CEAW GS: Fortress Europa Strategy too powerful

[veritas]

Delaying the unprovoked Soviet war entry from Fall 1941 to Spring 1942 in CEAW GS renders the Axis "Fortress Europa" strategy nearly unbeatable, in my experience. (The main elements of this strategy are getting Spain to join the Axis, beating up the UK in Africa, launching Sealion, and then settling in to defend the Axis territory. There is NO invasion of the Soviet Union, other than a minor strike right before they would otherwise automatically join the war in 1942.)

Delaying the Soviet entry to Spring 1942 simply gives the Axis too much time to beat up on the British without interference from the USA or USSR. The UK is not strong enough to stand alone by itself this long, if the Axis are free to focus on them and not preoccupied with Barbarossa preparations.

For game balance purposes, I recommend returning to having the USSR automatically join the Allies if they are not attacked by the fall of 1941.

[Kragdob]

The main elements of this strategy are getting Spain to join the Axis, beating up the UK in Africa, launching Sealion

If Axis manage to do all of this then either Allied Player made a lot of mistakes or has much less experience then Axis Player.

Even then it is not sure since it depends how you manage Russia lab/build for 1942 and onwards.

[Cybvep]

Fortress Europa isn't unbeatable, but you have to plan ahead to beat it. There are several things that can make FE costly for the Axis, such as not sending the French naval units on suicide missions and concentrating naval units in GB and western Med. 1940 Sea Lion can be quite hard to pull off, especially if you didn't plan to go for 1942 Barbarossa right from the start. 1941 Sea Lion is doable but risky. Also, when GB is lost, it actually becomes harder to intercept the Allied convoys, so if you are not careful, the western Allies will be able to strike back in 1943. The Soviets are weak in 1942, but they become tougher from 1943 on. Without an offensive Barbarossa, their income is high and the Axis cannot trade land for time as effectively as in case of standard Barbarossa.

You can check Plaid's and Supermax's AARs to see what happens when FE goes wrong (and we are talking about top players here). It's never a sure thing.

[veritas]

I am glad to hear that others' experiences haven't been so one-sided. I'm still skeptical, but more games will tell.
I'd like to point out that a 1942 Sea Lion is entirely feasible with FE. In my experience, the UK can focus on preventing the Axis from grabbing the Middle East oil or building up their Sea Lion defenses, but not both.

[JimR]

I've tried the FE strategy twice via pbem. The first time (when I got to Casablanca before the USA joined the war, and thus mobilized Franco for the Axis cause) the strategy worked. The other time (when the USA joined the war before the Axis took Casablanca, and therefore no Franco-Führer alliance was to be had) the strategy didn't work. Even the time it did work, the game was close till the end. In my experience of CEAW-GS, it is a more challenging experience to play the Axis, so I would be very careful about making any changes designed to weaken the chances of the Axis player pulling out a victory.

[Giovanni705]

Ok, may be I am a terrible player, very very posible, so I may saying silly things here. But my experience is very different. For England securing Casablanca and preventing Spain entry is very easy. So it is a MUST to pull a succesful 1940 sealion, which is very tought against a good defence. This is actually a very risky strategy since Garisons in NA spwan both after Italian entry AND Paris fall. No easy way for Germans to secure ports there and advance fast to Casablanca and at least secure spain entry. So you have to keep Paris alive till you do not secure at least tripoli. In the meantime you have to do Sealion. As Allies I would be pleased to have somebody playing this against me ...

[GogTheMild]

Giovanni is a good and tricksy player. But the last two times he has played the Axis against me he has refused Vichy (I do play a bit 'throw away the French') and gone for a Spanish activation. And ended up with something like this:


So he clearly wasn't moving fast enough. Or I was anticipating. Or both. And refusing Vichy is a bit like Sealion. If you do it and it doesn't come off - ie you don't activate Spain - you are in a lot of trouble.

We are currently just going into 1941 in another game with him as Axis, and this time he seems to be playing it a bit more conventionally . But just as tricksy .

[Cybvep]

Not enough Axis forces in North Africa... Also, if the UK sent so many units to NA, then it means that GB is lightly defended, so it's a perfect moment for Sea Lion. Unless, of course, the Allied naval forces are still very strong and the Axis rejected the armistice prematurely. It's always a risky option IMO, definitely not a standard one.

[veritas]

Whether or not the Axis tries to recruit Spain, waiting until 1942 for the Soviets leaves a LOT of time for the Axis to beat up the UK in Africa or at home, or both. Then, when Russia does finally attack, they face veritable wall of iron if the Axis is playing well. At that point, the Axis forces are well ahead technologically, and not feeling the manpower and oil pressures associated with Barbarossa. Going for Spain may be hit or miss, but I am not sure it is absolutely necessary for a successful defensive strategy.

[richardsd]

Whether or not the Axis tries to recruit Spain, waiting until 1942 for the Soviets leaves a LOT of time for the Axis to beat up the UK in Africa or at home, or both. Then, when Russia does finally attack, they face veritable wall of iron if the Axis is playing well. At that point, the Axis forces are well ahead technologically, and not feeling the manpower and oil pressures associated with Barbarossa. Going for Spain may be hit or miss, but I am not sure it is absolutely necessary for a successful defensive strategy.

Trying Fortress Eurpoa as you detail against a top opponent will likely end in failure, I suspect you would struggle even against a moderately capable experienced player.
There are some mistakes that the Allies can make against fortress Europa that make it harder so the trick is not to make them.

If you are up for a try some time PM me and we can play a game.

cheers

Duncan

[veritas]

Trying Fortress Eurpoa as you detail against a top opponent will likely end in failure, I suspect you would struggle even against a moderately capable experienced player.
There are some mistakes that the Allies can make against fortress Europa that make it harder so the trick is not to make them.

If you are up for a try some time PM me and we can play a game.

cheers

Duncan

Thanks for the info--it seems the general consensus is that it is not unbalanced. Don't have time for a game right now, but thanks for the offer--will keep that in mind. Can you share any specifics about the mistakes you referenced?

[richardsd]

Trying Fortress Eurpoa as you detail against a top opponent will likely end in failure, I suspect you would struggle even against a moderately capable experienced player.
There are some mistakes that the Allies can make against fortress Europa that make it harder so the trick is not to make them.

If you are up for a try some time PM me and we can play a game.

cheers

Duncan

Thanks for the info--it seems the general consensus is that it is not unbalanced. Don't have time for a game right now, but thanks for the offer--will keep that in mind. Can you share any specifics about the mistakes you referenced?

the single biggest mistake is to attack to soon - particularly with the Russians

they key is to attack when you can kill units each time

[Crazygunner1]

Anyone know how much PPs the russians will start with if they spent nothing and enter the war in May 42?

[veritas]

the single biggest mistake is to attack to soon - particularly with the Russians

they key is to attack when you can kill units each time

So, are you saying the 13 PP and handful of units from Spain make the difference between a viable, if not guaranteed, Fortress Europa strategy and one doomed to failure?

[GogTheMild]

No; he's saying that with or without Spain, a Fortress Europe along the lines you outlined is unlikely to succeed. A half way competent Allies would take the Axis apart in 1944 - earlier if they were a good player - and there would not be a lot the Axis could do about it.

[richardsd]

Anyone know how much PPs the russians will start with if they spent nothing and enter the war in May 42?

approx 2000 but thats after labs

[richardsd]

No; he's saying that with or without Spain, a Fortress Europe along the lines you outlined is unlikely to succeed. A half way competent Allies would take the Axis apart in 1944 - earlier if they were a good player - and there would not be a lot the Axis could do about it.

yes, thats what I am saying

fortress Europa is very difficult to execute well and an experienced player will likely defeat it

[veritas]

Can you qualify that? I don't mean to be the least bit rude, but that runs contrary to my experience. So far, I haven't seen any real specifics to back up the opposing view. I'm not sure what qualifies someone as a "top opponent", but I consider the folks I play with to be at least "halfway competent". Where does the strategy break down, and where do the Axis have trouble?

[Crazygunner1]

So anyone wanna try fortress europe strategy against me? Would love to defend against that strategy....

Anyone up for it?

[veritas]

I suspect part of the success of the strategy, where it has been achieved, owes to the surprise factor. Probably the best way to test it would be to run two simultaneous games, so the Allied player isn't initially sure which game in which it will materialize.