Slitherine

I have read many of these threads, and the excellent strategy guide (sorry, I can't remember the author). One thing that frustrates me is that you all seem to be able to have lots of cash to spread around.

For instance, people say to send two corps to Yugo, two to help the Italians in Africa, plus some German tactical air to both theaters, oh and put at least 8 subs in the Atlantic, and max out your labs as early as possible.

How on earth can you do that unless you are playing with a sizable Axis advantage?

It's true that by mid game I am drowning in money and can afford whatever I want. But in those crucial early months? No way.

A lot of what you can afford depens on how many casualties you suffer and how much you have to spend on repairs. Air and armour units especially will cost you a pretty penny if you allow them to take damage. It also helps to mop up France early, and take England early and easily if Sealion is your thing. In most games, you're right; you won't be able to do everything you want. The challenge is deciding which goals are more important for you and making sure you accomplish those above all else.

I have been trying not to reinforce units until the last minute.

The first thing I always do is build a lab, general, with industry focus. Then I build subs. It seems to me that the Atlantic is not worth contesting unless you can put 8 out there, and 9 is better.

From there it takes forever to build up an airforce and get even one general, and then when you start repairing from losses, the money is gone. No chance to build another lab.

I am honestly just wondering about these guides, and the posts I read. Two labs at least in each tech by early '41 -- plus corps and tac to Africa and the Balkans, plus a major airforce in the channel, plus sealion?

How is that possible?

Maybe the subs are the prob. Maybe more early points to an extra air or two, points into a couple labs, would be more helpful and save some casualties. The Brits early on have to keep their navy close to home, so two or three subs can do some damage to convoys until later.

I think HOW you attack also matters greatly. I thought the german player in the mrplow aar must have been taking horrendous casualties...but when I compared my game here where I've just finished up France, I've taken almost the same!! I need to improve my ability with the game system to minimize casualties (although so far that comes at the expense of extra oil consumption!!:(!!

Blathergut wrote:I think HOW you attack also matters greatly. I thought the german player in the mrplow aar must have been taking horrendous casualties...but when I compared my game here where I've just finished up France, I've taken almost the same!! I need to improve my ability with the game system to minimize casualties (although so far that comes at the expense of extra oil consumption!!:(!!

How you attack definitely influences casualties. Specifically, attack order is essential. If you don't soften up enemy units, especially entrenched ones, with air attacks and high-shock units (tanks and to a lesser extent motorized corps), you're asking for trouble. Attacking infantry-on-infantry is usually a bad idea unless the enemy unit is a garrison. And even then it's risky. Infantry should be mostly used for defense and to attack already weakened units. The one exception to this is when you can gang up on a single enemy unit with a group of corps. Attacking an enemy unit with just 1 corps is foolhardy most of the time. You're usually far better off just resting that unit and waiting for support next turn.

Every time I come in contact with an enemy unit, unless it is encircled and has zero effectiveness, I take step losses of 3-4. That includes armor v. Polish inf. No joke.

You guys must know some trick that I don't.

Seriously, what is up? When I read these posts about how you have to be in London by June '40, and have all this hardward on the map, I feel like I am playing a different game. I am using v 1.12, FWIW.

MarkClark wrote:Every time I come in contact with an enemy unit, unless it is encircled and has zero effectiveness, I take step losses of 3-4. That includes armor v. Polish inf. No joke.

You guys must know some trick that I don't.

Seriously, what is up? When I read these posts about how you have to be in London by June '40, and have all this hardward on the map, I feel like I am playing a different game. I am using v 1.12, FWIW.

We are noobs. Give yourself some time and we will figure out how the veterans do it.

julyderek wrote:We are noobs. Give yourself some time and we will figure out how the veterans do it.

Lots and lots and lots of practice. Don't stress not getting it at first. You will get better Even us vets are continually learning as we play. That's what makes the game so fun!

MarkClark wrote:Every time I come in contact with an enemy unit, unless it is encircled and has zero effectiveness, I take step losses of 3-4. That includes armor v. Polish inf. No joke.

You guys must know some trick that I don't.

Seriously, what is up? When I read these posts about how you have to be in London by June '40, and have all this hardward on the map, I feel like I am playing a different game. I am using v 1.12, FWIW.

After I had mastered play vs. the AI (not much of a challenge, I admit), I shifted to playing solo hotseat. I owe a lot of my success to that experience. It's a very easy thing to, for example, play & replay the invasion of Poland over and over. Try different approaches, just running through the first 3 turns and ignoring the rest of the map. Not only does this allow you to find a winning approach in Poland, but you'll learn a ton about the game mechanics.

I, too, get frustrated sometimes when the Polish airforce does four (4!) points of damage to the Luftwaffe fighter, but once you run the situation through a bunch of times you'll see that that kind of lopsided result is pretty rare, and the "dice" tend to even things out--don't ignore those amazingly favorable results, either.

Good luck.

Hey Joe Rock i do not agree with your attack order as an overall strategy. Well more to the point, i agree with you that it will create a lot less losses if you do what you say, but it make the russian offensive so slow that it is possible for Russa to just put troops to the slaughter and preserve the main body of its army.

The way i see it, your strategy is a very good one for preserving german manpower and effectiveness, but my take on Russian destroying strategy is that the only thing that matters is speed­. The only way to encircle troops and destroy them piecemetal and quickly is to attack first with infantry to fix them in place and use the armor to go around them and form pockets (out of supply ones). In the long run it destroys russian troops more quickly and give the same result, only faster.


But what you say about attack order make total sense if you use it on a tactical level, i completely agree with you. But as a broad strategy to be applied on all fronts, this is where i tend to disagree, even if german losses are giher as a result.

supermax wrote:Hey Joe Rock i do not agree with your attack order as an overall strategy. Well more to the point, i agree with you that it will create a lot less losses if you do what you say, but it make the russian offensive so slow that it is possible for Russa to just put troops to the slaughter and preserve the main body of its army.

The way i see it, your strategy is a very good one for preserving german manpower and effectiveness, but my take on Russian destroying strategy is that the only thing that matters is speed­. The only way to encircle troops and destroy them piecemetal and quickly is to attack first with infantry to fix them in place and use the armor to go around them and form pockets (out of supply ones). In the long run it destroys russian troops more quickly and give the same result, only faster.

But what you say about attack order make total sense if you use it on a tactical level, i completely agree with you. But as a broad strategy to be applied on all fronts, this is where i tend to disagree, even if german losses are giher as a result.

When I said all that I was really just talking about France and other German operations before Barbarossa, but I supposed I could have made that more clear. I agree that you have to be "freer" in Russia with your attacks, and speed is important. I wish I had been a little less methodical in 1941 in our game. Your Axis strategy in Russia was a real eye-opener for me, Mr. Master of Encirclment. So far I've never played another player who does that so much and so well.

Well, thanks for the praise, but like i said your method is also good, and unstoppable.

I only figure that, for example, if you do nothing with Germany after france, get everything ready and running for april-may, imagine the results, the Russians could not do anything about it i think.

You should try that in your next game