running about the county side for miles and miles like you see in a cowboy movie. Two miles is the most they can run carrying 120Lb's on their backs. Ever watch horse racing? Historically, battle cavalry could make only one charge per day. Two-charge days were rare indeed...

Poland only ordered mobilization on August 30. So, many of it's reservists were still en route when the German attack came. The Poles were caught by surprise though they knew of German preparations on the other side of the border.

A few obsolete tanks won't make much difference in a strategic game.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:13 pm

Leaving Poland for an early assualt on France is not a great strategy, try it against any competatnt Allied player (in fact even against me) and you will see how poor the Axis position is by mid 42.

You will burn way to many resources for to little gain.

ncali · Post by **ncali** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:36 am

The early blitz strategy on Belgium, taking some troops from Poland, is a viable strategy and actually presents a low-moderate-risk, moderate-return in v. 1.07. Since the attack reduces the Allied morale, the Allies have a hard time defending against it. The Poles can do more damage against the Germans and it will take longer to take Poland, but it will still happen. The only variable is the October weather, which can bring the German offensive to a grinding halt in the West.

So I think Archita has a point. But I understand there are some change in v. 2.00 to address it that probably make it a bit more risky, anyway.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:58 am

I think I would suggest that its a high risk option where the weather can really hurt you and you can end up burning lots of resources for little gain.

One of the subtle things in GS is how you manage your resources, sure you can take the west early including a successful Sealion, but will it win you the game?

Burning oil, pp's and manpower for a poor strategic return is a recipe for disaster - trust me I know!

Silvano · Post by **Silvano** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:35 pm

Hello!
I like very much CEAW I thanks the authors becouse they managed to create a simple
yet interesting game.
The only Strategy game that I know about WWII are Heart of Iron too complex, unplayable,
and Axis&Allies very simple.
CEAW recreate the pleasure of playing lost in most of the modern games,
you are put in a strategy situation and have to take strategic decisions.
For this reasons I think that the objections of archita are senseless.
The only think I would change in the game is the game balance.
I think that Allied are favorite, to win with Axis is almost
impossible (I can demostrate it or I learn something!).
Keep the game more balanced is not easy, the core problem is the France.
France if you look at number was really strong, if you look at history
its army performed vary bad. As a game designer it is very difficult to syntetize
those opposing truths.
The game as it is now CEAW 1.12 GS 1.07 is pro allied. In my modest opinion.

Cheers
Silvano

[/img]

Silvano · Post by **Silvano** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:42 am

Well,
I see that nobody accept the challenge.
So I can conclude that:
1) archita has a lot of things to learn
2) ceaw is unbalanced (and you know).

Cheers
Silvano

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:20 am

well I have hinted that he has a bit to learn

the balance issue is complex, two very good players will find it balanced

beginners will find it very much in favour of the Allies, this is because the Allies have less to manage - they don't really have to manage manpower and oil is not an issue at all - but its the most important for the Axis

the game is much 'harder' for the Axis, but not 'unbalanced' as such

Silvano · Post by **Silvano** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:24 am

richardsd wrote:well I have hinted that he has a bit to learn

the balance issue is complex, two very good players will find it balanced

beginners will find it very much in favour of the Allies, this is because the Allies have less to manage - they don't really have to manage manpower and oil is not an issue at all - but its the most important for the Axis

the game is much 'harder' for the Axis, but not 'unbalanced' as such

if you think you are a good player, let's try...
I'm not a good player!
If do you agree I send you my mail, and after the mach we write a little AAR to demostrate it is impossible (almost)
to win with the axis.
Do you agree?

Silvano

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:29 am

sigh, sadly I am not a good player, competant enough that I can beat beginners as the Axis and other competant players as the Allies

but always happy to have a game as either side