Russia

[rkr1958]

This is a fascinating argument, in the abstract, (and no, I'm not being sarcastic), but what are you two arguing about, specifically?

As far as old East Front board games, SPI's War in the East was my favorite on the strategic level.

I don't know? Just blattering I guess. Sorry.

[Redpossum]

No, no, no! Don't apologise. I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, really I did.

I was just sort of lost in the abstractness of your comments (both of you). I mean, that "improvise, adapt, evolve!" stuff is all very well and good, and inspirational and all.

But I was sort of hoping you guys would get more specific about suggestions of actual things to do and not do, in game terms. I was very interested to see how your strategies compare to my own.

I've read "CEaW_Explainations_Strategy_Tactics.doc"

[rkr1958]

No, no, no! Don't apologise. I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, really I did.

I was just sort of lost in the abstractness of your comments (both of you). I mean, that "improvise, adapt, evolve!" stuff is all very well and good, and inspirational and all.

But I was sort of hoping you guys would get more specific about suggestions of actual things to do and not do, in game terms. I was very interested to see how your strategies compare to my own.

I've read "CEaW_Explainations_Strategy_Tactics.doc"

In addition to blattering, which if I may say so myself I do rather well, I have compiled a document of strategy and tactics (a work in progress and reference below), which you've read. What do you think about it? I'd love to add tactics and strategies that a veteran player like you uses.

viewtopic.php?p=56813#56813

[Redpossum]

I don't really qualify as a veteran player.

Yeah, I did some beta-testing, and I've played CEAW many times against the AI, but I've never yet had a chance to play against a human opponent.

I found the document interesting, and reasonably comprehensive. My only disappointment was that it didn't tell me much of anything that I didn't already know. Which I suppose means that I know more than I thought I did?

I guess what bothers me is that I don't see any easy answers. I keep thinking there should be some Silver Bullet that will make all opposition fall before me, some cunning strategy to open the way.

And is it just me, or is the France 40 campaign in the game never anything like the historical events? There never seems to be a chance for that daring thrust that pins them against the sea.

Speaking of which, where is the BEF? I don't see much of anything as far as British ground units in England at game start. And there are none in France. The 1939 scenario has changed a lot since the game was released!

[firepowerjohan]

Hi Possum. I have played a vast amount of TcpIP games and believe me it is very possible to be cut-off losing units in France if UK send support there are decide to get cocky and try to hold the line for just one turn too much

I have actually been cut-off at the coast at times, when some German panzer killed a unit and the ZOC rules preventing me from moving to safety.

[rkr1958]

I don't really qualify as a veteran player.

Yeah, I did some beta-testing, and I've played CEAW many times against the AI, but I've never yet had a chance to play against a human opponent.

I found the document interesting, and reasonably comprehensive. My only disappointment was that it didn't tell me much of anything that I didn't already know. Which I suppose means that I know more than I thought I did?

I guess what bothers me is that I don't see any easy answers. I keep thinking there should be some Silver Bullet that will make all opposition fall before me, some cunning strategy to open the way.

And is it just me, or is the France 40 campaign in the game never anything like the historical events? There never seems to be a chance for that daring thrust that pins them against the sea.

Speaking of which, where is the BEF? I don't see much of anything as far as British ground units in England at game start. And there are none in France. The 1939 scenario has changed a lot since the game was released!

One of my first games against a human was a PBEM against Happycat. He was the Axis and I was the Allies. My BEF consisted of two UK infantry corps and one UK motorized corps. I thought I had them position to get them out when France looked like is was going to fall. Happycat destroyed one corps before I knew what happen and mauled the other two. I was able to save one, which was a step 6 when I got it back to England. France fell on June 7, 1940 and the total German casualties at the fall of France were [266,908 inf; 1040 tanks; 936 aircraft; 25 ships]. In my current PBEM against Happycat I sent no UK forces to France. I moved the corps in Marseilles and all garrisons in between to the front lines. I also keep the corps in Paris there the whole campaign to maximize it's entrenchment value. (I made the mistake in the first game of moving that corps to the front and using a new build infantry corps to replace it. Bad mistake - little entrenchment and fell easily in the first game). In our current game France fell coincidently on the same date, June 7, 1940. However, I committed and lost no UK ground crops. And, using so well timed counterattacks the German casualties at this same point were [372,664 1352 624 45], or [40% 30% -33% 80%] changed from the first game. In the second game without the BEF, France fell on the same date, no UK corps were lost or damaged and the Germans suffered significantly more damage resulting in a greater cost to Happycat (a good thing for me). I believe the higher casualties were due to the fact that I was more willing to counterattack with French units (which I knew would eventually surrender) than with British BEF.

[JyriErik]

rkr1958, I suspect we're getting WAY off topic here, but I'm arguing that "ahistoric" use of game mechanisms is very historic. If WW II had been a game instead of history, then the Germans definitely "cheated" by doing things that the "game" allowed, but weren't "historically accurate" or "according to the rules" based on how the Allies saw things. By late 1943/early 1944 the Allies started using the game mechanics better than Hitler did (OKW was trying to modify its strategy & tactics, but Hitler seemed to believe that the Allies were still playing by the old rules, so he kept Germany "playing" the old game and not the current rules). If OKW had been allowed to do what it wanted, while the final result might not have been different, the time it took probably would have been. According to what I've read on WW II the only German military leader who was surprised by Overlord and Bagration was Hitler.

That said, there are already plenty of ahistoric situations in the game. Vichy France being a major one. Syria is another example in that it never "joined" the Allies, but was rather annexed by the British. The same could be said the the Iraqi "joining" of the war. Denmark never falls as it did historically (one day using, essentially, one battalion). Holland, 4 days. Belgium, 5 days. Norway, 2 months, but essentially over, except for Narvik, in one month and using one corps. If you want to nit pick you can list "historic flaws" in the game ad infinitum. Such as if you want to allow a "historic" German invasion capability, then no more than one corps at a time would be allowed at sea to invade, and armor would be prohibited from invading. House rules, in my mind, are just a way to force a historic result regardless of what a game allows you to do. Another aside. Playing the old SPI game Stalingrad, I was able to relieve the pocket & crush the Russians by doing something "ahistoric". The Russian player had set up his forces to contain the pocket & had the rest of his forces set up grind "Winter Storm" to a halt. I simply refused to attack those forces, swung WAY to the east with my mobile forces and pocketed Uranus by linking up with the pocket from east of the Volga. If you play the "historic" way to get the "historic" result you might as well have the game play itself for all the excitement that brings. the entire point of a game is to "zig when they zag" and then you find out if zigging was such a good idea in the first place or that zagging was the right thing to do after all. Yes, you might be allowed to do ahistoric things by the game system, but unless you start hacking units & each sides stats, then there's no way to actually cheat and if you're able to play the system better than the AI or a human player, then you deserve to win because you played a better game.

Jyri

[JyriErik]

Sort of getting back on topic. One problem with specific strategy/tactics hints are that any good strategy changes/adjusts from turn to turn depending on what happens that turn. Sometimes changes during the turn based on a particularly good/bad set of combats. A lot of playing hunches also happens (especially if you use fog of war since you're never 100% of the other side's situation).

The strategy I use is fairly simple. Maximize enemy casualties, minimize your own. I prefer to kill one unit rather than wound several. Dead is dead and it won't hurt you later since it can't heal itself back to dangerous. That said, due to the way the game system works, sometimes mauling a lot of enemy units can be more useful than killing a few if the other side is short of manpower or (especially) production. The tactics I use change often. Some situations you take chances/hope for the best. In other situations I play it very conservatively. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes you get a draw.

Jyri

[rkr1958]

I guess what bothers me is that I don't see any easy answers. I keep thinking there should be some Silver Bullet that will make all opposition fall before me, some cunning strategy to open the way.

That's a good thing isn't it? I'd lose interest pretty soon in CEaW if that were the case.

@JyriErik, again when I'm referring to exploiting the game engine I'm referring to doing things that the game allows but which would be impossible to have done historically. For example, you can cheat. You could keep making you move over and over until you got the desired results you want, either in combat or finding the enemy when playing with fog of war. Now this is an extreme example. The game engine allows this and we have no house rule that explicitly forbids this. But players know this is cheating and not realistic so they don't do it. I'd say that everyone who plays CEaW is bound by at least this one (implicit) house rule. A less extreme example is ship & air attacks against u-boats. In the house rules we're playing with a detected u-boat fleet can only be attacked once by a surface ship (e.g., DD) and once by air (either a CV or land based air wing). Forget about historical, this just feels more realistic. One can imagine a u-boat fleet being detected and coming under attack by 100's of ships and planes. By the way, a 10-step naval unit represents 50 ships and a 10-step air unit represents 520 planes. It's unrealistic that the u-boat fleet would stand and fight against such a force. They would dive and try to get the heck out of there. The one attack by surface and one attack by air reflects the damage that they would incur while diving and trying to get out of there.

In terms of strategy (using the u-boat example) you're free to use u-boats to go after convoys. The house rules make this much more possible now in the early game, which is historically. Or, you can use them to interdict the Royal Navy (not historical but possible). We also play with changed tec levels that make it harder for surface ships (& aircraft) and u-boats to kill each other in the early game. It seemed to me that in the vanilla game it was suicide for u-boats to go after convoys in the early game. I found that I'd had to built up the u-boat fleet both in research and numbers and go after the Royal Navy first. Now this is a viable historical reality; however, not being able to attack convoys in 1939 - 1941 with great impact was not. I feel that with the above referenced house rules we've achieved that.

I'm a late comer to the house rules and mod I'm currently playing under. They were developed by Happycat & Staffenberg and I'm benefiting immensely from their work in terms of a much richer and enjoyable gaming experience.

[JyriErik]

Well, that type of cheating (save, fight until you get the result you want, save again, repeat) is possible in most games. In CEAW you need a LOT of patience to go that route. Every game has ahistorical elements. It's the nature of the beast. Players have FAR more information than any of the historical participants had. Britain thought the Germans HAD to be producing masses of aircraft, so starting in 1940 Britain produced more aircraft than Germany. The Germans assumed that British radar was as useless as their own, so they didn't make bombing radar installations during the Battle of Britain a priority. Trying to do a uboat war historically will get you killed in the game, so why do it? I've found a ahistoric uboat strategy that tends to work pretty well. You need to build one or two additional surface fleets for the the Germans, and those are what attack the convoys. You then have 6-10 (the more the better) uboats set up in ambush lines around those ships to keep the convoy from being able to move too far each turn and also to maul any Allied naval convoy forces. Done right and with a little luck the surface ships and one uboat destroy the convoy and the Allied navies either tend to get injured/mauled and are out of the picture from then on. (Or if the Allies DO build a large enough fleet to counteract the strategy, then they can't build enough air and land units for a decent invasion. Even if it's in force, I doubt any German player is going to worry about a 1945 invasion of France by the Allies. It's either too late or the Russians are in Paris by that time).

Jyri

[rkr1958]

Trying to do a uboat war historically will get you killed in the game, so why do it?

Jyri

That's my main point. I'd like to have a game that if both players follow historical strategies then you get a historical outcome within the fidelity of the game a high percentage of the time. Why? This is great for solo play, exploring history and for establishing the "historical" confidence in the game for exploring realistic variants to the strategies used by the Axis or Allies. Again, Operation Sea Lion. Forgetting about the Med and going straight for France in 1943. Or, as Churchill wanted to do focus entirely on the Med and invade Europe through Yugoslavia (instead of France) in order to cut the Russians off. But for me to have confidence in the outcomes from playing these variants to the historical strategies I have to know that the outcome from following historical strategies is what really happen (again within a high percentage of the time).

I've found a ahistoric uboat strategy that tends to work pretty well. You need to build one or two additional surface fleets for the the Germans, and those are what attack the convoys. You then have 6-10 (the more the better) uboats set up in ambush lines around those ships to keep the convoy from being able to move too far each turn and also to maul any Allied naval convoy forces. Done right and with a little luck the surface ships and one uboat destroy the convoy and the Allied navies either tend to get injured/mauled and are out of the picture from then on. (Or if the Allies DO build a large enough fleet to counteract the strategy, then they can't build enough air and land units for a decent invasion. Even if it's in force, I doubt any German player is going to worry about a 1945 invasion of France by the Allies. It's either too late or the Russians are in Paris by that time).

Jyri

To me this is a realistic ahistoric strategy. I'd like to use this strategy by choice instead of being forced to it because the historically strategy doesn't work in the game when we all know that the German u-boats were devastating to the Allies convoys in 1940 - 1942. I believe the scenario mod and House Rules and that I'm currently playing under does this to the maximum extent possible given the CEaW game engine and without the game being too cumbersome to play (e.g., having to check the House Rules every move).

I'm just the beneficiary of these scenario mod and house rules. All the work on this was done by Staffenberg & Happycat. Malta now includes an airbase so you can have a garrison, ship and fighter all based there at one time. This naval and air forces there can be used to interdict the Axis reinforcement of North Africa. Also, as long as the Allies control Malta the size of the Axis force that can be supported in North Africa is limited through house rules, which reflects the impact that Malta had on the Axis supply to North Africa. Gibraltar like Malta has been modded to include an airbase so that the Allies can base an air unit, ground unit and ship there. Having air there is important if you want to carry out an Operation Torch type operation. Also, you have the ability to base strategic air to interdict German u-boats if they're giving you trouble in the South Atlantic. The Azores and two land hexes and two land hexes in Greenland have been added which allows the Allies, once they get to a given Tec level, to rebase from the USA by air to North Africa or Europe without the risk of being intercepted by u-boats. Again this is historical. If you want to transport these planes by ship you can but you can also fly them over as is historical.

[Redpossum]

That's my main point. I'd like to have a game that if both players follow historical strategies then you get a historical outcome within the fidelity of the game a high percentage of the time. Why? This is great for solo play, exploring history and for establishing the "historical" confidence in the game for exploring realistic variants to the strategies used by the Axis or Allies. Again, Operation Sea Lion. Forgetting about the Med and going straight for France in 1943. Or, as Churchill wanted to do focus entirely on the Med and invade Europe through Yugoslavia (instead of France) in order to cut the Russians off. But for me to have confidence in the outcomes from playing these variants to the historical strategies I have to know that the outcome from following historical strategies is what really happen (again within a high percentage of the time).

That all sounds well and good, in theoretical terms.

In practical terms, you're dreaming. Why do I say this? Because you're not talking about a game, you're talking about a simulation.

Now, every wargame published is in fact a compromise between "game" and "simulation". What you're asking for is a wargame so heavily slanted toward historical simulation that it becomes no fun at all as a game. And publishing those is a swift, sure route to bankruptcy for any games company.

Look at War in Russia. As a simulation, it's impeccable. As a game, it's utterly unplayable.

CEAW is a fun game to play. No, it's not a perfect historical simulation. But those are not fun to play, they're just impossibly tedious.

[rkr1958]

That's my main point. I'd like to have a game that if both players follow historical strategies then you get a historical outcome within the fidelity of the game a high percentage of the time. Why? This is great for solo play, exploring history and for establishing the "historical" confidence in the game for exploring realistic variants to the strategies used by the Axis or Allies. Again, Operation Sea Lion. Forgetting about the Med and going straight for France in 1943. Or, as Churchill wanted to do focus entirely on the Med and invade Europe through Yugoslavia (instead of France) in order to cut the Russians off. But for me to have confidence in the outcomes from playing these variants to the historical strategies I have to know that the outcome from following historical strategies is what really happen (again within a high percentage of the time).

That all sounds well and good, in theoretical terms.

In practical terms, you're dreaming. Why do I say this? Because you're not talking about a game, you're talking about a simulation.

Now, every wargame published is in fact a compromise between "game" and "simulation". What you're asking for is a wargame so heavily slanted toward historical simulation that it becomes no fun at all as a game. And publishing those is a swift, sure route to bankruptcy for any games company.

Look at War in Russia. As a simulation, it's impeccable. As a game, it's utterly unplayable.

CEAW is a fun game to play. No, it's not a perfect historical simulation. But those are not fun to play, they're just impossibly tedious.

Simulation, emulation, representation ... to me these terms basically mean the same thing but with different levels of fidelity. Why can't a game be this, be fun and be playable? CEaW is played on a grand scale of corps, air wings and fleets. My objective is to find a scenario mod, even with self administered, house rules that make CEaW as historical as possible given the constraint of its game engine (e.g., no paratroopers) and the intangible constraints that it's still fun and playable. I believe I've found that in Staffenburg's and Happycat's mod, which they're still fine tuning.

For example in a PBEM game I'm playing as the Allies against Happycat it's November 1940 and we're in a raging naval and air battle in the eastern Mediterranean. I sent a force of 2 BBs, 1 CV, 1 DD and 1 sub through the Suez canal that linked up with a BB that was based there. I thought that I had caught the Italian navy by surprise and attacked his force of 3 BBs with my 3 BBs and sub. My DD and CV docked in port near by. No need to put them at risk. One of my BBs bumbed into his sub and took a couple of step losses. No biggy, I still sunk one of his BB, thought I was great shape and that he'd retreat. He didn't. He surprised me with a German tactical bomber based at Crete (he'd taken Greece a few turns back). He counterattacked with his two remaining Italian BB's, sub, German Tac air in Create and Italian Tac and fighter wings based in Libya. He sunk one of my BB fleets. I don't know if through the fog of war he knew I also had a DD and CV nearby. Anyway, I took a calculated risk and used my DD and CV to attack his sub (our house rules limit an attack against subs to one surface and one air attack) and reduced it to a step 3. Then one of my BBs and sub attacked his BB and sunk it. A second UK BB (at step 7) attacked his his remaining BB and reduced it to a step 7. I'm now waiting for his response and the fate of my fleet. My ships are all within range of his tac bomber on Crete and his Italian tac and fighter air wings in Libya. I use this to illustrate what I mean by historically feasible (possible, etc.). Did this naval battle happen in WW II? No. But a similar one happen near Malta where German air based in Sicily caused great damage to the UK fleet trying to reinforce and supply Malta. The British almost lost a carrier. By the way, German u-boats are ravaging my convoys almost unopposed. The Germans still have a strong presence in France and I have to guard against an Operation Sea Lion. This is a lonely time for the UK. France is gone and the USA and USSR are still on the sidelines. Now that's historical! I've never gotten that flavor from a game before. And, it's fun!

[Redpossum]

If you can manage all that with a scenario mod, house rules, and gentlemanly behavior, well then my hat's off to you

But, by your own admission, you are doing that with CEAW, so what's your complaint?

And if it's November 41, why is the USSR still not in the war?

[rkr1958]

If you can manage all that with a scenario mod, house rules, and gentlemanly behavior, well then my hat's off to you

But, by your own admission, you are doing that with CEAW, so what's your complaint?

And if it's November 41, why is the USSR still not in the war?

It's November 1940 not November 1941 (my mistake). I have no complaints. No complaints at all. Sorry if I came across like that. I thought I was doing the opposite?

EDIT - I just got Happycat's move. He surprised me again! He had a second German TAC air based on Crete! These two TAC air along with the Italian TAC air in Libya sunk another one of my BBs. His remaining Italian BB and badly damaged sub fled to ports / parts unknown. My CV and DD in the Med did catch him by surprise though. However; this told him were my second sub attack force was (i.e., CV & DD) and that his u-boats could attack my convoys without fear. Which they did. For now, I think I control the part of the eastern Med that's out of range of the German tac bombers based on Crete. I guess the naval and air battle was a draw. The UK lost 2 BBs and the Italians also lost two. Who won the battle strategically? Only time will tell.

By the way, the mod contains Lend Lease destroyers, which the UK will get in March of 1941. The release of the destroyers are controlled by the mod (and not the House Rules). They physically won't be available until then ... even though I can see and "touch" them ... the game engine won't release them unti then! No matter how hard PM Churchill negotiates with President Roosevelt.

[Redpossum]

Sounds like an interesting game.

Oh, and I think there will be paratroopers in CNAW

[rkr1958]

Sounds like an interesting game.

Oh, and I think there will be paratroopers in CNAW

I didn't realize Napoleon or Wellington had paratroopers? I need to read up on early 19th century military history.

[Redpossum]

Sounds like an interesting game.

Oh, and I think there will be paratroopers in CNAW

I didn't realize Napoleon or Wellington had paratroopers? I need to read up on early 19th century military history.

Oh sure thing, bro. French paras, sierra hotel

Why you think Blucher took so long to arrive?