Slitherine

This is exactly true for all powers except Germany. None of them were ready for war and could not form high quality units until some time.

France starts at the threshold of losing quality so if they're careful with recruiting they can get a new unit every other turn or so before the manpower drop hits.

Britain starts below the threshold and that means they can't form high quality units or repair losses without introducing lower quality new recruits. It took time until the British were capable of training their new recruits well.

USA starts very low, but will get above the threshold before the war begins. Usually they get above the threshold about 1 year before they join. This means they can build 1 naval unit per turn, but not all at the same time if they want to keep the manpower above 75%. If we don't do this then USA will have manpower above 100 at the start of the war and will never have any problems.

The same with the Russians. They get above 75 early enough to build new units before Barbarossa. But if they take heavy losses in 1942 and some in 1941 they will drop below 75% in 1943. Not even Russia could sustain heavy losses over several years without feeling the impact.

Italy also starts below the threshold so they get just above when they join the Axis.

All of these values are carefully set after lots of playtesting to yield what we feel is the most accurate manpower levels during years the countries are a war.

So for me in this game, it's about how long can I delay purchasing UK units in the hope that the manpower levels go => 75%

Winter weather thsi time, another bonus for Supermax as it makes it easier to cross the Seine. Paris wil be gone next turn.

The Irish GAR, Canadian FTR and GAR make it to England. Will the rest of my Canadian troops make it in time?

BTW the UK only has 30pps in the bank at the moment.

Stauffenberg wrote:This is exactly true for all powers except Germany. None of them were ready for war and could not form high quality units until some time.

Britain starts below the threshold and that means they can't form high quality units or repair losses without introducing lower quality new recruits. It took time until the British were capable of training their new recruits well.

USA starts very low, but will get above the threshold before the war begins. Usually they get above the threshold about 1 year before they join. This means they can build 1 naval unit per turn, but not all at the same time if they want to keep the manpower above 75%. If we don't do this then USA will have manpower above 100 at the start of the war and will never have any problems.

The same with the Russians. They get above 75 early enough to build new units before Barbarossa. But if they take heavy losses in 1942 and some in 1941 they will drop below 75% in 1943. Not even Russia could sustain heavy losses over several years without feeling the impact.

Italy also starts below the threshold so they get just above when they join the Axis.

All of these values are carefully set after lots of playtesting to yield what we feel is the most accurate manpower levels during years the countries are a war.

I respectfully disagree. The quality of the British (and for that matter Canadian) army recruits was very high from the beginning of the War and the training program was as rigorous as that of Germany. What was missing is that they were not trained initially in some of the modern methods of warfare. However, I believe this is reflected in the game by Germany's higher Organization level and by the fact that Germany starts with Fixed Defences level 1. The problem with penalizing the British with low manpower is that it also affects both the RAF and the RN. Although I am using Britain as an example, the same can be said about the US, USSR and Italy. I would have no problem if these nations were given lower manpower additions each turn so that they would still have manpower problems. But historically these manpower problems were faced at the end of the war, not the beginning. I would also have no problem if Britain started with a lot fewer units. In particular, Canada should be reduced to one MECH at most. It seems to me that the low manpower levels given to some nations was done more for play balance purposes than historical accuracy. But I really don't want to hijack this thread, so I won't say anymore.

massina_nz wrote:So for me in this game, it's about how long can I delay purchasing UK units in the hope that the manpower levels go => 75%

Correct, in my game with Plaid I could not avoid that the manpower dropped below 75 % after a few turns of intense fighting and producing new GAR/INF in Britain. Nevertheless, even if its drops below 75 % you regain relatively quickly manpower and you should be in "white" levels relatively quickly, if the fighting stops (if Britain falls or you succesfully fend off Sealion).

Also i was sometimes just above 75%, so you should be really careful which units you reinforce. Important units like the FTR, MECH and naval forces should be only reinforced if you are in white levels (of course only if this is possible, sometimes you will have to upgrade).

I also have a question at the designer. If my manpower drops below 75 % and I repair a unit it gets -1 Quality. If I later get in white levels again (just above 75%) and repair the unit again, but it drops again to yellow levels, do I get another -1 penalty on quality for this unit?

harrybanana wrote: I respectfully disagree. The quality of the British (and for that matter Canadian) army recruits was very high from the beginning of the War and the training program was as rigorous as that of Germany. What was missing is that they were not trained initially in some of the modern methods of warfare. However, I believe this is reflected in the game by Germany's higher Organization level and by the fact that Germany starts with Fixed Defences level 1. The problem with penalizing the British with low manpower is that it also affects both the RAF and the RN. Although I am using Britain as an example, the same can be said about the US, USSR and Italy. I would have no problem if these nations were given lower manpower additions each turn so that they would still have manpower problems. But historically these manpower problems were faced at the end of the war, not the beginning. I would also have no problem if Britain started with a lot fewer units. In particular, Canada should be reduced to one MECH at most. It seems to me that the low manpower levels given to some nations was done more for play balance purposes than historical accuracy. But I really don't want to hijack this thread, so I won't say anymore.

The quality of the existing 1939 UK units is high and not impacted in the game, it's just the new and replacement units that are effected. That makes historical sense simply based on the low number of trained armed forces units for the UK and it's commonwealth countries at the start of the war in comparison to Germany, no?

Regarding the bolded sentence: Based on every book, study, or article I have read on the battle of Britain, the RAF had well known manpower issues early in the war. I would be very interested in revisiting this question if you can find a single reference to the RAF not having manpower issues early in the war.

To zechi: Sorry about the focus change, good luck with the game:)!

Can this manpower discussion take place elsewhere?

Mud comes to my aid and Paris somehow holds out, so I re-inforce it to 9 steps. Nothing much else for the French to do but a few suicide attacks.

UK now has 83PPs with a 33PP convoy arriving thsi turn, and up to 71% manpower

US buys an industry lab and USSR a Fixed def/INF lab. In every other game I've played as allies I've built industry labs first for the Russians. Now I'm going to copy Neil's plan instead and hope to bolster my INF units before Barbarossa.

Well France falls before 1940, probably the earliest time that has happened for me, oh well c'est le vie



German u-boats target an un-escorted GAR transport just off Cornwall. Given it was only a GAR I didn't bother about escorts. It manages to escape to Cardiff and I block it with a BB, and surround the BB with air cover just in case the u-boats target the BB. with a BB. At least it tells me where his subs are, and the cost to repair the GAR is actually less than if he attacked a convoy with 3 u-boats.

The Canadian MECH finally reaches Halifax, the Canadian INF is still many turns away, and I may not bother with it.

UK PPs are at 108 and manpower at 72%. I haven't started building any additional units in the UK yet. I can't wait too long.

BTW Max is already strongly hinting at Sealion in his emails.

massina_nz wrote:Well France falls before 1940, probably the earliest time that has happened for me, oh well c'est le vie


German u-boats target an un-escorted GAR transport just off Cornwall. Given it was only a GAR I didn't bother about escorts. It manages to escape to Cardiff and I block it with a BB, and surround the BB with air cover just in case the u-boats target the BB. with a BB. At least it tells me where his subs are, and the cost to repair the GAR is actually less than if he attacked a convoy with 3 u-boats.

The Canadian MECH finally reaches Halifax, the Canadian INF is still many turns away, and I may not bother with it.

UK PPs are at 108 and manpower at 72%. I haven't started building any additional units in the UK yet. I can't wait too long.

BTW Max is already strongly hinting at Sealion in his emails.

My advice is to build a second UK sub.
The first uk sub position near amsterdam and recons for german transports from amsterdam and the east ports, while the second one watchs for transports from the southern french ports.
Your aircraft can recon german units in the channel port cities.

If supermax does a sealion 2 UK subs will be useful at attacking his transports.

If supermax doesn't do sealion, the 2 uk subs are still useful in the axis sub funding role or to recon transports leaving from italian ports.

The axis convoy ambush spot is always the hex to the northeast of the convoy, because the convoy will move through that hex over 90% of the time.
The axis convoy ambush spot is the best way for axis subs to save oil, that way they get 2 attacks for burning one oil for one move.
So if you have a sub in that spot and he tries to move his sub into that ambush spot his sub will run into the uk sub and be found.

PS the best strategy is to pick a strategy that attacks supermax's strategy. The worst thing to do is to do what supermax expects you to do.

I would not build another UK sub. If supermax does launch Sealion, you will need every single British PP to purchase and repair ground units. It is especially important to make sure you have enough to repair units every turn, otherwise your coastal defense will evaporate.

joerock22 wrote:I would not build another UK sub. If supermax does launch Sealion, you will need every single British PP to purchase and repair ground units. It is especially important to make sure you have enough to repair units every turn, otherwise your coastal defense will evaporate.

I agree. My anti-Sealion defence involves an INF on each of the rough hexes south east of London, an INF for the hex south of Norwich and one for each of the three hexes on the south coast that can be shore-bombarded from two hexes. GARs or planes cover the rest with MECHs ready to counterattack any landings that make it.
Also, the british SUB takes up station in the hex north west of Norwich to slow access to this hex that threatens multiple land hexes.

I havent got a firm view of where to base the fleet but in the past I've put the CV in Cardiff port with 3 BBs stationed west of it. This maintains a critical mass whilst allowing escape of the CV (which can provide air support in the mean-time) if things go badly.

Is it the consensus that Sealion is unstoppable against a determined Axis player who has performed reasonably well up through the conquest of France? Or can a determined player help the Brits turn back Sealion even against a strong Axis player?

I always thought that the job of the Allies in the early game was to make the Axis pay as severely as possible for every gain they made, so that Sealion may succeed, but at the cost of a decent Barbarossa.

schwerpunkt wrote: I agree. My anti-Sealion defence involves an INF on each of the rough hexes south east of London, an INF for the hex south of Norwich and one for each of the three hexes on the south coast that can be shore-bombarded from two hexes. GARs or planes cover the rest with MECHs ready to counterattack any landings that make it.
Also, the british SUB takes up station in the hex north west of Norwich to slow access to this hex that threatens multiple land hexes.

I havent got a firm view of where to base the fleet but in the past I've put the CV in Cardiff port with 3 BBs stationed west of it. This maintains a critical mass whilst allowing escape of the CV (which can provide air support in the mean-time) if things go badly.

6 british inf corps, 2-3 mechs and tons of garrisons entrenched (this would need to begin preparations for Sealion when Fall of France is near) plus a well stationed RN should be really enough for stopping Sealion even against a strong axis player. But with the new amphibious rules in GS 2.00, the brits could have a hard time for keeping the germans out of their island if a strong axis player is determined to launch a strong Sealion.

UK PPs 133, manpower 73%.

Pretty quiest except London was strategically bombed, presuambly to suss out what was defending London, although it did draw out my Canadian FTR in Cardiff.

The Canadian MECH leaves Halifax with three escorts.

UK PPs at 152 and manpower at 74%

Holland falls – I was wondering when that would happen, as I expected it to happen the turn after Paris fell.

Brest and Bordeaux falls – interesting Bordeaux has Panzer and TAC by it? That’s not a normal prep for Sealion IMHO,

3 u-boats eliminate my central convoy in the Mid-atlantic, as my Canadian MECH slips by to the south of them – it will make landfall next turn. Question is do I send the 3 escorts back to escort CAN INF to UK? Will I have time? Assuming poor weather it will still take 4 turns to disembark it from Halifax.

I'd start churning ou those INF regardless of your manpower because Max will invade as soon as he gets clear weather.....

U-boats spotted the movement of the Canadian MECH transport somehow. Interesting, Kreigsmarine moved further westward. I'm not surprised by attempt to hurt the transport, although it did allow a 22PP convoy to arrive safely this turn. – I guess my opponent wants to put the hurt on the RN if they decide to retaliate against the u-boats, so I scatter them towards safe ports.


Russia makes excellent progress in research.


Here's the UK defenses so far. This turn I purchase 2 MECHs and 2 INFs

Well I'm not that surprised that my opponent declared war on Spain, given the movement of the KG and the troops that were in the Bordeaux area.

My guess is now that the Axis plan to make the Atlantic and Med theirs and with the Kreigsmarine going south, then Sealion isn’t imminent. I'm pretty sure that as the Allies you can't prevent the Axis taking Spain, and the best thing you can do is just delay them by landing GARs in the remote cities of Spain, costing them precious turns eradicating those pesky GARs of yours. However in this game the Axis naval presence is stong in the Mid-Atlantic, so it's not goign to be easy for the RN to transport troops to Spain, with a possible Sealion on the way as well.

Anyway I can’t send the Canadian MECH corps to Spain that reached Cardiff last turn, because it’s too weak to run the u-boat gaunlet, so I'll effectively pay another 8PPs (to load another unit) and land it in Cardiff to repair it.

I load up the Alexandria and Port Said GARs, they are bound for Valencia and Barcelona, they should make it there before Madrid falls.

I place two INFs near London – so it looks like I'm still prepping for Sealion. But plan on sending a MECH and a couple of GARs to Spain next turn with a large escort.

This is kind of perverse really because this was my initial plan as the Axis in my game against crazygunner, take Paris early then go for Spain early, with the aim of closing the Med. But a huge BEF put the k'bosh on that plan.

I'd be wary about reinforcing Spain. A committed axis player can knock it over pretty easily and you dont buy much time dropping units about. Sending the Med GARs is useful as they are lost cost, low risk and will probably cause Max to burn oil if you can get them entrenched. Other than that, save your PPs for STR's so that you can put some pressure on Max that way - they are also useful for anti SUB operations if he goes that way.

The other question is whether Max will try something at the other end of the Med?