Neil (allies) vs Ronnie (axis) :GS v1.10e (No Ronnie Please)

After action reports for Commander Europe at War.

Moderators: rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

schwerpunkt
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Western Australia

Neil (allies) vs Ronnie (axis) :GS v1.10e (No Ronnie Please)

Post by schwerpunkt »

I'm going to assume that Ronnie has provided an explanation of what this AAR is all about (ie GS v1.10e play-test with new features) in his AAR, so I'll just stick to describing my strategy and observations with respect to the new rules.

Ronnie and I have played one game before, with me as the axis, in which I managed to score a major victory (having managed to hold Italy, France and Germany) but the game was actually very close in mid-1944 (when my oil reserves were nearing their end) and I thought he might win. I say this, not to blow my own horn, but to instead note that I think Ronnie is a very good player and that he and I are actually quite evenly matched despite our one result - which I only managed to win because I pulled off a couple of operational surprises that did have significantly large enough strategic consequences.

Personally, I think the allies have the edge in GS (I've become a bit jaded with the axis recently despite my wins) and are a bit more fun to play, so this game will be interesting to see how the play balance looks.

My AAR starts in Oct 31, which is a MUD turn and which was preceded by a MUD turn. Ronnie must be itching for clear weather in November so that he can knock out Holland. The only question I have is whether he will DOW Belgium at the same time - on balance of probabilities, I'm going to assume that he will not sacrifice the DOW benefits at the start of winter, and therefore I will store the French PPs up this turn so that I can build an INF next turn.

As the British, I have bought two LABs so far, one for Air and one for Naval, with focus on FTRs and ASW. I tend to do this as the british (rather than buying General tech or going balanced research) as I view the air and sub wars as critical to defeating the axis for the western allies. I normally also husband my PPs as the british (which you should see) as I contingency plan for a possible Operation Sealion. I'm guessing that Ronnie will not try this against me unless I weaken my british too much, as my experience is that Sealion can be readily blocked by a strong britain.

My current deployment in France is shown below;
Image

I've commited one British INF to supporting the French in order to prevent a premature French collapse in 1939 - just in case the weather had of stayed clear. The INF is considered expendable and will only return home if it gets very lucky.

You will also note that I've based the french FTR in britain a few turns ago so that it wouldnt suffer any DOW effects had the weather been kind to the axis. The british CV is situated in the channel with a French BB with the second BB steaming in. The nett effect is that I will have very heavy air cover along the coast, along with shore-bombardment, especially when the Canadian FTR arrives in a few turns time. The coast is where the German player can gain ground very quickly but this set up allows the allied player to punish an aggressive player. Knowing Ronnie a little, I'm expecting him to be prudent when he sees this and to just grind me out east of Lille. I dont mind that too much as it will take some time and result in low PP loss for my brits. At the end of the day, between two capable opponents, the Germans do not need to be speedy, just successful so I dont think Ronnie will be concerned if Paris doesnt fall until May-June 1940 (obviously it would be nice to do it sooner but he wont lose any sleep over such a result).

As the allied player, I'm realistic in expecting that Ronnie will take Paris before July 1940, but, the longer I can extend it without heavy british PP loss, the better.

During the winter, my french will build some INF whilst the british conserve PPs but look for opportunities (I dont have any pre-concieved ideas for the british at this stage).

Anyway, hopefully this AAR will be of use to you in seeing how a pretty experienced and somewhat conservative player, plays, and provide an idea of what impact the new changes have on the allies.

Neil
zechi
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by zechi »

To fly the French FTR to Britain to avoid the effiency loss is a very good idea indeed. Thank you for sharing it.

I noticed that you put three French GAR directly in the woods at the French Border. Do think that this better then placing them directly behind the river? I know that in woods you can gain 2 entrenchment levels, but does the river give you not more protection then one more level of entrenchment?

Furthermore, the German forces will be faster in contact with your frontline and able to attack it. Especially in winter or mud turrns one more hex between the front can mean another turn wasted by the German to move into position.

Last but not least, do you intend to intervene with British and French forces in Belgium?
schwerpunkt
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Western Australia

Post by schwerpunkt »

zechi wrote:To fly the French FTR to Britain to avoid the effiency loss is a very good idea indeed. Thank you for sharing it.

I noticed that you put three French GAR directly in the woods at the French Border. Do think that this better then placing them directly behind the river? I know that in woods you can gain 2 entrenchment levels, but does the river give you not more protection then one more level of entrenchment?

Furthermore, the German forces will be faster in contact with your frontline and able to attack it. Especially in winter or mud turrns one more hex between the front can mean another turn wasted by the German to move into position.

Last but not least, do you intend to intervene with British and French forces in Belgium?
The GARs are only forward to present ZOCs into Belgium in order to limit the German advance on the first turn after it is DOW'ed. I will withdraw them back thereafter.

Good question though - I didnt think to explain it as I just do it without thought nowadays!
schwerpunkt
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Western Australia

Post by schwerpunkt »

Nov 20:

Image

With the weather guaranteed to be poor next turn (DEC), I've adjusted my line slightly, pulling one GAR back slightly as well as the ARM. Two other GARs will form a line between the ARM and Rheims. I bought an INF for the french this turn and the Syrian GAR has set sail for southern France.

The Canadian FTR arrives in Cardiff harbour this turn, led by the french DD. The 2nd french BB takes up position near Calais and the french SUB arrives as well - all Franch naval units (apart from the DD) are within range of the french leader in Paris.

As a note, I've decided to land two British GAR in France as well - one in Bordeaux which will entrench to level 5 and one in Rouen, which will free up a Franch GAR (if I'm building French INF, I'm going to be short of french GAR in the second line).

As a final note, I was unlucky at the game start in that only one convoy spawned so I'm a bit short of british PPs at this stage.
zechi
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by zechi »

Why don't bring the Canadian GAR to Europe? They will be helpful either in the defence of France or the UK.
schwerpunkt
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Western Australia

Post by schwerpunkt »

zechi wrote:Why don't bring the Canadian GAR to Europe? They will be helpful either in the defence of France or the UK.
I'm not that desperate for another unit in France, especially a GAR. Also, I'm a bit paranoid and like to leave something in the Canadian port, even though I'd be ok in winter when an invasion wouldnt be possible.

Anyway, Dec 10, Winter weather so Ronnie DOWs Holland and gets that underway. Given the weather effects, my BBs and FTRs will be weak in attacking ground units so I wont be intervening there. Best to conserve my PPs to defend France.

My new french INF arrives so it goes into Rheims to begin entrenching. Next turn, I'll build another. The Canadian FTR debarks in Cardiff allowing the french DD to head off to the Atlantic to escort the Canadian MECH which is slowly making its way to Halifax - another 2 turns to go.

Finally, I get to build LABs for the US and Russia, so I choose Navy:ASW and Infantry:no focus respectively. Navy:ASW is cosen for the US to get them ready for anti-sub warfare whilst INF is chosen for the Russians to try and get the Artillery and Fixed Defence advances around August 1941.

Image
zechi
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by zechi »

schwerpunkt wrote:
zechi wrote:Why don't bring the Canadian GAR to Europe? They will be helpful either in the defence of France or the UK.
I'm not that desperate for another unit in France, especially a GAR. Also, I'm a bit paranoid and like to leave something in the Canadian port, even though I'd be ok in winter when an invasion wouldnt be possible.
But wouldn't an Axis landing in Canada result in an immediate DOW from the US? I thought this reaction was added in one of the last few patches:
GS Manual wrote: US DoW upon Germany when an Axis unit controls a hex in Canada (including
UK controlled part of Canada). Added this code as well because we felt it's an
omission to not think about what would happen if Germany landed in Canada.
Now USA will automatically join the Allies by DoW'ing Germany if the Axis are so
bold to land units in Canada.
It would be to your best advantage if the Axis are so bold to invade Canada, because the US would activate immediately. If this was not changed again, then I think it is always a good idea to ship the two Canadian GAR to Europe or do I miss somehing?
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

It costs 16 PP's to ship 2 garrisons to Europe and Britain needs every PP they can get early in the game. You need to build the new labs asap and have some PP's for repairing losses while supporting France.

You also need 24 PP's to send the Canadian fighter, mech and corps to Europe and / or Egypt. Spending 8 PP's to get 15 PP's is maybe not the best way to spend PP's. Britain will need Corps units in Britain to fend off Sealion. With the new amph rules then coastal garrisons as asking to retreat. Britain needs to save a healthy PP reserve so they can instantly build 2-3 corps units after France falls if Sealion looks like a threat.

For that reason I don't think many Allied players bother to send the garrisons to France. 2 extra garrisons in France won't help the French for long anyway. The French need air support, mechs and corps units to fend off the Germans for an extra turn.

Later the Canadian garrisons can be sent somewhere to be used as city garrisons in endangered areas because the British will probably never build any more garrisons. They have a lot of at start Home Guards.
zechi
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by zechi »

Stauffenberg wrote:It costs 16 PP's to ship 2 garrisons to Europe and Britain needs every PP they can get early in the game. You need to build the new labs asap and have some PP's for repairing losses while supporting France.

You also need 24 PP's to send the Canadian fighter, mech and corps to Europe and / or Egypt. Spending 8 PP's to get 15 PP's is maybe not the best way to spend PP's. Britain will need Corps units in Britain to fend off Sealion. With the new amph rules then coastal garrisons as asking to retreat. Britain needs to save a healthy PP reserve so they can instantly build 2-3 corps units after France falls if Sealion looks like a threat.

For that reason I don't think many Allied players bother to send the garrisons to France. 2 extra garrisons in France won't help the French for long anyway. The French need air support, mechs and corps units to fend off the Germans for an extra turn.

Later the Canadian garrisons can be sent somewhere to be used as city garrisons in endangered areas because the British will probably never build any more garrisons. They have a lot of at start Home Guards.
Ok, this sounds reasonably if you do not intend to bring any GAR to France at all. Nevertheless, Neil transported already two GAR from Britain to France. I think it would have been better to transport these from Canada to France, even if it would take a little bit more time to bring them there, because the transportation of the Canadian GAR do not decrease the defense of the British main isle and it would be suicidal for the Axis to actually land in Canada and activate the US early in the game.
schwerpunkt
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Location: Western Australia

Post by schwerpunkt »

zechi wrote: it would be suicidal for the Axis to actually land in Canada and activate the US early in the game.
Good point!
Rhialto
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by Rhialto »

zechi wrote:
Ok, this sounds reasonably if you do not intend to bring any GAR to France at all. Nevertheless, Neil transported already two GAR from Britain to France. I think it would have been better to transport these from Canada to France, even if it would take a little bit more time to bring them there, because the transportation of the Canadian GAR do not decrease the defense of the British main isle and it would be suicidal for the Axis to actually land in Canada and activate the US early in the game.
In a GS 1.06 game as Axis against the AI, after an early Sealion I immediately landed in Canada, took Halifax, and when the US DOW'ed, invaded the US and after conquering the US, took Ottawa. Obviously Barbarossa was weakened, but with the Canadian and US oil and the huge PP advantage, I was able to take Moscow in 1944. Of course this was against the AI, so it means little......
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid »

Rhialto wrote: In a GS 1.06 game as Axis against the AI, after an early Sealion I immediately landed in Canada, took Halifax, and when the US DOW'ed, invaded the US and after conquering the US, took Ottawa. Obviously Barbarossa was weakened, but with the Canadian and US oil and the huge PP advantage, I was able to take Moscow in 1944. Of course this was against the AI, so it means little......
Supermax did sort of same thing in his game vs PanGen, but it resulted in him being overrun by russians anyway.
So I don't know, why this instant american DoW + instant 100 war effort rule added - axis invasion in northern america is interesting strategic decision, its hard to execute and its still not an instant winner.
While now with this DoW rule its just suicidal move, noone will use.
Rhialto
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by Rhialto »

Plaid wrote:
Rhialto wrote: In a GS 1.06 game as Axis against the AI, after an early Sealion I immediately landed in Canada, took Halifax, and when the US DOW'ed, invaded the US and after conquering the US, took Ottawa. Obviously Barbarossa was weakened, but with the Canadian and US oil and the huge PP advantage, I was able to take Moscow in 1944. Of course this was against the AI, so it means little......
Supermax did sort of same thing in his game vs PanGen, but it resulted in him being overrun by russians anyway.
So I don't know, why this instant american DoW + instant 100 war effort rule added - axis invasion in northern america is interesting strategic decision, its hard to execute and its still not an instant winner.
While now with this DoW rule its just suicidal move, noone will use.
Supermax did it in a game that used an older version of GS, with no instant US DOW on an invasion of Canada. The developers as a consequence added the instant american DoW + instant 100 war effort rule, so I just had to test it uising GS 1.06 and certainly against the AI you can overcome the US/canadian forces anyway. With a competent human player though I agree its likely suicidal.
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

In order to have a chance to capture Canada you need to have taken Britain so you can rule the sea for your transports.

USA's policy before December 1941 (with the exception of US Lend Lease) was that the war was an EUROPEAN affair. They wouldn't want to be involved in another conflict across the Atlantic. US isolationism was governing the US policy. Roosevelt wanted to help Britain against German aggression, but couldn't do much to gear the US for war.

But if the Germans had landed in Canada or even in USA itself then almost every American would feel that the war was now THEIR war and would be much more favored to fight.

E. g. the US feelings changed over night after Pearl Harbor. Then the mighty US war machine started to gear up for war. The main reason for upping the US war effort to 100 is not that USA suddenly can have all their factories produce war materials, but more that most of the US production is OFF MAP. A significant part of this off map production was designated for build up in the Pacific. The point is that if the US had a direct threat at their doorsteps (German invasion of the East coast) then they would tap resources intended for the Pacfic to have a better chance to fight the Germans.
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

The main reason Panzergeneral lost USA to Supermax was mainly because most of USA was off-map and he couldn't use these resources or territory to stop the Germans. E. g. he was pinned at the US cities and had no place to place reinforcements. So it's important that the US player can actually get his reinforcements on the map before the Germans get to the US door step. With low US production even after a conflict in Canada / USA then they won't have time and PP's to get the extra units needed to stop the Germans. If this had happened in the real war then US units would have been transferred from the US interior and west coast to the defense of the east.
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid »

Well, makes sence, but with current rules massive US forces are railed instantly to canada (was there railroad at all that times?) as soon, as germans land there. I don't think, thats its right reaction of USA on germans, came to finish off Britain, which actually declared war on them.
Maybe its more logical to place war effort on 100 without DoW?
Rhialto
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by Rhialto »

Stauffenberg wrote:In order to have a chance to capture Canada you need to have taken Britain so you can rule the sea for your transports.

USA's policy before December 1941 (with the exception of US Lend Lease) was that the war was an EUROPEAN affair. They wouldn't want to be involved in another conflict across the Atlantic. US isolationism was governing the US policy. Roosevelt wanted to help Britain against German aggression, but couldn't do much to gear the US for war.

But if the Germans had landed in Canada or even in USA itself then almost every American would feel that the war was now THEIR war and would be much more favored to fight.

E. g. the US feelings changed over night after Pearl Harbor. Then the mighty US war machine started to gear up for war. The main reason for upping the US war effort to 100 is not that USA suddenly can have all their factories produce war materials, but more that most of the US production is OFF MAP. A significant part of this off map production was designated for build up in the Pacific. The point is that if the US had a direct threat at their doorsteps (German invasion of the East coast) then they would tap resources intended for the Pacfic to have a better chance to fight the Germans.
Hmm... but if the Axis invade Canada before Dec 1941 (Pearl Harbor) the war machine would not yet have geared up? Seems to me it would be more realistic to have US war effort start at 50 or 75% in the case of a DOW before 11th Dec 1941?
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid »

Rhialto wrote:
Hmm... but if the Axis invade Canada before Dec 1941 (Pearl Harbor) the war machine would not yet have geared up? Seems to me it would be more realistic to have US war effort start at 50 or 75% in the case of a DOW before 11th Dec 1941?
As written above by Borger, this 100% war effort don't simulate instant increase of production, it simulates emergency transfer of forces and resources from off-map USA, which (based on common sence) produce even much more that 100% of present on map part.
Rhialto
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by Rhialto »

Stauffenberg wrote:The main reason Panzergeneral lost USA to Supermax was mainly because most of USA was off-map and he couldn't use these resources or territory to stop the Germans. E. g. he was pinned at the US cities and had no place to place reinforcements. So it's important that the US player can actually get his reinforcements on the map before the Germans get to the US door step. With low US production even after a conflict in Canada / USA then they won't have time and PP's to get the extra units needed to stop the Germans. If this had happened in the real war then US units would have been transferred from the US interior and west coast to the defense of the east.
Well the answer is simple! You need to expand the map westwards a little bit; lets say to the coast of China :wink:

Come on; we have all been wanting Commander Pacific at War for a long time now. Let's have a beta version by next week please.... :)
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

A clever German player would land German units at the choke point south of Ottawa or even near US cities before landing in Canada. That would sever the rail network and give them easy access to the Halifac port and later Ottawa. If you land near Portland you place the Americans in very few hexes. The US need to place their air units in hexes to have a chance to attack and they might struggle to get several land units placed as well. Then it's just a matter of time for the Germans to push towards New York and Washington hex by hex. German panzers will kill a hex per turn.

So it's really hard for the Allied player to defend in USA due to lack of cities and space.

It's certainly possible to expand the map, but the way the game is coded it's a MAJOR task indeed. Part of the code has to be completely rewritten.

German invasion of USA would probably happen in one in 100 games so I don't think it's worth the effort to invest so much time in something that would rarely be used. If we had created the game from scratch then we would certainly have made eastern USA bigger. So we have to live with the map as is or push USA and Canada eastwards at the expense of the Atlantic sea hexes. That doesn't seem right since the Atlantic is already too narrow compared to the real map.
Post Reply

Return to “Commander Europe at War : AAR's”