Debriefing: Diplo v Max in Fortress Europa II

[Diplomaticus]

True, Joe's in better position, but not as much better as you might suppose. I guess Max hasn't updated the AAR. As of the end of February, the Americans have blitzed right through Hamburg and have reached as far as Kiel. The Russians swung their left hook and ended the turn with three units adjacent to Berlin (2 tanks + 1 para). If it's clear weather in March, the game might end next turn.

You're absolutely right what you say about Joe. I'm in awe, frankly. Not only did he recover amazingly from Morris' superblitz in Barbarossa (in our AAR in similar circumstances Morris conquered Omsk), but I'm almost more amazed the way he bounced back from M's devastating attack on the Allies in France. That sure looked to me like a knockout blow, but appearances can be deceiving, I guess, when Joe's your opponent. Who can actually beat the guy?

[rkr1958]

Diplomaticus,

There's no hiding it now. This likely victory against Max, one of the GS elites, will put you in that class. So you're now in a class with the likes of Max, Joe Rock, Morris, Borger, Neil and other like talented players. Well done!

[Diplomaticus]

Diplomaticus,

There's no hiding it now. This likely victory against Max, one of the GS elites, will put you in that class. So you're now in a class with the likes of Max, Joe Rock, Morris, Borger, Neil and other like talented players. Well done!

Ronnie, I'm honored, but I have to disagree. Playing against Max has made clear to me that Max is not only smarter than I am, but he's also a much deeper player--a better tactician and strategist. One of my strengths is strategic planning, but that turns against me because too often my thinking is rigid--I'm too slow to adjust the plan to suit changing circumstances. Max, by contrast, is a master of flexibility. Finally, compared to players like those you list above I'm a noob. I've played a total of about 18 CEAW games (most never completed), and 8 of those were when I first took up the hobby about 3 years ago, in the vanilla game Mac community. How many games have players like Max or Borger played? Over a hundred?

In this AAR my inexperience was really exposed in how the veteran Max caught me with my pants down in 1940. It was really the first time I'd ever faced a serious Sea Lion attempt, and he pulled it off with almost comical ease.

So, anyway, I appreciate the kind words, but I have to demur.

[Morris]

Impressive play on part of JoeRock. I would never have thought that he would win it until a few turns ago.

Its difficult to say what Morris did wrong, but I think he gave to much ground to quickly.

Yes , I made mistakes . Please forgive my careless , but I really tried my best .

[Morris]

Impressive play on part of JoeRock. I would never have thought that he would win it until a few turns ago.

Its difficult to say what Morris did wrong, but I think he gave to much ground to quickly.

Yes , I made mistakes . Please forgive my careless , but I really tried my best .

[Morris]

Well done of your bliz on Feb 23rd 1945!! You win the game ! congratulations !

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think the biggest mistake Morris did was to ignore the Allied convoys. That meant the western Allies could build up faster and become a threat too early.

It's understandable that the Axis player wants to use every PP in Russia to crush the Russians, but of 3-4 subs (150-200 PP's) had been bought then the battle of the Atlantic had become very different.

I also think the Axis offensive in France in 1944 didn't achieve what Morris wanted. The initial phase of the offensive was successful, but the offensive ultimately failed crushing the Allied presence in France. That meant the best Axis units were exposed to Allied air bombardment. They were decimated and when the Allies came back there weren't enough units left to stop the Allies from crossing the Rhine. I think Morris could have bought a little more time if he had manned the Siegfried line with corps units and had the panzers behind the Rhine to deal with Allied units trying to cross.

I think the first turn or two of the offensive was not bad because it caused the Allies to flee and several Allied mech and tank units were destroyed. But the pursuit to western France exposed the panzers to Allied air bombardment. It could maybe have been smarter to withdraw back to safety and let the Allies lick their wounds. I know it's hard to let the enemy escape, but sometimes it's necessary so your own units aren't decimated in the pursuit.

I think I would have kept a stronger panzer force in the east and kep the panzers in the rear line so they could counter strike against advancing Russian tank units. The Russians didn't have a very strong tank force for most of 1944 so if the Luftwaffe and panzers were in the east then the Russians would bleed terribly in engagements. When I play the Axis I like to put the Luftwaffe fighters not so far from the front line so I can bombard the Russian tactical bomber or at least fighter bases. Decimating the Russian airforce is critical for Axis success.

Morris had so much oil with his Axis that he could afford to be more aggressive with them. When the Luftwaffe became engaged with equally strong western Allies fighters then the losses drained the Axis PP pool.

Still, it's hard to pinpoint a big mistake Morris did. Most of his actions were logical and he didn't lose because of any tactical blunders. I think he lost because Joerock had a slightly better long term strategy. E. g. Joerock invested in the right techs so when he was in the end game he knew he could engage the German panzers and Luftwaffe. It's not much Morris could have done to prevent that.

I think the only area Morris could probably learn from is how the battle of the Atlantic was performed. I see he often ignores the submarine vs convoy warfare in his games. Maybe he should try the opposite and build a huge sub force for a change?

Supermax had a huge Kriegsmarine and sub force against Diplo and still seems to lose. So it's not like we can say going for naval builds is the way to Axis victory. The key for the Axis is to have enough units (not too few and not too many) in every areas of the war to stall the Allies for as long as possible. It's a delicate balance to find. How many you need is dependent on how much the Allies are investing in a particular front section. If the Allies build hordes of destroyers you either need a huge sub force or you have to accept that the convoys get home, but at least the Allies have "wasted" PP's on destroyers. If the Allies send a huge force to Egypt you need to have enough units to stall them there or run away in time and bolster Sicily instead.

If you allow the Allies to grind you down in the front sections they open up then you will lose as the Axis. Joerock is a master in knowing how much forces he needs to launch the offensive. I fear every time he starts an offensive because I know he then has enough forces to grind me down. Then it's time to run as Morris did. So the goal must be to push him so hard so he can't start the grinder before it's too late to win.

We also have to take into consideration that games between players of almost equal strength can actually be determined by luck with weather. E. g. Morris had bad luck with weather late 1944. If Joe had experienced mud instead of clear then the game could have ended in a draw. So whether you win or lose a close game you know that your playing skill is about as good as your opponent.

Diplo managed to win (or almost win) against a giant like Supermax. Morris almost beat Joerock. We know that Joe and Supermax are almost equal in strength. So all 4 players can honor themselves with the title elite GS players and the benchmark in player strength the rest of us can be compared against. Kudos to all 4 of you.

[Morris]

I think the biggest mistake Morris did was to ignore the Allied convoys. That meant the western Allies could build up faster and become a threat too early.

It's understandable that the Axis player wants to use every PP in Russia to crush the Russians, but of 3-4 subs (150-200 PP's) had been bought then the battle of the Atlantic had become very different.

I also think the Axis offensive in France in 1944 didn't achieve what Morris wanted. The initial phase of the offensive was successful, but the offensive ultimately failed crushing the Allied presence in France. That meant the best Axis units were exposed to Allied air bombardment. They were decimated and when the Allies came back there weren't enough units left to stop the Allies from crossing the Rhine. I think Morris could have bought a little more time if he had manned the Siegfried line with corps units and had the panzers behind the Rhine to deal with Allied units trying to cross.

I think the first turn or two of the offensive was not bad because it caused the Allies to flee and several Allied mech and tank units were destroyed. But the pursuit to western France exposed the panzers to Allied air bombardment. It could maybe have been smarter to withdraw back to safety and let the Allies lick their wounds. I know it's hard to let the enemy escape, but sometimes it's necessary so your own units aren't decimated in the pursuit.

I think I would have kept a stronger panzer force in the east and kep the panzers in the rear line so they could counter strike against advancing Russian tank units. The Russians didn't have a very strong tank force for most of 1944 so if the Luftwaffe and panzers were in the east then the Russians would bleed terribly in engagements. When I play the Axis I like to put the Luftwaffe fighters not so far from the front line so I can bombard the Russian tactical bomber or at least fighter bases. Decimating the Russian airforce is critical for Axis success.

Morris had so much oil with his Axis that he could afford to be more aggressive with them. When the Luftwaffe became engaged with equally strong western Allies fighters then the losses drained the Axis PP pool.

Still, it's hard to pinpoint a big mistake Morris did. Most of his actions were logical and he didn't lose because of any tactical blunders. I think he lost because Joerock had a slightly better long term strategy. E. g. Joerock invested in the right techs so when he was in the end game he knew he could engage the German panzers and Luftwaffe. It's not much Morris could have done to prevent that.

I think the only area Morris could probably learn from is how the battle of the Atlantic was performed. I see he often ignores the submarine vs convoy warfare in his games. Maybe he should try the opposite and build a huge sub force for a change?

Supermax had a huge Kriegsmarine and sub force against Diplo and still seems to lose. So it's not like we can say going for naval builds is the way to Axis victory. The key for the Axis is to have enough units (not too few and not too many) in every areas of the war to stall the Allies for as long as possible. It's a delicate balance to find. How many you need is dependent on how much the Allies are investing in a particular front section. If the Allies build hordes of destroyers you either need a huge sub force or you have to accept that the convoys get home, but at least the Allies have "wasted" PP's on destroyers. If the Allies send a huge force to Egypt you need to have enough units to stall them there or run away in time and bolster Sicily instead.

If you allow the Allies to grind you down in the front sections they open up then you will lose as the Axis. Joerock is a master in knowing how much forces he needs to launch the offensive. I fear every time he starts an offensive because I know he then has enough forces to grind me down. Then it's time to run as Morris did. So the goal must be to push him so hard so he can't start the grinder before it's too late to win.

We also have to take into consideration that games between players of almost equal strength can actually be determined by luck with weather. E. g. Morris had bad luck with weather late 1944. If Joe had experienced mud instead of clear then the game could have ended in a draw. So whether you win or lose a close game you know that your playing skill is about as good as your opponent.

Diplo managed to win (or almost win) against a giant like Supermax. Morris almost beat Joerock. We know that Joe and Supermax are almost equal in strength. So all 4 players can honor themselves with the title elite GS players and the benchmark in player strength the rest of us can be compared against. Kudos to all 4 of you.

Thanks Borger ! I always learnt a lot from your comment . I will build some subs next Axis game .But at present I play Allies .
BTW , How about to make the Force data not appears the enemy country's production ? So If I dont build subs , they won't know , If Max build a huge Navy , they will also be blind until they will meet them !

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Remember there was espionage in the real war. So the enemy would know quite a bit what you were building. The report each turn shows so inaccuracy so you have to look over time. E. g. you could easily see Germany with 1 CV while they in have have 0. So if you panic from reports given you could actually make wrong conclusions.

Having some clue about what the enemy is building is good for the game, I think.

[Morris]

Remember there was espionage in the real war. So the enemy would know quite a bit what you were building. The report each turn shows so inaccuracy so you have to look over time. E. g. you could easily see Germany with 1 CV while they in have have 0. So if you panic from reports given you could actually make wrong conclusions.

Having some clue about what the enemy is building is good for the game, I think.

yes sir ! But for the message from spys , it should be more mistakes or big difference from the fact . For example : In the real history , The Germany agent got the information of soviet 's total troops are 360 divisions , but actually ,they had more than 600 . If Axis build BB & CV ,it should be clear by air scout , but if they build subs , they should not know the total . the number they get may have 50% difference from the truth .

just for your reference . I just want to have little more war fog to hide player's strategy such as whether USSR build tanks or only mech ,...etc

[Cybvep]

It wouldn't really be feasible to hide a giant navy or even a giant submarine force from the enemy's eyes...

Anyway, what Diplomaticus managed to achieve is indeed impressive. I'm glad that he won, because it shows that Fortress Europa strategy can be beaten even when Supermax is your opponent. I was worried that Fortress Europa would become an unbeatable strategy, but it appears that game balance is quite good, even though the game was primarily balanced with 1941 Barbarossa in mind. If both sides have a reasonable chance to win and there are no "killer strategies", then the game will have high replayability. One of the reasons why games like Civilization are so popular is that there are many ways of achieving victory and you can win as any civilization on any difficulty level. Obviously the game balance will never be perfect, but I think that 2.1 is as good as it can be. Further major improvements are only possible in potential future versions of the game (if they are ever released), because e.g. making the Eastern Front and the North African campaign more realistic would require major changes to the game.

[Kragdob]

Remember there was espionage in the real war. So the enemy would know quite a bit what you were building. The report each turn shows so inaccuracy so you have to look over time. E. g. you could easily see Germany with 1 CV while they in have have 0. So if you panic from reports given you could actually make wrong conclusions.

Having some clue about what the enemy is building is good for the game, I think.

yes sir ! But for the message from spys , it should be more mistakes or big difference from the fact . For example : In the real history , The Germany agent got the information of soviet 's total troops are 360 divisions , but actually ,they had more than 600 . If Axis build BB & CV ,it should be clear by air scout , but if they build subs , they should not know the total . the number they get may have 50% difference from the truth .

just for your reference . I just want to have little more war fog to hide player's strategy such as whether USSR build tanks or only mech ,...etc

I agree completely. The force info is so accurate that it removes strategic surprise from this field completely... I agree that large forces would have been detected sooner or later but that would have been rather through the battlefields not just by 'knowing' what your opponent is building.

In reality the only good espionage data on the enemy was in USSR hands. Axis was completely blind and the Allies knew what they were facing by what game represents by navy/air reconnaissance.

[Cybvep]

So, in your version of reality, Germany would have no idea how large the Royal Navy was. Hiding the construction of 1502561 warships was not easy...

One thing which could be changed is the available info about the number of ARMs and MECs and air units - maybe the player should only have access to an estimated number of mechanised/air units in general, without knowing how many units of type X the other player has.

[Kragdob]

So, in your version of reality, Germany would have no idea how large the Royal Navy was. Hiding the construction of 1502561 warships was not

Yes. In my version of reality Germans didn't have idea of the war production in UK, US and USSR. They heavily underestimated British air power, didn't have any idea of how strong Red Army was and what America's war machine could produce and how fast.

From the other side, in Fortress Europe case for example, I don't think US would know much about German war production. All resistance in Europe was supplied from British Isles and without them out would be much much weaker.

From my point of view the most important thing is that in the game my opponent can read a lot about my strategy from the very accurate info about my production which reduces playability a little bit.

[Cybvep]

I agree that the Germans underestimated their enemies on several occasions, but the whole point of Blitzkrieg was to defeat the enemies before they could mobilise their full potential. The Germans wanted to avoid war on two fronts and avoid attrition warfare, because they knew that they would be outproduced and that another WWI would be unfavourable for them. Obviously they didn't know exactly how many tanks/aircraft the enemy could produce, but they fully realised that Kriegsmarine was no match for the RN because of the UK's production capabilities and the size of the RN, which, again, was rather well-known. It was similar in case of Japan - they knew that the USA could easy outproduce them by a far margin and their whole strategy from 1920s to 1940s was based on the assumption that only a relatively quick, decisive victory could result in a favourable peace treaty. The timing was not coincidental, either - the Japanese knew that the USA made plans in 1940 to expand the USN, which, combined with oil issues, would deprive the Empire of any chance of victory. They also knew that the USA had several battleships and carriers and they were prime targets for the Japanese aircraft during the attack on Pearl Harbour (the fact that there were no carriers there was a coincidence, but again, the Japanese knew that the USA had them). I'm also quite sure that if the Germans suddenly decided to build several battleships and carriers in 1941 instead of attacking the Soviet Union, it wouldn't take long before the UK would learn about such plans. It is very hard to hide things like that for long. Therefore, at least in case of naval units I think that the current espionage system is realistic, given the abstract nature of the game. In case of land and air units it would be ok if the player only had access to the info about the general number of units, not their type.

[Morris]

It was similar in case of Japan - they knew that the USA could easy outproduce them by a far margin and their whole strategy from 1920s to 1940s was based on the assumption that only a relatively quick, decisive victory could result in a favourable peace treaty. The timing was not coincidental, either - the Japanese knew that the USA made plans in 1940 to expand the USN, which, combined with oil issues, would deprive the Empire of any chance of victory. They also knew that the USA had several battleships and carriers and they were prime targets for the Japanese aircraft during the attack on Pearl Harbour (the fact that there were no carriers there was a coincidence, but again, the Japanese knew that the USA had them).

But Japan failed to know how many CV & BB are on the line of US production until they met endless CVs in western Pacific . If anyside control the airsuperior of the battleground , they would be able to know more about the fact , but If not ( such as germany after 1943 & Japan after 1943),theywill know few things for air scout.

To hide the enemy's unit production will not have any harm on the game playing .But if they may get the useful message from the force data , It would harm to the enemy's strategy's execute .ig : if we know Soviet build tanks , Axis will concentrate the focus point on antitank ,otherwise Axis will probably concentrate on Bliz or armour & have to change the focus when they meet T34 in Russia in severewinter when they had suffered by T34 & KV2 !

Hiding this will increase the fun of the strategy choice of the game . Anyway , these information was top secrect in war time . It is normal for not knowing this .

[Cybvep]

Keep in mind that there are no intelligence and reconnaissance systems in the game - they are abstracted. You cannot "see" that the enemy is building CVs (which are not only large ships which can only be built in proper facilities, but also in-game CV unit represent a whole TASK FORCE) if there is no info about it in the force screen, because they don't exist on map. Also, you cannot really construct a CV within 15 in-game turns (that's not even a year, maybe enough for escort carriers, but not for fleet carriers, which require ~2 years), let alone a whole CTF, so we have to assume that if you put sth into the build queue, you have already been producing it for some time.

Anyway, it should be easy to show only the general number of mechanised and air units. I bet that it would be easy to make the force screen less accurate, too (-3 to +3, for example).

[Morris]

Keep in mind that there are no intelligence and reconnaissance systems in the game - they are abstracted. You cannot "see" that the enemy is building CVs (which are not only large ships which can only be built in proper facilities, but also in-game CV unit represent a whole TASK FORCE) if there is no info about it in the force screen, because they don't exist on map. Also, you cannot really construct a CV within 15 in-game turns (that's not even a year, maybe enough for escort carriers, but not for fleet carriers, which require ~2 years), let alone a whole CTF, so we have to assume that if you put sth into the build queue, you have already been producing it for some time.

Anyway, it should be easy to show only the general number of mechanised and air units. I bet that it would be easy to make the force screen less accurate, too (-3 to +3, for example).

Anything improved is welcome ! something is better than nothing !

[Kragdob]

Anyway, it should be easy to show only the general number of mechanised and air units. I bet that it would be easy to make the force screen less accurate, too (-3 to +3, for example).

This would be a good compromise.

[Morris]

how about make it different by year :
ig :

before 1942 Axis can get 60-70% accurate informations of Allies force , Allies can get 50% accurate infor of Axis .
1942 Axis 70% Allies 55%
1943 Axis 60% Allies 65%
1944 Axis 50% Allies 85%
1945 Axis 40% Allies 95%

Just for team reference