Which strategies are you using for each country?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just wondered which strategies you're using for building, research, attacking / defending, which countries to DoW as the Axis player, Allied player or Soviet player.

Some examples.

Russia: What do you build as the Soviet player prior to Barbarossa? Do you build lots of garrisons or do you prefer the more mobile corps units. Do you build anything else like fighters or armor? Which areas do you research prior to Barbarossa? Industry? Infantry? Armor? Other?

How do you defend after Barbarossa has started? A smart Russian player knows he must retreat, but which defense lines do you form to build with your good units? Dnepr line in the south or further east? Dvina line in the north or run back to the forests near Pskov? What about keeping a mobile strategic reserve (i. e. behind the front lines) and try to crush German spearheads? What about buying fighters so the Germans can't bombard the Russian units at will? When is a good time to build leaders?

France: Is it best to just build garrisons and create a double defense line or is another defense strategy more effective. What about building more armor units so you have several units to crush German spearheads with. The front will fall faster, buy you may take some German units with you when you fall.

Britain: Where to put priorities in research? What to build prior to USA entering the war? Focus upon fighters or maybe build some land units to get the upper hand in Egypt faster?

USA: What is most important to research? Is going for industry first vital? Which units do you build first?

Italy: Is putting effort on research worthwhile? Maybe only on infantry? What to build? Fighters to let the Allies pay when they try to invade Italy? Maybe garrisons so captured cities in France, Yugoslavia, Greece etc. can be held with Italians. Then Germany doesn't need to spend valuable manpower on weak garrison units. What about building a stronger navy?

Germany: Which areas to research in addition to armor? Which countries do you attack in addition to the compulsory Poland, Holland, Belgium, France and later Russia? Denmark is easy to capture and opens up access from the Baltic to the Atlantic. Norway is also easy, but will cost a bit and you need garrisons in Oslo and Bergen. Yugoslavia and Greece are possible to take before Barbarossa, but burns a lot of oil and you spend points to rebuild losses. What about going after Spain so you can get Gibraltar? Turkey takes a long time to capture, but after it's done you have short access to Baku. But is it a good option? Is putting an effort into Egypt a good idea (German armor, fighters etc.)? What about Sealion? Is the success chances good or must he Allied player make big mistakes for it to work?

Which units do you build prior to Barbarossa? How many fighters, tac bombers, subs, armor etc. Air and armor units are great, but burn oil.

How do you attack Russia. Do you focus upon a strong spearhead towards Moscow or do you split your forces into other spearheads as well? Maybe one going after Leningrad and another going after Rostov with the ultimate goal of Stalingrad, Caucasus and beyond. The proverb says: "If you try to catch 2 rabbits at the same time you end up not catching any". Maybe this is true about German spearheads. Do you prefer 1, 2 or 3 spearheads in 1941?

Just write about your experiences with the different CeaW major powers. What works well and what doesn't. I'm not trying to find a consensus about what's "correct" because it's impossible to find. But it would be interesting to hear about different strategies so everyone can learn something and improve.

[Happycat]

Here are my build strategies, based upon a few games against the AI, and two PBEM games (one in progress, early stages with Stauffenberg and one in, shall we say, the terminal stage, with IDG---and he ain't the one that's dying!)

Russia-prior to outbreak of war, build more garrisons to place near border areas, and corps (mostly non-mech) deployed in areas close to the Smolensk-Kiev-Dnepropetrovsk defensive line. If there is time (seldom available in a game against a human), build a couple more fighter units. Build all of the "cheap" generals that you can---you will need the boost to unit effectiveness. Build at least one lab in armor, air and infantry.

France-I am in favor of building lots of garrisons, and a few more corps, just to choke up all of the avenues of advance. The one French armor that you start with has a sharp bite (as Stauffenberg showed me). If there is time for a second armor, great, but it probably isn't do-able.

UK-Great Britain was always a naval power. Don't try to depart from this historical fact. A strong navy helps with the war against the U-boats, deters an invasion, and gives you something to make life miserable for Italy. Research advances in naval technology, air and industrial (let the US research the armor, infantry and also the air).

USA-research as much as you can before the US entry. Build some naval units, and near the end of 1941, you should have some infantry, air and at least one armor coming online.

Germany-I am really not sure of what works best yet. In my games against the AI, I built lots of armor, mech and air, and found that by the time I took out Russia, my tank crews were walking. Oil is a real hassle for the Germans, and it doesn't improve much even after capturing all of the oil hexes in the Caucasus region. Only after Russia surrenders does German oil stocks improve. Based upon my limited experience as the Axis, I think I would de-emphasize armor and mech a bit more, and build more infantry.

Italy-I build one more BB usually, and two tac air and one fighter. The rest is pretty much spent on garrisons, which can be used in Russia and elsewhere.

STRATEGY NOTES:

Axis: DOW low countries, Denmark, Yugoslavia. Ignore Greece (it just isn't worth that much, and once taken must forever be defended). If there is time, take Norway. Ignore North Africa---it simply does not offer you that much, and ties up units that would be better used in Russia. I have tried the strategy of running through Egypt, Syria, Iraq---although "running" is hardly the operative word. The terrain is punishing, and by the time you get units anywhere near the Russian border with Iran, the game is over anyway. Trying to take out Turkey, Sweden or Spain is probably not worth the effort. It takes too long in a game of this scale, and the real goal is to take out Russia. Everything else is just a diversion imo.

Allies: If your opponent does not DOW Greece, you should consider it. It doesn't cost you anything, and it does not contribute that much to the Axis war effort. You don't have to actually attack, just do the DOW. True, the Greek units can defend Greece without German help, up to a point, but it means that the Axis player must now always consider the possibility of an Allied attack upon Greece. Since you have already done the DOW, if and when you do attack Greece, the Axis will have little warning.

WHAT WORKS, AND WHAT DOESN'T

Defending too far forward in Russia definitely does NOT work. Use the cheap units to buy you a bit of time when Germany first attacks, and quickly build a line on the Dnieper through Smolensk. Be prepared to fall back, trading territory for time. In my game against IDG, I put too much up front, and by late 1941 I was, to put it bluntly, screwed.

As Germany, a strong attack against Russia in early 1941 works very well, but you will need to replace losses, and continue building new units, researching, etc. So I think you can forget about replacing all of your u-boat losses. Alternatively, it is possible to build a strong u-boat presence and really cause Allies some problems, but this stength at sea will be at the expense of your efforts in Russia.

One thing that works exceptionally well is whacking the same enemy fighter unit with three or four air assaults on the same turn. It will definitely extinguish the enemy unit. However this might be considered by some to be "gamey". The problem is that other enemy fighter units in the vicinity of the one you are attacking will NOT fly to its defence. Frankly, I'm still not sure if I like this capability or not, but I am leaning towards "not".

That's my two cents (insert currency of your choice, if you wish) worth.

[VonManteuffel]

Some PBEM ideas for the Allies:

When playing as the Allies, be prepared to defend Russia as far back as Perm. Good players will get there very fast and if most of your units aren't there, you will lose.

A good place to land in 1942-43 is Portugal. From there go straight to Spain. Eventually he may kick you out of Spain, but it takes a lot of troops that would otherwise be in Russia.

And very importantly, build some destroyers and protect your Russian convoys at all costs.

[stalins_organ]

I had my arse well and truly kicked in a game by an opponent who built bulk garrisons for the French, and shipped in British garrisons too - these backed up his front line so it never retreated - with only 2 ground attacks + air I hardly ever killed a front line corps. He'd then retreat any damaged ones, and move in fresh ones and attack with them so most of my front line units were damaged.

I couldn't retreat those units and replace them with fresh units fast enough - if I rebuilt them in place then they blocked avenues of attack.....

in 1940 I was being pushed back out of Belgium!!

[IrishDragoonGuards]

I usually find the best strategy is to attack the swine Allied players with my pointy units ...
Ire was ere ..
IDG

[firepowerjohan]

I usually find the best strategy is to attack the swine Allied players with my pointy units ...
Ire was ere ..
IDG

Ok IDG, so all we have to do is to follow that simple advice and we will all be winning games playing CEAW?
Ah damn, some times I just feel like I am one of the "guys who play the game" again. I need to hurry back into my robotic "lurk and support" trenches again and not appear to be flesh and blood...

Enjoy the game

[Happycat]

And my strategy has been to let IDG wear himself out beating on my Allied units, thus lulling him into a false sense of security. At the 11th hour, I will of course release my flying monkeys and victory will be mine!

[VonManteuffel]

I have played hours and hours of PBEM now and there really is no strategy that is sure to work, because your opponent can lay waste the best of plans in an instant.

That's what I like about the game; there is a nice ebb and flow and victory is never sure.

[Redpossum]

Well, that's good. I'm sure we have all seen too many games in which there was a "magic winning strategy" in the form of some trick, usually a horribly gamey one.

[vveedd]

I had my arse well and truly kicked in a game by an opponent who built bulk garrisons for the French, and shipped in British garrisons too - these backed up his front line so it never retreated - with only 2 ground attacks + air I hardly ever killed a front line corps. He'd then retreat any damaged ones, and move in fresh ones and attack with them so most of my front line units were damaged.

I couldn't retreat those units and replace them with fresh units fast enough - if I rebuilt them in place then they blocked avenues of attack.....

in 1940 I was being pushed back out of Belgium!!

If I remember correctly I have had “constructive” discussion in beta test forum about double line tactic and I still think that this is gamey and illegal. This is no some genius military tactic; it just takes advantage of game no stacking rule. Every tactic in which players can exploit flaw in rules is illegal. To my opinion, it should have to be penalty for unit if can’t retreat because is no place to retreat. It should suffer much more casualties and easier to destroy it.

[Happycat]

If I remember correctly I have had “constructive” discussion in beta test forum about double line tactic and I still think that this is gamey and illegal. This is no some genius military tactic; it just takes advantage of game no stacking rule. Every tactic in which players can exploit flaw in rules is illegal. To my opinion, it should have to be penalty for unit if can’t retreat because is no place to retreat. It should suffer much more casualties and easier to destroy it.

In most wargames, regardless of the medium (i.e. board or computer), it is a sound tactic to build a double line to prevent breakthroughs. I see nothing "gamey" about this at all---it in fact replicates historical reality. It would be negligent for any real-world commander (much less a wargamer) to NOT have, at the very least, a mobile reserve with which to plug holes when on the defensive.

In a recent game against IDG, I utilized the tactic of building French garrisons, shipping in three UK garrisons, and forming a double line on the French-Belgian border. Against a good player (and I believe IDG qualifies as such), this tactic buys a little more time, but the ultimate conclusion is the same. If the German player is forced out of Belgium, I would be interested in knowing how this was accomplished. In my game with IDG, spending all of my pp's on garrisons left me little to spend on a force with which to counter-attack. In fact, it was so costly that if he had chosen to go for operation Sea Lion, I would have been well and truly skewered.

This tactic works fine against the AI, but is of limited value against a competent human player. In fact, such a broad defensive line ultimately only serves to prove the accuracy of a statement attiributed to Frederick the Great, when he is alleged to have said something along the lines of "he who defends everything, defends nothing".

[vveedd]

If I remember correctly I have had “constructive” discussion in beta test forum about double line tactic and I still think that this is gamey and illegal. This is no some genius military tactic; it just takes advantage of game no stacking rule. Every tactic in which players can exploit flaw in rules is illegal. To my opinion, it should have to be penalty for unit if can’t retreat because is no place to retreat. It should suffer much more casualties and easier to destroy it.

In most wargames, regardless of the medium (i.e. board or computer), it is a sound tactic to build a double line to prevent breakthroughs. I see nothing "gamey" about this at all---it in fact replicates historical reality. It would be negligent for any real-world commander (much less a wargamer) to NOT have, at the very least, a mobile reserve with which to plug holes when on the defensive.

In a recent game against IDG, I utilized the tactic of building French garrisons, shipping in three UK garrisons, and forming a double line on the French-Belgian border. Against a good player (and I believe IDG qualifies as such), this tactic buys a little more time, but the ultimate conclusion is the same. If the German player is forced out of Belgium, I would be interested in knowing how this was accomplished. In my game with IDG, spending all of my pp's on garrisons left me little to spend on a force with which to counter-attack. In fact, it was so costly that if he had chosen to go for operation Sea Lion, I would have been well and truly skewered.

This tactic works fine against the AI, but is of limited value against a competent human player. In fact, such a broad defensive line ultimately only serves to prove the accuracy of a statement attiributed to Frederick the Great, when he is alleged to have said something along the lines of "he who defends everything, defends nothing".

Double line is practically “must have” tactic in any real war. Main reason is to prevent breakthrough but when first line falls, units from first line are retreating to reserved position behind second line. I saw this with my own eyes in recent war in my country. In this game this is NOT the reason. Reason for double line is to avoid retreat rule and with this existing of retreat rule in the game is pointless.
In my favorite game (Third Reich) double line is fundamental tactic but because of it there is no retreat rule which is very logical to me.

[Happycat]

Double line is practically “must have” tactic in any real war. Main reason is to prevent breakthrough but when first line falls, units from first line are retreating to reserved position behind second line. I saw this with my own eyes in recent war in my country. In this game this is NOT the reason. Reason for double line is to avoid retreat rule and with this existing of retreat rule in the game is pointless.
In my favorite game (Third Reich) double line is fundamental tactic but because of it there is no retreat rule which is very logical to me.

There is certainly a case that could be made for the retreat rule to be modified imo. I don't know that I would say the rule is pointless. Perhaps a defending unit that can't retreat should be eliminated if its effectiveness and strength fall below certain levels.

I don't think that everyone who creates a double line in this game is seeking to avoid the retreat effect. I would be quite okay with the first unit being killed---what I am seeking is to prevent breakthrough by having a second line.

I believe that even with the existing rules, a double line of garrison units is not that formidable. If the Axis player utilizes all of his airpower, he should be able to breach the line somewhere without too much problem.

IDG is now, as I write this, breaching the Maginot line in his game with me by that very tactic. His problem now is that the Belgians are still neutral, and so he is funneling into a very narrow front, which allows the French to stack THREE deep, including some corps.

It should be noted that we are playing with Stauffenbergs mod, so there is also a city (Nancy) next to the Maginot which is creating problems for the Axis. And, it should especially be noted that IDG is trying the Maginot line just for a change of pace---he has already beaten me soundly in a previous game by attacking through Belgium (and, as noted in an earlier post, he did this despite my double line of garrison units).

Anyway, I am sure there are some who utilize double lines to "avoid" the retreat rule, but I'm not one of them. To me, it is just following a very basic and sound doctrine.

[davetheroad]

Question - Are units that cannot retreat fighting harder and taking LESS casualties. It might be my paranoia but i think I am seeing totally surrounded units fighting harder than those that have a hex to retreat into.

If this is true then we do have a problem as a double line gives even more power to the front line units.

Dave

[Happycat]

Question - Are units that cannot retreat fighting harder and taking LESS casualties. It might be my paranoia but i think I am seeing totally surrounded units fighting harder than those that have a hex to retreat into.

If this is true then we do have a problem as a double line gives even more power to the front line units.

Dave

I think you're paranoid

Seriously, I have not seen this myself, but I am sure others will weigh in. Maybe the guys that wrote the code?...

[vveedd]

Double line is practically “must have” tactic in any real war. Main reason is to prevent breakthrough but when first line falls, units from first line are retreating to reserved position behind second line. I saw this with my own eyes in recent war in my country. In this game this is NOT the reason. Reason for double line is to avoid retreat rule and with this existing of retreat rule in the game is pointless.
In my favorite game (Third Reich) double line is fundamental tactic but because of it there is no retreat rule which is very logical to me.

There is certainly a case that could be made for the retreat rule to be modified imo. I don't know that I would say the rule is pointless. Perhaps a defending unit that can't retreat should be eliminated if its effectiveness and strength fall below certain levels.

I don't think that everyone who creates a double line in this game is seeking to avoid the retreat effect. I would be quite okay with the first unit being killed---what I am seeking is to prevent breakthrough by having a second line.

I believe that even with the existing rules, a double line of garrison units is not that formidable. If the Axis player utilizes all of his airpower, he should be able to breach the line somewhere without too much problem.

IDG is now, as I write this, breaching the Maginot line in his game with me by that very tactic. His problem now is that the Belgians are still neutral, and so he is funneling into a very narrow front, which allows the French to stack THREE deep, including some corps.

It should be noted that we are playing with Stauffenbergs mod, so there is also a city (Nancy) next to the Maginot which is creating problems for the Axis. And, it should especially be noted that IDG is trying the Maginot line just for a change of pace---he has already beaten me soundly in a previous game by attacking through Belgium (and, as noted in an earlier post, he did this despite my double line of garrison units).

Anyway, I am sure there are some who utilize double lines to "avoid" the retreat rule, but I'm not one of them. To me, it is just following a very basic and sound doctrine.

Didn't say that you are using double line to avoid retreat. Just saying to you my experience from beta testing.
Well, if there is a way to avoid some rule then this rule is pretty much useless to me. This is like laws. If you can avoid some law then it is useless law, or with flaw, at least. When law is like that government is going to change it isn’t it?

[Happycat]

Didn't say that you are using double line to avoid retreat. Just saying to you my experience from beta testing.
Well, if there is a way to avoid some rule then this rule is pretty much useless to me. This is like laws. If you can avoid some law then it is useless law, or with flaw, at least. When law is like that government is going to change it isn’t it?

No argument here!

[stalins_organ]

Multiple defensive lines are not new of course - at various times romans formed up to 6 units deep!!

however they are tactics well below the level of this game.

but as someone said on another forum - this is PG on steroids.

so IMO there's lots of stuff like this that any serious wargame would have sorted out. but this is not intended to be a "serious wargame" - it is intended to be a fairly simple game. If you want a serious WW2 game with loads of historical accuacy then CEAW is not the game for you. Indeed at the moment I don't think there IS agame for you ....at least not one that's easy to play!!

If you want one for WW1 then get GOA....but that's another story entirely....

[VonManteuffel]

It seems to me that when a unit is forced to retreat, but has no hex available, it should be destroyed (as it was in PG and other games) or at least take double losses.

The fact that the unit can just sit there with no penalty is silly.

[vveedd]

Multiple defensive lines are not new of course - at various times romans formed up to 6 units deep!!

however they are tactics well below the level of this game.

but as someone said on another forum - this is PG on steroids.

so IMO there's lots of stuff like this that any serious wargame would have sorted out. but this is not intended to be a "serious wargame" - it is intended to be a fairly simple game. If you want a serious WW2 game with loads of historical accuacy then CEAW is not the game for you. Indeed at the moment I don't think there IS agame for you ....at least not one that's easy to play!!

If you want one for WW1 then get GOA....but that's another story entirely....

I like this game a lot but as I said – if you can avoid one rule with exploitation of another rule something is wrong no matter if this game is simple or difficult or historically correct or not. This situation happens in many games and they are not unusual. When they are detected developers usually do something about it. There were similar examples is Strategic Command 2 game and Hubert (as main developer) has done great job. In this case, to my opinion, developers should add some penalties for unit which will, in normal circumstances, retreat but it can’t because there is no room in adjacent hexes.