Slitherine

Clark wrote:I thought that earlier on that you had overreached, that there was a good chance that you could be defeated due to a lack of oil and pushback on all fronts. But you shepherded your oil reserves very well, and I think there's a good chance that you will conquer Russia. Washington can't last much longer, then you'll spend a little bit of PPs repairing those forces and shipping them back to Europe. Russia will no longer get convoys, so your PP advantage will be huge. And once you gain Middle Eastern oil, you'll be able to open up bigger offensives that he simply won't be able to stop.

I do hope you are right... Well i realised, early in 1940, that oil was going to be an issue and that i had to be smart with it. I then decided that the most important spot on the map was America, so nothing was spared for that front, at the expenses of the other 2. I also got the Turner oilfields in Canada and the Gulf oil of the us, this did help a little bit. But it is hard to believe that i was able to keep my oil gage where it is, since when i got into this, i had never done this kind of operating that early. I am pleased with the way it is unfolding. But Clark, at one point i really thought i was overreaching myself, but all things considered i put just enough energy on every fronts to be effective. As i said at the beginning of my AAR, luck favors the bold!

But another key to oil success is industrial technology, it increases the oil you produces as well as the pp you produce. So i always invest heavily and as early as possible. The general field with focus on industry are the first point i put into research, thus explaining my lagging behind with air, since its one of the last place i invest heavily into...

Once i get this damned Middle Eastern oil, i will re-focus on Russia, maybee mid-end 1943? I will outline my offensive plan to break the deadlock in a few posts, once i finalize my evaluation of when i will be able to finish production on the stuff i need for the kind of operation i am thinking of doing.

shawkhan wrote:Oil is the key here. No matter how many PPs/armor/air one has w/o oil you are left with an infantry army.

True Shawkhan, but it is taken care of i think, i should be shepperding it again during the winter (except if i go for the middle East early). Once the Americas are gone, the constant drain on oil and pp that i t has been since 1940 will render things a lot more flexible for the germans on the eastern front let me tell you that...

In my vanilla game that was very similar to your situation, I was actually defeated in North America. Still, once I had shipped off my many air units back to Europe to avoid annihilation, and I had pressed forward to the Middle Eastern oil, I was able to mount an offensive that nearly captured Moscow and Rostov. If I had managed to defeat America, which eventually sprung the convoys to Murmansk loose, I have no doubt I would have made it to Omsk. As it was I still narrowly won.

Clark wrote:In my vanilla game that was very similar to your situation, I was actually defeated in North America. Still, once I had shipped off my many air units back to Europe to avoid annihilation, and I had pressed forward to the Middle Eastern oil, I was able to mount an offensive that nearly captured Moscow and Rostov. If I had managed to defeat America, which eventually sprung the convoys to Murmansk loose, I have no doubt I would have made it to Omsk. As it was I still narrowly won.

Cool to know. Its difficult to evaluate this but as you said the pp advantage on my side is going to be crushing. I might just simply totally overwhelm the Russians with units and angles of attacks...

How did you get defeated in North America?, since in my game i dont think that there was anything Pangen could do about what i did, he never had any possibility of catching the initiative and i had overwhelming superiority in land and air force...

supermax wrote:

Clark wrote:In my vanilla game that was very similar to your situation, I was actually defeated in North America. Still, once I had shipped off my many air units back to Europe to avoid annihilation, and I had pressed forward to the Middle Eastern oil, I was able to mount an offensive that nearly captured Moscow and Rostov. If I had managed to defeat America, which eventually sprung the convoys to Murmansk loose, I have no doubt I would have made it to Omsk. As it was I still narrowly won.

Cool to know. Its difficult to evaluate this but as you said the pp advantage on my side is going to be crushing. I might just simply totally overwhelm the Russians with units and angles of attacks...

How did you get defeated in North America?, since in my game i dont think that there was anything Pangen could do about what i did, he never had any possibility of catching the initiative and i had overwhelming superiority in land and air force...

I did not initially commit enough troops to capture Canada, and I stupidly focused too much effort on Halifax to try to get supply. If I had gone all out to capture Ottawa, Canada would have been mine in fall 1941. As it was, Ottawa fell as the US came into the war, and I still had to repair the North American forces and face a dug in American army. I also ran short of oil which kept part of my forces grounded each turn. Losing Canada was actually a big relief.

Clark wrote:

supermax wrote:

Clark wrote:In my vanilla game that was very similar to your situation, I was actually defeated in North America. Still, once I had shipped off my many air units back to Europe to avoid annihilation, and I had pressed forward to the Middle Eastern oil, I was able to mount an offensive that nearly captured Moscow and Rostov. If I had managed to defeat America, which eventually sprung the convoys to Murmansk loose, I have no doubt I would have made it to Omsk. As it was I still narrowly won.

Cool to know. Its difficult to evaluate this but as you said the pp advantage on my side is going to be crushing. I might just simply totally overwhelm the Russians with units and angles of attacks...

How did you get defeated in North America?, since in my game i dont think that there was anything Pangen could do about what i did, he never had any possibility of catching the initiative and i had overwhelming superiority in land and air force...

I did not initially commit enough troops to capture Canada, and I stupidly focused too much effort on Halifax to try to get supply. If I had gone all out to capture Ottawa, Canada would have been mine in fall 1941. As it was, Ottawa fell as the US came into the war, and I still had to repair the North American forces and face a dug in American army. I also ran short of oil which kept part of my forces grounded each turn. Losing Canada was actually a big relief.

Yeah i see why. This was exactly my lines of toughts before i decided to go for North America, either do it or just dont think about it... I think what i committed what barely enough, since my line of communication along the coast were barely manned. Against an agressive player, i might have gotten into troubles with landings all over the coast. But then i might have made faster time to Washington as well?

Well well, its quiet on all fronts and all is good for now. We got severe winter and a 25 drop in effectiveness we should get thru this unscated. We also have a a mobile reserve in Poland.

USA airforce is under repair rest of germans under rest.

Wow. You have gotten lousy results in fighter research. That's personally why I don't like to play with random research enable, which is disabled by default.

Yeah, even if i had focused there? Weird!

Almost sounds like a bug.

Regarding fighter upgrades same thing happened with me.

I do have another question for SuperMax - why dont you produce 4 subs. I am presuming that the Russian convoys are still getting through - every convoy you destroy equals a few less troops to battle. At the moment you are most propably on an equal par with Russia in production terms on the eastern front.

You need 4 subs as while you are slowly destroying one another will appear before the end and potentially get through. With nothing to challenge the subs you will have free reign and they will pay for themselves over and over by the amount of PP's they destroy with nothing to stop them.

afk_nero wrote:Regarding fighter upgrades same thing happened with me.

I do have another question for SuperMax - why dont you produce 4 subs. I am presuming that the Russian convoys are still getting through - every convoy you destroy equals a few less troops to battle. At the moment you are most propably on an equal par with Russia in production terms on the eastern front.

You need 4 subs as while you are slowly destroying one another will appear before the end and potentially get through. With nothing to challenge the subs you will have free reign and they will pay for themselves over and over by the amount of PP's they destroy with nothing to stop them.

A very good question. I should, i know, but i keep telling myself that once the US are gone, the convoys should be as well. Any opinion there anyone? I hope i am right.

As to producing subs before, yeah i though about it but my problem was that i was speding 70-80 pp in air replacement every turn, and then using the rest for either MED or Russian theater. I kinda never got to producing any. I know i will get in trouble for not taking care of this, but at one point, i had to give something away i guess.

My hopes are that once the US are gone the convoys will too. But i will consider building 1 or 2 soon and will definitly do so if the convoys dont stop coming for the Russians once the US surrenders.

Good advice AFK!, i shall start one next turn if the budget permits it

Finally, however good i am on the land aspects of this game, on the naval ones i am, ahhh a little bit weaker... I tend to focus elsewhere than on the sea, as players that have played against me could attest... Even with the allies some games i let the axis do what they have to do with my convoys... In a game actually with Joerock, the english are getting their first convoys and we are in the end of 1943! But this did not impede me from being in a very good position to win the game. Question is: Can you win a CEAW game on sea? I am not sure...

shawkhan wrote:Almost sounds like a bug.

Or very bad luck!

The research gods are against me. Well, something has to be for Panzergeneral. Damn even the Russians have better airtech than the germans

Isnt that ridiculous? hahaha

Like i said, games do not get decided on air tech and or naval tech, as my game shows.

supermax wrote:Question is: Can you win a CEAW game on sea? I am not sure...

No, I don't think you can. I'm a big fan of gaining control of the Atlantic, from both an Axis and an Allied perspective, but it's still only a secondary theatre of operations. And any player who spends too much on their navy stands to lose the game on the ground. The Germans tried to win a war with u-boats twice, and failed both times.

joerock22 wrote:

supermax wrote:Question is: Can you win a CEAW game on sea? I am not sure...

No, I don't think you can. I'm a big fan of gaining control of the Atlantic, from both an Axis and an Allied perspective, but it's still only a secondary theatre of operations. And any player who spends too much on their navy stands to lose the game on the ground. The Germans tried to win a war with u-boats twice, and failed both times.

I agree. However; I don't believe the converse is true, which is can you lose the game on sea? In that case I believe the answer is yes. That is, as the axis is you don't build enough u-boats to stop the early UK and Russian convoys from getting through or force the western allies to heavily escort their troop transports then yes I think this can cause you to lose. Also, as the allies if you don't build enough navy and air to counter the German u-boats then that can cause you to lose. However; if you overbuild then you waste PPs that could be used for tactical bombers, fighters and ground units needed to defeat the axis. So as the allied player I think the challenge is to build JUST enough navy to counter the axis threat at sea and to support invasions of North Africa and Europe. Any more is just wasting PPs.

rkr1958 wrote:

joerock22 wrote:

supermax wrote:Question is: Can you win a CEAW game on sea? I am not sure...

No, I don't think you can. I'm a big fan of gaining control of the Atlantic, from both an Axis and an Allied perspective, but it's still only a secondary theatre of operations. And any player who spends too much on their navy stands to lose the game on the ground. The Germans tried to win a war with u-boats twice, and failed both times.

I agree. However; I don't believe the converse is true, which is can you lose the game on sea? In that case I believe the answer is yes. That is, as the axis is you don't build enough u-boats to stop the early UK and Russian convoys from getting through or force the western allies to heavily escort their troop transports then yes I think this can cause you to lose. Also, as the allies if you don't build enough navy and air to counter the German u-boats then that can cause you to lose. However; if you overbuild then you waste PPs that could be used for tactical bombers, fighters and ground units needed to defeat the axis. So as the allied player I think the challenge is to build JUST enough navy to counter the axis threat at sea and to support invasions of North Africa and Europe. Any more is just wasting PPs.

Nothing more to say,. i think you are right, you can loose a game on the sea... As german i experienced this too painfully in our game Joe. After a sucesseful sealion, i should have built a strong fleet of Subs and ships to protects my holdings and detroy those convoys. If i had done that, you wouldnt be just about to re-claim London!!! Lesson well learned

Yeah, and if you read the AAR between myself and Trulster (no I haven't read it!) you'll see that I lost the Med and the Atlantic very quickly, and fortress Europa looks very imposing, when you don't dominate the seas..

Well usually when i am too weak navally to do anything on the Atlantic theater i transfer most of my stuff to the Med for a kill on the Italians and to bomb ploesti to oblivion. The underbelly strategy works well for the Allies, since it opens a front that the axis find hard to manage while there is still a menace with the british isles.

supermax wrote:Nothing more to say,. i think you are right, you can loose a game on the sea... As german i experienced this too painfully in our game Joe. After a sucesseful sealion, i should have built a strong fleet of Subs and ships to protects my holdings and detroy those convoys. If i had done that, you wouldnt be just about to re-claim London!!! Lesson well learned

I learned something that game too: don't let supermax conquer England in the first place!