AAR – Ronnie vs. Dan (GSv2.01.32) (The War is Over).

[rkr1958]

Turn 88. June 6, 1944 Axis.

[rkr1958]

The war is over. The Russians unconditionally surrendered and the US/USA agreed to an armistice.

I wish to thank Dan for the game and for being such a good sport.

[Clark]

The war is over. The Russians unconditionally surrendered and the US/USA agreed to an armistice.

I wish to thank Dan for the game and for being such a good sport.

Congrats on one of the most solid wins I've seen in an AAR since vanilla CEAW! Even though I would have liked to see the game all the way to May 1945, I can't blame Dan for surrendering. The Allies are supposed to get to have their fun in the latter half of the game, but it looks like the fun is never going to come for him.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Congratulations on your first Omsk capture. I guess this proves that the Axis can still do it in GS.

[Blathergut]

Congratulations on your first Omsk capture. I guess this proves that the Axis can still do it in GS.

When they're playing me!

[gsmart04]

This was a fantastic AAR! I'm a new player to the game and am amazed at what Ron was able to do. I find myself constantly fighting oil usage as the Axis and the Russian front has far from crumbled for me.

Thanks so much for posting this.

[supermax]

Congrats Ronnie it was a great AAR.

I am relieved to see that it can still be done!

[rkr1958]

This was a fantastic AAR! I'm a new player to the game and am amazed at what Ron was able to do. I find myself constantly fighting oil usage as the Axis and the Russian front has far from crumbled for me.

Thanks so much for posting this.

Thanks for following, glad you enjoyed and found it instructive.

Congrats Ronnie it was a great AAR.

I am relieved to see that it can still be done!

Wow ... thanks! I still haven't snatched the pebble from your hand yet!

[supermax]

Ronnie, do you think its possible to do this if the russian player stays exclusively on the defensive till 1942?

There were a couple of games where i really hit the russians hard but they just melted away in the russia hinterland, so couldnt really reach them ...

I am wondering how possible it is to win this game if the russians simply dont do anything against the germans unless its winter and 1943?

[Diplomaticus]

Ronnie, do you think its possible to do this if the russian player stays exclusively on the defensive till 1942?

There were a couple of games where i really hit the russians hard but they just melted away in the russia hinterland, so couldnt really reach them ...

I am wondering how possible it is to win this game if the russians simply dont do anything against the germans unless its winter and 1943?

Max asks a great question. One possible answer is this:

If the Russians truly do 'melt away' and avoid all consequential combat up until fall of 1942, the German player may seize this as an opportunity. Force the Soviets to choose between retreating & conserving their army or losing extremely valuable assets. As Axis you should look to hit him where it hurts--maybe Moscow, as in this thread; maybe the oil fields, maybe Stalingrad.

In my current game (2.0) versus a 'melt-awayer' it's October 1943 and the Axis is still very much in the fight, in no small part because he retreated so far, so fast that I was able to seize key spots like Stalingrad. Remember that every point of production that you capture from the Allies is a double-whammy--they lose and you gain.

[supermax]

maybe i should re-phrase my question by being more specific:

melt away while buildig up a counter attack force composed of all mechs and tanks available in and around stalingrad and building up a double line of infantry in front os moscow.

this renders any offensive towards moscow and stalingrad VERY dangerous to axis forces in 1941.

for 1942, after the winter offensive by russians and ifthe germans were lucky enough not to be to forward and not too beat up,maybee they can go towrd moscow and stalingrad,but again at great cost and with no real results.

i am saying this because against a defensive player that decide he can defend moscow and stalingrad, the germans cant do much especially if the western allies try to land as a diversion in 1942.

any thoughts? i believe that against a good-experienced player the axis has no chance whatsoever to just win
the game by keeping berlin.

so why do barbarossa aymore?

[Crazygunner1]

maybe i should re-phrase my question by being more specific:

melt away while buildig up a counter attack force composed of all mechs and tanks available in and around stalingrad and building up a double line of infantry in front os moscow.

this renders any offensive towards moscow and stalingrad VERY dangerous to axis forces in 1941.

for 1942, after the winter offensive by russians and ifthe germans were lucky enough not to be to forward and not too beat up,maybee they can go towrd moscow and stalingrad,but again at great cost and with no real results.

i am saying this because against a defensive player that decide he can defend moscow and stalingrad, the germans cant do much especially if the western allies try to land as a diversion in 1942.

any thoughts? i believe that against a good-experienced player the axis has no chance whatsoever to just win
the game by keeping berlin.
so why do barbarossa aymore?

I think the game is much more as it was in reality, the germans really have to be careful when advancing in 42 against any of the major cities. I think victory in the east against a good player is hard to come by, you simply have to destroy as much corps as possible during summer so you force him to replace his losses instead of building up a tank/mech army. In our game Max, you retreated with Axis during summer 42 already. If you would have advanced let´s say against Leningrad, i would have lost a lot of valuable corps that needs to be replaced. You also could have done it without risking a major counterattack. At this stage it wouldn´t change that much but it atleast would delay me efforts.

To be honest i don´t really see allied invasion to be that much of a diversion. Sure they will be able to land, but they won´t get anywhere. A german tank and mech together with minor allies can dislogde them pretty easy and throw them back in the sea. Just got to prevent them from capturing a port. In our game Max i thought about it but i soon realized that it would be just a waste of allied troops without support.

[supermax]

hey craz,

our gane is not a good example i wasted it by activating spain and spending all these ressources in north africa.

i am talking about a game where the germans concentrate 100% of their effort on the russians and the russians getting defensive only til stalingrad and moscow.

as you say it should be very hard against a real good player, even impossible.

i quite agree with you.

when i look at my game with zechi, its much more sensible to do it the other way... that is overlooking the russians entirely

especially with what will transpire in a little while in that game.

[Diplomaticus]

To be honest i don´t really see allied invasion to be that much of a diversion. Sure they will be able to land, but they won´t get anywhere. A german tank and mech together with minor allies can dislogde them pretty easy and throw them back in the sea. Just got to prevent them from capturing a port. In our game Max i thought about it but i soon realized that it would be just a waste of allied troops without support.

In my experience playing 2.0, the Allies certainly can succeed in 1942 landings in France because it's so easy to establish air supremacy. I haven't tested this out in the latest beta versions yet, and I have hopes that the changes in research, etc. will help a lot. Because I'm so used to seeing Allies with insuperable air power based in England as early as summer 1942, I hated to see us add that "Polish" fighter to the mix.

Consider this: England gets "free" (i.e. either at start or in programmed additions at various points) 3 UK fighters (England, Malta, & Egypt), 1 Canadian fighter, 1 Polish fighter, 1 strat bomber, & 2 CV's. By contrast, Germany gets 2 fighters, 2 tac, & 1 strat bomber. That adds up to a UK fighter advantage (counting carriers) of 7:2! And that's without any help from the USA. True, the UK does have to pay to build up the Malta & Polish fighters, but that cost is trivial compared to the cost of building a fighter from scratch.

[supermax]

hey craz,

our gane is not a good example i wasted it by activating spain and spending all these ressources in north africa.

i am talking about a game where the germans concentrate 100% of their effort on the russians and the russians getting defensive only til stalingrad and moscow.

as you say it should be very hard against a real good player, even impossible.

i quite agree with you.

when i look at my game with zechi, its much more sensible to do it the other way... that is overlooking the russians entirely

especially with what will transpire in a little while in that game.

[Diplomaticus]

To be honest i don´t really see allied invasion to be that much of a diversion. Sure they will be able to land, but they won´t get anywhere. A german tank and mech together with minor allies can dislogde them pretty easy and throw them back in the sea. Just got to prevent them from capturing a port. In our game Max i thought about it but i soon realized that it would be just a waste of allied troops without support.

In my experience playing 2.0, the Allies certainly can succeed in 1942 landings in France because it's so easy to establish air supremacy. I haven't tested this out in the latest beta versions yet, and I have hopes that the changes in research, etc. will help a lot. Because I'm so used to seeing Allies with insuperable air power based in England as early as summer 1942, I hated to see us add that "Polish" fighter to the mix.

Consider this: England gets "free" (i.e. either at start or in programmed additions at various points) 3 UK fighters (England, Malta, & Egypt), 1 Canadian fighter, 1 Polish fighter, 1 strat bomber, & 2 CV's. By contrast, Germany gets 2 fighters, 2 tac, & 1 strat bomber. That adds up to a UK fighter advantage (counting carriers) of 7:2! And that's without any help from the USA. True, the UK does have to pay to build up the Malta & Polish fighters, but that cost is trivial compared to the cost of building a fighter from scratch.

[Crazygunner1]

True about the added fighter....i don´t like it either

But you forgot to add the Axis minor fighters....they are 4 in total including the italian one, true they are not as good but they can hold their own against Russia to atleast 42 maybe 43.

Max, i understand what you mean, i just think Barbarossa needs to be executed differently than before. In the east you are now fighting for small edges that in the long run will prevent the russians from reaching Berlin.

While on the subject i rarely see an italian surrender in 43 or before....is that common? It seems farely easy to hold Italy...

[Peter Stauffenberg]

While on the subject i rarely see an italian surrender in 43 or before....is that common? It seems farely easy to hold Italy...

Still, people want to get rid of Tunis as a Italian surrender city. Then it will become even harder to take out Italy.

[Crazygunner1]

While on the subject i rarely see an italian surrender in 43 or before....is that common? It seems farely easy to hold Italy...

Still, people want to get rid of Tunis as a Italian surrender city. Then it will become even harder to take out Italy.

No we shouldn´t do that, is it still 3 cities that forces Italian surrender? Then Axis loose half of oil supply upon the surrender and gain the left over PPs that are yet not occupied by allies?

[Diplomaticus]

True about the added fighter....i don´t like it either

But you forgot to add the Axis minor fighters....they are 4 in total including the italian one, true they are not as good but they can hold their own against Russia to atleast 42 maybe 43.

You're right about those fighters... but I didn't forget them. All I was doing in my post was showing how lopsided the lineup is Germany vs. UK. When you add in the Finn, Romanian, Hungarian and Italian aircraft then you have to add in the Russians and Americans! The way I shake it out, the Russians and the Italians/Minor Allies more or less cancel out. The Americans are all gravy.