At which point should I stop attacking?

PSP/DS/PC/MAC : WWII turn based grand strategy game

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
ncc1701e
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:09 pm

At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by ncc1701e » Sun Dec 13, 2015 8:39 pm

I have restarted a second game and I am wondering which strategy is the best regarding XP awarded. I am at beginning of turn 2 and I am now in position to conquer Warsaw this turn by the units next to it. Thus, Poland will surrender.

Now, is it best to chase all remaining Polish units to gain as much XP as possible by attacking them? Or, is it best to stop attacking at this point in order to save the remaining units from taking additional losses?

Will try both strategies but I am wondering if others know already the answer?

Great game and great mod by the way :D

Thank you

mineral
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:48 am

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by mineral » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:21 am

I don't have any facts or analysis to back this up, but I always go for the conquest first. It guarantees you production, and no losses. I have played games where I would park units next to enemy units to gain xp, rather then strictly attacking, but when playing the axis, giving the allies time to orgainse just make things harder and dwarfs any benefit you get from slight increased XP, especially early game where your units are so much more powerful to begin with. If you can sneak in a capture of denmark/norway or netherlands/belgium before 1940, even better.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:42 pm

You will do a lot better if you finish off each country as soon as possible. That means more income faster, less losses to repair and a faster deployment to the next target. You don't get a lot of XP from chasing after garrison units. Better to start the battle with the next country to conquer.

Remember that most strategic wargames are actually ECONOMIC games. Military strategy and tactics can play some effect, but it often comes down to which side can produce the most number of units and bring those to the front line to destroy the opponents units.

So more PP's earlier helps your economic goals. Getting better technology also helps since you inflict more damage and take less damage. That allows for conquest of new PP's earlier and so on. So investing heavily in techs will give long term big benefits. E. g. industry tech that will boost production.

I think what you need to do is to set up some strategic goals and work on those.

1. Capture Poland (turn 2 or 3 at the latest)
2. Attack Denmark / Norway? If yes, before of after the fall of France-
3. Attack the low countries and then France. Blitz start in October 1939 or sitz start in March 1940?
4. Accepting or declining the French armistice offer? Yes probably means going after Russia in 1941 and no Sealion. Declining means going after UK in Africa to get Spain on the Axis side. Maybe combined with a Sealion.
5. How many uboats to get? Just 5-6 or maybe 8-9 to really dominate the Atlantic?
6. Sealion? If yes, then how to deal with Russia. Fortress Russia and a token attack in the Spring of 1942?
7. Attack Yugoslavia and / or Greece? If yes, when? Fall of 1940 or Spring of 1941? Take Crete or not?
8. When to attack Russia? May 1941 or later? If the former, which units are needed to make a successful Barbarossa. Ensure these are built in time.

On top of that you need to consider the number of labs to build in each area. I usually get 3 in infantry, air and 2 in all the others with 3 in armor when I get tech level 3 in industry.

Building the right units to the right time is critical to be able to accomplish the strategic goals. So long term planning is necessary. E. g. if you go for Sealion you need to build some surface naval units already from 1939 to be sure to get sea supply to the invaders. They Royal Navy can otherwise destroy your DD and BB and cut supply to all invaders.

mupawa
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by mupawa » Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:21 pm

I agree that in general Stauffenberg is right that fast conquest is best. But there are some other things to consider. Experience is also important.

In the case of Poland for example, you will almost always take Poland on the second term using a fraction of your forces. You will also reach a turn when you take Paris and have to chose if your remaining forces stay idle or attack to gain experience. What to do with the rest? I say attack as much as possible as long as you have good odds to gain experience. At least with non-mechanized units that don't also cost oil.In the case of oil burning units, I rarely make experience gaining attacks unless the unit is right on the cusp of upgrade. Also rebuilds are expensive for those units.

Yes it will cost you some PP to rebuild, but at this point you should be thinking about Russia and what kind of army you want facing it. Infantry and Garrison replacements are cheap after all. The added benefit of gaining experience for garrisons is that you can take these level 1 and 2 experienced garrisons and upgrade them to level 3-4 experience Paras! They also come in handy for defence since they have enhanced defence strength. This is especially true in Africa, where they do not count towards Axis supply limits. They can be very costly to the allies to root out of mountains and cities.

Adding experience to INf units gives obvious benefits as well. If you can get an INF up to level 3 or 4 experience, and you aren't doing so great in the oil war, it makes a fine SS unit. that can move and counterattack when your armour can't anymore.

One place where you might not be in a rush to conquest is Yugoslavia. If your strategy involves Sealion and Barbarossa in 42 then you might consider taking your time there for a couple of reasons.
1. rotating minor allies through attacking Belgrade to gain experience to make them not quite so useless
2. Since you can grab the bauxite mine with the Italians in Albania the PP loss is very small - 1-2 PP per turn depending on if the allies abandon Zagreb or not.
3. By not using Germans here (resulting in a long campaign), they can be used knocking over Britain, Vichy France, French North Africa, Egypt, Malta, Gibraltar and Greece (amphibiously)

Is it worth it? I dunno, maybe. You have to hit Yugo in September 40 (otherwise there is a negative Oil result) and generally the weather will bog you down anyway, so why not use it as a training exercise if the Allies (at this point the lonely Brtis) are willing to pour PPs they can ill afford into rebuilding the Yugoslav army? Especially when they are fighting in the streets in Britain in this scenario.

Like most things in this game, the answer to experience vs. PPs is not simple.

FirstCanadian
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 10:19 pm

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by FirstCanadian » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:16 pm

I am impressed by the very thoughtful replies already posted, so I will only add my simple rule of thumb:
- If the expected combat results show you only taking one hit point, it is probably worth attacking solely for the sake of XP.
- If the expected combat results show 2 or more hit points, you may find yourself taking 3+ points. After the first two points (for land units), you will be losing some of your experience, so the effort gives diminishing returns.
- Factor in the cost of replacements, oil consumption (if Mech/Armor/Air), and turn to rebuild your unit into the equation.

I do like the point noted above that garrisons with at level 1 or 2 can be upgraded to airborne with added levels.

I have also seen people use partisans (in France, Yugoslavia or USSR) for "training exercises" for the airborne.

First Canadian

ncc1701e
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by ncc1701e » Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:23 pm

I apologize. I just realized I have never thank you for all your replies. They were very useful to me. Again, thank you and sorry for the delay of this answer.

AugustusTiberius
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:11 pm
Location: Yukon

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by AugustusTiberius » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:39 am

Welcome 1st Cdn and ncc1701e,

I am reasonably new as well but have found that folks are pretty supportive and polite here but there are some occasions where things get a little more tense. :)

Blame that on the love for this game.

And on that note, one of the true beauties of this game are the trade offs - which as a strategic game is really the only way. mupawa mentioned XP vs. PP as one purely mechanical example but there are a myriad of others ranging from focussing on uboats or a highly mechanized army but that in turn requires oil so do you go after the Middle East or Case Blue? Refuse the French armistice to try to get Spain in but that means delaying Barbarossa but then if you ave Spain in and all of French North Africa you can probably clean up all the Balkans and most of the Middle East so you can go the Fortress Europa route and try to hang on. Delay Russia by a turn to get Greece? As the Allies do you conduct a strategic warfare (bombing) campaign or build up a serious navy to ensure complete convoy protection. And on it goes and that does not even take into account deciding to shut down a front to save PPs or oil, etc. while fighting on another.

As for the super airborne unit conversion that mupawa mentioned, that will no longer be allowed when 3.20 is released later this year. If you like what you are playing now you will love 3.20 - an awesome bunch of players are working hard to make this the best strategic WW2 game out there (the AI still will suck though but playing against others is way more fun).

Enjoy

AT

ncc1701e
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by ncc1701e » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:23 pm

AugustusTiberius wrote:Welcome 1st Cdn and ncc1701e,
Thank you
AugustusTiberius wrote:If you like what you are playing now you will love 3.20 - an awesome bunch of players are working hard to make this the best strategic WW2 game out there (the AI still will suck though but playing against others is way more fun).
I really like this game clearly and I am looking forward to install this update. Battle of Atlantic is very nicely done and, from my point of view, it is really a hole in some others strategic games covering only the European theater.

I am still looking as well on Matrix World in Flames. I think it would be great if Slitherine decides to enhance this game by doing a full World War game covering also the pacific, i.e. a complete world map, with an update resolution of 1600x1200.

Blitz1945
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: At which point should I stop attacking?

Post by Blitz1945 » Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:09 pm

A couple of thoughts to this. If you want Spain in the war you need to take north Africa before America joins the Allies.. I always look to blow up as quick as I can. Poland, Holland, France, while France is going on Norway, I declare war on Yugoslavia as well even if I can only spare a unit or two for it!! Try to send as many corps around as possible, build as many uboats as you can spare even if it hurts!! Remember your ships to help you in Norway and spare a plane or two to conquer them. Never accept the armistice offered by France, if you do count Spain out.

Post Reply

Return to “MILITARY HISTORY™ Commander - Europe at War : General Discussion”