Slitherine

supermax wrote:
Well, its quite simple. In order to achieve a "conquer the map" scenario, i had to buy TAC, tanks and mech earlier than in the other Fortress Europa strategy. Also, in the other game i noticed that the allies dont go for England right away, so having a fleet to block a landing this early is kinda moot. Yes, they will land maybee in North Africa or Spain, but what would be the problem with that? Rough terrain, 3 supply zone, and far, far from axis strategic assets.

I learned an important lesson from the last game. That in 1942 and 1943, the Axis can easily fend off the allies with land troops, expecially if you can be successeful in not giving them too large a hold on the european continent.

In this game in particular, well, the allies will be landing in North Africa. You will see how easily i will block this offensive. the Taurus mountains and the Sahara desert will be my friend.

As to an america landing, no, i wont. That is another twist i am going to try in this strategy(one day, in a later game), that is land in North America spring 1941 to knock off the english. 1942, its just too late, with the americans and all.

But i will, however, try something in Egypt. Right now i have been busy building up my strenght against the Russians, but now i will be able to divert forces to other theatres. I dont know if you noticed, but my land forces are a lot stronger than in the other Fortress Europa AAR... In fact, i am on the offensive now with the germans.

I guess you mean the Atlas mountains rather than Taurus
In a game in which I used the Fortress Europe strategy v2.0 I built u-boats but no ships, I think that if you take both Gibraltar and Suez you don´t really need ships and can use the money to build more useful things.
About your strategy I think the main weakness is that the Allied player will be knowing what is goping on right from the start, when you divert lots of troops from Poland to France, and he can adapt accordingly. It may be better to keep the Allied player guessing as long as possible what is going to be your strategy.

Aryaman wrote:

supermax wrote:
Well, its quite simple. In order to achieve a "conquer the map" scenario, i had to buy TAC, tanks and mech earlier than in the other Fortress Europa strategy. Also, in the other game i noticed that the allies dont go for England right away, so having a fleet to block a landing this early is kinda moot. Yes, they will land maybee in North Africa or Spain, but what would be the problem with that? Rough terrain, 3 supply zone, and far, far from axis strategic assets.

I learned an important lesson from the last game. That in 1942 and 1943, the Axis can easily fend off the allies with land troops, expecially if you can be successeful in not giving them too large a hold on the european continent.

In this game in particular, well, the allies will be landing in North Africa. You will see how easily i will block this offensive. the Taurus mountains and the Sahara desert will be my friend.

As to an america landing, no, i wont. That is another twist i am going to try in this strategy(one day, in a later game), that is land in North America spring 1941 to knock off the english. 1942, its just too late, with the americans and all.

But i will, however, try something in Egypt. Right now i have been busy building up my strenght against the Russians, but now i will be able to divert forces to other theatres. I dont know if you noticed, but my land forces are a lot stronger than in the other Fortress Europa AAR... In fact, i am on the offensive now with the germans.

I guess you mean the Atlas mountains rather than Taurus
In a game in which I used the Fortress Europe strategy v2.0 I built u-boats but no ships, I think that if you take both Gibraltar and Suez you don´t really need ships and can use the money to build more useful things.
About your strategy I think the main weakness is that the Allied player will be knowing what is goping on right from the start, when you divert lots of troops from Poland to France, and he can adapt accordingly. It may be better to keep the Allied player guessing as long as possible what is going to be your strategy.

Maybee i forgot to mention that i am frantically building a fleet right now. I know for a fact that diplomaticus believes that i am concentrating on land and air. With 186 pp turn right now, i can pretty much build at least a DD / BB per turn without impeding me from also buying a fighter or a tank or INF (i am super maxed out in MECHS). For the next few turns i will build 2 DD per turn. I right now have a combined 6 subs, 11 DD, 5 BB either in construction or on the map with Italians / Spanish / Germans. I intend to climb up that number higher. Producing CV is also in the plans, instead of producing fighters that cost almost 110 pp right now because im maxed out.

As to land, i have more than enough right now to even have a 3-deep units front in the east. West is being bolstered, but there are already 5-6 land troop in France, 10 land troops in North Africa, and like 6-7 in Spain. England has 12-15. So all is very well garrisoned, and Italians will do their parts in bolstering that with either a INF every turn (revenu 36pp) or a DD every 2 turns.

How allied player managed to lose whole Europe AND got Sealion'ed? Usually they pick one of two.

Plaid wrote:How allied player managed to lose whole Europe AND got Sealion'ed? Usually they pick one of two.

Because i did everythign at the same time, with limited air power for the "periphetral projects like Greece, Yougo, Noeway and the likes.

There wasnt much he could do about it. Greece and yougo were gone before Egypt got in the war, Norway was done with mechs only after sealion, north africa was almost done by end of 1940, and Sealion isnt difficult if you build 5 TACS/3 FTR, do the early blitz strategy and are ready to loose steps.

Sounds impressive, but way risky. I see half a dozen places, where axis can stuck, starting from Belgium with 1939 invasion.
Looks like you got good luck and great execution both here.

Plaid wrote:Sounds impressive, but way risky. I see half a dozen places, where axis can stuck, starting from Belgium with 1939 invasion.
Looks like you got good luck and great execution both here.

Well, ive got a way of doing the early blitz and its 100% success rate. AND NO i will not show it on the forums

I am done with showing my tricks so the rules can be changed

All the rest wasnt risky, it was just more costly than if i'd had aircover. I mean when it comes down to it if you are not in a rush (you attack in 1940) what can Yougo and Greece can do about it? Even Egypt is not in the war at that time. 2 german units with shitty Italians stuff can do the job properly.

Norway-denmark very easy to do once succeseful in Sealion.

Sealion i never encountered a player that could block me, and thats simply because the main reasonning of every (almost) player outhere is to save the british fleet. If you commit your fleet from North AND south, the germans really will have a lot more difficulties to make this happen. anyway thats how i block sealion attempts against me.

The only reason i dont do Sealion every game is because even if you are successeful it create a ton of problems for the german and a 1941 Barbarossa. I havent found a way around that one, yet, although i have some ideas on how to execute something cute without impeding Sealion too much.

Plaid wrote:Sounds impressive, but way risky. I see half a dozen places, where axis can stuck, starting from Belgium with 1939 invasion.
Looks like you got good luck and great execution both here.

Execution, not luck.

I find it funny that there are still players claiming i am lucky, even after playing agaisnt me.

I loose, i win, i fail like everyone. As you may have noticed playing agaisnt me, i do have a higher casuality rate than most players.

Thats because i focus on the result and not on keeping my army intact and spit-and-span.

Plaid wrote:Sounds impressive, but way risky. I see half a dozen places, where axis can stuck, starting from Belgium with 1939 invasion.
Looks like you got good luck and great execution both here.

There's a famous quote on this that goes something like,"Luck favors the bold." Max's play is definitely bold!

Supermax wrote:find it funny that there are still players claiming i am lucky, even after playing agaisnt me.

Personally, I try to refrain from calling someone's result lucky because I think that diminishes what they've accomplished. If someone does something that surprises me or gets a good result against me I will congratulate them on their play no matter how much I want to shout out in frustration. The last thing I want is to let my opponent know that he's gotten to me.

supermax wrote:We will see about that. The problem with allied patience (say only start attacking summer 1943) is that time is going to run out.

One other important factor is that the Germans will be kinda passive in the east, so the PP drain wont be really hard. a 200pp per turn Germany will be hard to knock off its feet, since by the time the allies will finally get moving, they will face a lvl 6 dogfight germany, 18-20 FTR, a german fleet, and a shitload of land troops for all uses and purposes.

No, the allies cannot be patient i think.

It's probably true that being patient won't lead to an Allied victory. I mean, when a game gets to the point this one is in, the Allies have to pull off a miracle to win. Supermax could create a perfect clone of himself and have it play the Allies, and it probably wouldn't make a difference.

I still say that being patient is better than attacking too soon and wasting resources, allowing the Axis to inflict significantly higher casualties on you. In a game like this, the Allies can't afford to lose 3 PPs for every 1 Axis. And the Allies will be much stronger in terms of numbers, tech, and effectiveness when they finally do attack. So the Germans will need all their ground units to cope.

But again, very low chance of victory. Just the best of a group of bad options.

I think this game is just an example why we should not always listen to people wanting to boost a particular side. Many people have argued that we need to boost the Germans and give them a bigger benefit from taking England.

I believe there is still room in GS v2.1 for improved player strategy and the fortress Europe strategy can probably be countered by a dedicated Allied player. I also believe that if a player tries the Fortress Europe strategy against Supermax then they would probably lose. Still the player skill is more important than the game strategy you select.

Therefore I believe we should not try to run after elite players like Morris and Supermax and try to plug any possible game balances holes to make it harder for them to succeed with their strategies. If you make a change then they will find something else that works instead.

So our focus should be to find a balanced game for most of us. We would lose regardless against the best players. Morris and Supermax match each other well so it's hard to tell who will win if they play against each other. So that means GS v2.1 can be fun for all kinds of players, from newbies to elite players.

I foresee that a player like Morris will now see the challenge in defeating Supermax'es strategy and in some time he will probably have found something that works. That will spark an even improved plan by Supermax and so on. That is good because it means the replayability of GS v2.1 is good.

I just mention this too all of you who might feel that we again have to tweak the game balance to stop certain strategies. I think there is no need for that now. The real Germans probably didn't select the best strategy they could have and eventually they lost the war. The real Allies made mistakes too. Nobody knows what would have happened if the Germans had e. g. invested more in navy and decided to go after Britain with full force. I think the Allies would have won the war regardless, but probably not as early as May 1945. The nuclear bomb would have been deciding in my view.

For GS purposes the Axis will win the GAME if they last till May 1945, even though they would have lost the war.

Supermax'es strategy is not a strategy for the Axis to win the war. Then Russia must be conquered. But it's certainly a good strategy to win the game. Hitler would probably never have accepted to stay on the defense in the east, but his generals might have wanted that.

I think the Allies need to bleed the Germans where they can get away with it. Maybe Russia can build strategic bombers and bleed the German economy by going after Berlin, Ploesti etc.

The main problem for the western Allies is that they won't have a base to hurt the Germans. So they need to land somewhere to get air units in. I wonder how the Germans can prevent a landing in Morocco. That landing could take place rather early and get support from the Free French. Still, it's a very long way to Port Said to open the Med again.

Going into Portugal is possible, but there the Germans can rail units to the area and use tactical bombers to help wiping out the invaders. Maybe liberating England is the best shot because you can try to use Northern Ireland as an airbase to support landings into England. If Belfast has fallen you might go after Ireland first. At least the Germans can't rail reinforcements to the area. Still it's dangerous until you get the fighters ashore because German bombers can really hurt transports.

Norway is another possibility for the Allies to get a foothold. They can reach German cities from Norway. Getting all the way to Norway is risky because you need to get past hostile Britain. Germany can make a lot of trouble with a healthy sub force, protected by air units stationed near Bergen. The Kriegsmarine can lurk in the area too.

I guess the Allies might have to use a hit and run strategy to figure out where Germany is weak and only land in force where they know they can get a foothold and keep it. With clever German defense I think the Allies might run out of time.

So the German fortress strategy will certainly test the creativity of the Allies.

we have seen that Fortress Europa is a strategy that can work (like many others) we have also seen that it can be beaten (like many others)

looking at this game I think the Allies have been significantly outplayed - thats just a better player (happens to me all the time )

I know that it is very hard to stop a dedicated Axis Sealion (impossible maybe), but I also know that good Allied players make the Axis bleed an awful lot to achieve it!

This game is lost for the Allies, but thats due to being outplayed.

rkr1958 wrote:

Plaid wrote:Sounds impressive, but way risky. I see half a dozen places, where axis can stuck, starting from Belgium with 1939 invasion.
Looks like you got good luck and great execution both here.

There's a famous quote on this that goes something like,"Luck favors the bold." Max's play is definitely bold!

Supermax wrote:find it funny that there are still players claiming i am lucky, even after playing agaisnt me.

Personally, I try to refrain from calling someone's result lucky because I think that diminishes what they've accomplished. If someone does something that surprises me or gets a good result against me I will congratulate them on their play no matter how much I want to shout out in frustration. The last thing I want is to let my opponent know that he's gotten to me.

Thats the spirit Ronnie!

joerock22 wrote:

supermax wrote:We will see about that. The problem with allied patience (say only start attacking summer 1943) is that time is going to run out.

One other important factor is that the Germans will be kinda passive in the east, so the PP drain wont be really hard. a 200pp per turn Germany will be hard to knock off its feet, since by the time the allies will finally get moving, they will face a lvl 6 dogfight germany, 18-20 FTR, a german fleet, and a shitload of land troops for all uses and purposes.

No, the allies cannot be patient i think.

It's probably true that being patient won't lead to an Allied victory. I mean, when a game gets to the point this one is in, the Allies have to pull off a miracle to win. Supermax could create a perfect clone of himself and have it play the Allies, and it probably wouldn't make a difference.

I still say that being patient is better than attacking too soon and wasting resources, allowing the Axis to inflict significantly higher casualties on you. In a game like this, the Allies can't afford to lose 3 PPs for every 1 Axis. And the Allies will be much stronger in terms of numbers, tech, and effectiveness when they finally do attack. So the Germans will need all their ground units to cope.

But again, very low chance of victory. Just the best of a group of bad options.

Yes Joe, you might be right there... Dilpo seems to be doing just that. just finished turn 2 of Barbarossa and he is reterating... DAMN

Stauffenberg wrote:I think this game is just an example why we should not always listen to people wanting to boost a particular side. Many people have argued that we need to boost the Germans and give them a bigger benefit from taking England.

I believe there is still room in GS v2.1 for improved player strategy and the fortress Europe strategy can probably be countered by a dedicated Allied player. I also believe that if a player tries the Fortress Europe strategy against Supermax then they would probably lose. Still the player skill is more important than the game strategy you select.

Therefore I believe we should not try to run after elite players like Morris and Supermax and try to plug any possible game balances holes to make it harder for them to succeed with their strategies. If you make a change then they will find something else that works instead.

So our focus should be to find a balanced game for most of us. We would lose regardless against the best players. Morris and Supermax match each other well so it's hard to tell who will win if they play against each other. So that means GS v2.1 can be fun for all kinds of players, from newbies to elite players.

I foresee that a player like Morris will now see the challenge in defeating Supermax'es strategy and in some time he will probably have found something that works. That will spark an even improved plan by Supermax and so on. That is good because it means the replayability of GS v2.1 is good.

I just mention this too all of you who might feel that we again have to tweak the game balance to stop certain strategies. I think there is no need for that now. The real Germans probably didn't select the best strategy they could have and eventually they lost the war. The real Allies made mistakes too. Nobody knows what would have happened if the Germans had e. g. invested more in navy and decided to go after Britain with full force. I think the Allies would have won the war regardless, but probably not as early as May 1945. The nuclear bomb would have been deciding in my view.

For GS purposes the Axis will win the GAME if they last till May 1945, even though they would have lost the war.

Supermax'es strategy is not a strategy for the Axis to win the war. Then Russia must be conquered. But it's certainly a good strategy to win the game. Hitler would probably never have accepted to stay on the defense in the east, but his generals might have wanted that.

Well, thanks for not considering changing the rules. Thats a real breath of fresh air...

Anyway, i havent said i was going to be passive again in the East... I might just be offensive enough to convince myself to stay in the winter weather zone... No 2 games are the same for me, and this one aint different.

Turn 2 just completed (will post it tomorrow) and we are already at Pskov. So far, no sign of any serious russian resistance...

Stauffenberg wrote:I think the Allies need to bleed the Germans where they can get away with it. Maybe Russia can build strategic bombers and bleed the German economy by going after Berlin, Ploesti etc.

The main problem for the western Allies is that they won't have a base to hurt the Germans. So they need to land somewhere to get air units in. I wonder how the Germans can prevent a landing in Morocco. That landing could take place rather early and get support from the Free French. Still, it's a very long way to Port Said to open the Med again.

Going into Portugal is possible, but there the Germans can rail units to the area and use tactical bombers to help wiping out the invaders. Maybe liberating England is the best shot because you can try to use Northern Ireland as an airbase to support landings into England. If Belfast has fallen you might go after Ireland first. At least the Germans can't rail reinforcements to the area. Still it's dangerous until you get the fighters ashore because German bombers can really hurt transports.

Norway is another possibility for the Allies to get a foothold. They can reach German cities from Norway. Getting all the way to Norway is risky because you need to get past hostile Britain. Germany can make a lot of trouble with a healthy sub force, protected by air units stationed near Bergen. The Kriegsmarine can lurk in the area too.

I guess the Allies might have to use a hit and run strategy to figure out where Germany is weak and only land in force where they know they can get a foothold and keep it. With clever German defense I think the Allies might run out of time.

So the German fortress strategy will certainly test the creativity of the Allies.

Its too bad that i dont get to play allies when that happens. Seems like most people do the regular 41b Barbarossa and dont go for Sealion.

I agree with you on the hit-and-run... He<s got to spread me out and hope i make mistakes...

richardsd wrote:we have seen that Fortress Europa is a strategy that can work (like many others) we have also seen that it can be beaten (like many others)

looking at this game I think the Allies have been significantly outplayed - thats just a better player (happens to me all the time )

I know that it is very hard to stop a dedicated Axis Sealion (impossible maybe), but I also know that good Allied players make the Axis bleed an awful lot to achieve it!

This game is lost for the Allies, but thats due to being outplayed.

mmm, i dont agree there. He wasnt outplayed, he was outmanoevered, which is a BIG difference, since the axis can do pretty much what it wants before the Russians get into the war. We have seen it times and again. YEs, the germans loose the opportunity of doing a 41 Barbarossa, but if they decide to invest 2 years of their time on feeble England, really, what can Churchill do about it???

He didnt do any big blunders... The only places where you can really resist the germans are England and Morroco. In both cases he made me bleed. But if i have 5 TAC-3/4 FTR agaisnt England, a Para and dedication to spend the PP to land multiple places, he cant really do a thing , especially if he decides to save his navy. In morroco, same problem... If i sent 2 german FTR, 2-3 TACS, 2 tanks and some INF (not counting Italians), what can the brits do about it???

Greece, Yougo, Norway, Denmark, France, Poland, Portugal are just pushovers , really

You must realize that the honey months for the Axis has just finished & the darkest time of Allies just finnished . For this strategy , before May 1942 . the initiative of the war was belong to Axis , you can get as many achivement & victory as you can to deposit more capital for the realwar after 1942 with US & USSR . Although at present Axis is very strong & fat ,but this is the top & the U turn point & the bleeding is beginning .I believe the allies have equal or more possibility to win the game if he may execute Allies strategy as well as yours in 1941 .

supermax wrote:

richardsd wrote:we have seen that Fortress Europa is a strategy that can work (like many others) we have also seen that it can be beaten (like many others)

looking at this game I think the Allies have been significantly outplayed - thats just a better player (happens to me all the time )

I know that it is very hard to stop a dedicated Axis Sealion (impossible maybe), but I also know that good Allied players make the Axis bleed an awful lot to achieve it!

This game is lost for the Allies, but thats due to being outplayed.

mmm, i dont agree there. He wasnt outplayed, he was outmanoevered, which is a BIG difference, since the axis can do pretty much what it wants before the Russians get into the war. We have seen it times and again. YEs, the germans loose the opportunity of doing a 41 Barbarossa, but if they decide to invest 2 years of their time on feeble England, really, what can Churchill do about it???

He didnt do any big blunders... The only places where you can really resist the germans are England and Morroco. In both cases he made me bleed. But if i have 5 TAC-3/4 FTR agaisnt England, a Para and dedication to spend the PP to land multiple places, he cant really do a thing , especially if he decides to save his navy. In morroco, same problem... If i sent 2 german FTR, 2-3 TACS, 2 tanks and some INF (not counting Italians), what can the brits do about it???

Greece, Yougo, Norway, Denmark, France, Poland, Portugal are just pushovers , really

out played/out manouvered - sure there is a difference, but in my view (could be wrong) you have way to many PP of troops for him to have bled you 'properly'