Slitherine

Ronnie wrote:Leonard,

Italy survives; but unless you really surprise me, I think they will surrender next turn.

Regardless; I really appreciate you playing this game out to the bitter end. In my opinion this shows a lot of class on your part. I've played against opponents who as the axis concede shortly after the game turned against them and they knew they had no chance for victory. Though I will always accept a concession, I felt a bit cheated in those games; because I had put in the defensive effort and now wanted to reap the benefits of being the attacker.

The feedback I'm getting in my AAR on our game (which you should be able to see in a turn or two ) is that they're very impressed by your fighting spirit, willingness to stick it out, how well you've defended since Russian entry and, honestly, how long you've been able to hold out. You have put up one impressive and formidable defense!

Now let's see if I'm right or wrong about Italy falling next turn.

AXIS - Attempt at a Retort

They say there are 2 things that people should never be allowed to see being made; i.e. Laws and Sausages.......I think we can now add a third, my use of this Post Board system.

Hi guys......not really sure how to do this, but I hope to add my thoughts (ill conceived as they might be) to the end of the thread pages of Ronnie's excellent AAR, in an attempt to explain my actions or in response to comments regarding my actions / game decisions.

I think the first thing I need to explain is that I was very kindly invited to join the Mac play test group by Doug (Schnurri), about a year ago, and ever since then I have been a transient, lesser light in that group. It is my understanding that the final 2.1 GS release for Mac is still in it's final development stages and as such all games that I have played have been play tests. Thus, I considered this game as just another play test and the fact that Ronnie asked if I minded that he do an AAR on it seemed to me like a logical way to make our play test more widely viewed and discussed. So I thought, sure why not.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that I am not all that familiar with 'our' (if I am allowed to now consider myself as part of your community) games finer points. In particular rule changes or game mechanics that do not appear in the manuals and brochures that I have read. I am certainly not privy to a lot of changes or mechanics that were probably discussed ad nauseum in your various discussion room / post threads. This is not meant to be an excuse for my many errors, but it is my hope that you might forgive me for some of my transgressions regarding play etiquette, recent rule change misinterpretations and other failings in general.

Simply put, I do not consider myself as having any thing near the level of expertise or knowledge of our game as most (if not all of you who viewed these threads) but I am a reasonable player of strategy games, which is why I think Ronnie found me interesting to play against. I believe that now, after my few games against Schnurri, Peter Frigate and Ronnie, I might have learnt enough to give most players an interesting tussle (excepting the likes of Morris and JoeRock of course).

OK......enough of the preamble......my only comments for this thread page are:

• Op Harassment was brilliant, it achieved exactly what Ronnie intended. The only plus for the Axis was it made the use of Norway as a future Allied 'Air Base' less likely.

• The late start to Case Yellow because of Mud, immediately gave me cause for concern, I could see / sense straight away that the Axis drive thru France was going to be like pushing rope uphill.....and thanks to Ronnie's great play.....it was.

Assuming I have done this post correctly and if there is anybody out there actually interested in me doing any more posts at the bottom of Ronnie's threads, I will post my next one shortly.

Ah.....not quite what I expected.....I was hoping that my first post would appear at the bottom of Ronnie's first page......if I do anymore posts I will attempt to do a better job of associating my comments to the relevant pages and any specific comments my posts are trying to refer.

I'd love to see more posts from you, but you can't insert posts in the middle of a thread. Posts are chronological, so the latest one goes at the end. You can reply to certain posts from Ronnie and respond to the bit you've excerpted, however.

Crazygunner1 wrote:... you will earn about 4-5 more pps per turn in having occupying the whole of France.

Is that a very good return for the cost? The cost is using up more oil & manpower losses early in the game, plus it puts into play lots of 'free' opposing units in the mid-east and Africa. The extra territory requires more garrisons/manpower as well, and perhaps there are disadvantages in allowing more coastal areas for allied invasion (not sure if that should be a consideration, but it seems like it would be).

Sure, but if you reject the armistice, then it's best to make sure that most of the French units are destroyed, including the French FTR and French BB/DD. The main purpose of the armistice rejection is to give the Axis player an additional gameplay option if the Allied player used suicidal attacks in France and was careless with the navy or if Case Yellow was very bloody in general. You want to go for 1942 Barbarossa in that case. In other cases accepting the armistice is probably the better option.

The biggest benefits come from activating Spain and/or performing the Sea Lion. There is plenty of time for both in 1940-1941, since you don't have to worry about Barbarossa in 1941. You can also conquer the Balkans at your leisure and if you are really determined and can accept higher losses than normal, you can conquer everything except Switzerland and Sweden, as there is little point in doing that in most cases.

Just to be clear the Mac version that will be / is available is the same as the PC version.

(Page 2 of Roonie's AAR) Turns 22 to 34

In our last game (between Ronnie and myself, with me playing as the Allies) it went right down to the wire and ended up in a draw. What I took away from that game was two things. The first being that it is much easier playing as the Allies than the Axis. I had not played a game of CEAW for many months and Ronnie is no slouch, so playing this first up game after a long lay off, meant I needed to brush off the cob webs and get back into the swing of things somewhat gently. Playing as the Allies allowed that to happen. And this was only the second time I ever played as the Allies. The second point was I (the Allies) really played poorly in the Med. I think my overall play in the Atlantic and Continental Europe was not too bad. Probably because I had played a few games as the Axis, doing the normal concentrate on Russia strategy. Just by the by, I find the normal Russia first approach a bit boring.

What does all this mean ? It means I went into this game against Ronnie with a desire to understand the dynamics of playing in the Med / North Africa better. And, I gotta say I think I accomplished that. Losing this game badly really taught me a lot about play in the Med / North Africa and the relative value of an Allies first / Spanish Gambit. After this game I believe there is merit to this strategy (If executed properly), and I suspect a few of you can see many ways where you could of done better, and are now also thinking that there might be value in this kind of strategy ?

OK......back to the specifics.....my only comments for this page are:

• After reading one of the Brochures I was led to believe that all I needed to do about Malta and secure my supply situation was to "pound" Malta and it's port. I now suspect I was supposed to pound the Port only and if possible capture the island outright. This is as the game is currently setup / coded. I say as "currently setup / coded" because I believe the current 'rules' are flawed (in my opinion). I believe that the Med / North Africa supply rules (which only apply to the Axis) are overly restrictive. Remember, those of us who take up the mantle to play out the game as the Axis, are not Hitler. We presumably take advice from our Military and Civilian advisors. Therefore, if the Axis decided to do an all out (max effort) Med / North Africa Strategy they would have built up the necessary supply / logistics preparations (same applies for a Sea Lion Op). Yes, they historically would have 'physically' struggled to do so in 1940......but to assume they were incapable of doing so over 41 and 42.....please ! So, if you can accept that premise I would like to start a discussion thread that could look at how we might use HQ's to simply modify the current supply rules ? Just by the by, I had three and nearly a fourth German HQ operating in the Med / North Africa.
  
  Despite attempting a Spanish Gambit from the very outset, I needed to keep Ronnie guessing for as long as possible. It appears that this whole thread page shows I was successfully hiding my real intentions.
  
  Stauffenberg correctly outlined how I intended to use my subs.
  
  Cybvep argues for an Op Sea Lion......his argument looks pretty good......I might try that next time.
  
  I can see how Ronnie ran his Troop ships around the edges.....I will store that away in my memory banks.....and any future games will likely see my subs search the edges.
  
  All in all.....at this point in the game (turn 34).....I can't see that I have done anything catastrophically wrong ?

Well, you can use as many units as you want in Africa. You will simply have to pay additional PPs if you exceed the allowed supply limit. Conquering Tunis, Alexandria etc. helps greatly. I think that it's fair...

Also, it wouldn't be easy to turn dirt roads and sand into highways and railways in 1940-1942. Infrastructure projects take time. In Russia, despite the German efforts, overall infrastructure level remained low IRL. Hell, in many places in Europe infrastructure is bad even nowadays. It's easy to build some basic stuff, but that is already represented by PP cost.

I think you just need to increase knowledge and overall experience with the game. Then you Will figure out how to execute operations to your success. The thing you have to remember as axis, you can not be strong all over the map, if you do sealion, barbarossa Will be weaker no matter if successful or not. A weak barbarossa in 41 or 42 almost always leads to defeat.

Don't think you made serious mistakes, but you have to be quicker in phase and have a plan setup. If you want to do any kind of operation between the fall of france and barbarossa, it surely helps to knock out france early, lets say may or june 40.

(Page 3 of Roonie's AAR) Turns 35 to 43

No preamble this time.....not sure anybody is actually reading anyway, so this may be close to my last post. Anyway, my only comments for this page are:

• I see comments regarding my use of fighters to cover forces (mainly Surface Fleets and Sub Pens) in France. My simple thinking was that I presumably had a 'qualitative' Dog Fight edge plus I was hoping my Sub activity across the Atlantic (in particular against the CW convoys) was bleeding his PPs, in combination to land force losses due to action across the Med / North Africa / Iraq. So, I was hoping to keep up the pressure. At the end of the day I didn't have the supply points to use them (my additional Air units) in the Med / North Africa. Maybe I needed to also use an 'Air' HQ if I wanted to pursue this tactic.
  
  It seems to me that most people, including Ronnie (I think), did not realise that the Axis had to take Casablanca before the US joined the War for Spain to be activated. At this point in the game I was patiently pursuing an 'activate Spain' Strategy, which in my mind just required me to conquer all of North Africa. In everything I had read (including a Brochure that describes in detail the 'Political' rules of our game) made no mention of the US entry condition. I will say more about this in my next post.
  
  Stauffenberg mentions a few things that describe why I was adopting the approach that I was.
  
  My understanding about when the captured oil fields became useable by the Axis was off. I now understand I needed to control Baghdad and Basra, therefore the railway system, before the captured oil fields could be used. NP......lesson learnt.
  
  The US enters the war. Things are going slower than I would have hoped. But, not knowing how the entry of the US was going to affect Spanish activation I was blissfully unaware that my whole Strategy was now shot to pieces!

Does anybody want to read my comments to Ronnie's AAR ?

(Page 4 of Roonie's AAR) Turns 44 to 53

My comments / thoughts regarding the turns described on this page are:

• My rejection of Ronnie's interesting and enjoyable role playing byplay involving the possibility of a Second Nazi - Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was ultimately rejected because of the 'Economic' consequences that would befall the Axis if it was instituted. My Strategy was designed to deliver the Axis a reasonably secure Italy and the reasonable expectation of an almost single front, not too mention a weakened Western Allies. In addition, I felt that the Axis would be OK in terms of Manpower and Oil. So, only the continuous supply of PPs (well into the later part of the game) concerned me. With an expectation that I would get Spanish PPs, plus Finland, right up to the last 6 - 9 months of the game, had me thinking I was in a pretty good position.
  
  The replay of turns 49 and 50 was less than ideal. Neither Ronnie or myself saw the 56 PP penalty, resulting from an UK DD 'bouncing' thru a Sub (with 5/6 Italian Subs in the area) 'Blockade' with strong Air cover (Air Superiority), coming. I knew that Ships could bounce off of Subs, but I really expected any ships coming up against a blockade would bounce backwards, into the Atlantic from whence they came, not forwards thru almost 2 lines of Subs with a withering array of aircraft cover! Anyway, there is not much I can say here. The notion that we could have solved the problem by the Allies agreeing to "not do anything" for a turn or two is just too clumsy. So, I thought Ronnie's offer to replay the turns was both exceedingly gracious / sportsman like and sensible given the situation, plus a reasonable way to ensure we didn't ruin the game over an unnecessary 'rule vs how things should work' type discussion. The issue of Ronnie losing a FTR instead of a DD when the replay was done seems to have irked Ronnie somewhat. I can certainly empathise with that, and to Ronnie's credit he really didn't whinge about it. Neither did I when I found that the Political Brochure that I was basing my whole Strategy around (!) was incorrect, in terms of how to activate Spain. Again, I point out that as CEAW 2.1 hasn't yet been formally released, this game (to me) was just another play test, with an AAR. So, I thought all was good and we were certainly learning a lot about this kind of strategy, and that there was still plenty left to discuss regarding the supply rules (particularly in the Med / North Africa) and the Minor Neutral activation rules (in particular Spain).
  
  I was happy to continue all the way down to Agadir and engage the US ground and Air forces, in the hope that I might kill most of them off, thus making West Wall invasions in 43 less difficult to deal with. I really wanted to spend most of the Axis' (in particular the Germans) efforts against the marauding Russian hordes.

I think that your analysis of the Axis' strategic situation is incorrect. While it is true that if you are conservative with oil, you will not run out of it, IMO in 1943-1945 MP, controlled territory and time are your typical concerns, not PPs. PPs are relatively less important during late-game, although obviously you cannot neglect them. It can be misleading to assume that your end game will resemble your situation from 1941-1942. I know that sometimes it may be comforting to look at your strong units, tech progress and MP %, but in most games all this changes dramatically in late 1943 or early 1944. If you are not careful, your frontline will fall like a bloc of cards. You need to know when and where to give ground and remember that the Allies will usually be so strong in 1945 that even 1-2 turn(s) may make a difference between victory/stalemate/defeat.

(Page 5 of Roonie's AAR) Turns 54 to 58

My comments / thoughts regarding the turns described on this page are:

• They say timing is everything thing. I knew that the Russians would probably go on the attack soon. So, I started to move into more defensible positions, and tried to build and deploy as many Inf as I could. I kinda got the timing right......should really have done it earlier, but I just didn't have any Inf available. So, as Ronnie was fully geared up to launch his massive offensive, which was much larger than I expected, when the hammer fell, my quality units just evaporated. This just ripped the Germans apart. Ronnie's Russian offensive totally crushed my front line, and any attempt at trading of ground for time while trying not to lose too many quality units was almost impossible. Or you could argue I just did this phase very poorly. Regardless, despite losing substantial forces, I kinda managed to stabilise things several turns later and always believed that I would.
  
  Now for the real body blow. Only now and as a result of my exchanges by email to Ronnie and Borger, my belief that I would activate Spain and give the Western Allies a bloody nose was crushed. I was absolutely rocked to find out about the reasonably recent decision to not allow Spanish activation once the US entered the War ! This unknown aspect of our game totally screwed my overall strategy. Even with the hammer fall in the East, I still hung to the belief that with Spain on the Axis side and the Western Allies being kept at bay by mainly Spanish and Italian forces, with a number of inexpensive German Divisions and only 2 or 3 quality German units supporting, plus something like 17 - 20 Axis Naval units, I might eek out some kind of victory. Now it was obvious to me (like those reading Ronnie's AAR) that the game was lost. However, I was not going to bitch and moan nor just 'cave in'. The Axis were going to fight on to the bitter end, just like the mad man himself would have. Please, some one assassinate me.
  
  I note a few comments about 'gamey' uses of the Armistice rules and "is it worthwhile to program an exception to deal with this or that circumstance?" plus "I do know that we want the conditions for activation to be a deterministic set of conditions and not based on any random draw". I very much disagree. I believe some of the political intrigues of our game and indeed in real life, are very much changeable and unpredictable just like the weather. Therefore, just like the weather (and in our game we have a fairly simple Weather Chart), we could easily put together a 'Political Chart' that could put some variability into Country activations and really make the game interesting ! Why not ?

Thanks for the insights into your game! As you mentioned, the issue with Spain was really huge. I was really impressed with your defense in the later game - you outlasted a lot of people's expectations!

(Page 6 of Roonie's AAR) Turns 59 to 60

NP.....I actually appreciate that somebody is taking the time to read my posts.....which, to be clear, is not so much a discussion or commentary of my chosen strategy or my good or bad use of certain tactics.....some of that might creep in......what I am more interested in is raising some discussion on aspects, rules or game design choices that could be improved (IMHO - and whilst my game credentials may not be that great, I like to think that my 22 years of active service in the military affords me some useful opinions on military operations, a-historic or otherwise). Anyway, my post's comments, which pretty much just tries to contend with one long post / set of replies, are as follows:

• From my perspective the posts associated with this page of Ronnie's AAR boils down to some kind of controversy regarding "how things work" (aka what is actually going on with the game engine) versus "how things should work" (what might be considered to be possible vagaries in the way the game plays and some thoughts on how we might consider alternate game mechanics that might better mirror or reflect military reality). So, in short, I do feel like I have been criticised here. In general, I don't / try not to take offence. I just think that Ronnie and I came at this game from two different perspectives or premises. Ronnie probably saw this game as a kind of formal competition and as a way for him to show case his game skills whilst trying to elicit input from our gaming community in a bid to improve his game. NP there. As I mentioned earlier, I came at this game from the notion that CEAW 2.1 is still in development (at least in terms of the Mac community where I am one of the lesser lights of prospective testers) and in my mind we (both PC and Mac players) are still 'honing' the finer points of our game. Thus, I specifically chose a Rommel / Donitz like strategy because I kinda like it's objectives (secure Oil reserves, secure the "soft underbelly of Europe", give the Allies a bloody nose both across the Atlantic, in the Air and on Land) and then apply a Max effort against the Russians. But, I also wanted to show case our game, for the purposes of discussing certain 'deficiencies' that I believe exists within our current game engine, and to further explore an area of our game that I had little experience with (aka the Med / North Africa and Spanish activation).
  
  Long story short, I absolutely disagree with the way our game handles; supply (particularly in the Med / North Africa), Spanish activation, where and how Free French forces appear, and some issues regarding Gibraltar (I will mention this further on my next and final post). I did not feel that I was violating any "proper game etiquette" in raising my concerns, even during a game. I certainly was not asking to have the game changed, during mid play. Yes, I was kind of venting, but mostly I was just arguing against what I thought to be a somewhat illogical or unrealistic game mechanic (in this page of Ronnie's AAR, that was the 'materialising' of the Free French forces which just 'vaporised' my Axis forces in the area. I am positive we can do this better. In fact, I thought "ncali's" post made good sense: "There is one good reason to take Agadir, assuming it is not too tough. It means the Allies actually have to land in North Africa, using up an amphibious point or more, some PP's, and perhaps having to repair the port before it is useful as a staging area. I can understand why you want the Free French to appear here as a staging area - but if so, why not just make some impassable hexes to the North. Then it will truly be a staging area, and the Allies will be forced to make their amphibious landing in North Africa if they choose."

I am starting to realise this thread of posts would be better off in another part of the game forum. As I really want to get a more involved set of discussions going on regarding the issues I am trying to highlight. So, I will make one last post, which will mainly focus on the issue of Gibraltar. Take this rather bad beating handed out to me by Ronnie on the chin (certainly the worst I have suffered), after all he did play a very sound game. I can see that most people's expectations were that Ronnie would just roll over the Axis, without any thought or effort, and achieve an Ultimate Victory. This seems to be the general consensus. I am happy that despite a number of serious setbacks the Axis were able to disappoint. In fact, I would like to issue a challenge to anybody out there who thinks they can get an Ultimate Victory from me. Bring it on !