GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

[Morris]

Turn 9 Feb 8th 1940 fair

Finally axis get an early fair turn ! They launch full attack by the support of 2 Ftr & 2 Tacs & 1 Str (maybe more plane on the production line)& kill one corp & 3 Gars . Holland still hold .

[GPT55]

Hague does not have anything to do with the Allied morale loss. Only Brussels. The morale loss came from the effects of the German blitzkrieg.

My mistake about The Hague.

The Allies rushed their best troops into Belgium, the Germans went around and behind them, and it was over. Why should the Allies escape this fate by rushing into Belgium even faster? I agree that things could have gone very differently had the German's not been able to do this rapid penetration, but why should rushing into Belgium early disable the German blitzkrieg? Even with the morale loss the Germans can't possibly achieve what they did historically (French surrender in 2 turns), even with an experienced player against a newbie (or AI). I believe the game is less interesting when the Germans struggle early, ending any realistic chance to win.

[Morris]

Hague does not have anything to do with the Allied morale loss. Only Brussels. The morale loss came from the effects of the German blitzkrieg.

My mistake about The Hague.

The Allies rushed their best troops into Belgium, the Germans went around and behind them, and it was over. Why should the Allies escape this fate by rushing into Belgium even faster? I agree that things could have gone very differently had the German's not been able to do this rapid penetration, but why should rushing into Belgium early disable the German blitzkrieg? Even with the morale loss the Germans can't possibly achieve what they did historically (French surrender in 2 turns), even with an experienced player against a newbie (or AI). I believe the game is less interesting when the Germans struggle early, ending any realistic chance to win.

When I was lucky enough to have 5 fair turn in 1939 , I had achived to conquer Paris on Dec30th 1939 against a experienced player . Do you think it realistic ?

[GPT55]

[quote="Morris]When I was lucky enough to have 5 fair turn in 1939 , I had achived to conquer Paris on Dec30th 1939 against a experienced player . Do you think it realistic ? [/quote]

Maybe not, but 5 fair turns is very unusual, and who really knows what could have happened if the Germans had attacked France in September 1939 and the weather had been great? And it was probably an interesting game. Was it an AAR?

Anyway, implausible ahistorical outcomes will and should always be possible. I am arguing that when the actual historical outcome (2-turn conquest of France) is already impossible in the game, let's not make it still harder for the Axis.

[Vokt]

Excuse me if I go too far with this but IMO to allow France to DOW Belgium in this game is a similar thing than allowing Italy to join the allies as it happened in WW1.

[Vokt]

Although for gaming reasons I'm not totally opposed to allow this. Only that it should be way more painful for the allies than it is now.

[JimR]

Let's watch what happens to Dyle stratagems in a number of 3.0 games. If Dyle turns out to be a consistent Axis killer, then raising its cost to the Allies (or prohibiting an Allied DoW altogether against Belgium) may be necessary. But if Axis players can find a way to counteract Dyle, then it's better for the game if the Dyle option continues to be there.

[Morris]

[quote="Morris]When I was lucky enough to have 5 fair turn in 1939 , I had achived to conquer Paris on Dec30th 1939 against a experienced player . Do you think it realistic ?

Maybe not, but 5 fair turns is very unusual, and who really knows what could have happened if the Germans had attacked France in September 1939 and the weather had been great? And it was probably an interesting game. Was it an AAR?

Anyway, implausible ahistorical outcomes will and should always be possible. I am arguing that when the actual historical outcome (2-turn conquest of France) is already impossible in the game, let's not make it still harder for the Axis.[/quote][/quote]

yes ,an AAR with Mr Kragdob.

[Morris]

Turn 10 Feb 28th 1940 Mud


The mud weather save Holland to be alive one more turn . No big fight but supply . Next turn should be bloody!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One simple change could be to alter this value in general.txt

US_EFFICIENCY_LOSS_IF_ALLIED_DOW 5 /* The US war effort will be reduced by this number * 1.2 if the Allies DoW's a minor power prior to US entry */

It could be double to 10 or even further to 15. That means US war effort drops by 12 or even 18 before US entry. Doing so means USA will start their tech builds even later and pre war production will be lower. 6 points is about 6 months delay in war effort. So a 12 point drop means that USA becomes about 1 year behind scheduled with war effort.

This could simulate the increased US isolationism from Allied aggression in Europe. After Pearl Harbor these limitations won't apply since USA will be at war and would gear up.

That is probably the most realistic response to an Allied aggression towards Belgium.

In addition to this effect the UK convoys will be 25% less and the German production each turn from Belgium will be 6 * war effort instead of 3 * war effort for as long as they keep the Belgian production. That is quite substantial.

So there are penalties to being aggressive in Belgium for the Allies.

What probably hurts the Germans the most is the loss of Allied morale loss. This is now linked to Belgian surrender. Instead it could be linked to Axis capture of Brussels if Belgium surrendered to the Allies. The problem is to calculate when the blitzkrieg into Belgium started to check for 1 turn og 2 turn capture of Brussels. A compromise could be to award the 2 turn morale loss (10 instead of 20) when the Allies lose Brussels in 1939 or 1940. That would simulate some blitzkrieg effect when the German war machine starts rolling against a Dyle.

Regardless of these suggestions I think we should get a few more games running to see how the Dyle works against normal games where the Germans can expect at least 1 fair turn in October and maybe even 2.

Dyle is a gamble. If you get 3 mud turns in October / November you will do very well. If you get 3 fair weather turns then you will lose Paris very early and pay for the aggression for quite some time. If you get 1-2 fair weather turns then the outcome might be about even, maybe slightly in advantage of Germany.

The clue for the Axis player is to ensure he takes out Holland in 1939 if faced with a turn 1 Dyle. If someone used a Dyle against me then I would send the entire Luftwaffe to the west on turn 2 and DoW Holland to get into Antwerp and Liege. Then I would rail quite a few units to the west to storm Holland on turn 3. If turn 3 or 4 are fair you should have a good chance taking Hague. Then you use the winter to snipe at hexes in Belgium you can attack from 3 sides.

This didn't happen in this game. Morris got 3 fair weather turns and Holland survived through the winter. So Germany only had a very narrow front line against the Allies.

[Blathergut]

plus morris got the cities/fortress the germans can nab if they have a couple infantry corps nearby instead of railing them north or wherever

it would be nice if there was some moral drop at some point...maybe when german units first enter France?...loss of brussels probably wouldn't matter so much with such a forward defense and the germans slogging their way to that point...but german units in france itself would seem more likely to cause panic among the upper uppity-ups and the army

[Plaid]

Dyle is a gamble. If you get 3 mud turns in October / November you will do very well. If you get 3 fair weather turns then you will lose Paris very early and pay for the aggression for quite some time. If you get 1-2 fair weather turns then the outcome might be about even, maybe slightly in advantage of Germany.

It is quite unfair gamble. Its like allies bet only $1 with a chance to win $100. If France surrenders in May-June it is annoying for allies, but there is nothing gamebreaking about it. If France holds until March 1941 there is something gamebreaking over here.

[Blathergut]

Give the Allies a random moral loss upon their declaring war on Belgium. Justifiable in many ways: unwillingness on the part of some; unprepared for such an offensive; etc. If it was random, it would be both more risky and more interesting. Troops perform well or perhaps they don't. The risk of a fair drop so early would probably be enough of a deterent.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Dyle is a gamble. If you get 3 mud turns in October / November you will do very well. If you get 3 fair weather turns then you will lose Paris very early and pay for the aggression for quite some time. If you get 1-2 fair weather turns then the outcome might be about even, maybe slightly in advantage of Germany.

It is quite unfair gamble. Its like allies bet only $1 with a chance to win $100. If France surrenders in May-June it is annoying for allies, but there is nothing gamebreaking about it. If France holds until March 1941 there is something gamebreaking over here.

I have never seen Paris holds to March 1941. I don't buy your comparison. It's like the Allies have a LOT to gain with a Dyle and little to risk. That is not my impression at all. Alter your Axis movement slightly in turn 1 so you can get Holland in 1939. Then Dyle is quite different from what you are facing. You struggle because you moved German troops AWAY from the west front in turn 1 and got 3 mud turns in October / November. That happens in less than 1 in 20 games.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If the Allied did a Dyle in the real war then the biggest issues for them would be the political ramifications, not a morale loss for doing so. E. g. the British had plans to intervene in Norway before Germany invaded and it would not have affected British morale if they just did it. Britain was at war and every action against Germany would be considered necessary.

However, the US, would not like such actions and be less likely to help the Allies. E. g. the Lend Lease act would probably not have been approved. USA would consider being even more neutral.

If you really want to have a nerve breaking situation for the Allies then you make a random roll for each neutral power the Allies DOW prior to US entry. This roll will determine if USA will join the Allies at all. E. g. a 20% chance for the US to never activate at all if Belgium is DoW'ed by the Allies. The percentage chance could drop with the time since the game started. You will never get a message about that except you will see that in the fall if 1941 you don't see USA joining the Allies. You have a big chance to get away with it, but you might be unlucky. Re-rolling won't help because the result will be stored in the game file and not revealed to the players. At the time of Japanese DOW you would simply get a message that USA decided to just fight in the Pacific and leave the European war to the Europeans.

World in Flames has a US entry rule system. Each turn it increases by 1 and can be affected further by diplomatic activities. Once it reaches about 30 USA will join the Allies. If it ever becomes negative then USA will NEVER join the Allies and stay neutral for the entire war. That means the Allies are very careful early in the game to avoid risking to get the us entry into negative. After some turns the Allies can become more actve if they accept a slight US entry hit without a risk of USA staying neutral forever.

[Plaid]

I have never seen Paris holds to March 1941. I don't buy your comparison. It's like the Allies have a LOT to gain with a Dyle and little to risk. That is not my impression at all. Alter your Axis movement slightly in turn 1 so you can get Holland in 1939. Then Dyle is quite different from what you are facing. You struggle because you moved German troops AWAY from the west front in turn 1 and got 3 mud turns in October / November. That happens in less than 1 in 16 games.

Paris holding until March 1941 is exactly what happened in this game - just wait for Morris to post rest of turns.

Getting Holland in 1939 with Dyle is very hard in fact. It is 10 step infantry unit with no morale loss + it has capital city bonus defenses and can be attacked only from 3 hexes, 2 of which are cross-river. This campaign will require to transfer lots of German units from Poland on turns 1 and 2, meaning 3+ turns struggle in Poland.
It will be just "bad blitzkrieg" (normal blitzkgrieg - allied morale loss and with allies in better defensive positions).

I also can't see how couple of fair turns in 1939 could help a lot. Yes, axis could destroy few French garrisons this way, but problem is not in garrisons.

Main problem was UK mass producing ground troops and cheap leaders with + stats and sending them all into France. These troops allowed Morris to create real stalemate in Belgium. Bruselles holded until August 1940.

If you say that in case of Dyle Germans should forget about building labs and spend all their PPs on tanks and airpower to get stronger pressure in Belgium and - it will also cripple them badly.

All current negative Dyle effects seems really minor compared to what axis suffer [huge casualties and no ability to do something else during entire 1940].
Yes, convoys will be smaller, but German sub force also will be much smaller. USA will collect slighlty less PPs, but its not like they need PPs badly. Starting from midgame allies combined will outproduce axis probably 250-300%. They really can live without these few early PPs and free destroyer unit.

Yes, Britain will be in bad shape, but as we figured out long ago when testing "massive BEF" strategy crippled Germany always worth crippled Britain.

I think most people don't use Dyle and massive BEF when playing allies exclusively for historical feel reasons, as from the point of game mechanics it is much superiour compared to "playing normally".

[richardsd]

I have never seen Paris holds to March 1941. I don't buy your comparison. It's like the Allies have a LOT to gain with a Dyle and little to risk. That is not my impression at all. Alter your Axis movement slightly in turn 1 so you can get Holland in 1939. Then Dyle is quite different from what you are facing. You struggle because you moved German troops AWAY from the west front in turn 1 and got 3 mud turns in October / November. That happens in less than 1 in 16 games.

Paris holding until March 1941 is exactly what happened in this game - just wait for Morris to post rest of turns.

Getting Holland in 1939 with Dyle is very hard in fact. It is 10 step infantry unit with no morale loss + it has capital city bonus defenses and can be attacked only from 3 hexes, 2 of which are cross-river. This campaign will require to transfer lots of German units from Poland on turns 1 and 2, meaning 3+ turns struggle in Poland.
It will be just "bad blitzkrieg" (normal blitzkgrieg - allied morale loss and with allies in better defensive positions).

I also can't see how couple of fair turns in 1939 could help a lot. Yes, axis could destroy few French garrisons this way, but problem is not in garrisons.

Main problem was UK mass producing ground troops and cheap leaders with + stats and sending them all into France. These troops allowed Morris to create real stalemate in Belgium. Bruselles holded until August 1940.

If you say that in case of Dyle Germans should forget about building labs and spend all their PPs on tanks and airpower to get stronger pressure in Belgium and - it will also cripple them badly.

All current negative Dyle effects seems really minor compared to what axis suffer [huge casualties and no ability to do something else during entire 1940].
Yes, convoys will be smaller, but German sub force also will be much smaller. USA will collect slighlty less PPs, but its not like they need PPs badly. Starting from midgame allies combined will outproduce axis probably 250-300%. They really can live without these few early PPs and free destroyer unit.

Yes, Britain will be in bad shape, but as we figured out long ago when testing "massive BEF" strategy crippled Germany always worth crippled Britain.

I think most people don't use Dyle and massive BEF when playing allies exclusively for historical feel reasons, as from the point of game mechanics it is much superiour compared to "playing normally".

I tend to agree - most people don't Dyle because they don't agree with it, not because its a poor strategy

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Why would getting Holland in 1939 be so bad if you get a fair weather turn. 2 tactical bombers should inflict like 3 losses. Mech units are good against cities.

When I attack Poland on turn 1 I have 2 armor units adjacent to Warsaw and with Warsaw down quite a lot in steps. I don't need air units on turn 2 to finish off Warsaw. If I transfer more units to the west already on turn 1 then I could end up with a 3 turn conquest of Warsaw. Still, that's a choice to make.

We need more data from Dyle's before making any conclusions. This game is not representative of a Dyle. Try to check games where Germany went after Holland on turn 2 and got at least 1 fair turn on turn 3-5

[Morris]

Turn 11 Mar 19th 1940 fair


Axis restart their attack & kill one gar & one corp & conquer Antwerp . We send reinforment to Holland . Canadian is active now .

[Morris]

Turn 12

Apr 8th 1940 fair

Holland was attacked by several corp & a para . It survived at one step . We are so lucky . we just suiside the corp & use a British gar to take over the defence of Hague .