AAR : Supermax (Axis ) vs Morris (Allies)

[Morris]

May 8th 1942 fair Barbarosa !!!



Axis launch 1942 Barbarosa on time ! The Red army has no choice but retreat ......



Meanwhile , Allies has just conquer Syria which Axis abandoned two turns ago . Axis seems concentrate to defense Suez canal .

[Morris]

May 28th 1942 fair



Barbarosa continue . Normal progress .



In med , we just sit & waiting for our air power .

[Morris]

June 7th 1942 fair



Barbarosa continue in normal progress , but Red Army has already in their counter attack position ! If Axis troop come into our attack range , we will launch the attack immediately !

In Egypt , we also in a position of small offense . We tried an attack & kill a corp , but we dare not to across the suez canal . It seems there are many strong Luftwaffe around there & RAF & USAF are still weak.....


finally , Allies will gain the war initiative soon !!

[Morris]

June 27th 1942 fair



Max is so wise to stop right at the point we want to counter attack , & since Axis retreat , Red army followed right after them ! & kill the units Axis abandoned .



In Med , still waiting for USA's mainbody of enforcement .

[Morris]

Aug 16th 1942 fair



Red Army follow the reteating Axis troops , close to Poland & Romania . Maybe they will stop in bad weather to set up defense .

[Morris]

Sept 6th 1942 fair



The red army kill everyone left behind & follow Germans to Poland & Romania . It looks more Axis reinforce troops arriving & it will be a defense line when weather turn bad .


meanwhile , Allies escort fleet arrive the coast of UK . We will try to set up a new front although it looks difficult .

[Morris]

Nov 4th 1942 fair


this this a black turn for Allies , two disaster happen in Egypt & Altlantic .


Allies's escort fleet were embushed & many sunk ! Maybe USNY has to retreat for a survival .

Meanwhile in Egypt , Max launch an massive attack by strong Luftwaffe support ( 4 FTR , 3TAC & Italian air force), British & US army were badly hurt ! at least three units killed .... But Allies will not retreat again , they will counterattack & have bloody fight ! Meanwhile more reinforcement arrive in Basra .(sorry for the bad screenshots, maybe too sleepy then )


only one lucky point: a partisan spawn in Lille .

[Morris]

Nov 24th 1942 winter



In East front , since winter comes , Red army move forward closing to Poland & kill several units . It seems Max has already set up his defense line .



In Med , bloody dog fight & heavy loss for both airforce ! Allies only has 4 FTRs against 5 Axis FTRs , STR have to fight without escort . But after blood exchange , a para sucessfully jump to the hex beside Alexendar & attack the TAC inside & conquer the city ! It will be a key point of this campaign ! More reinforcement are arriving . Italian fleet comes to Red sea & maybe Persia Gulf They want to block Basra ?

[Carlos_Danger]

Invading England looks tough!

In this type of game I would think the first thing that the Americas would do when they get in the war is to invade North Africa. You start another front, which usually makes the Germans just give up the Suez canal, and most important you get the Free French ground units.

You don't want to give the Germans the extra production of Vichy?

[Vokt]

Airborne operations like this one in Alexandria port, although "funny", maybe must be considered a bit weird in the whole picture of a given scenario. Indeed, I increasingly find them unrealistic and inadequate for a corps sized game like CEAW is.

I don't recall in WW2 any airborne operation done separately of a bigger ground or amphibious operation. Airborne operations were done in support of landings, offensives, etc but NEVER were done so deep within enemy territory in order to entirely seize big cities (which I seriously doubt a lonely paratrooper division would be able to do) or to sink naval units in port or to wipe out entire Air wings, previous a "retreating" of the attacked air unit as it happened in duncanr vs supermax game.

It's not like you were really able drop a paratrooper division 300-400 kms (6-8 hexes) away from the front line and you were supposed to expect great things from that completely isolated unit. Not to mention forcing the surrender of entire countries with a "massive" paratrooper dropping in the respective capital which I honestly think that edges the joke.

Again, I say that stuff like this might be considered funny but poorly serious in terms of strategic simulation. Do we really want this for paratrooper units in this game? Or should we set some more requirements for paratrooper droppings so they fit more with their real role in war operations? Comes to mind, for example a limitation of 3-4 hexes (150-200 kms away which is already a lot) from the respective current front line or enemy coastline for being able to do a paradrop dropping.

[Schnurri]

I agree with the comments that long-distance, unsupported para drops are unrealistic but equally unrealistic is leaving captured territory essentially unguarded. I know when I started I hated that more experienced players would drop a para unit into Bucharest and cause them to change sides. Aggressive play means taking chances like leaving Rome without a garrison and being captured by a GAR. This is a good way of keeping things honest and forcing defense in depth which is realistic.

[Plaid]

Actually worrying part is that that's main use of paratroopers in GS.
Various suicide drops to destroy fort/air/naval unit or force surrender of minor country.
They are almost never used in sensible way.
Maybe that's just wrong mechanic for a game of this scale, who knows.

[Vokt]

I agree with the comments that long-distance, unsupported para drops are unrealistic but equally unrealistic is leaving captured territory essentially unguarded. I know when I started I hated that more experienced players would drop a para unit into Bucharest and cause them to change sides. Aggressive play means taking chances like leaving Rome without a garrison and being captured by a GAR. This is a good way of keeping things honest and forcing defense in depth which is realistic.

I wouldn't call genius or experienced playing surrendering a country with a paratrooper dropping. I would call that game-exploiting playing. It's just players exploiting a weakness in the rules and/or in the simulation ability of a game.

We have to keep in mind that CEAW is a game with really wide spotting ranges for air units. We know that for the paratrooper dropping to be possible the target hex has to be a spotted one. Deep within enemy territory airborne operations would just be taking advantage of the fact that air units in CEAW possess quite wide spotting ranges. So maybe it's not that you have left undefended a city or capital, maybe it's that air units shouldn't be able to "see" that much inside your territory.

Besides, let's just admit it: a paratrooper division HADN'T by the time of WW2, the heavy equipment needed for taking cities the size of Bucharest or Budapest, let alone London, Hamburg, Berlin or Rome. It wasn't just possible to think about carrying out those operations without the certainty of the paratrooper division being completely annihilated for no results, so not even average military planners would have even considered the possibility of going forward with such operations. On the contrary, objectives that suited much more with paratrooper ops were little villages, crossroads, bridges, depots, etc but never entire cities.

Same could be said about garrisons performing landing operations like that famous one taking Rome. Although someone could think of that as a genius strategic move, in reality it's just another game exploiting move. It's just garrisons units being used far beyond of their territorial role in a game-exploiting way since no garrison unit in WW2 participated in a landing operation. Furthermore, as paratrooper units, they also lacked the equipment to seize a big city. For this reason, this type of units shouldn't be able to land on enemy hexes and, if alowed to be transported by sea, they only should be possible to be unloaded in ports. Doing so would avoid those Persian, Iraki or Egyptian transported garrisons seeking desperately for an empty Italian surrender city: again, funny but unrealistic.

All of this has to do with the role of "cheap infantry" that garrison units have earned through the years in the game. In reality, they have become units to be used as cannon fodders, to spam beach hexes with units, to cheaply fill double defensive lines, or ZOC dispositions, etc. All of those uses of garrison units could make us think if this type of units need a review. To avoid the use of garrisons units as spamming units maybe they should be allowed to be railed from city hex to another city hex and not to the adjacent hexes of the city. This would be because garrison units were supposed to guard cities only, not to oppose landings: they just weren't operational units.

It could be considered also the possibility of upgrading garrisons into truly operational units like Reserve units were. Both Soviet and German armies had many of these Reserve units which could be created from garrisons.

[duncanr]

yes but, you could easily rationalize that operation as an "outcome" equivalent to LRDG and SAS operations which we don't see at this game scale

people will always exploit game mechanisms - in reality you shouldn't be garrisoning a city with plane, undefended cities could be taken by very small forces - people should garrison more

[Cybvep]

You can only have a very limited number of PARAs (although I have no idea why you convert GARs into PARAs instead of simply building PARAs), they take many turns to be built and you need to meet several requirements to perform para-drops, so I don't think that it's a major issue. Besides, PARAs are an another way of motivating the players to guard the important hexes properly and we all know that it's gamey to leave them completely undefended, so if somebody does it, then their should be prepared for the possible consequences.

Same could be said about garrisons performing landing operations like that famous one taking Rome. Although someone could think of that as a genius strategic move, in reality it's just another game exploiting move.

It's far far more gamey to leave the capital defenceless. Sorry, but if the hex is empty, then it's empty. Even a 1-step partisan unit can capture an empty hex and I have absolutely no problems with that. Just put a freaking GAR/Corps there and be done with it. Hex-garrisoning is a good example of a "soft rule". The game doesn't force you to garrison any hex, because technically you can move the units rather freely. There is no "hard rule" here. However, the game heavily *encourages* you to garrison various hexes because it's beneficial gameplay-wise. It's a soft rule and that's good IMO.

[pk867]

We have had para units in use since version 2.0 which was 6 years ago. We did make changes that Air units will retreat from ground / amphibious attacks so that air units should not be used as blocking units. We made the rules that air units will retreat and take heavy losses to steer players to more realistic play. The range of paratroopers is about right for the simulation at hand..

They are based on FTR ranges, but we have the possibility of using TAC ranges. There were planned drops during the war around Taranto where the troops flown from Tunis to be a secondary attack while the landings near Anzio was taking place . Just because Overlord the landings were across the channel did not mean they could only do short jumps.

The attack against Crete by the Germans for troops was around Athens (6 to 9 hexes). Because of single stacking you have to have enough range to produce the results you desire.

With the new air unit ranges in 4.00 (more historical you can (with the right tech) simulate drops on Norway, Crete, Market Garden.

So if you know an enemy para unit is nearby, count hexes and make sure your stuff is protected, and not by air units.

[Morris]

I agree with the comments that long-distance, unsupported para drops are unrealistic but equally unrealistic is leaving captured territory essentially unguarded. I know when I started I hated that more experienced players would drop a para unit into Bucharest and cause them to change sides. Aggressive play means taking chances like leaving Rome without a garrison and being captured by a GAR. This is a good way of keeping things honest and forcing defense in depth which is realistic.

I wouldn't call genius or experienced playing surrendering a country with a paratrooper dropping. I would call that game-exploiting playing. It's just players exploiting a weakness in the rules and/or in the simulation ability of a game.

We have to keep in mind that CEAW is a game with really wide spotting ranges for air units. We know that for the paratrooper dropping to be possible the target hex has to be a spotted one. Deep within enemy territory airborne operations would just be taking advantage of the fact that air units in CEAW possess quite wide spotting ranges. So maybe it's not that you have left undefended a city or capital, maybe it's that air units shouldn't be able to "see" that much inside your territory.

Besides, let's just admit it: a paratrooper division HADN'T by the time of WW2, the heavy equipment needed for taking cities the size of Bucharest or Budapest, let alone London, Hamburg, Berlin or Rome. It wasn't just possible to think about carrying out those operations without the certainty of the paratrooper division being completely annihilated for no results, so not even average military planners would have even considered the possibility of going forward with such operations. On the contrary, objectives that suited much more with paratrooper ops were little villages, crossroads, bridges, depots, etc but never entire cities.

Same could be said about garrisons performing landing operations like that famous one taking Rome. Although someone could think of that as a genius strategic move, in reality it's just another game exploiting move. It's just garrisons units being used far beyond of their territorial role in a game-exploiting way since no garrison unit in WW2 participated in a landing operation. Furthermore, as paratrooper units, they also lacked the equipment to seize a big city. For this reason, this type of units shouldn't be able to land on enemy hexes and, if alowed to be transported by sea, they only should be possible to be unloaded in ports. Doing so would avoid those Persian, Iraki or Egyptian transported garrisons seeking desperately for an empty Italian surrender city: again, funny but unrealistic.

All of this has to do with the role of "cheap infantry" that garrison units have earned through the years in the game. In reality, they have become units to be used as cannon fodders, to spam beach hexes with units, to cheaply fill double defensive lines, or ZOC dispositions, etc. All of those uses of garrison units could make us think if this type of units need a review. To avoid the use of garrisons units as spamming units maybe they should be allowed to be railed from city hex to another city hex and not to the adjacent hexes of the city. This would be because garrison units were supposed to guard cities only, not to oppose landings: they just weren't operational units.

It could be considered also the possibility of upgrading garrisons into truly operational units like Reserve units were. Both Soviet and German armies had many of these Reserve units which could be created from garrisons.

Excuse me Mr Vokt , I have to say I totally disagree with you this time .

1 To drop a para in a unguard city which is important for the strategetic target is a kind of normal tac which were used by USSR & Allies many times in WW2 . It is not a game exploiting play , it was real ! some of them sucess & many of them not . It is a kind of risk to drop your unit behind enemy's line . But It did had its worth !! As the words by 101th Para devision in Bastoni :"Para was born to be encircled ! "

2 the para rule has been used for many versions( since GS 2.0? ) by thousands of pbems , why only after my para drop in a port cause such a discussion ? Does it mean the pbem between me & Max anything special ? I agree I am an aggresive player & so also is Max . It is our style . But I am not a game explioter . I defeat my opponent or defeated by them only by our strategy & tac . It is fair & true . This game engine is developed by alpha team & tested by beta team for years , Why you start to consider this as a serious problem now ?

3 On the otherside for game exploiting , I think we should say thanks to the game exploiting work as beta testers , That is not their playing style , it is their volunteer job for beta testing the game engine . Actually they found the bugs & weakness of the game usually by accident . It does not mean that they spent time to exploit the game weakness & try to use them to win the game which they would not win . I am a business man & very busy . I don't have time to do this & I don't need to do this to win a game against a player who will quit the pbem whenever he feels it won't give him any funs ( He is not Max , Max is great soldier & gentleman with great knighthood spirit ).

4 I don't agree to make any change regarding to the para rules just because of this Alexandor jump . It is really unnecessary to change a rule which runs quite well in last several years & quite acceptable to most player except some special expert !!

5 THis is AAR section , if any comment is regarding to the game engine's adjustment , please move back to our close beta section .

Thank you !

[Vokt]

Players quit games because they start to see weird things and stop having fun. You can lose a game but still you can have fun playing. But when you are not enjoying the game because of the weird things you are seeing, you just have to quit the game, you just have no other choice (you just have said it, all of us have our jobs and it's not like we are playing CEAW 24/7).

The fact is that if you look at the all the AAR's in which you, Morris, have participated, many, but many of them, haven't been finished probably because all of those players quit the game or stopped sending you turns. You just can check that in the forums AAR section. There are thousands of "early" Axis or Allies surrenders from your opponents. My guess is that simply they just weren't enjoying the game.

So there isn't only a guy or two that have prematurely ended the game when playing against you but there are many guys that at some point of the game stopped playing against you. Should this mean something? Or it's just mere coincidence?

Supermax is a good and imaginative player but he just quited playing CEAW for a while because he just started seeing weird things either. He just said in a post and I just quote:

I couldn't agree more.

There is more than 1 game that I stopped because it was blatant.

Some players are simply invincible , and never hit subs, never get a bad attack turn, always kill and destroy enemy troops , (you never have units that survives at 1 or 2 steps when you open your turn) , etc. , and all. Its quite obvious and easy to spot when you think about it.

This one time I stopped a game because the axis player was able to take Leningrad in 1 turn, while fully entrenched. My unit was guard, with a defensive general, and max entrenchment. Well the player was still able to storm the city in 1 turn

There's a few names that come to mind... "Very good" players" ...

And as a conclusion, everytime someone post on the reload thing it is very interesting to see that not many players actually comment. Guilty feeling?

I would say you just need to find people that don't reload.

Seemingly, this also happened to supermax in the past. He just didn't enjoy the game and quited. I just have finished a game against supermax which I enjoyed a lot. I'm confident that he just enjoyed the game too. This is what finally matters when playing CEAW.

[Cybvep]

Vokt, Supermax was talking about *cheating* in that post, i.e. about the players who reload over and over again in order to get perfect results. This has NOTHING to do with PARAs or other real or imaginary game issues.

[Vokt]

It's far far more gamey to leave the capital defenceless. Sorry, but if the hex is empty, then it's empty. Even a 1-step partisan unit can capture an empty hex and I have absolutely no problems with that. Just put a freaking GAR/Corps there and be done with it. Hex-garrisoning is a good example of a "soft rule". The game doesn't force you to garrison any hex, because technically you can move the units rather freely. There is no "hard rule" here. However, the game heavily *encourages* you to garrison various hexes because it's beneficial gameplay-wise. It's a soft rule and that's good IMO.

Forgetting to garrison a city or capital where a partisan unit is running round is another matter. I just was referring to purposeful landing operations done with garrisons like those seeking for an empty Italian surrender city. Yes, the simple fix is to garrison all the cities, even Venice, but someone really believes that a landing operation in Venice could be possible to do with a garrison unit and having the Allied supply source in Malta or Tunis?

Regarding the paratrooper droppings maybe the question is that air units have excessively wide spotting ranges. You shouldn't been able to jump that far if spotting ranges weren't that large since the paradrop is dependant on the target hex being spotted.

As Plaid commented, paratrooper units are now mostly used to take empty cities or wipe out air units far from the role they played in WW2.