CEAW GS: Fortress Europa Strategy too powerful

[GogTheMild]

The lack of Barbarossa in May '41 would be a bit of a giveaway. Up to then the Allied player wouldn't do a lot different even if they knew which strategy they were facing.

[veritas]

Offhand, it seems to me that knowledge might influence decisions about the distribution of UK forces between North Africa and the homeland.

[Crazygunner1]

So if this is the case...where does the "elemt of surprise" lie?

I mean it´s not a surprise to see sealion coming....early fall of france and you can expect it. If Axis player is very active in NA and other parts of the map before 41 Barbarossa then you can supsect a 42 Barbarossa...not much surprise there either.

[veritas]

In a recent game I was playing, my opponent devoted more effort to the defense of Egypt and Iraq than I suspect he would have otherwise, had he known I was planning an FE strategy. This left him more vulnerable in NW Africa and the UK homeland, which were my real targets. I made a feint toward the Iraqi oil, but in reality it wasn't that important for me, since I wouldn't be burning it up with Barbarossa.

[richardsd]

In a recent game I was playing, my opponent devoted more effort to the defense of Egypt and Iraq than I suspect he would have otherwise, had he known I was planning an FE strategy. This left him more vulnerable in NW Africa and the UK homeland, which were my real targets. I made a feint toward the Iraqi oil, but in reality it wasn't that important for me, since I wouldn't be burning it up with Barbarossa.

I'm with grazyg here (and he is a top player and I am not), there is no real surprise until 42 Barbarossa happens or not and even then some attack just a little

all the other 'options' could be standard strategies

equally not wanting to be impolite, but until you have played against the top players you don't really have an idea of how the game balance goes

I believe the game is biased a fraction towards the Axis when in the hands of top players, below that level its in favor of the Allies

[veritas]

Based on my own observations, I agree about the bias toward the Axis with skilled players. Forgive my inexperience with these forums, but how does one come to be recognized as a "top player" of CEAW GS? Like the rest of my posts, this is an honest question, and not meant to be derisive in any way.

[richardsd]

Based on my own observations, I agree about the bias toward the Axis with skilled players. Forgive my inexperience with these forums, but how does one come to be recognized as a "top player" of CEAW GS? Like the rest of my posts, this is an honest question, and not meant to be derisive in any way.

you may already be a top player, but to be recognised as a top player, IMHO you need to beat one these of at least once:

joe Rock
grazyg
staffenburg
I would add Morris too, but I beat him in a game and I am not a top player

there is a another bunch just below this who are very very good too but not yet as well known or as 'elite'

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There are several other elite players out there like Supermax and Rkr1958.

I haven't played that many games so I'm not at the very top level. I lost against Joerock and can play even against Rkr1958 and Richardsd. I can maybe be among the 5-6 in a championship, but there are others who can do better. One reason is that my playing style is too predictable. I don't try out strange strategies, but play safe instead. That means I don't make big mistakes, but I don't take anyone by surprise either.

I'm like a boring chess player who will rarely lose, but rarely win either.

[Morris]

I'm like a boring chess player who will rarely lose, but rarely win either.

So you are so rare !

[veritas]

I'm with grazyg here (and he is a top player and I am not), there is no real surprise until 42 Barbarossa happens or not and even then some attack just a little

all the other 'options' could be standard strategies

I really appreciate this conversation--once again, no impertinence intended. Hear me out, though. Without any supporting details, statements to the effect of “Top Players can easily beat Fortress Europa” are insufficient to make a logical case, and they don’t edify the CEAW GS community. The latter is especially true for players who are new to the discussion forum, if not the game itself. [Unless, of course, the goal is to discourage new players from contributing to the forum; hopefully that’s not the case ] Recognized Top Players can also make mistakes and/or suffer from group think occasionally.

Let me address the notion that an Allied player wouldn’t do anything different prior to May 1941, even if they absolutely knew their opponent planned Fortress Europa from the start. Certainly, all of the options are “standard strategies”, but some “standard strategies” are likely to provide more benefit than others. Allocating additional early effort to defending Egypt is less strategically important because the oil won’t be needed to fuel Barbarossa, and the Soviets will have plenty of PP to send units through Iran if needed. The UK is better off defending the homeland and NW Africa. FE foreknowledge might legitimately influence early UK decisions about the relative balance between labs and units for homeland defense, given that Sea Lion is likely to occur with FE. Early Soviet lab specialization choices might also be influenced, given the USSR will be on the offensive rather than reeling from Barbarossa (i.e., artillery vs. fixed defenses, blitzkrieg vs. armor). These are all subtle points, but in totality, I personally put more confidence in blind trial evaluation of FE.

[Giovanni705]

Hello
I think you are absolutely right, but missing the point. If a good Allies player simply prepares a good defense against Sealion, regardless of Axis strategy a good idea, and is fast in defending Casablanca after Vichy is refused, also not difficoult, Axis is left wit at best England paid dearly and at worst with nothing. Now FE became a losing proposition, Russia will be enough to win handily. So it is a MUST to pull a succesfully FE to have England in not a too expensive way or Spain, better both. Doable, but hardly a prefered choice. Spain is very important not only for the PP, but also because you can take Gibilterra and with suez protect Italy to the very end of the game. Still a simple Yogu, Greece and 1941 Barbarossa is much safer road and easier to get a win. So all I am saying is that FE is not too powerful, on the contrary is more problematic to pull trough. But of course is doable ...

[veritas]

I wasn't missing the point, just the details (which you have kindly provided ) Thank you. This gives me something to think about for a bit.

[GogTheMild]

Adding a couple of comments, in what I hope is a constructive manner, in response to two of your points.

Allocating additional early effort to defending Egypt is less strategically important because the oil won’t be needed to fuel Barbarossa.

I am not so sure. If I knew that the Axis were going to FE, then I would put all the resources I could spare into Egypt. I would want to be mopping up North Africa and being a nuisance around Sicily, Sardinia and Vichy North Africa as early as I could, safe in the knowledge that I would meet little opposition. (So which ever the Axis strategy, what I would do as the Allies is similar.)

FE foreknowledge might legitimately influence early UK decisions about the relative balance between labs and units for homeland defense, given that Sea Lion is likely to occur with FE.

I would support what Giovanni says: I would imagine that every Allied player builds for the UK, until and unless a 1941 Barbarossa happens, on the assumption that they will be Sealioned. Labs included. (Excellent ARM in 1944 is of less use to the UK in Canada than London.) If they don't then I would like to play them please .

[veritas]

Good points all. THIS is the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thanks.

[richardsd]

There are several other elite players out there like Supermax and Rkr1958.

I haven't played that many games so I'm at the very top level. I lost against Joerock and can play even against Rkr1958 and Richardsd. I can maybe be among the 5-6 in a championship, but there are others who can do better. One reason is that my playing style is too predictable. I don't try out strange strategies and play safe. That means I don't make big mistakes, but I don't take anyone by surprise either.

I'm like a boring chess player who will rarely lose, but rarely win either.

oops how did I miss Supermax 0ff the list!

note to self - have a game with Rkr1958

[richardsd]

I wasn't missing the point, just the details (which you have kindly provided ) Thank you. This gives me something to think about for a bit.

FE is a very broad idea, if want specifics then you could provide detail on what FE you mean

- Sealion

- Sealion and Spain

- Sealion and Spain and initial Barbarossa

- Sealion and Spain and the Middle east

there are many many options to FE

[veritas]

I am referring to the Fortress Europa strategy as it is described in the current CEAW GS 2.1 manual, section 12.19, and summarized in my original post:

(The main elements of this strategy are getting Spain to join the Axis, beating up the UK in Africa, launching Sealion, and then settling in to defend the Axis territory. There is NO invasion of the Soviet Union, other than a minor strike right before they would otherwise automatically join the war in 1942.)

On a side note, the whole notion of not launching Barbarossa opens up a very interesting, often debated historical question--would the Soviets have eventually attacked the Axis if Germany had not broken the M-R pact?

*Edited for clarity

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There are information showing that Stalin wanted to buy time with the non-aggression time. Just as Hitler wanted. Stalin's plans was to attack Germany in 1942. This is similar to Russia activating anyway in the Spring of 1942 if not attacked before by Germany.

I think it would have been unlikely that Russian would remain in peace with Germany unless Britain had also been conquered.

[Morris]

There are information showing that Stalin wanted to buy time with the non-aggression time. Just as Hitler wanted. Stalin's plans was to attack Germany in 1942. This is similar to Russia activating anyway in the Spring of 1942 if not attacked before by Germany.

I think it would have been unlikely that Russian would remain in peace with Germany unless Britain had also been conquered.

If Stalin really want to attack Germany in 1942 , He should have prepared enough oil much more than they have in this game in 1942

[veritas]

There are information showing that Stalin wanted to buy time with the non-aggression time. Just as Hitler wanted. Stalin's plans was to attack Germany in 1942. This is similar to Russia activating anyway in the Spring of 1942 if not attacked before.

That is really interesting Stauffenberg. Can you recommend any books or websites, etc., for further reading?