GS v2.2 Blitzkrieg turn 2 attack modified

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Here is my modified Blitzkrieg turn 2 attack that increases the chance to take Brussels.

Turn 1: Transfer 1 corps, 1 mech, 2 armor and entire Luftwaffe from the east.

Turn 2:



This image shows the start location of the units at turn 2. The key is to get the 2 garrison units into fighting.

1. Move corps 1x NW of Essen to 1x N of Arnhem and attack and attack garrison in 1xNW of Arnhem. Advance after combat.

2. Move the garrison 2xSE of Arnhem to 1xNE of Arnhem and attack garrison in Arnhem.

3. Move the garrison 1x NW + 1xN of Scholven to 1xN of Arnhem and attack Arnhem. Advance after combat. If you for some reason fail to take Arnhem you send a fighter to Arnhem to finish off the defender.



This is the situation after the first 3 attacks and the Dutch units are dealt with. Hague is left for now. It can be dealt with in turn 3-4.

4. Use fighter 1xNW of Frankfurt to bombard Belgian garrison 1x NE of Brussels. This attack serves 2 purposes. One is to engage the French fighter and the other is to deplete and drop efficiency on the garrison. This attack must happen first so the English fighter can't engage.

5. Use fighter 1xSE of Cologne against Belgian corps in Brussels. This will engage the British fighter and maybe inflict a step loss upon the Belgian corps.

6. Use the tactical bomber 1xS + 1xSE of Cologne to bombard Brussels. Expect 1-2 step losses on the Brussels corps.

7. Use the strategic bomber in Scholven to bombard the garrison 1x NE of Brussels.

8. Use tactical bomber 1xNE of Cologne to bombard the Antwerp garrison.



This is the situation after all the airstrikes.

9. Use corps 1xNW of Scholven to 1x NE of Antwerp to attack the Antwerp garrison . Do NOT advance after combat. If the Antwerp defender is still alive you use the Corps in Cologne and move it to 1x SE and attack. Then you advance into Antwerp. Then you use the armor unit 1x NE of Cologne to move 1x SE of Antwerp to attack the garrison 1x NE of Brussels

10. Use corps in Cologne to move to Antwerp and attack garrison 1xS of Antwerp. Do NOT advance after combat. If the unit is not destroyed then you use the armor unit 1x NE of Cologne to move 1xSE of Antwerp to attack the garrison 1x NE of Brussels


This is the situation when Brussels is stripped of its defenders.

11. Move the German mech unit 2xN of Cologne to 1xNE of Brussels and attack Brussels. Expected Brussels losses is 3 steps.

12. Move the German armor unit 1xN of Cologne to 1xNW of Brussels and attack Brussels. Expected Brussels losses is 2 steps.

13. Move the German armor unit 1xNE of Cologne to 1xN of Brussels and attack Brussels. Expected Brussels losses is 2 steps. Advance after combat to force a Belgian surrender.

With this option you have a chance to use 3 units against Brussels to increase the odds. If you get unlucky in the beginning then you designate the rear armor unit to finish off a Belgian unit protecting Brussels. Then you still have 2 units against Brussels as you had before.


This is the situation when Belgium surrenders.

The major upside to this way to deal with Blitzkrieg turn 2 is that you get a bigger chance to capture Belgium in 1 turn.
A side benefit is that on turn 3 you have 2 armor and 1 mech unit at the front line that can immediately go after French units.

The major downsides with this way to deal with Blitzkrieg turn 2 are twofolded:
1. The rail transfer cost is considerably higher since you need to get an extra armor unit to the west instead of a corps unit.
2. The invasion of Poland is weaker so you might not even take Warsaw on turn 3. Then you may need to wear down Poland in mud weather.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I tested this setup 10 times and captured Brussels 9 times. Most times I didn't even need the extra armor to take Brussels so it could go for Lille instead.

1 time I failed to kill the Dutch garrison with the 2 German garrisons. The fighter finished it off. 3 times I failed to kill the Belgian garrison 1x NE of Brussels after 2 airstrikes and 1 corps attack. Then the armor attack finished it off. Brussels still fell with the 1 mech and other armor attack.

The only time I failed with Brussels was when both airstrikes (1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber) did NO damage at all. The efficiency wasn't dropped enough for the land units to finish it off. Brussels survived at 1 step.

I continued some of these attacks and then Holland and Poland both fell on turn 4. So if you can afford spending a lot on rail overuse on turn 1 and wait with the fall of Holland and Poland to turn 4 then this way to take Belgium is the preferred one. The German units managed to take Lille on turn 3 and cross the river into France on turn 4.

I prefer sitzkrieg myself because you know you WILL succeed regardless of the outcome of the dice. With blitzkrieg you need to be good to improvise so you still achieve your goals. You will get more losses so you have to be careful to not be overly aggressive.

[GogTheMild]

You don't actually need to attack that second Dutch GAR, so you can save yourself some rail costs.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

True if your main goal is just Belgium. If you want to capture Hague as soon as possible then it's best to get adjacent of Hague on turn 1 of Case Yellow.

[GogTheMild]

If I do an early blitz I rarely bother with the Hague until after Paris falls. From a recent 2.2 test against Kragdob:

Arnhem taken by the GARs and the Luftwaffe has done its job:



And failing to take Brussels by one step:



I'm not too worried about the Dutch. They're not going anywhere.

[timrt]

May be I am totally off base here, but why?

Why are you looking to modify a game so that an 1939 attack into Belguim & Holland can be successful 9 times out of 10? Where is this supposed to take the game? So far as I understand it, Germany was totally unprepared for a 2 front war in 1939 and Hitler remained unsure of success right into 1940. Thereafter it went to his head along with every thing else that was there - enough said. Yet here we are looking at a modification that is telling us how to succeed and making the changes to do just that, do what Germany was unprepared to do and unwilling to do.

So I ask again, why? Why make these changes? I genuinely do not understand?

[jimwinsor]

Because the Fortress Europa strategy is popular right now, which uses a 1939 blitz.

[timrt]

You are probably right but that doesnt mean the game should be biased one way just because a number of very good players like it that way, surely?

[GogTheMild]

Have a look at my AAR. If you do a turn 2 blitz as suggested by Stauffenberg then not only do you pay a small fortune in rail PPs, but your attack into Poland, if you even dare to make one, is almost certain to be a disaster. Realistically you need the Luftwaffe against Poland in turn one, which means that you can't launch Case Yellow until turn 3. Which makes it weather dependent. Even if turn 3 is fair, you don't know what turns 4 and 5 will bring. So an early blitz now comes with some serious uncertainty. (Under 2.1 you could take Brussels and Warsaw in turn 2 with >95% certainty.)

[timrt]

I still advocate that Germany was not prepared for a two front war in 1939, militarily, logistically or politically.

Perhaps the surprise impact on Belguim and Holland should be removed or halved in 1939?

[Cybvep]

No, don't remove this option. It's important for alternative strategies. I agree that it's not historical, but the way the game is balanced, the Axis needs this.

[Morris]

Game can not make everything historic ! For example , Is it historic that UK & USA launch a Normandy in 1942 ? Of course not ! But It usually happened in the game ( Maybe fewer in 2.2) . Is it possible for the Russians to counter attack in the winter of 1941 ? No , it was impossible . But it does happen in the game many times . This is a strategetic game not a history text book . Let's just enjoy the game !

[Cybvep]

Is it possible for the Russians to counter attack in the winter of 1941 ? No , it was impossible

??? This is exactly what happened IRL.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I still advocate that Germany was not prepared for a two front war in 1939, militarily, logistically or politically.

Perhaps the surprise impact on Belguim and Holland should be removed or halved in 1939?

Actually blitzkrieg is harder in GS v2.2 that it was in GS v2.1 due to the map changes. This thread shows that you can still do it, but you need to transfer a lot of units from the east on turn 1. The downside is a huge rail overuse bill and a later fall of Warsaw.

It's a gamble and you might risk not taking Warsaw on turn 2 and then get mud weather so Warsaw can last several turns. That means you can't get as many units railed to the west to exploit the early attack on France.

So sitzkrieg will still be the preferred option for most players.

In the beta team some people claimed that the map changes had ruined any chance for blitzkrieg and then this thread shows that it's not entirely true. You can still do it.

In GS v2.1 you could more easily take Belgium on turn 2. Actually in most strategic wargames you can place your initial German forces to do a blitzkrieg. E. g. in World In Flames you see many Axis players attack west in Sep/Oct 1939.

I think a strategic game should give you a POSSIBILITY to do ahistorical things. That helps with the game replayability.

[timrt]

I fully accept that this is a game not a historical refight. However, the background should still be based on the historical understanding of the period, the winter in Russia, the entry of the USA etc etc. All that I am saying is should this game be so adjusted simply so that a specific approach such as fortress europe can be more easily achieved by those that want to win as axis? I think not without careful thought.

[Kragdob]

I fully accept that this is a game not a historical refight. However, the background should still be based on the historical understanding of the period, the winter in Russia, the entry of the USA etc etc. All that I am saying is should this game be so adjusted simply so that a specific approach such as fortress europe can be more easily achieved by those that want to win as axis? I think not without careful thought.

This option is not just because some people wants it. It is (probably a little bit unhistorical) to add flavor that some people may like to play.

[JimR]

I fully accept that this is a game not a historical refight. However, the background should still be based on the historical understanding of the period, the winter in Russia, the entry of the USA etc etc. All that I am saying is should this game be so adjusted simply so that a specific approach such as fortress europe can be more easily achieved by those that want to win as axis? I think not without careful thought.

This option is not just because some people wants it. It is (probably a little bit unhistorical) to add flavor that some people may like to play.

If the Germans opt for an early Blitzkrieg (and it fails) they risk getting bogged down in a slow-moving muddy and wintry battle in Belgium and France. In the meantime, they've had to spend more time taking Poland (because the Luftwaffe headed west), and they probably haven't made a 1939 bid for Denmark/Norway either. So the option for the Germans to try an early blitzkrieg is there, but if they choose it their choice brings costs and risks. Ability to make these choices results in a better game.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The game between Gog and Kragdob just shows that the Germans can cope with not taking Brussels in one turn. They have such an overwhelming force so they will overrun France pretty fast anyway.

It's not like an Axis player failing to take Brussels in one turn will quit the game and demand a restart. It's a minor setback, but you will get German units into France in 1939 and can grind down the French to be in Paris earlier than a sitzkrieg option. That opens up for Sealion etc.

[Morris]

The game between Gog and Kragdob just shows that the Germans can cope with not taking Brussels in one turn. They have such an overwhelming force so they will overrun France pretty fast anyway.

It's not like an Axis player failing to take Brussels in one turn will quit the game and demand a restart. It's a minor setback, but you will get German units into France in 1939 and can grind down the French to be in Paris earlier than a sitzkrieg option. That opens up for Sealion etc.

It just because French suffered 10 effective loss after Axis taking Belgium for 2 turns . This change solve the above problem .

[Cybvep]

Yes, I think that it was a very good idea. It's still better to take Brussels in 1 turn, but if it takes you 2 turns, then it won't be such a big setback, either.