Slitherine

Well,

I do not agree with you. Yes, Morris is making quite a lot mistakes, but remember that this is first game with Dyle Plan which unintentionally made Joe to execute 1939 Blitz, which in combination with 5 fair turns in 1939 + fair turn as early as in February 1940 (maximum of fairness you can get) allowed him to destroy a large chung of BEF.

If weather were normal (like winter from November 1939 till March 1940) Paris would fell much later and Morris would probably not lose his BEF in France. I would like to see Sealion in those circumstances.

Still great game - it is very rare to be able to conquer UK and launch 1941 Barbarossa.

I think that with the recent change in Canadian activation the Dyle Plan won't be overpowered at all.

Still great game - it is very rare to be able to conquer UK and launch 1941 Barbarossa.

He even conquered Moscow... quite impressive.

Nevertheless, I still think that it's too early to determine who will win. Winter is not there yet and we don't know what the Allies will do in the West in 1943. Also, there is the question of oil...

If weather were normal (like winter from November 1939 till March 1940) Paris would fell much later and Morris would probably not lose his BEF in France. I would like to see Sealion in those circumstances.

You can complain about bad combat results or bad luck with research as well - it's random, stuff like that happens. In the long term things usually even themselves out, although not always (the game would be very boring and predictable then).

Cybvep wrote:

If weather were normal (like winter from November 1939 till March 1940) Paris would fell much later and Morris would probably not lose his BEF in France. I would like to see Sealion in those circumstances.

You can complain about bad combat results or bad luck with research as well - it's random, stuff like that happens. In the long term things usually even themselves out, although not always (the game would be very boring and predictable then).

I am not complaining, still waiting for my 5 fair turns in 1939... What I mean is that this game is an exception that rather proves the only Axis chance for great victory is lucky weather in 1939 (Morris unintentionally made Joe execute 1939 blitz and very lucky weather allowed great results).

Look what happened in other AARs where France tend to fall in autumn.

I agree still everything can happen, Axis oil and MP are not high and they lag in research. Morris still have chances but he cannot make no more big mistakes.

Oh, I forgot about Rostov disaster so maybe it is too late for Allies to change tides of this campaign.

In future games the Dyle plan will be less attractive because the Canadians won't appear until the Spring of 1940 and not in September 1939 if the Allies DoW Belgium.

You can always say "what if" and "if not"....a player needs to adapt and improvise. Ofcourse a sound strategy is important but to knowing how to execute it, is perhaps more important. Joe has really done that in this game from the beginning up until now. Countering the dyle plan left Morris in doubt and unable to reorganise before the fall of
France. Once BEF was destroyed Morris coudln´t do that much about Sealion either. On the Russian front Joe advanced carefully and well planned not to give Morris any chance to retaliate. The winter he also adapted pretty well to Morris all out tank offensive, being careful not to sustain too high casualties and avoid encirclements. Coming summer 42 he launches his offensive towards the weak spot...Moscow. He doesn´t go out in open plain fields looking for Morris massive tank army where he will be subjected to counter attacks and higher casualties.

The simple fact is that Joe has taken better decision throughout the game up until now and that is why he has got an "edge" and will most likely win this game. It has got nothing to do with good or bad weather or imbalance in the game.

Sure this game would have turned out differently if weather been worse, but you can say that about everything. The difference is how you adapt to it.

Sure this game would have turned out differently if weather been worse, but you can say that about everything. The difference is how you adapt to it.

Not everything, but there is much variation as far as game elements like weather, research and combat results are concerned.

I agree that Joe is very good at predicting what Morris' plans are for this game.

Cybvep wrote:I agree that Joe is very good at predicting what Morris' plans are for this game.

I'm not so sure about that. I suspect that he has been better at reacting 'correctly' to Morris' plans once it has become clear what they are.

Well, whenever Mr Borger consider sth as game balance issue ,it comes more important !
If anyone draw a conclusion of Joe performs much better than Morris in this pbem , I do agree !
If anyone draw a conclusion of Axis has equal or even more possibility to win the game , I do disagree !
As you know that the present Axis great achievement are composed of following elements of Allies mistakes & bad luck ：
1. Early edition of Dyle plan which is proved wrong .
2. 5 fair turns in 1939
3. early 1940 sealion (5 months before Eygpt & Irac join ) , Uk was really poor around that period .
4 Axis high effective 1941 Babarosa , especially well done at the 1941 severe winter defence
5 USSR's stupid move at the last turn of severe winter
6 losing Scapa
7 losing Moscow
8 Rostov diseaster right before severe winter of 1942
9 late severe winter in 1941 ( actually is the first turn of 1942 )

All above points are all from Allies player's bad performance & bad luck & Axis player's well organize & execute ability . In this pbem , Joe's performance is perfect & mine is poor . So Joe should own the victory & glory of this pbem .

But it has nothing to do with game balance ! The above 9 element won't be happened again in a new pbem except the lucky points . Before this pbem I didnot know our pbem's result would be consider as a prove of game balance . So the only target for our pbem was just for some fun & interesting experience . If I knew this pbem would hold such important responsibility , my strategy would be absolutly traditional ! No more Dyle plan . If it has to be the prove of game balance , please also check out the result of the AAR with Peter , Plaid & Diplomaticus .

Anyway , I will be very happy to accept this task to test the game balance issue against any well experienced player including all elites .I will AAR every turn of that pbem on live ( one turn after action ). Just normal option & no Dyle plan . Only one thing important : I do hope to acknowledge which pbem is to test game balance ! I will try my best to avoid careless mistake & new strategy sothat the result will be considered as valuable .
As Borger mentioned , I do insist Allies has the advantage in present 2.1 .

If it has to be the prove of game balance , please also check out the result of the AAR with Peter , Plaid & Diplomaticus .

Unfortunately, the other AARs, except the one with Peter, are not updated as frequently. In fact, the one with Diplomaticus seems dead.

no Dyle plan

... but the whole point is to assess the efficiency of the Dyle Plan. We know how balance works in a standard game and most people agree that if all other things are equal, the Allies have a greater chance of winning the game. Still, skill > chosen side.

Cybvep wrote:

If it has to be the prove of game balance , please also check out the result of the AAR with Peter , Plaid & Diplomaticus .

Unfortunately, the other AARs, except the one with Peter, are not updated as frequently. In fact, the one with Diplomaticus seems dead.

no Dyle plan

... but the whole point is to assess the efficiency of the Dyle Plan. We know how balance works in a standard game and most people agree that if all other things are equal, the Allies have a greater chance of winning the game. Still, skill > chosen side.

at first , the AAR with Diplomaticus is dead since Mr Diplomaticus had informed us that he will be out of this game for a long time . I do hope he will be back someday .

second , I agree your point ! If the Dyle plan works well , Axis would be more difficult to win the game . It would give Allies more advantage !
Also I do agree with the patch to against Dyle plan ! This is a bug & now was solved .

What's this Rostov Disaster just before winter '42 people are talking about? The last turn shown is Aug 42 (#55). I'm guessing there was some kind of big dust up soon after JoeRock massed his forces in the Ukraine.

GogTheMild wrote:

Cybvep wrote:I agree that Joe is very good at predicting what Morris' plans are for this game.

I'm not so sure about that. I suspect that he has been better at reacting 'correctly' to Morris' plans once it has become clear what they are.

I would say it's been some of both. I reacted to the Dyle Plan, which caught me totally by surprise. I reacted to Morris's action in the Med, which also caught me by surprise. On the other hand, I correctly guessed that he wanted to mount a huge mech and armour counterattack in Southern Russia during 1941 and 1942. That said, I am not sure what Morris's plans are for the rest of the game, especially with the western Allies.

I think the trick to playing the Axis well is to react quickly to what the Allies are doing without allowing them to dictate the course of the game. You retain the initiative while still defeating what they are trying to do.

peterjfrigate wrote:What's this Rostov Disaster just before winter '42 people are talking about? The last turn shown is Aug 42 (#55). I'm guessing there was some kind of big dust up soon after JoeRock massed his forces in the Ukraine.

Yes, Morris gave a bit of a spoiler with that. I wouldn't call it a huge engagement, but what happened definitely went my way. The people who are saying I got lucky with the weather are going to love this...

Not that I blame them. I was fortunate with the weather in 1939. I only got 1 turn of fair in Feb-March 1940, but it was the 2nd turn of February instead of the March turn. That helped me also. I think with more average weather, Paris would've lasted until April or May, but not too much longer. People forget that I was planning on a Blitz strategy in 1939, which allowed me to react quickly and decisively to Morris's attack on Belgium.

People will never agree whether GS v2.1 is balanced or not and which side has the best chance to win. Most say the Allies have the best chance, but some feel the Axis have the best chance. People like me feel the chances are about equal.

The different AAR's we see prove that difference in playing strategy has more effect on the outcome than the inherent imbalances in the game. We have just read from some claiming that in GS v2.1 the Axis have little chance of winning. Then this AAR is proof that a great Axis strategy can beat almost any Allied player. Even the best like Morris.

I feel that the difference between the Axis and Allies are like the difference between white and black in chess. The Axis have a slightly harder task because their mistakes are often punished harder than Allied mistakes. So if you play the Allies you may have a slight advantage, but the advantage is so small that difference in playing quality will more than compensate for it.

E. g. Magnus Carlsen (2847 in rating) will regularly beat chess players of 2700 in rating. A 2700 player is considered to be among the best in the world. I feel that Joerock is like Magnus Carlsen, i. e. he can beat anyone regardless of side. If he loses then it's because he tries something for a change that was a bad idea.

I don't think the number of fair turns in 1939 will decide who wins the game. Or luck on dice. There are more than 100 turns in the game and lots of dice rolls each turn. Luck will even out. Poor strategy, though, can lose a game for you.

I agree that Axis players who don't know how to attack properly will most often lose against an average Allied player. The problem is that if we alter the game so we make it easier for the Axis player to attack, then we alter the overall game balance. The average Axis player will feel the game is balanced for them, but the good Axis players will be able to overrun their Allied opponent. Right now GS v2.1 is pretty much balanced for good players. Even elite players can have a good fight. For average players you will probably see the Axis struggle more than the Allies.

I don't think we need to alter the game balance in GS v2.1. It's as balanced as we can get it. Remember that GS v2.1 is a historical game trying to follow the historical events. That means the Axis are supposed to have the initiative until at least 1942 and then lose it to the Allies. There are some constraints we can't alter like the geography of the game map, type of units, starting alliances etc.

I certainly don't think Joerock has been lucky in this game. His results come from his skills with the game. The Allied Dyle plan is always a risky operation and Joerock showed what happens if the Allied offensive doesn't go as planned. If the Axis are unlucky with the weather in 1939 then the plan will work well, but if the Axis have a bit of luck then you will regret starting the offensive. If you can't afford back luck with your offensive then you should probably try a different strategy.

It's the same when you're a chess player. You can start an attack on your opponent that can give you the initiative if he doesn't find the best counter moves, but he may gain the initiative if he does. So you have to consider whether he can always find the best counter moves or not and decide accordingly. Usually the very best chess players lose because they took a chance that backfired and not because they were overrun by their opponent.

So if e. g. Morris wants to minimize the risk of Sealion as the Allies then he doesn't launch the Dyle offensive and instead uses the British forces in England. France will most likely fall earlier because of this, but that is a price you have to pay. So whether to be offensive or defensive with the British in 1939/1940 is often determined by how well you think your opponent can take advantage of bad luck on your part. E. g. is he skilled enough to succeed with a Sealion?

I also read somewhere that a great general always keeps some reserve forces he can use for emergencies. If you commit too heavily then you lose the ability to respond to surprise attacks. This is an area I think Joerock truly excels at. He is able to respond, not because he's so much better than us at guessing, but because he ensures he keeps the forces at the right places to be ABLE TO respond.

Stauffenberg wrote:E. g. Magnus Carlsen (2847 in rating) will regularly beat chess players of 2700 in rating. A 2700 player is considered to be among the best in the world. I feel that Joerock is like Magnus Carlsen, i. e. he can beat anyone regardless of side. If he loses then it's because he tries something for a change that was a bad idea.

Thank you for the high praise! But I don't think I'm like that guy. I've lost plenty of times because my opponent has simply outplayed me. Sometimes they beat me with unorthodox strategies (i.e. supermax). This time at least I was able to react to Morris's unorthodox strategy so that I am winning right now. I do not feel that the game is over yet, and I definitely won't get complacent. I will continue to play like Morris is one big mistake away from a comeback victory, so I don't make the big mistake.

I do agree with your comments on game balance. Playing the Axis is harder, but it's also more fun for the majority of the game if you are able to keep the initiative. I feel that evenly matched players have a fairly even chance to win, regardless of side.

Most say the Allies have the best chance, but some feel the Axis have the best chance.

Show me three good players who believe that the Axis has the best chance to win.

I agree that Axis players who don't know how to attack properly will most often lose against an average Allied player. The problem is that if we alter the game so we make it easier for the Axis player to attack, then we alter the overall game balance. The average Axis player will feel the game is balanced for them, but the good Axis players will be able to overrun their Allied opponent.

Here I can agree. Attacking is harder than defending and in a standard game the Axis is supposed to have the initiative at least until 1942. When they lose it, they usually lose the game. Most noobs get bogged down in Russia and they don't know when to withdraw, which costs them units, which in turn means that they lose the initiative... Also, Case Yellow is crucial for the Axis and many newbies will have problems with countering masses of GARs in France.

joerock22 wrote:.I think the trick to playing the Axis well is to react quickly to what the Allies are doing without I think the trick to playing the Axis well is to react quickly to what the Allies are doing without allowing them to dictate the course of the game. You retain the initiative while still defeating what they are trying to do.

Yes it is the truth of Axis's sucess , but it is very difficult to execute even if the player is well experienced like me .

joerock22 wrote:Not that I blame them. I was fortunate with the weather in 1939. I only got 1 turn of fair in Feb-March 1940, but it was the 2nd turn of February instead of the March turn. That helped me also. I think with more average weather, Paris would've lasted until April or May, but not too much longer. People forget that I was planning on a Blitz strategy in 1939, which allowed me to react quickly and decisively to Morris's attack on Belgium.

If Paris fall in end of April ,
the sealion will be land on UK in June ,
you will meet bad weather before arrive Scotland
UK will have 50-60 more pp to defence
1941 Babarosa will have to launch while they are still a battleground in Scotland ........
It is a domino reaction . Although the first card is little .