are the Allies too weak in the early years?

[johanssb]

I remember that game. You forced [;)] me to do Sealion by stretching the UK too thin with a French / British landing in Sicily in 1940. It was fun, but I would put that under the category of trying an alternate strategy. Unfortunately, it doomed the UK.

[Icier]

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

Maybe the learning curve is steeper for the allies?

I have just finished a game where Germans had to surrender in Dec 42. This was caused by the fact that the Germans
held off invading Russia in 41 & and as my opponent said " no invasion I was able to build and tech up stronger".
The Russian army was 3-4 times stronger than the German Army.
So the learning curve is exactly same on both sides.

[Guderian1940]

All you are saying is that the German player was inexperienced. After more than 20 MP games as the Allies and 3 currently on going no one has not invaded Russia. Some earlier some later. The later ones have less success. I think there is only one where I may win.

As Leadweight has said to me and I always realized. Germans win or lose in Russia. No attack in Russia you lose period. Yes it is a learning situation

As I mentioned I look forward to the new update to see how it works out.

No matter what experience level you have you always learn. Against very experienced players the learning curve is steep. Against low experience players it is more linear. All I am saying.

I qualify all against Humans and experience in game systems and strategy.

[noel60]

The Allies are to weak period.

[vonik]

ORIGINAL: noel60

The Allies are to weak period.

I only partially agree .
French are super weak . UK are very weak . Russia is weak . US are strong .
With a German player who is strong from Day 1, he beats in that order - France, UK (in Africa and Middle East), Russia . Whether he can beat the US or not will decide about the win of the game .
I am now beyond 20 PBEM - I won also almost all Axis games while I won only those Allied games where obviously the Axis player doesn't take in account the time factor and simply forgets about US while focusing only on Russia .
In other words winning as Allied only works when the Axis player makes big strategical mistakes or doesn't know the game well (f.ex neglects his subs and/or researches useless techs and/or doesn't build his Pz&bomber force fast enough) .

Btw somebody talked about Allied using carriers what is supposed to magically make the difference .
Well carriers are totally useless against land units and their air gets slaughtered by land based fighters (odds are of the kind 0:3 or worse) .
In one game playing Allied I tried to experiment with transferring most RN to Africa to stop the Axis onslaught - sent all 4 carriers in Egypt .

I suspected that it was stupid and useless and indeed it was :
1) can't be reinforced to max . Only 8 .
2) can't Attack land based units (odds at best 0:2 without ennemy fighter support)
3) land based Italian and German fighters and AAA tech of the units kill 2 or 3 carrier planes per strike (using mix set up otherwise it's much worse) what means that after its 2 strikes the carrier has to go to port to reinforce .
4) the RM (especially their sub) are a constant threat . If a carrier gets caught, it's dead .
5) Reinforcing the carrier planes every 2 turns devours the few UK MPP so that nothing is left for research and unit purchases and little for reinforcement of ground units hammered by Rommel&Italian pz and bombers .
6) In the end Egypt is lost anyway and the huge amount of MPP spent on air reinforcments only caused falling behind Axis in research and/or diplomacy .
7) I was lucky that the Axis player didn't launch a Sealion because I had not much in England to stop it .

[johanssb]

Interesting. I've had instances when those 4 carriers in Egypt (combined with the a UK land-based force of 2 fighters, a tac bomber, and a strat bomber) were instrumental in killing off 2 German tac bombers and 2 German panzers.

[vonik]

ORIGINAL: johanssb

Interesting. I've had instances when those 4 carriers in Egypt (combined with the a UK land-based force of 2 fighters, a tac bomber, and a strat bomber) were instrumental in killing off 2 German tac bombers and 2 German panzers.

The carriers are only of (limited) use as fighter CAP or escort .
So , indeed, they may help in attacking German bombers IF and only if the German player is reckless and doesn't bring enough german fighters (plus the one Italian) to support his ground forces .
On the other hand carriers are completely useless in ground strikes - their odds against tanks are always 0 : something depending on the tank's AA tech .

When I play Axis, I have always the number of german fighters in N.Africa = Nb of UK ground based fighters + 1 . This is enough with the Italians to destroy most of the Allied things that can fly .
Actually when the German destroyed Malta with his 5 bombers in Sicily (what he should always do right after France surrenders) , he can fly those 5 bombers directly to Africa and you'll see how fast the UK forces both land and air evaporate .

[Sugar]

On the other hand carriers are completely useless in ground strikes - their odds against tanks are always 0 : something depending on the tank's AA tech .

The carriers are able to do some damage, even predicted, if: the enemy unit is on plain ground or marsh/swamp and if its experience is not to high (less than 1 star).

The AA-tech is not diminishing the damage of the defender, but increasing losses of the attacker. The key to prevent damage is experience.

But I agree with you, if the german player sets his focus, the alliied won`t be able to protect Britain nor NA.

[Capitaine]

One problem is that the game forces in Africa are much higher than in reality. This was a sideshow theater yet like many games it's given greater consequence than it had. Multiple Pz units and air armies, multiple carriers and armor from the Brits. Seems like the resources used for Africa could leave openings elsewhere were one to look and take advantage of it.

[vonik]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Seems like the resources used for Africa could leave openings elsewhere were one to look and take advantage of it.

Well they do . If the UK player makes the mistake to focus on Africa in 1940, he is immediately punished by a Sealion .

After destroying Malta in august 1940 the German can do 2 things :
1) Send his 5 bombers from Sicily to N.Africa and take Cairo . This is the no risk variant because the Allied can do nothing against it .
2) Send his 5 bombers to Normandy , gather subs in the Channel and launch Sealion . This is a no risk variant if the Allied sent RN&RAF to Egypt but a relatively risky variant if the RN &RAF are massed in England .

But I agree, for the RL Germany N.Africa was a total side show . They only sent 2.5 divisions there (to be compared to the 100 + on the East Front) to avoid the rout of Mussolini .
Hitler even refused to take Malta despite relatively low ressources that would have been enough to do it what shows how little he cared .

[Sugar]

Well, to say the germans can have Britain and/or NA, if they set their focus, does not mean that they automatically win the war. Britain is able to make them pay a high price in costs and time.

The other issue is, that the SU is not able to defend their key cities in 41, and also not able to counterattack decisevely in 42. The differences to the predecessors are the DAK-DE, which is a nobrainer due to the limited costs and the lacking danger of a transfer through the mediterranian sea; and the high buildlimits of bombers.

I`m not yet totally convinced that the Axis is able to win every time, if he doesn`t make huge mistakes, since the numbers of MPs and the forthgoing updates allow no complete judgement, but I tend to guess so.

I`m still working on a comparison between SCWWII and Breakthrough SoE - I guess I`ll be ready next week - and give some hints in terms of balancing.

But the MPs always have the highest priority, despite balancing issues this game is so much fun!

[Leadwieght]

I agree that even a reasonably competent Allied player can safeguard against a "smash-and grab" Sealion involving paras and 1-2 amphib only. But if a German player who wants to take Britain, he can, and doing that will almost certainly win him the game, even if he takes heavy losses doing it. That seems like a structural advantage for the Axis.

I'm in a game now in which I have killed off 2 German paras, 1 PZ, a Mech unit, 2 Armies, a corps, and a Fighter unit, all killed during Sealion. It's July 1941 and he's still throwing troops across the Channel and is on the bring of taking Egypt. Of course, he has not set up for Barbarossa, but Soviet mobilization is still only 37%, USA's is 52%, so it's not like I can build colossal strike forces of American ships or Russian troops. I'm not saying I haven't made some mistakes, but playing against this same player as the Axis, I forced a resignation in late 1941.

THAT's what I mean by a structural advantage.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

The Dak event is for sure a big bonus for the Axis which I don't see the reason for it

[sPzAbt653]

It could be moved to occur only for the computer Axis. I think something should be done about reinforcement for the computer, though. As it is now, I know that when the DAK deploys to Africa and I am playing the Allies, there will be an initial horror and shock factor, but if I keep my wits about me I can overcome it by focusing on eliminating one unit at a time, because the computer never reinforces Africa. It will rebuild units lost in Africa but sends them to Russia.

[Leadwieght]

I don't mind giving an Axis (Human) player the Afrikakorps event. It makes for more interesting play. It's the weird supply situation for the Allies in NA that screws things up, IMO.

Something that always drives me nuts is how you can have a level 10 allied HQ in Alexandria and the supply level for the Allies just one hex south or west of El Alamein will be 5 or 4, while the German and Italian units in adjacent hexes will be at supply 6 or 7. It's been explained to me that this is WAD in 1.03, but it just violates common sense. In the real war, by the time they got to El Alamein, the DAK was at the end of a very long supply line and they had barely enough ammo and fuel (esp. fuel) for one last push in Sept. 42. When that failed, they had to hunker down and wait for the Eighth Army to clobber them. Playing vs. a human, one can almost never reproduce this situation because even if a German offensive near EA fails initially, they can always refresh back up to max strength in a turn and try again

I haven't tried 1.03.02 yet, but it sounds like the revised supply rules may make it harder for the Afrika Korps to just roll over everything on the way to Cairo. Anybody have any experience with the new version?

[sPzAbt653]

how you can have a level 10 allied HQ in Alexandria and the supply level for the Allies just one hex south or west of El Alamein will be 5 or 4, while the German and Italian units in adjacent hexes will be at supply 6 or 7.

Bill has explained this before, you need to have two Allied HQ's in Egypt in order to compete with the Axis.

[vonik]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

how you can have a level 10 allied HQ in Alexandria and the supply level for the Allies just one hex south or west of El Alamein will be 5 or 4, while the German and Italian units in adjacent hexes will be at supply 6 or 7.

Bill has explained this before, you need to have two Allied HQ's in Egypt in order to compete with the Axis.

Allied HQs and supply are irrelevant for the outcome in Africa .
What is relevant is that the German has more Pz&bombers&fighters&armies that he can commit. He has also more XP, MPP and better techs .
Because of that he wins in Egypt every single time if he decides so and the Allied can do absolutely nothing against it .

Actually the DAK is almost enough by itself but if the German adds 1 or 2 Pz and 1 or 2 bombers, the only intelligent thing to do for the Allied is to evacuate immediately all he can before loosing everything .

[Leadwieght]

Hi sPzAbt653,
I recall the explanation and as I said, I know it's WAD, but the result is strange from a historical standpoint: Allied troops just west of El Alamein, only three hexes from Alexandria, (a major port and base) in worse supply than Axis troops 10+ hexes from their nearest port (Tobruk). And this while the Malta air force is supposedly hitting Axis supply convoys to Libya.

I guess I find it confusing because there I can't see a mechanism that takes into account the whole tenuous length of the Axis supply line from Italy to Libya to the front in the Western Desert. No matter what happens to the Libyan ports, supply at the Axis front line will be above 5 all the way to EA, as long as the Axis has 2 HQs. And yes, I know one should try to hit the HQs with air and naval attacks, but these seldom even dent them. And one extra German fighter (not needed in France if there will be no Sealion) will pretty much nullify any Allied attempt to hit the HQs with air.

I really like the game, don't get me wrong. And I have had considerable success as the Axis in NA using unconventional strategies. But I still feel this is a theater where the game mechanics yield odd results.

[Guderian1940]

I concur Vonik / Leadweight. I have had 2 Allied HQ's in Egypt and was still forced back, with all the extra units received and extra fighters bombers all was not enough. My strategy now is to withdraw from Egypt or just lose them. As I mentioned before there is a Railroad along the coast in Egypt so why do the Axis have such a high supply level and Allies not.

I have even tried defending Iraq with most of the Egypt units withdrawn, 2 HQ's Armies, Corps, Tanks, Fighters Tac bombers and cannot even slow them down. How can the Axis have a superior supply line through Jordan. I end up having to withdraw them. Even trying to defend Persia is useless. The Axis Air pounds you and the DAK rolls over what is left. The losses are so high that you can barely replace them if they survive.

The only time the Axis are vulnerable is when there is no HQ. You can whittle down the Italians but it takes a lot of resources and when the DAK shows up you better get out of dodge, Sauve qui peut.

Will the new supply rules in North Africa make a difference. I hope so. The same issues in Russia.

[vonik]

While Germany is invincible in Africa and in Russia, I am still careful before calling for a nerf .
Indeed, there is often an error of perspective .
From 39 through 42 the Allied is simply stomped over wherever he is and whatever he tries .
From that follows a feeling for the Allied player that he can do nothing against the behemoth and turn follows turn with only defeat and destructions .

However 39-42 is not the whole war . The US with its 20% industrial tech and 2 years of no war starts building up a HUGE air and naval force with techs equivalent to Germany already in 43 .
So it becomes a run for MPPs&research and Russia mostly still resists in 1943 .
The real challenge starts only after 43 and the situation can get massively asymetrical - US (and the UK cannon fodder) much stronger in air and sea than Germany but Germany still strong on land .
With a strategically well playing Allied, the German will have to struggle with putting out small (or big) invasion fires all over the place and the final Victory doesn't appear so sure anymore .

So I am afraid that if Germany gets nerfed in 39-42 just because the Allied player can do nothing during this period, it is the US which could very well become invincible after 43 .