History and CEAW

[Bern]

This is extremely interesting. I would agree pretty much with all of this. I would also say that in terms of pbem play this game is very well balanced.

My concern is with play against the AI - I would suggest that this is the same for the great majority of players. In this form, play as the Axis presents a reasonable challenge. This is not the case when playing as Allied against the Axis AI.

I have spent some time trying to produce a scenario against the Axis AI where a little more thought is required of the Allied player to achieve victory. I will not repeat what I've written in other threads on the forum, but I now have a situation where the Axis AI can achieve the fall of France within a timescale not too far from the historical whilst at the same time disrupting the otherwise fairly comfortable progress of the UK's production/research. I've made no attempt to enhance the economy of the Axis, nor to introduce additional manpower. This has been done purely through the process of modding.

As I've said elsewhere, the continual frustration is the lack of ability of the AI to implement an appropriate Eastern Front build up and deliver Barbarossa as per history. My latest iteration of mods resulted in a half-decent build up by April, 1941 but the AI waited and waited and then invaded in October!!!

Clearly I know nothing of the architecture of the program, but I have to conclude that there is something therein which requires there to be retained a large number of unemployed units in Germany and prioritises other strategies over an early invasion of Russia.

You speak rather tantalisingly of coding - does this suggest you may be in a position to comment with authority on what is postulated above?

Bern

[zechi]

I totally agree that especially the opening phases of the GS are extremely well balanced right now. A French surrender is most likely to occur between May und July 1940 and Germany will have conquered Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France (in this order most likely). The result is good and the game well balanced. I think everyone agrees on this.

Nevertheless, the standard opening does not "feel" very historialc with Denmark and the Netherlands usually conquered in 1939. In fact it is the best strategy to do both invasions in 1939 and not in 1940. The historical course of action is a rather bad option.

However, from my point of view, the Germans would have been in bigger trouble, if they would have tried to invade Denmark and the Netherlands in 1939. Of course we cannot exactly know what would have happened, but I think that if Denmark would have been invaded before a Polish surrender, they would not have surrendered as easily as they did in 1940. The same goes for the Netherlands. The quick execution of Fall Weiß and the fact that the western Allies did nothing to help the Polish, either because they were not able to do something or worse, not willing to help, was a decisive factor for many of the minor countries to quickly give up after the Germans invaded.

Therefore I think it could be given a try to make it easier for the Axis player to conquer the Netherlands and Denmark in 1940. Both countries could surrender immediately after the DOW in 1940. This would make it at least an option for the Axis player not to invade in 1939, but instead wait until 1940. Other alternatives would be to decrease the military strenght of Denmark and the Netherlands in 1940, so that it is a lot easier to force a surrender in 1940 then in 1939. This could symbolise the morale effect the Blitzkrieg in Poland and the inactivity of the western Allies had on minor countries during this time.

I also think that would make the opening phase of the game a little bit more interesting. If there is an incentive to invade Holland and Denmark in 1940, then the Axis player would have more options to start the game. He could either go for the current standard opening or choose a more historical one.

[El_Condoro]

I think CEAW GS 2.0 is extremely playable, well-balanced and the timing is amazing, given that the attack on Russia is normally ready to go at about the same time as was historical. I also agree with the 'feeling' of Denmark, Low Countries and France not being historical, so these are just some suggestions that I am interested to hear responses to from whoever has the time/inclination.

1. DoWs cost prestige if done ahead of their historical date: (20 for a minor; 50 for a major?).

2. Limit garrisons: this is the main problem with France IMO - they can be trained or transported from all over the French-speaking world and will hold up a panzer unit almost as well as a full infantry unit when 2-deep. Some options:
- allow cities to accept no more than 10 strength points of rail transport per turn (this affects all units, not just garrisons), and/or
- garrisons cost as much to move as normal infantry
- prevent garrisons associated with a city to move by rail at all

3. Given the DoW cost idea is implemented: Denmark surrenders immediately.

4. Nothing to do with the examples above but the Allies seem able to launch seaborne invasions far too early. From my understanding Operation Torch could not be mounted for practical reasons until late 1942 but both the AI and players seem able to launch them as early as 1941. Should this be discouraged beyond the cost of transports?

Anyway, just some ideas...

[Plaid]

How is it possible to launch Torch in 1941, if you don't even have USA at war?

[rkr1958]

Therefore I think it could be given a try to make it easier for the Axis player to conquer the Netherlands and Denmark in 1940. Both countries could surrender immediately after the DOW in 1940. This would make it at least an option for the Axis player not to invade in 1939, but instead wait until 1940. Other alternatives would be to decrease the military strenght of Denmark and the Netherlands in 1940, so that it is a lot easier to force a surrender in 1940 then in 1939. This could symbolise the morale effect the Blitzkrieg in Poland and the inactivity of the western Allies had on minor countries during this time.

I also think that would make the opening phase of the game a little bit more interesting. If there is an incentive to invade Holland and Denmark in 1940, then the Axis player would have more options to start the game. He could either go for the current standard opening or choose a more historical one.

All this sounds fine if the axis player follows the historical timeline. Believe me when I say you have players that will find and exploit any weakness in the game or order of battle. So while you may tweak everything to work very well if the game if played in an historical sense you mind find that a player has come up with a sure way to win in a most unhistorical way. We've gone through a lot of playtesting and tweaking to try to establish an historical fall date between equally matched and experienced players. See viewtopic.php?p=229301#229301

[rkr1958]

I think CEAW GS 2.0 is extremely playable, well-balanced and the timing is amazing, given that the attack on Russia is normally ready to go at about the same time as was historical. I also agree with the 'feeling' of Denmark, Low Countries and France not being historical, so these are just some suggestions that I am interested to hear responses to from whoever has the time/inclination.

1. DoWs cost prestige if done ahead of their historical date: (20 for a minor; 50 for a major?).

This for me is a non-starter. If that's the way you want to play a game; e.g., see viewtopic.php?p=184740#184740 then great. Play it that way. But, to force, or strongly encourge, other players to always follow the historical DOW timeline would, I fear, significantly reduce replayability and quickly shrink our pool of dedicated and active GS players.

2. Limit garrisons: this is the main problem with France IMO - they can be trained or transported from all over the French-speaking world and will hold up a panzer unit almost as well as a full infantry unit when 2-deep. Some options:
- allow cities to accept no more than 10 strength points of rail transport per turn (this affects all units, not just garrisons), and/or
- garrisons cost as much to move as normal infantry
- prevent garrisons associated with a city to move by rail at all

Garrison don't nearly hold up as well as infantry corps. If you make garrisons cost as much as regular infantry corps then why would you buy garrisons? If you're having trouble taking out France in a timely manner I suggest reading some AARs and the advice of experience players. Even against an elite player like Borger or Neil I'm able to take out France by July or the first turn of August in 1940. By making these changes and making it easier to capture France you'd see the aggressive elite players who Blitz (e.g., Joe, Max or Morris) knocking out France possibly in 1939.

3. Given the DoW cost idea is implemented: Denmark surrenders immediately.

I don't really understand this one. Denmark now is a piece of cake to knock out in one turn. In fact, in one of my current games Jim took it out on turn 1! I really don't think we need to make it any easier.

4. Nothing to do with the examples above but the Allies seem able to launch seaborne invasions far too early. From my understanding Operation Torch could not be mounted for practical reasons until late 1942 but both the AI and players seem able to launch them as early as 1941. Should this be discouraged beyond the cost of transports?

Though I haven't played a lot of games against the AI, I don't think I've ever seen or heard of the allied AI launching Torch. And as Plaid said, how in the world would the allied player launch a reasonable Torch before USA entry? In terms of the allied player launching seaborne invasions too early, I really don't see that in my games against experienced players. The timing may be a few months one way or the other versus the historical but that's usually the result of priorities and / or mistakes made.

[El_Condoro]

How is it possible to launch Torch in 1941, if you don't even have USA at war?

Exactly. Even with the USA in the war it was not possible to launch an effective seaborne assault on Europe (or North Africa) until late 42. Dieppe wasn't until 1943 and, of course, the real deal in 44. So how does Britain launch assaults in 41 or even early 42? I am playing a game where late 41 has a British force land in Bordeaux (stupid click wrong hex when moving garrison but I couldn't prevent it partly because I didn't think it was possible.) They are causing me a lot of grief just by being there!

btw does anyone launch something like Torch in CEAW or always go straight for France?

btw2 I didn't say players were launching Torch in 1941 I said 'like' Torch in the sense of seaborne assaults and unlike Torch in how early.

[rkr1958]

How is it possible to launch Torch in 1941, if you don't even have USA at war?

Exactly. Even with the USA in the war it was not possible to launch an effective seaborne assault on Europe (or North Africa) until late 42. Dieppe wasn't until 1943 and, of course, the real deal in 44. So how does Britain launch assaults in 41 or even early 42? I am playing a game where late 41 has a British force land in Bordeaux (stupid click wrong hex when moving garrison but I couldn't prevent it partly because I didn't think it was possible.) They are causing me a lot of grief just by being there!

Allowing the allied player to land in force in France in 1941 is due to inexperience in play and not a flaw in GS. Again, I'd recommend reading through the AARs and postings from experienced players on how to defend France properly.

btw does anyone launch something like Torch in CEAW or always go straight for France?

btw2 I didn't say players were launching Torch in 1941 I said 'like' Torch in the sense of seaborne assaults and unlike Torch in how early.

I launch Torch usually by fall of 1941. For me it's the easiest way to open up a second front against the axis and relieve pressure on the Russians. Also, the new surrender rules for Italy makes Torch much more attractive in my opinion.

[gerones]

It is historically doubtful that the real germans were prepared for a Case Yelow right in autumn 1939 as it is possible to do in GS 2.00 thus resulting normally in early Fall of France dates. So if something could be done regarding Western Front 1939-40 scenario for making it even more historical is to remove all allied morale penalties when the axis player chooses Blitzkrieg strategy invading both Holland and Belgium in 1939. IMO it has no sense a blitzkrieg penalty since the french army (and eventually the BEF) is already mobilized and ready for war after several turns of fighting (normally in bad weather) against the germans. This is so because I have seen games in which the axis player, using Blitzkrieg strategy, "waits" until fair weather in february 1940 to capture Brusells and this way to get the morale penalty. This is a gamey way of playing that should be removed.

[rkr1958]

It is historically doubtful that the real germans were prepared for a Case Yelow right in autumn 1939 as it is possible to do in GS 2.00 thus resulting normally in early Fall of France dates. So if something could be done regarding Western Front 1939-40 scenario for making it even more historical is to remove all allied morale penalties when the axis player chooses Blitzkrieg strategy invading both Holland and Belgium in 1939. IMO it has no sense a blitzkrieg penalty since the french army (and eventually the BEF) is already mobilized and ready for war after several turns of fighting (normally in bad weather) against the germans. This is so because I have seen games in which the axis player, using Blitzkrieg strategy, "waits" until fair weather in february 1940 to capture Brusells and this way to get the morale penalty. This is a gamey way of playing that should be removed.

Interesting point. What if the axis player only got the morale loss for a 1-turn conquest of Belgium? That would represent a lightening fast collapse and not a slow WW-I type grind.

[Rasputitsa]

I have very little experience of GS 2.0 as I have only just returned to CEaW and I am using the AI as an opponent, which is not the optimum situation for judging the game. However, the early war strategy seems to crystallise into an attack on Denmark, as Poland falls. The attack in the West seems best with an attack on Holland first, so that France can't react, but a script with Belgium joining the Allies when Holland is attacked seems reasonable, as it allows the Allies to react through Belgium in 1939, if they wish. There would not be much change if this happens in 1940, as the DOW on Belgium takes place the next turn after the DOW on Holland and the attack into France becomes a von Schlieffen variant through a collapsing Belgium. This would have been the historical events if the original German plans had not been revealed to the Allies, forcing a change into the Case Yellow we are all familiar with. The likely game events could well have been historical fact.

Even with Case Yellow, if the French had been more confident, it may have turned into a more attritional battle. During the Meuse crossing, for 13 hours French tank forces were closer to the bridges, that the Germans were building at Sedan, than the German PZ divisions. A determined counter attack (which was ordered, but through a panic, never took place) may have slowed the battle into a pace that the French might have coped with. Hitler was very nervous about the whole plan and an early reverse may have caused him to fall back onto more traditional strategies.

[ncali]

Interesting point. What if the axis player only got the morale loss for a 1-turn conquest of Belgium? That would represent a lightening fast collapse and not a slow WW-I type grind.

I don't really favor this as it could penalize bad luck and doesn't really address the nature of the penalty. The penalty applies because of the Axis blitzkrieg. What I would propose is that the continued nature of the penalty (where efficiency is recovered at a slower rate for several turns) would not apply during subsequent turns of bad weather. This would mean the Allies have a chance to recover and adjust tactics as the weather slows the blitzkrieg.

[zechi]

It is historically doubtful that the real germans were prepared for a Case Yelow right in autumn 1939 as it is possible to do in GS 2.00 thus resulting normally in early Fall of France dates. So if something could be done regarding Western Front 1939-40 scenario for making it even more historical is to remove all allied morale penalties when the axis player chooses Blitzkrieg strategy invading both Holland and Belgium in 1939. IMO it has no sense a blitzkrieg penalty since the french army (and eventually the BEF) is already mobilized and ready for war after several turns of fighting (normally in bad weather) against the germans. This is so because I have seen games in which the axis player, using Blitzkrieg strategy, "waits" until fair weather in february 1940 to capture Brusells and this way to get the morale penalty. This is a gamey way of playing that should be removed.

I don't agree. Why do you find it doubtful that the German would not have been able to do Case Yellow in autumn 1939? Only the weather hindered them do act immediately against the Western Allies. This is very good simulated in GS. This has been stated by Hitler himself in a discussion with Mannerheim (from the transcript):

Hitler and Mannerheim

The recording was made in Mannerheims train when Hitler came to visit for his birthday in June 1942.

...

Hitler: (Sighs) Only - well, it is - as I told your president [Ryti] before - I had no idea of it. If I had an idea - then I would have been even more difficult for me, but I would have taken the decision [to invade] anyhow, because - there was no other possibility. It was - certain, already in the winter of '39/ '40, that the war had to begin. I had only this nightmare - but there is even more! Because a war on two fronts - would have been impossible - that would have broken us. Today, we see more clearly - than we saw at that time - it would have broken us. And my whole - I originally wanted to - already in the fall of '39 I wanted to conduct the campaign in the west - on the continuously bad weather we experienced hindered us.

Our whole armament - you know, was - is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the west, and we all thought, and this was true 'till that time, uh, it was the opinion from the earliest times: you cannot wage war in winter. And we too, have, the German tanks, they weren't tested, for example, to prepare them for winter war. Instead we conducted trials to prove it was impossible to wage war in winter. That is a different starting point [than the Soviet's]. In the fall of 1939 we always faced the question. I desperately wanted to attack, and I firmly believed we could finish France in six weeks.

However, we faced the question of whether we could move at all - it was raining continuously. And I know the French area myself very well and I too could not ignore the opinions, of many of my generals that, we - probably - would not have had the élan, that our tank arm would not have been, effective, that our air force could not been effective from our airfields because of the rain.

I know northern France myself. You know, I served in the Great War for four years. And - so the delay happened. If I had in '39 eliminated France, then world history would have changed. But I had to wait 'till 1940, and unfortunately it wasn't possible before May. Only on the 10th of May was the first nice day - and on the 10th of May I immediately attacked. I gave the order to attack on the 10th on the 8th. And - then we had to, conduct this huge transfer of our divisions from the west to the east.

First the occupation of - then we had the task in Norway - at the same time we faced - I can frankly say it today - a grave misfortune, namely the - weakness of, Italy. Because of - first, the situation in North Africa, then, second, because of the situation in Albania and Greece - a very big misfortune. We had to help. This meant for us, with one small stoke, first - the splitting of our air force, splitting our tank force, while at the same time we were preparing, the, tank arm in the east. We had to hand over - with one stroke, two divisions, two whole divisions and a third was then added - and we had to replace continuous, very severe, losses there. It was - bloody fighting in the desert.

This all naturally was inevitable, you see. I had a conversation with Molotov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Molotov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to - impossible, to forestall him. There was - this was the only - because the demands that man brought up were clearly aimed to rule, Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him - not publicly...(fades out).

Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to - negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter - because I always feared - that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall - and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, than Germany would have been lost. It would have required - just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.

In Romania we had of course - at that time - no major units. The Romanian government had turned to us only recently - and what we did have there was laughable. They only had to occupy the petroleum wells. Of course, with our weapons I could not start a, war in September or October. That was out of the question. Naturally, the transfer to the east wasn't that far advanced yet. Of course, the units first had to reconsolidate in the west. First the armaments had to be taken care of because we too had - yes, we also had losses in our campaign in the west. It would have been impossible to attack - before the spring of 19, 41. And if the Russians at that time - in the fall of 1940 - had occupied Romania - taken the petroleum wells, then we would have been, helpless in 1941.

I think the German "good weather armament" is very good simulated in GS right now.

[zechi]

Therefore I think it could be given a try to make it easier for the Axis player to conquer the Netherlands and Denmark in 1940. Both countries could surrender immediately after the DOW in 1940. This would make it at least an option for the Axis player not to invade in 1939, but instead wait until 1940. Other alternatives would be to decrease the military strenght of Denmark and the Netherlands in 1940, so that it is a lot easier to force a surrender in 1940 then in 1939. This could symbolise the morale effect the Blitzkrieg in Poland and the inactivity of the western Allies had on minor countries during this time.

I also think that would make the opening phase of the game a little bit more interesting. If there is an incentive to invade Holland and Denmark in 1940, then the Axis player would have more options to start the game. He could either go for the current standard opening or choose a more historical one.

All this sounds fine if the axis player follows the historical timeline. Believe me when I say you have players that will find and exploit any weakness in the game or order of battle. So while you may tweak everything to work very well if the game if played in an historical sense you mind find that a player has come up with a sure way to win in a most unhistorical way. We've gone through a lot of playtesting and tweaking to try to establish an historical fall date between equally matched and experienced players. See viewtopic.php?p=229301#229301

I do not really understand your answer. My proposal is to give the Axis player another alternative for his opening moves. It should of course be possible to take out Denmark and the Netherlands in 1939, but I think we should make it also an option to do it on the historical dates. Right now it is a better decision to invade Denmark and the Netherlands in 1939 then in in 1940. You get the PP earlier and both can be achieved even during bad weather in a few turns.

In 1940 the Danish surrendered after six hours. The Netherlands surrendered after only 4 days in 1940. In GS it will take me a full turn to take out Denmark (20 days) or even two turns (with bad luck). The Netherlands will also take most likely two or even three turns to finish off in 1940. Both is not very historical, as both countries surrendered extremely quickly.

In contrast the Belgian nearly held out for a full turn (20 days).

Therefore we could make it easier for the German to invade Denmark and the Netherlands in 1940 (for 1939 all remains the same), if the Germans took out Poland and its a fair weather turn. As suggested Denmark and the Netherlands could surrender immediately if the Germans invade in 1940 during a fair weather turn.