Proposed Change to Supply Level Distances

[schwerpunkt]

this is why you need top play a game against this

you describe what we all would normally do, but you are missing a few points:

1. Moscow and Stalingrad are lost in 41
2. He gives up 'Africa' but not Italy, so no easy landing in 41 - its German Mech's in Sicily if you try!
3. if you land in France in - pick a date - if its 42 then you are fighting Tiger Tanks, good luck with that, otherwise in 41 its British MECH's against Panzer IV's

the strategy - and big kudos for working out the execution - is to take Russia out then deal with the west

the west just doesn't have the tech or PP base in 41 and 42

my guess is that he doen't even have to take out Russia - just criple it and get the Russian oil

its a beautiful thing - just haven't figured a way to stop it yet

Yep, thats my experience. I was kicked out of Sicily by MECHs and he had no air support. Cost him a lot of PPs but it cost me my landing force. In 1942, he had a least one Tiger sat waiting for me in France. in addition to having axis corps dotted around the cities. The MECHs stayed in Sicily. Its not feasible to land and stay ashore in France - the fortresses make it very tough. The three allied Paras arent available to jump till about Sep 42.
I spent 1942 bombing his resources in range to 0, but, he has plenty of russian resources so thats more of a containment than any real constraint

Zechi, give Morris a try!

[schwerpunkt]

So what wasn't bought as the Axis then? No labs? No subs?

From my observations, he has only invested in ARM and INF from the start of the game. Thats only 6 labs which is quite cheap. Not sure whether he has invested in General - if he has thats only another 3 labs which arent that expensive. He could also have held off of these until after Barbarossa was launched.

[gerones]

First of all, may be it is not a good idea to modify the game after every game exploit that Morris can find. Giving the russians the extra elite units in winter 1941 seems like a great help for the soviets and should be enough so implementing any other change favouring the soviets could imbalance the game again.

So I think that the best way to solve german armoured blob is not by reducing supply level in Russia but by introducing limits on the number of armoured units that a country can build at a certain year. If we have set limits for building para units and also for elite units for historical and game balance reasons we should introduce limits for other kind of units like e.g. german armoured units or italian subs units. Nobody has talked about it but the "italian submarine blob" (italians building submarine fleets of 8 or more submarine units) in the Med but these huge italian submarine fleets in the Med are not historical at all and they have significant game balance effects if the allied player does not send a large navy to the Med to counter this. Someone can say that this simulates german uboats operating in the Med but these huge submarine fleets are excessive IMO. So we could set these limits historically based and for each year (links to german OOB´s are attached):

Germany armoured corps units limits:
1939-40 --> a maximum of 4 armoured units (Case white:http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6464 Case yelow: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6465)
1941--> a maximum of 7 armoured units (Barbarossa:http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6469)
1942--> a maximum of 8 armoured units (Case blue: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6471)
1943--> a maximum of 10 armoured units
1944--> a maximum of 12 armoured units

Germany mech corps units limits:
1939-40--> a maximum of 3 mech corps units
1941--> a maximum of 7 mech corps units
1942--> a maximum of 8 mech corps units
1943--> a maximum of 10 mech corps units
1944--> a maximum of 12 mech corps units

It seems that the italian built a large submarine fleet of about 120 subs. The germans send about 60 submarines to the Med for a total of 180 axis subs in the Med. If a submarine unit represents 50 subs in GS, building italian fleets of 8-10 subs units represents italian submarine fleets of 400-500 subs so we would have a problem of not representig well naval WWII mediterranean scenario. So we could set limits for the italian sub force as it follows:

Italy--> start with 2 submarine units in 1940 so we should set a build limit of 1 sub unit per year for a maximum of 5 sub units for 1943. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_su ... rld_War_II and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterran ... _War_II%29)


These are only examples on how I think is more effective against this. IMO, to set limits historically based is the best way to avoid gamey playing and exploits.

[zechi]

this is why you need top play a game against this

you describe what we all would normally do, but you are missing a few points:

1. Moscow and Stalingrad are lost in 41
2. He gives up 'Africa' but not Italy, so no easy landing in 41 - its German Mech's in Sicily if you try!
3. if you land in France in - pick a date - if its 42 then you are fighting Tiger Tanks, good luck with that, otherwise in 41 its British MECH's against Panzer IV's

the strategy - and big kudos for working out the execution - is to take Russia out then deal with the west

the west just doesn't have the tech or PP base in 41 and 42

my guess is that he doen't even have to take out Russia - just criple it and get the Russian oil

its a beautiful thing - just haven't figured a way to stop it yet

Yep, thats my experience. I was kicked out of Sicily by MECHs and he had no air support. Cost him a lot of PPs but it cost me my landing force. In 1942, he had a least one Tiger sat waiting for me in France. in addition to having axis corps dotted around the cities. The MECHs stayed in Sicily. Its not feasible to land and stay ashore in France - the fortresses make it very tough. The three allied Paras arent available to jump till about Sep 42.
I spent 1942 bombing his resources in range to 0, but, he has plenty of russian resources so thats more of a containment than any real constraint

Zechi, give Morris a try!

Unfortunately I do not have the time to begin another game right now, but I trust your evaluation of the strategy.

One idea to counter the strategy would be to take out Sicily in 1940 with the Canadian units. This worked for me in one game. You can get total surprise or even invade Sicily the turn the Italians activate if you get the Canadian units quick enough into position to invade Sicily. But with all the changes I'm not sure if the Canadian units will be quick enough to take out Sicily in 1940.

If there is a MECH and ARM in France/Italy will this not already help a little bit? I also have doubts that one ARM is enough to fend off an invasion by the British/US in 1942, especially if the Allies have air superiority.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just want to point out that introducing production limits on units per game year goes against the philosophy of the game. We only have production limit on elite units and paras. If we introduce limits then it should affect all countries and why would it be impossible to build e. g. 12 armor units for 1941 if you did it at the expense of air and naval units? Germany certainly had the industrial capacity to focus production on just one type of units.

The proposal we have now for supply range is that it stays at 15 from 1939-1941 and jumps to 20 for 1942-1945. This means it won't affect the activities in western and central Europe. All it does it to make it harder for Germany to sprint deep into Russia in 1941.

For those of you who don't know it then you should know that Russian used broad gauge rail lines which had to be converted to standard gauge rail lines by the Germans. This conversion limited how far east supply could be sent by rail. The final distance had to be sent by trucks. This logistical problem for Germany meant they had no chance getting very deep in Russia in 1941. Supply lines by truck could only go so far.

So we certainly have a good reason for having a lower supply range in Russia in 1941. The rail conversion caught up with the front lines for the German 1942 offensives and that meant rail supply could go further east in 1942.

Since we don't have rail lines in GS then we need an alternative method.

Remember that all cities (even enemy) provide supply level 3 so no units will drop below supply level 3. At supply level 3 you have - 1 movement points in fair weather, slightly lower max efficiency and can repair max 3 steps instead of max 4 or 5 steps. It's the -1 MP that we're mostly interested in seeing because it means that the units can't sprint so fast once they get past the line Smolensk, Gomel, Kiev and Kherson. It means the Germans can easily get to the historical line and even take Moscow, Leningrad and Rostov. But they should not be able to get as far east as Gorki, Stalingrad, Grozny.

The German armor blob relies upon one thing and that is to get to the Russian old fields so they can get the extra oil to support so many oil consuming units. It should be possible for the Germans with such a strategy to get to the oil....in 1942. If it happens as early in 1941 then we have a game balance problem.

I've played many different games through the years and I can tell you that if some players have found a way to exploit the rules then other players will copy that game strategy and you have a broken game. This is what we're facing. You won't realize the problem until you've been faced by it and then you will adapt the same strategy for your own games when you're the Axis. E. g. in some versions of WIF the Axis managed to capture Paris in Sep/Oct 1939 and the game designers had to make big changes to make it impossible because such an early fall of France meant that the Axis had a much better chance to win than they had historically.

So our goal is to find a way to solve the issue we have without disrupting the game balance we have elsewhere that seems to work well. So having a reduced supply range for supply level 5 and 4 from 1939-1941 seems to help with the issue. Best of all is that we have a good reason to have such a rule (rail conversion needed in Russia). Even with this change the Germans will push the Russians very hard in 1941. So they can still win the game if they perform well in 1942. What the change does it that it means Russian won't break the neck in 1941, but give them a chance to form a defense line somewhere during the winter. This means Germany will need 1942 to break the line and push on. From the current games played with this strategy you will see that there are no Russian units left to stop the Germans during the winter so the Germans can still move eastwards during the winter despite being hit by severe winter.

So you can get Germans getting almost to Urals by the start of their 1942 offensive. Then it's not so hard to take Omsk and win the game. You just concentrate your armor units in a huge fist west of Omsk and use them all to just destroy everything in the direct path towards Omsk. Cities you capture en route to Omsk will provide you with supply level 3.

I think the biggest problem we have is that captured cities provide supply level 3 even when cut off from the major power capital. If we hadn't that rule then e. g. the Russians could move to cut off the supply line to Berlin and the units rushing towards Omsk would be stranded. That means you can only get to Omsk if you have a wide enough spearhead so the flanks can protect the supply line. Now you can simply capture cities close to Omsk.

Changing the rule that cities provide supply level 3 will be a HUGE one that will alter game balance a lot so we should NOT try to change that. It would require a lot of extra playtesting.

I don't mind if the Germans manage to take Omsk by the end of 1942 putting all their effort into doing so. It's up to the Allied player to create so much noise in the west that this won't succeed. With a 1942 possible conquest of Omsk then will participate as well and that will make a difference. Right now we're faced with a situation where Omsk can fall before the Summer of 1942 and then USA won't be able to do much before it's too late. Remember that with the new rail rules the Germans can rail all the units from the Omsk area back to the west. If those 12+ armor and 7+ mech units get back to France and Italy in 1942 then there is NO WAY the Allies can get ashore and remain there. Germany will have all the oil they need from Baku, Grozny etc.

We've tried different strategies against the German armor blob and nobody has found a way for the Allies to prevent Russia from being completely overrun in 1941. That's the problem. I don't think we should release GS v2.00 with a broken game balance. I know for certain that people will copy Morris'es strategy and when they do then nobody wants to play the Allies and then nobody will play the game anymore. When elite players like Neil says that he doesn't know how to stop this strategy then you can imagine how average players would feel after being hit by the armor blob. They would curse the stupid game telling it's so badly balanced and not touch it anymore.

[schwerpunkt]

So I think that the best way to solve german armoured blob is not by reducing supply level in Russia but by introducing limits on the number of armoured units that a country can build at a certain year. If we have set limits for building para units and also for elite units for historical and game balance reasons we should introduce limits for other kind of units like e.g. german armoured units or italian subs units. Nobody has talked about it but the "italian submarine blob" (italians building submarine fleets of 8 or more submarine units) in the Med but these huge italian submarine fleets in the Med are not historical at all and they have significant game balance effects if the allied player does not send a large navy to the Med to counter this. Someone can say that this simulates german uboats operating in the Med but these huge submarine fleets are excessive IMO. So we could set these limits historically based and for each year (links to german OOB´s are attached):

IMO, to set limits historically based is the best way to avoid gamey playing and exploits.

I guess the aim is to not stop people from trying different strategies but to build in realistic/historical constraints -hence, a number of us favouring supply level as a constraint. It doesnt stop someone from trying the strategy but it does put does realistic constraints on using it..... Using historical build limits would be more historical but would stop people from trying what-ifs, which is what a lot of people like....

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Just for the record. A BIG kudos to Morris for finding this strategy. He was the one who found the Allied British unit blob in France strategy as well.

Without testers like him we wouldn't be able to detect creative strategies and do something about them before release.

[PionUrpo]

I'm a bit concerned this'll harm 'normal' Barbarossa in the process. In my games the German advance has usually been reasonably in line with historical when taken in context (Balkans/Norway etc. happened or not) and overall balance is pretty good.

I think the biggest problem we have is that captured cities provide supply level 3 even when cut off from the major power capital.

Off topic: This is probably the thing (along with rest of logistics/supply system) that irked me most when I started playing CEAW since it's so obviously different than most war games. There's a reason any long punch toward enemy needs to eventually stop and the rest of the line catch up. Supply system going on too narrow line is incredibly vulnerable (Which, for example, all those Ignore Kiev and go straight for Moscow to win ze war!!! enthusiast conveniently forget about. There's still nearly a million men on just one ridiculously long flank, which would only grow closer to Moscow they get. Then just add northern flank forces to that.) Huge armies just can't subsist on the relatively insignificant production of lone cities.

Anyway, enough ranting
Changing this would alter the current system too much and I've learned to play with the system well enough.

[Plaid]

I don't think that changing supply rules is a good answer. Good answer will be to make soviet army full fighting-capable in late august-september. If there will be no this orange and yellow units, axis will suffer.

[gerones]

To set build limits would be realistic from both an historical point of view and from the real available resources that Germany had in WWII. Certainly, Germany did not have the industrial capacity of producing all but tanks. Unfortunately for the germans, there was a lack of some components and/or materials that did not allow them to produce only tanks or only subs or only planes. The game allows to do this but this is not realistic from a WW2 german industrial capacity point of view. The same could be said for the italians building 500 subs in the Med. Italy had not by far the industrial capacity to do this. Not even in Mussolini´s dreams this was possible. So even this is only a game, we should remove from the game all the things that do not simulate well which was the real situation in WW2. So for me the "what if" should be referred to the real possibilities that the countries at war had: what if the germans wouldn´t have invaded Russia in 1941 but in 1942, what if the allies would have landed in Crete/Greece instead of Italy in 1943, etc. IMO, other "what if´s" like what if the germans would have produced all but tanks in WW2 should be removed from the game if we want a WW2 simulation game.

Certainly, now that Morris has found this strategy, many players would be tempted to test it if we do nothing. I wouldn´t call this (Morris strategy) exactly a creative strategy but a clever way to exploit the freedom that the game gives to build as many armoured, mech,etc units as one wants. The same could be said for @crazygunner delaying fall of Paris strategy or @supermax conquest of Canada and USA.

Supply range change in Russia makes sense and would be really historically based so I would vote yes to this but the fact is that I have doubts about if reducing supply range will be effective against german armoured blob so the germans with the change surely won´t be able to get to Saratov or Gorki but they will still be able to at least get to Tambov in the east and to Stalingrad and the oilfields in the south. Moscow forest area, if well defended, will be the only one really benefited from this supply range change because german panzer and mech units will have only 3 hexes of movement in fair weather and only 1 in mud, winter and severe winter weather.

[JimR]

Supply range change sounds like a good, and relatively uncomplicated, way to deal with this play-balance problem. The issue of different German and Russian railroad gauges is a sound historical reason for introducing the supply range change.

[NotaPacifist]

Respectfully guys, I think in altering how things were done when you first made the GS you ruined the chances for successful naval invasion. If a powerful airforce cannot concentrate on a landing zone, if it's limited to two air attacks, your chances of getting ashore against a double line are impossible. What any player defending a coastline can do, be it in Sicily, Normandy, or GB is to fill up all the available hexes is to negate naval and air superiority. Basically you broke the game right there.

That the war cannot be won by the US and the Commonwealth alone with all of their manpower and production capabilites means the games is broken.

When we have to consider how much of each type of weapon should be limited just to keep Russia in the war means the game is broken.

Germany took Russia out of WWI, but it didn't stop them from being defeated. And though the reasons for the German defeat by the Allies were somewhat different, the result was the same. Airpower of WWII replaced the effects of starvation in WWI.

So, what you've been seeking since the inception of the GS is a script to keep the Axis from realizing a goal in the east that was historically obtainable but not realized because of poor choices. Hence, the game is broken. You've done it yourself, and have been trying to play catch-up from the start.

I theorize if you remove the airstrike limit and bring US production up to it's real capabilities, you'll remove the need to try to regulate everything the Axis powers do.

Germany's greatest chosen failure was not to "put a roof" on Fortress Europe. The other great failures are Stalingrad and the other number of places that Germany allowed large numbers of men to be lost. But even if the Axis player does build that roof, she still has a limited number of manpower.

I believe that if you remove the airstrike limit, you'll negate the need to regulate blobs, weather they be Russian tank blobs, German tank blobs, gars along the coastline blobs, or Italian submarine blobs, and you'll make naval invasion possible.

The map changes to the GS have been good. However, just about everything else that has been done has just caused more work, and more delay. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I think it's a fact.

From the beginning, US production has been too weak. The US could easily outproduce the entirety of the Axis powers and all of their captured territory. At the beginning of the war, the US was asleep. However, when woken up, she quickly galvanized herself for action. That she produces only half as much as Germany...that's just not history.

[Plaid]

How removing airstrike limits will fix anything? Its more like will lead to allies mass producing TAC (compared to what we see now, so REALLY mass) which will wipe out everything with little help of ground forces.

Number limits seems good and realistic to me. 1)they are still higher then needed in ~90% games (7 tank for barbarossa? I guess i never had this many or maybe 1 time, when i have 5 i am already happy). 2)there are lots and lots ways of unrealistic abuse. For example allies have more real powers (Italy can't fit this category ), so they can for example build labs (and units) specialized - planes and tanks for USA, ships and infantry - for GB. Is it realistic when all tanks are american and all infantry is GB in allied army? Is it good? Axis can't abuse this effect thanks to low italian income.

You say "just double defencive line" can stop naval invasion like its something easy to create. By 1944 germans don't have troops in France for single line even in all games I have played. Double line all across the shore simulates such troop concentration, so landing will not be possible in reality for sure. Also I think wiping out with bombers 1 or 2 bricks from such huge formation and landing there will still have no succes.

[NotaPacifist]

How removing airstrike limits will fix anything? Its more like will lead to allies mass producing TAC (compared to what we see now, so REALLY mass) which will wipe out everything with little help of ground forces. .

This is what happened, though. At operation Husky, the Allies had 4,000 aircraft to the Axis ca 300. In Western Europe, the Allies were over 1,000 combat sorties a day bombing and strafing everything they saw which a) paralyzed the movement of German ground forces during daylight hours and cost the Germans heavy casualties. Some of you have seen this before: http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/us ... ul.44.html

This is how the Germans paid for not putting a roof over Fortress Europe. And since we cannot attack railways and road transport like the Allies did which reduced the abilities of the Germans to counterattack the landed Allied forces, bombing the units is the only thing possible.

The Germans realistically knew they couldn't keep the Allies from landing(but we can just by double lining Sicily and Normandy). This is why there was such hot debate between Rundstedt and Rommel as how to dispose of the Panzer reserve expecting the Allied invasion.

Number limits seems good and realistic to me. 1)they are still higher then needed in ~90% games (7 tank for barbarossa? I guess i never had this many or maybe 1 time, when i have 5 i am already happy). 2)there are lots and lots ways of unrealistic abuse. For example allies have more real powers (Italy can't fit this category ), so they can for example build labs (and units) specialized - planes and tanks for USA, ships and infantry - for GB. Is it realistic when all tanks are american and all infantry is GB in allied army? Is it good? Axis can't abuse this effect thanks to low italian income.

This is the kind of thing that takes the fun out of games. A player being restricted so much that he can't improvise a strategy.

You say "just double defencive line" can stop naval invasion like its something easy to create. By 1944 germans don't have troops in France for single line even in all games I have played. Double line all across the shore simulates such troop concentration, so landing will not be possible in reality for sure. Also I think wiping out with bombers 1 or 2 bricks from such huge formation and landing there will still have no succes.

I've seen it done by others and done it myself. Perhaps it hasn't happened in your games?

[gerones]

This is the kind of thing that takes the fun out of games. A player being restricted so much that he can't improvise a strategy.

Do you really consider 7 german armoured units for Barbarossa a restriction for the axis player? As Plaid has mentioned, I´m really happy when I can build 5-6 armoured units for Barbarossa. Probably build limits will not make this release since this is very close but sooner or later we will have to look at this. The same about Plaid has pointed about "specialized labs" which I agree.

[PionUrpo]

I have to agree that removing all airstrike limits would likely end up with TACblob instead. At least with current settings. While the interdiction capability of USAAF/RAF was incredible by '44 they didn't possess the ability to destroy entire corps from air alone. Boots on the ground are required.

Seems to me most of the problems currently come from hugely overbuilding one/some type of units. There's always going to be ways to exploit the 'system'. How bout people stop 'blobbing'? probably not happening.


Very much agree on the underpowered US though. For realism they should have way more production capability once they've geared up. But again, if just applied on current system byebye balance.

As a side note: My take on the US/UK continuing the war after Germans somehow miraculously managing a victory in the East. I have no doubt they'd win in the end but I'm not so sure US public would be willing to take the casualties involved. At the very least trying to land back to the continent in '44 without 80% Heer fighting in East would be a no-go. Thus air war keeps going until the Bomb is available. (Basicly the whole thing just wouldn't fit to CEAW at all. Thus the need to keep Russia going in the game.)

[gerones]

Very much agree on the underpowered US though. For realism they should have way more production capability once they've geared up. But again, if just applied on current system byebye balance.

People demands a more powerful US forces in ETO but they should not forget that the main american war effort was in the Pacific theater. We only have to look at the overwhelming Navy that the americans deployed in the Pacific for understanding this.

Anyway, something could be done for increasing a little US production in the very late game (1944-45)

[PionUrpo]

People demands a more powerful US forces in ETO but they should not forget that the main american war effort was in the Pacific theater. We only have to look at the overwhelming Navy that the americans deployed in the Pacific for understanding this.

I'm aware of that. I'm not sure what the ratio between Pacific/Europe was but even if they commit half effort to Europe their capacity alone would still match Euro-Axis.

This graph gives some perspective: From Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers"

Country % of Total Warmaking Potential 1937
United States 41.7%
Germany 14.4%
USSR 14.0%
UK 10.2%
France 4.2%
Japan 3.5%
Italy 2.5%
Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)

GER/ITA/minors + .5 for occupied areas would still be c. 20% tops.

While much goes through LL, the c. 80PP when geared up is still too low. Btw, how much PP exactly is going by LL now?

[NotaPacifist]

I have to agree that removing all airstrike limits would likely end up with TACblob instead. At least with current settings. While the interdiction capability of USAAF/RAF was incredible by '44 they didn't possess the ability to destroy entire corps from air alone. Boots on the ground are required.

Now we're worried about a tac blob? Have you ever looked at the original 1944 scenario? England resembles one huge aircraft carrier. How did the Germans smash through Europe? By concentrating air at points needed to be taken. How did the Allied invasion of Anzio survive despite the fact that the encircling German forces had numerical superiority? With air and naval supremacy. How did the invasion of Normandy succeed? Air and naval supremacy protecting and supporting offensive and defensive operations. Blobs won the war for the Allies. Are we going to limit them, too?

Like I said, we cannot immitate the Allied effect upon German transportation at the front with the current engine. The closest we can come is to let airpower do what it should do against ground forces. Rundstedt's plan for the use of the German PZ reserves called for them to be localized far from the front and then moved to places where the Allies had landed. Rommel's plan was for the Pz reserves to be spread along the invasion front close enough to attack immediately wherever the Allies landed. Rundstedts plan was used because he was senior. And it failed because of Allied air interdiction. Rommel's plan compensated somewhat for Allied air supremecy in that the Pz's would not have to travel so far under skies controlled by Allied air forces. History told us the result.

Never, in human history has a naval invasion been stopped by the forces on the beach. They are open to naval and air bombardment and because they are localized along the beach, they are easy targets to find. The Japanese tried a few different ways to keep US forces from landing, including making Banzai charges as the troops landed and not making charges until after they had landed. They all failed in the teeth of Allied naval and air superiority.

As a side note: My take on the US/UK continuing the war after Germans somehow miraculously managing a victory in the East. I have no doubt they'd win in the end but I'm not so sure US public would be willing to take the casualties involved.

Do you have any data to back this up? The US was entirely galvanized for war. Granted, nobody wanted to invade Japan and fight hand to hand all the way to the Emperor's palace.

At the very least trying to land back to the continent in '44 without 80% Heer fighting in East would be a no-go. Thus air war keeps going until the Bomb is available. (Basicly the whole thing just wouldn't fit to CEAW at all. Thus the need to keep Russia going in the game.)

But screwing the Axis with every ahistorical impediment makes the game suck for the Axis player. You can only say "we did it for balance" so many times before people start to walk away.

This is why the western Allies have to make efforts before 44' to get aground on the continent. Invading Italy is a must to stretch German forces and remove Italian forces. Vichy France and even Jugoslavia/Greece have to be considered. And units have to be destroyed with airpower.

Destroying a unit from the air has to simulate many things in this game since they aren't part of the engine. It has to simulate casualties. It has to simulate disruption. It has to simulate impediments to reinforcement.

We worry about blobs being gamey when the gamiest thing off all is to build so many gars that movement is brought to a halt.

Here's the latest advice given to me from an opponent as the Russians neared my fortress line in eastern Germany: "this is where I sell off all of my labs and buy a ton of gars." I couldn't do it because I'd already sold off all of my labs two turns previously to build inf and mechs.

Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Jugoslavia, Greece, Moscow...maybe Gorki, and Italy were all meant to fall for reasons that began long before WWII started. It was only Hitlerian stupidity that stopped it happening in Russia. We have a game where the Axis player can avoid Hitlerian stupidity...but he's hampered or we want to hamper him in so many ways that he can do no better than Hitler. Where is inspiration to play where one is confined so tightly?

The USA has to save the day for this to even be considered remotely historical. And with it's poor production figures and it's massive airpower negated by programming, it ain't gonna happen.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Garrisons are almost useless late in the war. A single airstrike can score 3 hits and send the efficiency down to orange and sometimes down to red. Then Allied mechs or corps units can eliminate this garrison. Garrisons are well known to retreat when attacked. I would rather meet a German player with hordes of garrison that better quality troops. With the garrison hordes you can kill 10+ units per turn and after a few turns of slugging you can simply storm towards Berlin.

If the Axis fill every hex in e. g. Sicily you can land your Allied forces on the Italian mainland and force and Italian surrender from taking cities like Florence, Ancona, Naples, Taranto. Then all the Sicilian units are removed.

The Atlantic front line is so long so Germany simply doesn't have enough units to make a double line elsewhere. The Allies simply have to land where the Axis are weakest.

Before we made the GS v2.00 changes it was a good Axis strategy to place units in every coastal hex to prevent Allied landings. Now this won't work because of amphs and paras. Good Allied planning means they can ensure a landing space for their units. E. g. land the paras behind the enemy line to cut-off Axis rail support to an area. The Cherbourg peninsula is a good place for that. Then land in force concentrating 2 airstrikes per unit you're going to invade.

I don't see a problem with 2 airstrikes per hex per turn. You can inflict quite a bit of losses and drop the efficiency considerably. That means the unit is weak enough to retreat if attacked. If you force a retreat you can let another unit land into the empty hex and attack inland. Once you make a retreat you can let other air units attack the new hex and so on. I often prepare my invasion by releasing the Allied air and naval forces for several turns weakening the Axis coastal units. That means they will be lower on efficiency even if they're repaired each turn. When the landing comes they should be able to be dislodged.

With Tunis as an Italian surrender city you can actually force an Italian surrender by just taking Tunis and Sicily. Without the Italian units it's very hard for the Axis to garrison the Italian coast line.

The Allies win by putting pressure where it's possible and just maintain the pressure until cracks appear in the Axis defense lines. Then you exploit those cracks to create even more weaknesses. Eventually the Axis line will collapse and you can storm towards Berlin. If the Allied player is too passive in e. g. 1942 then the Germans will win because the collapse happens too late.

So if some people are faced with a German fortress in 1944 making it too hard to land then you made mistakes earlier in the game making this happen.