Losing England AAR: the (failed) Comeback (game over)

[joerock22]

Greetings,

I was originally not planning to do an AAR for this, my first game against Crazygunner1, but now I feel that I should.

June 27, 1940

My opponent has landed in England. The following screenshot taken before I started my turn shows how he did it.



I had a solid line of garrisons stretching Plymouth to Southampton. All had entrenchment and all had effectiveness in the 70s. As you can see, I placed my corps and mechs farther to the east where I thought I was more vulnerable. It was a very strong defense, but alas, I cannot guard against bad luck.

My opponent got some extremely good rolls allowing him to take out a garrison with 2 Tacs and 1 BB. He told me the BB got 4:0 results on 2:0 odds! Frustrating to say the least. I feel like I did everything right. Maybe I could have sent in the RN, but I felt my ground defense was good enough. I still say it was! Absent incredible luck, there’s no way the Germans would have set foot on British soil. So I was presented with a difficult decision: fight or evacuate. The next screenshots show England and Scotland at the end of my turn.




As you can see, I chose to evacuate. I don’t have the Tacs necessary to push the Germans into the sea, and Crazyg’s Tacs will tear my infantry to pieces. All fighting will achieve is to delay the Germans a little and make him use a little more oil. No, instead I will evacuate what I can and live to fight another day. The only way to evacuate England is with quick, decisive action before the German Navy can get around to the western side of the island. The RAF rebases to Ireland, and four infantry units are railed to Glasgow and Liverpool. All of these units will be evacuated next turn, and the RN moves into position to escort the transports. I should be able to outrun the subs from there. You’ll notice that the BB from London went straight up to Lerwick; that was to avoid the hidden subs I’m guessing are lurking next to his transports by Norwich.

These seven units will be key to my future plans, as will the RN. The Royal Navy should escape more or less intact except for the CV trapped in port at Southampton. That unit is busy making suicide attacks and inflicting as much damage on the Germans as possible. It’s a heavy blow to lose it, but there’s no way to save it at this point. Here is a basic outline of what my goals are now:

Western Allies
1. Build strategic bombers to neutralize the sub threat
2. Hold in Egypt
3. Reconquer England in 1942
4. Bomb German production in 1943
5. Capture Sicily and Sardinia in 1943
6. Invade France in 1944 and capture Paris
7. Force Italy to surrender in 1944-45
8. Apply pressure from the west as the Russians are advancing from the east

Russia
1. In 1941, react to strength and date of Axis invasion. Hold Moscow at all costs. Launch winter counteroffensive if possible
2. Build solid double defensive line of infantry for 1942, hold Moscow and Stalingrad if possible
3. Continue holding during summer 1943
4. Launch massive offensive in winter 1943
5. Continue offensive into 1944 and break the Axis army
6. Push to Germany and capture Berlin before May 1945

One final note: I shipped the Malta fighter back to Egypt before Italy can really get going. I would not be at all surprised if Crazyg went for Malta, and I cannot afford to lose that fighter unit.

This is going to be an interesting game. Despite this setback, I still expect to win. We’ll see if it happens, but I am confident I can recover from this. At any rate, this game is far from over, and Crazyg had better be ready for a dogfight!

[richardsd]

Exactly the right strategy IMHO, assuming yopu plan to leave the GAR's in the Northern cities!

Possibly the only thing I have learn't in GS (slow learner) is that defence as the Allies is way more important than people think and 'throwing' units away for some minor inconvenience to the Axis is a bad idea.

good luck!

PS its not that unusual for a BB and two TAC's to kill a GAR

[ncali]

PS its not that unusual for a BB and two TAC's to kill a GAR

I want to back Joe up here that this is a situation where CrazyG had good luck. I ran a test with the following conditions:
A British garrison with 0 entrenchment in the open, but full strength, with relatively low efficiency (57)
attacked by
A German battleship (full strength with efficiency 83 after moving)
2 German tacair (each full strength with efficiency 84).

I ran the test 11 times. The Germans failed to destroy the garrison in any of the tests. However, they came close twice. Once they reduced the garrison to 1 strength, and once they reduced the garrison to 2 strength. Note that my test also had a 0 entrenchment garrison in the open, and I think Joe's garrison had 1 entrenchment per his report and also much higher efficiency. Where Crazy G got very lucky was with the battleship!

[Aryaman]

I will ship some of the units to Egypt, Crazygun can take advantage of the weakness of Britain to take an offensive stand there.

[joerock22]

Exactly the right strategy IMHO, assuming yopu plan to leave the GAR's in the Northern cities!

Possibly the only thing I have learn't in GS (slow learner) is that defence as the Allies is way more important than people think and 'throwing' units away for some minor inconvenience to the Axis is a bad idea.

good luck!

PS its not that unusual for a BB and two TAC's to kill a GAR

Well, it's certainly never worked for me!

I agree with the rest of what you said. Yes, I plan to make the Germans fight for almost every city. It's not worth it to withdraw garrisons. The RAF and those 4 army units will be very crucial to my goal of reconquering England in 1942. Without them, it's probably impossible.

ncali: Thanks for running that test. I think I'm going to run one too. Like I said, it's never worked for me and I'd like to know how difficult it is to kill a garrison with 2 Tacs and a BB.

I will ship some of the units to Egypt, Crazygun can take advantage of the weakness of Britain to take an offensive stand there.

I’m more concerned with an invasion of Canada. The RAF and British Army will land in Canada, and then the RN will go to the Med. There they will be safe from the KM and will hopefully provide a deterrent against an Axis offensive in Egypt. In early 1942, the RN and US Navy will link up off the North African coast and escort reinforcements from Egypt to North America. Then I will sail everything I have to England and attempt a reconquest of the island.

[joerock22]

At least one person said it wasn’t that unusual for 2 Tacs and a BB to kill a garrison, so I decided to run a test to see just how difficult it is. Here are the parameters of the test:

1. Order of attack = Tac, BB, Tac (to match the order Crazyg used)
2. Tacs are at 10 steps, 88 effectiveness, 2 experience each
3. BB is at 10 steps, 91 effectiveness, no experience
4. Garrison is at 10 steps, 77 effectiveness, 1 entrenchment, no experience, clear terrain

I don’t think the forces Crazyg used were quite this good, so if anything I’m being generous. Here are the results:



Average = 3.55
Median = 3

As you can see, out of 20 attempts, the garrison was destroyed only once. That’s a likelihood of 5%. The Germans are just as likely to get shafted (6 or more steps left) as they are to get close (2 or less steps left). The total odds were 8:1 (3:1, 2:0, 4:0). So looking at the odds, destroying 10 steps is not that much of a stretch. But in this game, you’re lucky to get close to the odds as the attacker because the defender gets to fire first in non-naval combat. So in reality, destroying that garrison is very lucky, even though it might not seem like it from the odds.

This is good. It means I don’t have to change my Sealion defense strategy or sacrifice the RN next time. I just have to hope that my opponent doesn’t hit his 1 in 20 die roll.

[zechi]

I think that shore bombardment is a too effective in CEAW. It is not unlikely to do 1-2 steps with shore bombardment with a BB or DD, even against INF. In my 1.06 GS game with Plaid my four star full strength BB regulary did 3 steps against German INF, which makes it relative easy to destroy an important unit.

At least in GS 2.0 shore bombardment gives no experience, which is a good change, because it was to easy to get very experienced naval units before. Nevertheless, I think it would be more realistic if shore bombardment would only result in an effiency loss for the unit getting bombarded. If I remember 1 step of an INF, GAR or MECH represents 5036 soldiers. In the real war shore bombardment was never so effective as far as I know and causalities resulting of shore bombardment were rather low (perhaps there is an historian who knows how effective shore bombardment was in reality).

Furthermore, I think that shore bombardment was used rather rarely in the European theater of war. The most famous occassion were D-Day and Operation Husky. In GS it is used as common strategy on nearly every front.

[joerock22]

I think that shore bombardment is a too effective in CEAW. It is not unlikely to do 1-2 steps with shore bombardment with a BB or DD, even against INF. In my 1.06 GS game with Plaid my four star full strength BB regulary did 3 steps against German INF, which makes it relative easy to destroy an important unit.

At least in GS 2.0 shore bombardment gives no experience, which is a good change, because it was to easy to get very experienced naval units before. Nevertheless, I think it would be more realistic if shore bombardment would only result in an effiency loss for the unit getting bombarded. If I remember 1 step of an INF, GAR or MECH represents 5036 soldiers. In the real war shore bombardment was never so effective as far as I know and causalities resulting of shore bombardment were rather low (perhaps there is an historian who knows how effective shore bombardment was in reality).

Furthermore, I think that shore bombardment was used rather rarely in the European theater of war. The most famous occassion were D-Day and Operation Husky. In GS it is used as common strategy on nearly every front.

I agree with your basic premise, that shore bombardment is too effective. A BB should NEVER be able to kill 4 steps, i.e. 20,000+ soldiers in 20 days. That would only happen if the ground troops were standing around waving range markers for the BBs guns to aim at.

But I think 1 step lost is a reasonable take on any naval-ground bombardment. I just wish the game would cap the possible damage at 1 step or 2 steps max, so that no ship could ever cause more damage than that on any attack. This would not affect the vast majority of situations, but would at least remove the unreasonable results like Crazyg got.

[joerock22]

July 17, 1940

The evacuation proceeds as planned with no interference from subs. Equally important, the German surface fleet stayed in the English Channel. If Crazyg was planning to contest my evacuation, he should have moved those units this turn.

Egypt and Iraq join the Allies. I see one cause for alarm; an Italian mech advancing in Libya (spotted by the CV on its way back to Egypt). I would not be surprised if the Axis go for Egypt. Ultimately, I don't really care if I lose it. My sole focus now is on reconquering England in 1942. Crazyg doesn't know it yet, but the Russians will be his undoing. People I've played in the past will attest to that. Anything that diverts his attention from the Soviets right now is a good thing in my mind.

[ncali]

Perhaps bombardment is a little strong, but I do like the way things work for purposes of 1.07. Since contested landings are not allowed in 1.07 (GS2 will open up that particular can of worms), it is nice that air and naval bombardment can occassionally destroy a garrison. Later in the war, this means the Axis can't overly rely on garrisons as an effective shore defense. 5% or so (with higher probability of success with more opportunity for naval bombardment) is a relatively small chance for success, but the cumulative effect of attacking multiple garrisons with this technique can yield occassional opportunities. (In other words, this type of attack against 2 or 3 garrisons in the same turn means more likelihood one will fall.) I like to think of it as meaning the garrison was sufficiently decimated/demoralized/disorganized that it could not offer resistance to a landing. Plus, it's probably a good thing that every now and then even a good defense can fail to bad luck!

In short, it makes for an interesting game (and probably even models real world events) that every now and then someone like Joe will get some bad luck like this and have to defend against an unusual situation. And it is probably the only reason we are getting an AAR here, so it can't be all bad!

[Aryaman]

IMO the shore bombardement in the game is ok for BB units, the large naval guns, much larger than field guns, were very effective, especially against entrenchments. However the shore bombardement power of DD units is out of proportion, if they really represent destroyer divisions, mounted only light guns (4.7"-4.5") for anti-aircraft protection. Currently the allied player has too much shore bombardement power in those units that should be anti-submarine only units. They are also incredibly tough fighting BB units.

[Rhialto]

IMO the shore bombardement in the game is ok for BB units, the large naval guns, much larger than field guns, were very effective, especially against entrenchments. However the shore bombardement power of DD units is out of proportion, if they really represent destroyer divisions, mounted only light guns (4.7"-4.5") for anti-aircraft protection. Currently the allied player has too much shore bombardement power in those units that should be anti-submarine only units. They are also incredibly tough fighting BB units.

Well destroyer units likely represent a flotilla of destroyers similar to Sir Philip Vian's. Larger number of ships than in a BB unit, faster, enabling them to stay out of gun range and torpedo equipped, making them dangerous.
For example the last night of the Bismarck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_battl ... p_Bismarck

[harrybanana]

Shore bombardent can even be deadly against units in fortifications. In one game I played my opponent did 5 points of damage in one turn against my Malta garrison using the 2 Italian BBs, the Italian DD, the Italain Tac and the Italian fighter. I stupidly forgot to reinforce the garrison and the next turn he did another 5 points of damage (he told me his DD did 2 points) and landed a GAR to capture it. I thought that was a bit lucky, but the next game he did 4 or 5 points of damage each turn using the same units (except for the last couple turns he used a German TAC rather than the fighter) Since I could only replace 3 points of damage per turn it meant that Malta fell again, this time in 5 turns. Just goes to show that with a little luck just about any position can be captured.

[joerock22]

August 6, 1940



This evacuation is getting more complicated. You see the sub attacks on the first screenshot, taken before I started my turn. You also see the approximate position of the German BB, courtesy of those dreaded white arrows leaving the English Channel. The DD is still there for some reason I can’t fathom. I don’t think Crazyg has any subs with the BB; the ones on the western side of the channel are probably the ones you currently see in the north. I should be able to outrun the subs stationed on the eastern side of the channel. You also see up north where I smell a rat, aka a lurking sub. Why would Crazyg attack me from the northwest unless he had another sub ready to ambush me to the southwest? That’s what I would do if I were him.

Finally, you see my two proposed routes to Canada. Each has advantages and disadvantages:

Option 1

Advantages
1. Moves away from German naval forces
2. Frees the RN from escort duty, allowing a better chance of escape to the Med

Disadvantages
1. Forces me to try to land troops on the first turn of October. If I get bad weather, I won’t be able to land, and the transports could be destroyed at sea
2. See above—this is a huge risk! With the way my luck is going this game, I can almost promise you I’ll get mud

Option 2

Advantages
1. Quickest, most direct route to Canada, allowing me to land in September (guaranteed fair weather)

Disadvantages
1. Landing sites on Canadian cost more exposed
2. Takes me close to the German BB, allowing it to interfere and maybe restrict my movement with ZoC. If that happens, the RN will have to destroy the BB to let the transports escape, exposing me to sub attacks

I decided to go with Option 2 for the lead group of 5 transports, both because of the October weather risk and because I think (or hope) the German BB is the only naval unit in position to hurt me next turn. Those subs up north can be outrun now; I just need to keep that BB out of my way. Then the RN needs to hightail it to the Med before the Axis subs arrive in force. The 2 straggling transports head for Option 1 because they have to land in October either way. At least those guys are infantry corps, not mechs or air units. Here is the screenshot taken at the end of my turn.



Oh, I almost forgot about that rat I smelled. I couldn’t spare the UK sub to go snooping; that unit is my best weapon against the German DD, and could mean the difference between life and death for a transport. But I’m not about to go against my instinct. Maybe I can get my opponent to confirm or deny in an email. Rather than send my BB on a roundabout course that would likely get it killed, I decided to send it back to Scapa Flow. Maybe Crazyg will just leave it alone. At least it will be a lot harder for him to kill in port.

Whew! I’ll be glad when this is over and I can stop thinking so hard.

[zechi]

IMO the shore bombardement in the game is ok for BB units, the large naval guns, much larger than field guns, were very effective, especially against entrenchments.

Do you have any more information about this? As far as I know shore bombarment was very effective for suppression and against some immobile targets, actual but losses in man and material resulting of shore bombardment were rather low. It also had an morale effect. The German soldiers looking at the assembled Allied fleet during D-Day were impressed about all the firepower assembled, but it was not the shore bombardment which cleared the beaches. I'm also sure that shore bombardment could not be sustained for a long time (several days).

@Joerock22
I fear it is too late right now, but you could move your units to Northern Ireland. It will be difficult for the Axis to invade Ireland in 1940 and clear Britain. Most likely the Axis will not try to invade Ireland at all, if you move enough units there. Then you are in a perfect position to take Britain back in 1942.

Cheers

Zechi

[joerock22]

@Joerock22
I fear it is too late right now, but you could move your units to Northern Ireland. It will be difficult for the Axis to invade Ireland in 1940 and clear Britain. Most likely the Axis will not try to invade Ireland at all, if you move enough units there. Then you are in a perfect position to take Britain back in 1942.

Cheers

Zechi

I did think about that. The problem is that if the Axis did decide to invade Ireland in Spring 1941, then I would have no chance of stopping them. And I would lose all the ground and RAF units I sent there. I know if an opponent tried that against me, I would conquer Ireland and finish off the Brits there, even if it meant delaying Barbarossa. You can't leave a strong enemy position so close to England and expect to hold it for very long. Now, perhaps my opponent will ignore Ireland and I can use it as an airbase later. That reminds me--I'd better get a garrison in Belfast to at least force him to make an amphibious invasion.

[gchristie]

I did think about that. The problem is that if the Axis did decide to invade Ireland in Spring 1941, then I would have no chance of stopping them. And I would lose all the ground and RAF units I sent there. I know if an opponent tried that against me, I would conquer Ireland and finish off the Brits there, even if it meant delaying Barbarossa. You can't leave a strong enemy position so close to England and expect to hold it for very long. Now, perhaps my opponent will ignore Ireland and I can use it as an airbase later. That reminds me--I'd better get a garrison in Belfast to at least force him to make an amphibious invasion.

In my first attempt at Sealion in pbem, Paris fell by February 28, 1940 and so I decided to give it a try. My allied opponent chose to stand his ground and it has been a disaster for him. The RN was annihilated and all of his ground and air assets with the exception of one fighter squadron were destroyed. He tried a last stand in Northern Ireland and while it took a little while I was able to land and finish off his forces. I expect to have a somewhat limited Barbarossa but I wanted to give Sealion a try and I think it was worth it as he will be starting from scratch in his efforts to reclaim the UK.

From that limited perspective I think Joe has the right idea to evacuate in order to return to the British Isles in force at a time of his choosing.

[joerock22]

August 26, 1940

Crazyg got great results against one of my BBs, knocking it down to 2 steps with his BB and a sub. It had no chance of escaping, so I used it, along with the sub, to occupy the strait between the mainland and St. John's (that big out-of-play island). My transports are all now "safely" on the other side, except for one I sent to port at Halifax. The remaining RN elements (2 BBs, 1 DD) flee southwards as quickly as they can. Unless there are any subs down here, the only thing that can challenge me is the German DD, which finally came out of the English Channel.

London will fall next turn; it was reduced to 2 steps and I chose not to repair it. I'm willing to repair garrisons in England, but corps are too expensive and not worth the tradeoff. I did build another garrison and place it in Glasgow so I can make Crazyg fight for every city, including Belfast.

No screenshots this time.

Oh, and my opponent confirmed for me the presence of that lurking sub. I was quite pleased with myself.

[joerock22]

September 15, 1940

Whew! Huge sigh of relief here, folks. A mostly-successful evacuation! All RAF units and 2 mechs landed safely in Canada this turn. I mourn the loss of my BB and corps (transport destroyed by German BB), but realistically I could not hope for it to have gone any better. If I can get fair weather next turn, I'll be able to save a full-strength corps too. My sub should give the Germans a nice surprise, for one turn at least.

Syria is invaded and conquered in a lightning campaign. The British need every PP they can possibly get at this point. I plan to use my scarce resources to build labs. It is especially essential that my ships have decent ASW tech by 1942. Otherwise, the German Navy could thwart my plans. I'm beginning to think that this goal is unrealistic, but I'm going to stick with it for now.

It looks like the Axis are going for Greece (Italian transport sighted off Crete). I will not intervene. The British have enough of their own problems without rushing in to save the Greeks.

[joerock22]

October 5, 1940

I called it, didn't I? The weather in Central Europe this turn was mud. I guess it's a good thing I went with Option 2! My corps transport can't land as a result, but Crazyg has apparently decided to leave it alone. Hopefully I'll be able to get it ashore before spring, though nothing with the weather would surprise me at this point.

The Axis did invade Greece. I decided not to reinforce Athens, so it should be a quick campaign. Again, the British must pool and conserve resources. The tradeoff in slowing the Germans down must be worth the expenditure.