Slitherine

Diplomaticus wrote:

Kragdob wrote:From my perspective it is working correctly - Brits should take huge blow if the loose their homeland and Axis should be the favorite in such a game.

The question is if it is not too easy for Germans to conquer the UK. Perhaps this should be made a little bit more costly for Germans. I was thinking that maybe each amphibious landing (transport not in port) should consume landing capacity, even if unit lands on already conquered ground?

I agree with your first point completely. That was what was wrong with 2.0, as Moriss showed us.

On your second point, I think it depends. Our goal is that Sealion should be risky and difficult to pull off, but should be a viable possibility, as it was in the actual war. In this case, Max, would you please give us an idea of how well prepared the UK was for invasion? I'd hate to see the game get to the point where Sealion was automatic, no matter what the Allies did to prevent it.

I agree with you this is why I should increasing the cost may be the good option. Axis still can do it but it will cost them more PPs. But maybe there is more smart way to reinforce UK against 'automatic' capture.

Diplomaticus wrote:

Kragdob wrote:From my perspective it is working correctly - Brits should take huge blow if the loose their homeland and Axis should be the favorite in such a game.

The question is if it is not too easy for Germans to conquer the UK. Perhaps this should be made a little bit more costly for Germans. I was thinking that maybe each amphibious landing (transport not in port) should consume landing capacity, even if unit lands on already conquered ground?

I agree with your first point completely. That was what was wrong with 2.0, as Moriss showed us.

On your second point, I think it depends. Our goal is that Sealion should be risky and difficult to pull off, but should be a viable possibility, as it was in the actual war. In this case, Max, would you please give us an idea of how well prepared the UK was for invasion? I'd hate to see the game get to the point where Sealion was automatic, no matter what the Allies did to prevent it.

As i said earlier, i had to outsmart, and outdo myself to takeover england. Zechi played very well in defense and i basically involved thr whole german army. It took me the whole of 1941 to finish the job, since in 1940 i only managed to take southampton and london. It was not easy and involved lots and lots of PP. I think that Zechi made the initial error of sending most of ritish good units in France...

I still dont understand why players do that... Its too risky! So if Zechi would not have lost a lot of brits in France, i would not have attempted it.

supermax wrote:
As i said earlier, i had to outsmart, and outdo myself to takeover england. Zechi played very well in defense and i basically involved thr whole german army. It took me the whole of 1941 to finish the job, since in 1940 i only managed to take southampton and london. It was not easy and involved lots and lots of PP. I think that Zechi made the initial error of sending most of ritish good units in France...

I still dont understand why players do that... Its too risky! So if Zechi would not have lost a lot of brits in France, i would not have attempted it.

If it requires a lot of Axis resources + good tactics then maybe the mechanism is working correctly as it is now.

As for RN - maybe in reality their morale would be higher but in CEAW RN is mostly what presents a value after UK falls so I think punishment should be applied to it as well, otherwise it comes back to 'who cares if I loose the Brits'

Kragdob wrote:

Diplomaticus wrote:

Kragdob wrote:From my perspective it is working correctly - Brits should take huge blow if the loose their homeland and Axis should be the favorite in such a game.

The question is if it is not too easy for Germans to conquer the UK. Perhaps this should be made a little bit more costly for Germans. I was thinking that maybe each amphibious landing (transport not in port) should consume landing capacity, even if unit lands on already conquered ground?

I agree with your first point completely. That was what was wrong with 2.0, as Moriss showed us.

On your second point, I think it depends. Our goal is that Sealion should be risky and difficult to pull off, but should be a viable possibility, as it was in the actual war. In this case, Max, would you please give us an idea of how well prepared the UK was for invasion? I'd hate to see the game get to the point where Sealion was automatic, no matter what the Allies did to prevent it.

I agree with you this is why I should increasing the cost may be the good option. Axis still can do it but it will cost them more PPs. But maybe there is more smart way to reinforce UK against 'automatic' capture.

I think you under estimate how difficult it is to do what Max just did. I haven't seen any evidence that the capture of the UK is "automatic". In fact, I'd say against a defensive player who defends against Sea Lion it's near impossible. Now Max is an exceptional player who can win many different ways and I'm glad to see that he can.

We wrote simultaniously - my answer is above your post.

I heard/understood previously that conquering UK is easy if only Axis commit resources this is why I wasn't sure how much it cost supermax.

Right now you need to think about defending UK and Atlantic which is like it should be in 1940/1941...

Well guys the matter is simple.

If the allied players decide to play smatly and not send british units in France and prepare for a german sealion, then the axis cannot succeed. I myself have successefully defended england in GS against many a good player.

In fact in the MOD i think that you can only attempt Sealion if the brits squander their units in France, and also if you do the early blitz. If those 2 conditions arent met, then you need to decide for another strategy.

In our gamne, Zechi lost all the canadian units + the british mech and then 3-4 GAR, not counting that his airforce was so depleted the turn after france fell that i was virtually unnoposed in the air, Coupled with 5 TAC total (i almost only built TACS from the start), the odds were against the Allied player.

It cost me dearly to take France, and then i said to myself. Hell, i am going for England and trying this strategy that i had in my mind for a while to defend againts the Russians and build a big navy with the germans.

But if Zechi had not sent brits in France i would not even have thought about it.

So the whole idea of sending british units in France is, in my opinion, a very big strategic blunder, well at least when playing against me.

richardsd wrote:How then do you bridge the gap to Bretislovak?

I think Max's line is innitially better as provides greater scope for counter attack and then retieing to your suggested line at a later date.

Brest Litovsk is not occupied, Supermax line runs close to the city, but mine runs behind the vistula river and then runs south through the Carpathian mountains.

You are right in that there is little scope for counterattacks in my line, but in my game I didn use them at all, I just kept the line and engaged in fiery air combats that were enough to keep the Russians at bay until 1945.
Supermax line is longer, more difficult to hold and counterattacking after 1943 is a recipe for high attrition the Germans should better avoid. Falling back to shorter line would be almost unavoidable at one point, and that is a risky manouver.
As I said I have tried this strategy succesfully, and I found that line is the stronger one by terrain and can be better supported by the Luftwaffe

supermax wrote:Well guys the matter is simple.

If the allied players decide to play smatly and not send british units in France and prepare for a german sealion, then the axis cannot succeed. I myself have successefully defended england in GS against many a good player.

In fact in the MOD i think that you can only attempt Sealion if the brits squander their units in France, and also if you do the early blitz. If those 2 conditions arent met, then you need to decide for another strategy.

In our gamne, Zechi lost all the canadian units + the british mech and then 3-4 GAR, not counting that his airforce was so depleted the turn after france fell that i was virtually unnoposed in the air, Coupled with 5 TAC total (i almost only built TACS from the start), the odds were against the Allied player.

It cost me dearly to take France, and then i said to myself. Hell, i am going for England and trying this strategy that i had in my mind for a while to defend againts the Russians and build a big navy with the germans.

But if Zechi had not sent brits in France i would not even have thought about it.

So the whole idea of sending british units in France is, in my opinion, a very big strategic blunder, well at least when playing against me.

Thanks for the explanation. It appears to me that based on what you wrote we've got Sea Lion and the impact of losing England right. I personally don't see a need to change a thing related to Sea Lion and the loss of England.

Being a bit of a fan of Sealion and currently engaged in one, I can tell you that it isn't easy.

Having Liverpool as a second 'capital' makes a very big difference.

Even a small amount of 'insurance' by the Brits will make it very costly for the Axis.

That and a couple of Mud turns is a disaster fro the Axis.

richardsd wrote:Being a bit of a fan of Sealion and currently engaged in one, I can tell you that it isn't easy.

Having Liverpool as a second 'capital' makes a very big difference.

Even a small amount of 'insurance' by the Brits will make it very costly for the Axis.

That and a couple of Mud turns is a disaster fro the Axis.

Exactly my point. I wasnt lucky with the weather in my game and it took all my small changes to take over the british islands!

Not something i would definitly do in every game. In the MOD, if you go England you cant do a proper Barbarossa unless you are playing against a Moriss-type player and that player squanders all british ressources enabling you to takeover England super-easily.

richardsd wrote:Being a bit of a fan of Sealion and currently engaged in one, I can tell you that it isn't easy.

Having Liverpool as a second 'capital' makes a very big difference.

I didn´t know that change, that will make Sealion considerably tougher than in GS 2.0

May I also suggest that you take Odessa - if you put a german corps with a defensive leader there (leeb or someone cheap) this is a very tough nut to crack. especially with only 2 hexes to attack from. This also provides an anchor defense for Romania.

afk_nero wrote:May I also suggest that you take Odessa - if you put a german corps with a defensive leader there (leeb or someone cheap) this is a very tough nut to crack. especially with only 2 hexes to attack from. This also provides an anchor defense for Romania.

I agree , was about to suggest the same...that will do nicely, also you get to counter attack units going into the bulge easier and destroy them. He will have a hard time capturing Odessa by any means

Valid point guys.

Will take the place next turn

I still think your defense line is too much forward and needlessly overextended, If Zechi knows his business he will overrun it in the winter of 1943

Aryaman wrote:I still think your defense line is too much forward and needlessly overextended, If Zechi knows his business he will overrun it in the winter of 1943

I disagree. Max has to have the line at least somewhat forward or a strong Russian thrust later in the war could be a killer. At least with this line he has room for tactical retreat (like during winter) if he has to.

I agree with the forward defence, it alloes for tactical flexibility

Supermax is defending in an area not affected by severe winter so his Germans will have normal efficiency. That will be hard for the Russians to break.