Slitherine

If I, playing as the Axis, do not DOW Russia will an automatic trip occur causing them to declare war on me?

donkeyoti wrote:If I, playing as the Axis, do not DOW Russia will an automatic trip occur causing them to declare war on me?

Yes, eventually Russia will be in the war.

Oh well best get them early then before the Russian bear crushes me.

donkeyoti wrote:Oh well best get them early then before the Russian bear crushes me.

That is a interesting choice in the game, to either ty invade USSR early when they are not too strong or to try delying it as long as possible and use your forces in the West or for conquests. Good Luck

I've found it best to wait for the Russian to declare war. Two reasons: 1)Until war is declared the Russians production is held at its lowest level for the longest time possible, and 2)unless you REALLY screwed up in the west, the units that are on the Russian border have been doing rest & refit for several turns, so they are at their prime when the war starts, giving you the greatest quality difference possible for the initial attacks. A side benefit is that since the war usually starts late in the year you can usually make sure that there are no Axis forces inside the Russian border when the winter effectiveness penalty hits, but are still able to maximize killing Russian units up to that point.

Jyri

I have found, so far, that carrying on after Poland really catches those Russkies with their pants down.

donkeyoti wrote:I have found, so far, that carrying on after Poland really catches those Russkies with their pants down.

Well, that's an interesting variation on the von Schlieffen Plan. I had honestly never thought of it.

Don't you have problems with the West?

JyriErik wrote:I've found it best to wait for the Russian to declare war. Two reasons: 1)Until war is declared the Russians production is held at its lowest level for the longest time possible, and 2)unless you REALLY screwed up in the west, the units that are on the Russian border have been doing rest & refit for several turns, so they are at their prime when the war starts, giving you the greatest quality difference possible for the initial attacks. A side benefit is that since the war usually starts late in the year you can usually make sure that there are no Axis forces inside the Russian border when the winter effectiveness penalty hits, but are still able to maximize killing Russian units up to that point.
Jyri

Your strategy is based upon the idea that Russia will attack the entrenched Germans when they DoW. But that's just playing into German hands. It's much better for the Russians to withdraw to the Dvina / Dnepr line or evey further if the Germans pursue. You have build lots of corps units and placed them close to your defense line.

So either the Germans just remain at the border and won't be killing any Russians at all or they move into Russia and meet the Winter soon after they cross the original Russian border.

You delay the Russian production some turns by not DoW'ing Russia in May / June 1941, but Russia will get wartime production anyway in October 1941 so you don't save that many points.

Germany's big problem is that unless you destroy A LOT of Russians in 1941 then there won't be a 1942 German offensive. In 1943 the Russian bear will lauch a huge offensive and be in Berlin in 1944.

So Germany need 1941 to decimate the Russia forces and grab lots of cities to increase their own production and lower the Russian production. E. g. the Germans should build a strat bomber or 2 and bombard Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. You won't have range to do that if you don't move deep into Russia.

Happycat tried once to not start Barbarossa in June 1941 and DoW'ed Russia almost at the same time Russia would DoW him to avoid a general Russian retreat from the border. Even though he killed the front line Russians the bulk of the Russian army escaped and formed a double defense line further east. The Germans didn't have time to get far into Russia before Winter struck and had less production than usual. The Russians withdrew to the Leningrad, Moscow, Tula, Voronezh, Rostov line and a big open no man's land was created. Germany spent a lot of 1942 moving into this territory and could only engage the double defense line a few turns before Winter struck again. In 1943 Russia had parity and counter attacked combined with severe Allied strat bombing and invasions in the Med. Germany collapsed more quickly than usual. So Happycat came to the conclusion that never again will be wait till October 1941 with attacking Russia. It's only a recipe for a quick German defeat.

donkeyoti wrote:I have found, so far, that carrying on after Poland really catches those Russkies with their pants down.

That strategy won't work against a human Allied player. The Russians can withdraw quickly eastwards with the bulk of their army. The Germans have so few units in Poland that they can't capture a lot of terrain quickly. Russia will get wartime production in 1939 and just prepare a defense line from Leningrad to Moscow and further to Rostov. Germany will spend many turns just getting to the front. Russia can rail those front line units that will survive.

Hungary, Romania and Finland won't be Axis yet so Germany can't even attack from that territory making it even harder to capture a lot of terrain quickly.

When the Germans move eastwards the British and the French invade Germany from the west. They can get across the Rhine and the British can make amphibious landings near Wilhelmshaven. Don't underestimate the power of the French and British forces. They can quickly gobble up German garrisons.

Russia, Britain and France will have more production combined than Germany. I foresee a 1940 or 1941 German defeat with such a strategy.

Stauffenberg wrote:Your strategy is based upon the idea that Russia will attack the entrenched Germans when they DoW. But that's just playing into German hands. It's much better for the Russians to withdraw to the Dvina / Dnepr line or evey further if the Germans pursue. You have build lots of corps units and placed them close to your defense line.

The strategy is based on the fact that the AI is a sucker and you can use many aspects of it to your advantage. To be a little more specific, the Germans attack up to the Russian border, then only after the winter penalty hits, do they cross the border, thus not taking the massive first winter blast to effectiveness. The idea of the Russians attacking west isn't any part of it (although I wouldn't mind it occurring). I've managed to shred the AI bad enough each time that by the time good weather appears in 1942 it's more a question of when than if Russia falls. Against a human player things would be a bit different since many of the sucker traps which work against the AI wouldn't work against a person.

Jyri

JyriErik wrote:

Stauffenberg wrote:Your strategy is based upon the idea that Russia will attack the entrenched Germans when they DoW. But that's just playing into German hands. It's much better for the Russians to withdraw to the Dvina / Dnepr line or evey further if the Germans pursue. You have build lots of corps units and placed them close to your defense line.

The strategy is based on the fact that the AI is a sucker and you can use many aspects of it to your advantage. To be a little more specific, the Germans attack up to the Russian border, then only after the winter penalty hits, do they cross the border, thus not taking the massive first winter blast to effectiveness. The idea of the Russians attacking west isn't any part of it (although I wouldn't mind it occurring). I've managed to shred the AI bad enough each time that by the time good weather appears in 1942 it's more a question of when than if Russia falls. Against a human player things would be a bit different since many of the sucker traps which work against the AI wouldn't work against a person.

Jyri

The AI will also let you get away with using unsound tactics. I found that experienced players like Stauffenberg and Happycat ate my lunch when I used tactics against them that had worked against the AI or when playing hotseat (solitaire - I didn't know better). The AI lets you get away with sloppy tactics and unsound strategies but good players will make you pay dearly for that.

So, put in a nutshell, you are all saying it is impossible to win as the Axis against a human player. So with that in mind I must remember never to play as the Axis against another human player.

donkeyoti wrote:So, put in a nutshell, you are all saying it is impossible to win as the Axis against a human player. So with that in mind I must remember never to play as the Axis against another human player.

If I implied that I didn't mean to. All I was saying is that to win as the Axis you have to have a sound strategy, that includes lots of research, and use good tactics. Just as you have to do when playing the Allies to win.

CEaW has some many subtle layers to it that I'm still learning and I recognize that I still have a lot to learn. While playing the AI or hotseat (solitare) can be fun for me the game is so much richer and subtle playing against experienced players.

rkr1958 wrote:The AI will also let you get away with using unsound tactics. I found that experienced players like Stauffenberg and Happycat ate my lunch when I used tactics against them that had worked against the AI or when playing hotseat (solitaire - I didn't know better). The AI lets you get away with sloppy tactics and unsound strategies but good players will make you pay dearly for that.

True, but you can't win (even against the AI) with using sloppy tactics or unsound strategies. A good player knows how to read his opponent and then use the proper strategy against them. If you know the AI does certain things when you do certain things, then doing things that would cause disaster against a human player isn't sloppy/unsound. Just like if you know one opponent has a particular style of play and another has a different style making moves that will slaughter the first player, but cause disaster against the second player doesn't make it sloppy/unsound. What is sloppy/unsound is using the wrong strategy against the wrong "player" in the first place.

One major problem playing hotseat solitaire is that you're playing your strategy against your strategy. THE biggest "flaw" as I see it is that you know exactly what is (and isn't) being produced and what the technology thrust is for both sides. Not to mention that you also know exactly what forces are where & it what shape they're in. Stripping the western defenses is a much easier decision to make as the Germans when you know exactly what forces the British/Americans have available to invade with.

Jyri

JyriErik wrote:

rkr1958 wrote:The AI will also let you get away with using unsound tactics. I found that experienced players like Stauffenberg and Happycat ate my lunch when I used tactics against them that had worked against the AI or when playing hotseat (solitaire - I didn't know better). The AI lets you get away with sloppy tactics and unsound strategies but good players will make you pay dearly for that.

True, but you can't win (even against the AI) with using sloppy tactics or unsound strategies. A good player knows how to read his opponent and then use the proper strategy against them. If you know the AI does certain things when you do certain things, then doing things that would cause disaster against a human player isn't sloppy/unsound. Just like if you know one opponent has a particular style of play and another has a different style making moves that will slaughter the first player, but cause disaster against the second player doesn't make it sloppy/unsound. What is sloppy/unsound is using the wrong strategy against the wrong "player" in the first place.

One major problem playing hotseat solitaire is that you're playing your strategy against your strategy. THE biggest "flaw" as I see it is that you know exactly what is (and isn't) being produced and what the technology thrust is for both sides. Not to mention that you also know exactly what forces are where & it what shape they're in. Stripping the western defenses is a much easier decision to make as the Germans when you know exactly what forces the British/Americans have available to invade with.

Jyri

I agree with your statement to some extent. However; I know first hand that naval, air and ground attack tactics that I used, and which worked, against the AI does not work against experienced and good human players. Also, the strategy that I developed against the AI for conquering France by May 1940 got me killed against these same players. While playing against the AI was fun and helped me learn the game it allowed me to win with unsound tactics and strategies. I'm not saying there's only one or two strategies that can win against these players. There may be a dozen. Part of the fun of the game is it's re-playability that allows you to explore and find new potential winning strategies. I am saying (or trying to say); however, that the tactics used in any potential winning strategy against good and experienced players must be sound and are basically the same. Also, I believe all potential winning strategies for a given side (i.e., Axis or Allies) have a number of sub-strategies (e.g., research allocations, how you attack certain countries, how you defend certain countries) in common.

Anyway I think a lot depends on how you approach playing CEaW. Some people play it purely as a game only and exploit game mechanics in a non-historical way to their advantage. I guess that's why we lost the ability to transport garrisons in version 1.06. If that's the way certain people prefer to play then then that's their preference and that's great. Personally, I like to approach CEaW from an historical simulation point of view. While I don't expect a perfect recreation of the war (I can buy a DVD for that) I want an "historical" feel to the game and a game that allows for exploration of "historical" what ifs (e.g., Operation Sea Lion). I'm willing to abide by a number of "House Rules", which are not enforced by the game engine but by agreement between the players, to get this feel. So for example, if Slitherine (are you listening?) added back the ability to transport garrisons I would abide by a house rule that forbid the use of this for a seaborne invasion or as a cheap blocking force for a seaborne invasion.

"So for example, if Slitherine (are you listening?) added back the ability to transport garrisons I would abide by a house rule that forbid the use of this for a seaborne invasion or as a cheap blocking force for a seaborne invasion."

Firepower Entertainment is doing the development for the Commander series but yes I do get your point
The Garrison rule was made due to historical limitation reasons to avoid too many exploits.

firepowerjohan wrote:"So for example, if Slitherine (are you listening?) added back the ability to transport garrisons I would abide by a house rule that forbid the use of this for a seaborne invasion or as a cheap blocking force for a seaborne invasion."

Firepower Entertainment is doing the development for the Commander series but yes I do get your point
The Garrison rule was made due to historical limitation reasons to avoid too many exploits.

@firepowerjohan, I know that you are the lead AND only developer for CEaW & CNaW (which I'm looking forward to it's release). CEaW is an outstanding and enjoyable product both from a code stability and playability standpoint. I realize that you had the help of many testers to help iron out the coding and logic bugs. I also realize when things get release to the public that they use them in ways that the developer(s) and tester(s) never anticipated. I appreciate the work by all on CEaW because I'm really enjoying the game. Thanks.

"Exploiting game mechanics" is exactly how the Germans overran Poland and France so quickly historically. Both the Poles & French/British THOUGHT they were playing the game of "attrition warfare" in which breakthroughs only occurred after a long grinding down period. The Germans decided to take the same "game pieces" (tanks and trucks) and instead used them en masse at specific points to create a quick breakthrough and then used that breakthrough to disrupt or destroy the enemy's command and control system and used the confusion that created to defeat their armies without actually having to fight those armies to any major degree. That's not to say that there wasn't any major fighting, but if you look at the amount of fighting NOT at the schwerpunkts or involving those units, there was very little compared to WW I style fighting. Taking advantage of your opponents weaknesses and your own strengths is how you win games. Using the exact same strategy and/or tactics that you'd use against an AI against an actual person is rarely going to work very well. What makes it tougher to play against a human is that they aren't going to do the same exact thing in the same exact situation as the AI would, but they will play in a general manner consistently. You just have to figure out what it is. The easiest opponents are those who tend to be the most rigid in their style of play, which is why AI's tend to be easier to crack and then beat consistently, however, people whose style is rigid are also easy to "crack" and beat. Winning as the Germans in CEAW is definitely much harder than winning as the Allies, but that's historically valid. There are quite a few situations in the war you can point at and say that if the Germans had done things differently they could have won, but naming those that if the Allies had done differently they would have lost is much harder. In the game it's the same. German play has to be at least a level or two over Allied play. Even without using the fuel rule the Germans should never move a unit just to move it. There should be a purpose for every move the Germans make and that purpose is to win. And if you can't win, then you try not to lose. (As an aside, I remember playing the board game Russian Campaign against someone else many years ago. I took a chance the win the game early and got slaughtered when it went badly. My opponent suggested we end the game at that point since I had obviously lost the game. I declined and we played to the "bitter" end. The final result was a draw since despite everything else he was never able to land a knockout blow to my "defeated" forces. The reason I didn't lose the game was that I knew his style of play fairly well, but I also knew the games mechanics far better than he did and was always able to pull out some "trick" that he wasn't expecting at a point when he was expecting to finally defeat me. Against someone else I might have been easily defeated.) That said, I see several possible weaknesses with Stauffenberg's Russian strategy which might be exploited, although without seeing the exact strategy in use, I can't say for sure if my ideas would work or not.

Jyri

@JyriErik, I saw your reference to Russian Campaign. I have that game, which I played several times along with several other Avalon Hill games, including Fortress Europa, Third Reich and a number of the tactical WW-II titles (squad leader, cross of iron, panzerleader, panzerblitz) and Guns of August (WW-I).

Anyway, ... what I meant when I said "exploiting game mechanics" is to exploit something that the game engine allows that was not possible Historically. For example, massive transport of garrisons (prior to v1.06) to "block" for the high value corps intended for seaborne invasion. This tactic, apart from being unrealistic (massive loss of life and loss of transports among the "blocking" garrison force) but was impossible. The Allies did not physically posses the number of ships and landing craft to carry out such a "strategy". Another example is the French battleships. As the Allied player you know that France will fall and that there is no downside in using these in a suicidal manner against the Italian navy to inflict as much damage as you can. That's why (I believe) the Italian entry is now delayed unit June 1, 1940 (at which time France should be close to falling). I also play by houserules that forbid attacks by surface ships against ships in port that have not attacked from within that port. This prevents the unrealistic situation of the two French BBs being parked outside of an Italian port waiting to bombard an Italian BB as soon as they enter. This house rule also protects the UK surface ships in the Med against the Italians in 1940 & 1941 and later the Italians against the UK/USA naval forces. By the way these house rules allow for unlimited CV attacks against ships in port. I know historically that when the French surrendered that the Royal Navy attacked the Vichy fleet at Oran and inflicted some damage. In CEaW there is no French fleet after the fall of France so this isn't necessary in the game. Anyway, I feel the benefit of this houserule (and others) is that the resultant CEaW naval game is much richer and historical realistic. Not that history is repeated but that the resultant naval game was historically possible. These examples illustrate what I mean when I say "exploiting game mechanics".

Now if you're talking about invading the USSR after Poland falls then that's different. While historically unlikely that strategy was possible. Also, if you (as the Allies) want to try to retake France in 1942, while unlikely was historically possible and was certainly pushed by the US. I see these two examples as different from "exploiting game mechanics". I see these as playing your opponent.

This is a fascinating argument, in the abstract, (and no, I'm not being sarcastic), but what are you two arguing about, specifically?

As far as old East Front board games, SPI's War in the East was my favorite on the strategic level.