FORTRESS EUROPA - Game gamme stopped (RC9)

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:47 am

the only reason I can think of is that he wants to try and take Italy out of the game, thereby getting rid of the Italian Airforce currently fighting the Russians

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:08 am

richardsd wrote:the only reason I can think of is that he wants to try and take Italy out of the game, thereby getting rid of the Italian Airforce currently fighting the Russians

Well, that make some sense. But its not like i am going to make it easy on him i can garantee you.

But still... He should be attacking where it matter... But i guess his fleet isnt strong enough to come and try to land in england. I suspect he is frantikly building ships...

Crazygunner1 · Post by **Crazygunner1** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:13 am

richardsd wrote:the only reason I can think of is that he wants to try and take Italy out of the game, thereby getting rid of the Italian Airforce currently fighting the Russians

Valid point. But that´s more wishfull thinking, if he can´t knock out Italy of the war in 43, i see little gained from it. It might just be so that he doesn´t have anough strenght to battle anywhere else for now.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:55 am

Max,

I have to same that I'm very impressed by your restraint. As offensive minded and aggressive nature that you have it must kill you to be fully defensive in the east. But that's strategy that will most surely guarantee victory. But still this defense strategy must go against every fiber in your body.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:11 am

rkr1958 wrote:Max,

I have to same that I'm very impressed by your restraint. As offensive minded and aggressive nature that you have it must kill you to be fully defensive in the east. But that's strategy that will most surely guarantee victory. But still this defense strategy must go against every fiber in your body.

It does, but i also kinda like it, its really no stress!

I honestly think its the only real way for the Axis to gain a victory with enough capital cities.

I am under the solid opinion that with all the changes, going after Russia is a sure way to disaster or at the max a wishful resistance in germany and win a feeble victory.

After all, who can say that it is still possible to reach Omsk in any given Grand Strategy game against a decent opponent?

I certainly cant. Ive seen it too often. So i think this strategy is very solid in the sense that it will be difficult for the allies to retake england and for the russians to take Berlin... Hence the possibility of a real axis victory.

I know that most developper want to recreate history, which i am all for as well, but if i can prove that this strategy is valid, who is going to be stupid enough to attack russia anymore? What i have done so far is very easy and can be replicated. Take 2 years to take England, high research, plenty fighters and a fleet with the axis. Who cannot do that till the russians get in the war in 1942?

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:28 am

taking England against a solid opponent is going to hurt a lot, if teh Allies do it right the Axis could have oil problems

Aryaman · Post by **Aryaman** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:05 pm

Yes, the answer to that Axis strategy is for the Allied player be careful with BEF and getting ready for Sealion from the start, making it very expensive for the Axis player, so that he can risk being attacked by the Russians before completing the submission of Great Britain

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:23 pm

Aryaman wrote:Yes, the answer to that Axis strategy is for the Allied player be careful with BEF and getting ready for Sealion from the start, making it very expensive for the Axis player, so that he can risk being attacked by the Russians before completing the submission of Great Britain

England cannot hold against a good determined axis players that decides to do it in 40 and 41.

Oil is also irrelevant since after that you alomost dont use any.

Crazygunner1 · Post by **Crazygunner1** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:42 pm

supermax wrote:
Aryaman wrote:Yes, the answer to that Axis strategy is for the Allied player be careful with BEF and getting ready for Sealion from the start, making it very expensive for the Axis player, so that he can risk being attacked by the Russians before completing the submission of Great Britain
England cannot hold against a good determined axis players that decides to do it in 40 and 41.

Oil is also irrelevant since after that you alomost dont use any.

I am not so sure, if a good UK player can put a solid defense and perhaps a little help from the 8th army in Egypt they might do the trick, probably won´t be able to stop them all but reasonably enough to make it hurt so the Russian could take advantage of it in 42. Would be an interesting scenario

This all depends on how heavily the BEF intervenes in France though

joerock22 · Post by **joerock22** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:51 pm

How would you guys feel about an invasion of Portugal and Spain from Zechi right now?

Pros:
1. You can firmly establish yourself in Portugal free of Axis intervention before making a move on Spain.
2. You don't have to worry about amphibious landings
3. You get lots of troops into mainland Europe SOON, forcing the Axis to respond and hopefully taking a little pressure off the Soviets.
4. The large German Navy is basically useless, since if it tries to intervene the Allies have a good chance to destroy it with air support.
5. Allies get a few PPs per turn from captured cities.
6. If you play it right, during winter Axis fighters might be stuck in bad weather while Allied fighters can stay in fair weather Med zone. This could offset any Axis advantage in tech during the summer months.
7. Puts bulk of Allied ground troops within short striking distance of Italy, France, and England.

Cons:
1. Give Axis additional resources and units.
2. The Germans know they can afford to give ground if they want to and build a strong defense in the Pyrennes.

So what do you guys think? The Pyrennes can be turned into virtually impregnable fortress, but it takes a lot of troops (high-quality ones, not just corps) to do so, and if you pull those away from Russia that's a victory in itself. Personally, if I was stuck in Zechi's situation, I would seriously consider this. The Allies need to get some traction on the ground instead of just banging their heads against the wall. This seems like a better option than a suicidal attempt to retake England against an enemy who is clearly prepared for it.

Another option I would consider is doing a straigh-up Torch. The pros and cons are similar, and if you don't have enough ground troops because you're worrying about your navy so much, then Torch might be a good starting point. You just have to consider if you want to give the Axis all those resources from Vichy France.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:20 pm

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:27 am

If I was Zechi I would be looking at leaving England almost entirely and doing everything I could through the Med to support the Russians.

You don't actually have to conquor Britain, elimnate the Axis and the 'invaders' disapear'. You can re-occupy in a couple of turns.

What I might do is build a few subs to keep the Axis honest crossing back to France.

I think Vichy is a better option than Spain/Portugal as althopugh the Axis interior lines are shorter, you are giving them less units and PP's.

In the end its PP's that kill the Axis.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:19 pm

supermax wrote:I know that most developper want to recreate history, which i am all for as well, but if i can prove that this strategy is valid, who is going to be stupid enough to attack russia anymore? What i have done so far is very easy and can be replicated. Take 2 years to take England, high research, plenty fighters and a fleet with the axis. Who cannot do that till the russians get in the war in 1942?

Wow ... it seems we can't get it right. Before the latest changes I think the consensus from some was that the allies can't lose. If fact, you could be reckless with the British and guarantee victory. I wonder how much of the imbalance is perceived and due to your, and others (e.g., Morris, Joe Rock, Borger) skill set. I really hope that's the case.

Kragdob · Post by **Kragdob** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:24 pm

supermax wrote:
Aryaman wrote:Yes, the answer to that Axis strategy is for the Allied player be careful with BEF and getting ready for Sealion from the start, making it very expensive for the Axis player, so that he can risk being attacked by the Russians before completing the submission of Great Britain
England cannot hold against a good determined axis players that decides to do it in 40 and 41.

Oil is also irrelevant since after that you alomost dont use any.

Some says UK can hold, some says it cannot

I think that now all Allied Players must change their approach and start to think how to hold England through 1940-1941 which is the exact situation that existed in reality.

I won by such strategy in my very first game - Soviets for 30 turns were looking at Berlin just 3 hexes away but never managed to take it

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:35 pm

You have it fine (as fine as this game will ever be). Given how it works, without a designated OOB or turn by turn reinforcement schedule, and the ability to build/focus as you will, there will always be plans that overcome current ideas. This game has always been a bit rock/paper/scissors in that you could overwhelm an opponent in one place if given the right circumstances/luck/etc. The basic design of the game is at odds with that balancing desire. This is made worse if players are at different levels of skill with play. (This is also why some don't play the game, unfortunately.) But someone will come up with a way of dealing with this German defensive strategy like they came up with a way to deal with this blob or that strategy etc. You've got the game to a very well-crafted point. You've added in many interesting aspects. I don't think you should stress too much about the balance issue since it will never go away. If you look at something like Panzer Corps, each scenario can be balanced down to the last turn or so by adding a unit here or changing terrain or placement there, given how the game plays. CEaW GS can't achieve that given its design. Perhaps a different approach to victory points? Give each player points each year for achieving specific objectives/goals? That way the end victory could be geared to be closer.

joerock22 · Post by **joerock22** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:12 pm

rkr1958 wrote:
supermax wrote:I know that most developper want to recreate history, which i am all for as well, but if i can prove that this strategy is valid, who is going to be stupid enough to attack russia anymore? What i have done so far is very easy and can be replicated. Take 2 years to take England, high research, plenty fighters and a fleet with the axis. Who cannot do that till the russians get in the war in 1942?
Wow ... it seems we can't get it right. Before the latest changes I think the consensus from some was that the allies can't lose. If fact, you could be reckless with the British and guarantee victory. I wonder how much of the imbalance is perceived and due to your, and others (e.g., Morris, Joe Rock, Borger) skill set. I really hope that's the case.

Let's not jump the gun yet on this yet. There might not be an imbalance at all. Max can prove that this is a valid strategy, but he can't prove that the "historical" approach (DOW Russian 1941) is not valid. If the game is about having fun, this all-defense strategy doesn't seem to be very enjoyable. Max is correct that this strategy is very easy, but where is the fun in easy? And I think that means that a lot of players will choose not to do it even if they know it can work.

Besides, Max hasn't won this game yet. Zechi could still break through in the east; we have almost two and a half years left, after all. And remember, if we had to bet money on this game, we'd bet it on Max. No offense to Zechi. So I think it would say a lot more about a strategy if Max lost using it than if he won.

supermax · Post by **supermax** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:04 pm

Guys, i think you miss the point here.

All i am saying is that its not worth it to do barbarossa anymore

Why? Because the russians retreat to a safe distance and wait till september to counter attack

All the while the axis waste oil, manpower and is for sure going to be in a weak position come fall 41

So from a simple logic stanpoint, it does not make sense to attempt it.

I already know what some will be saying: you need to be deep in russia to have an impact in 1942.

And say you have been successeful in 1942... You still cant reach omsk whatever you do...

So after 1942 your manpower and oil is depleted, you are looking at the western allies to land... And before lOng you are fighting for your life and if you are good and lucky you will keep berlin till 1945

I am not saying that scenario isnt fun i am just saying its the only scenario availablr to you as axis... Its fun but after a while its fun to try to really win the game.

Some say i play a defensive strategy. I say i am Playing a sensible management strategy.

And again, did i say i was not going to attempt anything?

Look at the map... I am strOnger in the air sea and land... Do you guys really think i am not seing this?

You all might be surprised yet...

Cybvep · Post by **Cybvep** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:56 pm

Why? Because the russians retreat to a safa distance and wait till september to counter attack

All the while the axis waste oil, manpower and is for sure going to be in a weak position come fall 41

IMO the position of the Axis is better than in 2.0 because of the recent change in supply rules. Losing Moscow is now more than just a fantasy and the Allies cannot be so aggressive early on.

Personally, I'm happy that reaching Omsk is almost impossible. The game would be very unbalanced and implausible if it was the opposite.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:48 pm

IMO, key here is losing UK. Allied player should be prepared for Sea lion from the very start of the game. This means not to send a strong BEF to France and to keep RN and RAF.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:16 am

even if the Allies are careful with their troops - it is still possible for a determined Axis to take Britain, its just that the cost should be so high as to make defending against the Russians nearly impossible