Slitherine

As a result of a strategy (All out Armour/Mech) that Morris has developed which involves deep penetration of Russia in 1941 (eg Vologda-Gorki-Tambov-Stalingrad-Saratov), the team is proposing to alter the supply level ranges as these have the least impact on other strategies. The options proposed are;

1) Multi varying SL Range with year
Supply penalty distance 1939-1941: 15

Supply penalty distance 1942: 16

Supply penalty distance 1943: 18

Supply penalty distance 1944-1945: 20 (current value)

2) Two year SL Range:
Supply penalty distance 1939-1941: 15
Supply penalty distance 1942-1945: 20 (current value)

To clarify, the distance value is the range at which a SL drops; eg for 15; 1-15 =SL5, 16-30=SL4, 31-45= SL3 etc

The only area of operations that the second option would affect in 1941 we think is Spain. If this is seen as a problem, an option might be to make Paris rather than just Hamburg, Berlin and Rome as the starting point for SL range calculation.

We believe that altering the SL range is the best fix as for Russia in particular, it does help to simulate the logistical difficulties of the germans during Barbarossa which did in fact prevent a deep advance into Russia (the German supply chain was at full stretch at Moscow and Rostov in 1941 due to the issues with converting russian rail to west european gauge).

We believe a fix of some kind is needed to deal with the strategy. The above fix will also help a russian player in the event of October-November being clear weather in "normal" games as it will slightly reduce any German advance due to the reduced movement rates at SL3.

I prefer chnages per year, but understand that it is harder to remember

I like option one, and yes, Paris should be included as a start point.

The Axis will get supply range from Hamburg, Berlin and Rome (even overseas). So it means that Germany will have supply level 4 in Madrid and eastwards in Spain. West Spain will have supply level 3.

The range above 45 doesn't matter because supply will not fall below 3. The reason is that cities (even captured ones) provide supply level 3. So the only areas you will see a chance is in western Spain and Russia. Leningrad, Novgorod, Smolensk, Gomel, Kiev and Kherson all are within 30 hexes of Berlin. So Russian hexes east of this line to the old supply level 3 line (east of Moscow to Rostov) will be affected by slightly lower supply.

The main effect is that you get - 1 MP in fair weather, slightly lower quality and you can only repair 3 steps instead of 4 steps. These changes will help making the German player think twice about moving too far to the east in 1941. With slightly lower MP east of Smolensk it means you can't push as deep into Russia each turn. One goal with the German armor blob is to simply bypass the cities with the armor and rush them as fast as possible eastwards until they meet the Russian main defense line. Rear German corps units will mop up the cities bypassed by the armor. So the German armor could in theory move 6 columns to the east each turn.

I vote no.

Change after change after change, and except for forcing a few English gars to sit in place lest they lose RN units, it's all geared toward stuffing up the Axis player's chances. If a player playing the Russians evacuates his front and concentrates on building too many high-cost units when they are ineffective(i.e., 1941/42) just so they can have a good winter counteroffensive is why the Morris tactic works. Furthermore, it allows them to have a better 41' counteroffensive than the historical one which only encapsulated the Moscow area.

We see this time and again. The Allied player avoids combat in Russia until he absolutely has to at the gates of Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov. History didn't happen this way. The Russians erected defensive lines in various places hoping to halt the German advance. But nobody does this here. They allow fuel worries and distance to do the job for them. I've done it myself.

The only thing that stopped Hitler from getting to Moscow in fair weather was Hitler.

Just to clarify, a SL range of 15 in 1941 will result in SL3 at the line Bryansk-Sevastapol and eastwards....

I would like to offer a game to everyone who votes no.

I will play the Axis and you can get a feel for it - of course Morris is way better at than I will be.

I would like to offer a game to everyone who votes no.

I will play the Axis and you can get a feel for it - of course Morris is way better at than I will be.

Instead of hampering the Axis at every corner early in the war when the only hamper to the Axis was poor choices, perhaps we should look at the woefully inadequate US wartime production numbers. The US is treated more like a bit-player than the production giant/juggernaut she was. She should almost be able to defeat Germany alone.

And the Brits have to make some committments like Dieppe. Painful yes, but necessary.

By 1944 the USN was larger than all of the current and past navies put together. And air fleets...I could go on and on. The losses incurred by the US at D-day and the large number of planes they lost due to Unternehmen Bodenplatte were rectified in a few weeks.

How many test games has Morris' strategy been implemented in? If more than just the one, is there no Russian answer to this? This seems difficult to believe.

Russia should be allowed to fall without the Allies losing the game because of it. The US was so much more powerful than the game allows. The most industrialized nation in the world isn't much stronger than France could be if France hung around long enough to invest in tech upgrades. How is that possible?

Mass production. A population of 136 million. Unlimited resources.

Germany didn't start adopting some mass production ideas until late in the war.

but this isn't total war - its a partial simulation

what you are after is a different game - which it appears the US wins

BuddyGrant wrote:How many test games has Morris' strategy been implemented in? If more than just the one, is there no Russian answer to this? This seems difficult to believe.

Quite a few of us have been playing against Morris's strategy. I'm on my third variation of a russian defence.... The problem is that he is usually able to attack the Moscow defences on the Aug 1 turn and capture Stalingrad around the same time. The low readiness of the russians (around 40 in August) means that it isnt possible to mount any decent counterattacks so running away is looking like the best strategy (I'm testing that one now)....

richardsd wrote:but this isn't total war - its a partial simulation

what you are after is a different game - which it appears the US wins

I don't know what you call it. But it's so far from simulating history, partial seems hardly an adequate description. It's getting so difficult to follow the script that I don't know anymore if I'm overbuilding, underbuilding, overresearching, underresearching...etc. And it's getting harder and harder. I've been wargaming for a long time, and I've never found a steeper learning curve, or more ways to fail whilst still not making all of the stupid decisions that history's players made.

And why wouldn't the US win? Is it Britannic penis envy? Britain was hard pressed to maintain a night bombing campaign, chase German raiders and escort convoys, while maintaining an army in the Med. Meanwhile the Russians did everything they could to lose starting back when they purged the Red Army.

I'm not making this stuff up, ya know. It's all there in books and on the web waiting to be simulated.

schwerpunkt wrote:

BuddyGrant wrote:How many test games has Morris' strategy been implemented in? If more than just the one, is there no Russian answer to this? This seems difficult to believe.

Quite a few of us have been playing against Morris's strategy. I'm on my third variation of a russian defence.... The problem is that he is usually able to attack the Moscow defences on the Aug 1 turn and capture Stalingrad around the same time. The low readiness of the russians (around 40 in August) means that it isnt possible to mount any decent counterattacks so running away is looking like the best strategy (I'm testing that one now)....

What did you build as the Russian player? Did you do anything with England to draw some German troops away? I get the feeling that a lot of guys try to win as the Allies by 43' so they put more emphasis on offensive weapons than solid defence.

schwerpunkt wrote:

BuddyGrant wrote:How many test games has Morris' strategy been implemented in? If more than just the one, is there no Russian answer to this? This seems difficult to believe.

Quite a few of us have been playing against Morris's strategy. I'm on my third variation of a russian defence.... The problem is that he is usually able to attack the Moscow defences on the Aug 1 turn and capture Stalingrad around the same time. The low readiness of the russians (around 40 in August) means that it isnt possible to mount any decent counterattacks so running away is looking like the best strategy (I'm testing that one now)....

I agree with BuddyGrant that it is hard to believe that Morris strategy is so effective. I'm especially wondering what the western Allies are doing in this scenario?

In one of my games I was in a similar situation and was hard pressed by an Axis player who did an early and powerful Barbarossa. The Red Army got a severe beating and was hard pressed and winter saved Moscow and Stalingrad in 1941. However, in the west the Axis were very weak, so I played more aggresively with the Western Allies. In 1941 I took North Africa and Sicily easily. In 1942 I landed in France in France with the British and US and quickly took Paris as the Axis player needed every unit in the east to continue the offensive. The Axis also did not wage any SUB war in the Atlantic, so nearly all convoys got easily through, which boosted the British considerably.

From my point of view it is quite normal that if the Axis player concentrates on an early Barbarossa and does not invest in SUBs or defenses in the west nor does some minor campaigns like Yugoslavia/Greece/Norway etc. that he will have a very powerful Army for Barbarossa ready and that the Red Army will be hard pressed. The Axis should then have a chance to capture Moscow in 1941 and/or advance deep into the Caucasus if he plays good and has some luck with the weather. I also think that this is historical. Imagine what would have happened if the real Axis attacked the Soviet not in June but in May 1941. To counter such a strategy the British will have to attack the Axis early, either in Italy or France.

this is why you need top play a game against this

you describe what we all would normally do, but you are missing a few points:

1. Moscow and Stalingrad are lost in 41
2. He gives up 'Africa' but not Italy, so no easy landing in 41 - its German Mech's in Sicily if you try!
3. if you land in France in - pick a date - if its 42 then you are fighting Tiger Tanks, good luck with that, otherwise in 41 its British MECH's against Panzer IV's

the strategy - and big kudos for working out the execution - is to take Russia out then deal with the west

the west just doesn't have the tech or PP base in 41 and 42

my guess is that he doen't even have to take out Russia - just criple it and get the Russian oil

its a beautiful thing - just haven't figured a way to stop it yet

just to help you imagine

in Aug 41, its 12 ARM and a truck load of INF and MECH's that I can see

12 ARM! - you just can't stand in front of that in Russia in 41 and there is a ton of support

So what wasn't bought as the Axis then? No labs? No subs?