why Morris does not surrender?

After action reports for Commander Europe at War.

Moderators: Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4710
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:45 pm

We could reduce the sub cost from 60 PP's to 50 PP's. Would that help? Fighter cost could decrease from 100 PP's to 90 PP's. and strategic bomber cost could increase from 95 PP's to 100 PP's.

That would give air costs like:
Fighter: 90
Strategic bomber: 100
Tactical bomber: 110
Submarine: 50
Destroyer: 60

The increased strategic bomber cost would offset the decreased fighter cost for the Allies. The reduced fighter cost also means the repair cost will be a bit less.

Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:51 pm

Should not from common sence point tactical bomber be cheaper then strategic one?
They are smaller and more simple afterall.

peterjfrigate
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:43 am

Post by peterjfrigate » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:52 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:Do you think the subs shouldn't burn oil at all?
I'm not sure. The subs are clearly needed in 42 to damage the troop transports or escorts enough so that the defenders in France can finish off whatever lands. You'd think with the italians helping and possible Allied reckless play this would be possible. Then again it is a bit too easy to claim hindsight. I also wonder if Supermax could have done as well with fewer than 6 arm and 10 mech to launch barbarossa? Morris' strategy requires him to avoid conflict at first, so why not save oil by advancing with fewer oil burning units? Some of the PPs saved could have gone towards another 2 or 3 subs (i.e. launch with 5 ARM and 6-7 mechs).

I've also been meaning to mention a trick I've used which is DOWing Yugoslavia as soon as it becomes possible to activate Romania. Doesn't this result in several extra turns of oil from Ploesti that e.g. could pay for sub activity? Yes the Allies will get some extra PP income for a little while, but that extra oil comes in handy.

PionUrpo
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by PionUrpo » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:54 pm

Plaid wrote:I think PP shortage limit sub use much much more then oil.
How many axis can really build? Very rarely (italian sub mass production + close the med) I see more then 6.
Its just not enough to control seas with oil cost or without it.
And its extremeley hard to find spare PPs to build more subs.
(by the way same is true for air units. Real germans had no problem to provide BOTH good cover to Germany and France in 1941 and good air support for Barbarossa. Is it possible in game? Dont think so).
Probalby germans should get some free subs like 1 free for 3 built (to encourage people actually building them, not waiting for free reinforcements, focused on other units). Historically germans produced lots and lots of subs during almost all the war.
I agree, for subs oil isn't the real issue, PPs are. If I build more than six subs before Barbarossa the land/air force will be gutted too much for comfort.
Stauffenberg wrote: That would give air costs like:
Fighter: 90
Strategic bomber: 100
Tactical bomber: 110
Submarine: 50
Destroyer: 60
I would swap the STR and TAC around. 4 engine vs 2 engine a/c there's a significant difference in cost.

Diplomaticus
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:10 pm

Post by Diplomaticus » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:09 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:We could reduce the sub cost from 60 PP's to 50 PP's. Would that help? Fighter cost could decrease from 100 PP's to 90 PP's. and strategic bomber cost could increase from 95 PP's to 100 PP's.

That would give air costs like:
Fighter: 90
Strategic bomber: 100
Tactical bomber: 110
Submarine: 50
Destroyer: 60

The increased strategic bomber cost would offset the decreased fighter cost for the Allies. The reduced fighter cost also means the repair cost will be a bit less.
I don't see how this solves the issue. This way the UK can just build more fighters too. In a normal game, it's not at all out of the question for the UK to have 3-4 fighters based in Great Britain fairly early. They get 2 for free, and building at least 1 more isn't that hard to do in most cases.

So to have even air parity over the Channel/France/Western Germany, Luftwaffe needs 3-4 fighters. Then the UK gets a couple more in the Med, so to have parity there (Italian fighter not worth much) they should have a couple more. And then how many for Barbarossa?

If the historical situation was that the Luftwaffe was able to have parity or better in the early war in all theaters of the war, IMO the game doesn't represent that well.

Since air supremacy is critical for these amphibious invasions to be successful, perhaps this is the aspect we should be looking at, moreso than subs.

peterjfrigate
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:43 am

Post by peterjfrigate » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:09 pm

One thing I find odd is that Morris could get away with completely ignoring an ASW campaign (investment in tech, strats, and escorting convoys across atlantic) and it made no difference at all. He was assured that Axis subs and raiders would be drawn in and around the coast of Brittany when the time came like ants to honey. The Allied air umbrella and the swarm of tech 1 DDs were enough. But I can't tell if the answer is in game balance or tactics.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Cybvep » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:39 pm

I think that subs should consume oil. It shouldn't be much, but they shouldn't be no-oil-consuming weapons.

However, I agree that they require PPs which Germany cannot spare after 1941, while historically the sub campaign reached its climax in 1942. We need to be careful about cost changes, though. If subs become universally cheaper, then Italy will NEVER build additional surface ships and investing in subs will be a no brainer.

How about giving Germany e.g. 3 free subs? They would be placed in the production queue and one would arrive somewhere in 1941, the second one would arrive somewhere in 1942, while the last one would arrive somewhere in 1943. They would always get the latest techs.

It seems like an easy way to affect the sub warfare with minimal impact on other game elements.

petertodd
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:31 am

Post by petertodd » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:33 pm

I agree with Stauffenberg that the biggest issue it that the Western Allies can invade France with a powerful force in 1941 or 1942. More German subs would help reduce this threat, and maybe cheaper or free subs would help a bit, but I don't think the problem is just about subs. In addition to putting together and landing a large tank/mech force, Morris also has a formidable air force that I don't think the Germans can counter.

Plaid said:
Counterattack canceled mostly because luftwaffe is now very busy in USSR. Also there are lots of high tech UK fighters (I have only 4 of my own) and air casualties will be heavy, if I use air here. Instead I keep fighters in USSR and score 4:1 rolls vs soviet fighters.

and
West, now axis are on defence, but I fear it will be not very effective with so many allied bombers. Still can't afford counterattack because of extreme high western troops tech level. My mechs are not enough strong to defeat western units decicevely and tanks will be destroyed by TAC bombers instantly, if I deploy them here.

If I look at the 1942 scenario (May 28, 1942) I see the Germans have 8 subs, 9 fighters, 7 tacs, 9 arms, 3 mechs, and 46 corps. I don't see any AARs with the Germans being able to build these kinds of forces. I certainly never happens in games I play. If the Germans could afford to build fighters, subs, and tacs like the 1942 scenario they would be better able to deal with such invasions. It just seems to me that the Germans need more PPs. As has been discussed large invasions need to more difficult as well, which would help Britain resist Sea Lion and the Axis resist early invasions of France.

One other idea I am wondering about. Everyone agrees that the Western Allies would avoid the callous waste of manpower, but there is no penalty in the game for excessive casualties. Is there any possibility that more sophisticated victory conditions could be implemented, which could take into account casualties and other considerations (it seems a little silly that the victory conditions do not distinguish whether the Germans are at the gates of Moscow in May 1945, or the Russians are at the gates of Berlin).

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Cybvep » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:58 pm

Hmm, just wondering... Since the anti-blob caps are already in, maybe increasing the German war effort at the beginning of Barbarossa could work?

zechi
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by zechi » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:57 am

What about the idea that the Allies lose manpower if the lose ground and cities. This is what I think Morris already suggested. If the Axis would have conquered Britain, then the British Empire would have lost a major source of manpower. They would be in a similar situation then the (Free) French in WW2, i.e. they would only have their colonies, dominions and any "free" British as their major manpower resource, but it would have been significantly reduced. They should be still in the game, but should have major manpower penalties. In this case it would also make sense to recapture Britain before going for mainland Europe.

The same situation should apply to the Soviets. If the Axis get to much ground and cities, the manpower situation for the Soviets should suffer. This would represent the many unexperienced conscripts which were used to fight in 1941/1942 for the Soviets from the unoccupied parts of the Soviet Union. Of course the "Shock Armies" should not suffer any penalties. The Axis could even gain some manpower as they capture more and more cities, as they used prisoners of war as well as local population as (slave) workers in Germany and the occupied countries, which allowed to use more Germans as soldiers. Furthermore, most of the occupied nations/areas had at least some people who would fight for the Nazis.

Of course if the Allies liberate cities/areas from the Axis they should regain manpower.

Last but not least I want to suggest that the Soviets and British should actually attack Persia to get the LendLease in this area running. It should be an easy invasion with proper preparation (1-2 turns), but I think that Allies should not get Persia and the Lend Lease for free. This would force the Soviets to actually use some of their Armies in summer 1941 for other purposes then retreating. Furthermore, the British should use some of their Middle East forces to invade Persia, so they cannot use their full force for early D-Days, Libyan invasion, Husky etc.

Persia lasted for about 20 days in the real war (longer then the Netherlands for example), which would be about 1 turn. More information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Sovi ... on_of_Iran

The Anglo-Soviet invasion began in late August 1941, so at least the Soviets should get no Lend Lease before mid of September 1941 from this route.

Just my 2 cents!

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Post by Morris » Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:58 am

PionUrpo wrote:As we've seen in several AARs already this strategy certainly works very well against most players.

I guess the question then is what would You do to reduce the effectiveness of it?
If i did it with high effectiveness & skillful tac & trick , the result will be considered as my skill reason . I just want to be as simple as possible . No skill , No surprise , No trick ,suffre all bad lucks( such as the extreme 5 fair turns in 1939) .
If you want to watch my skill , I will show you in the Next AAR with Max which I will be the Axis . :)

PionUrpo
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by PionUrpo » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:22 am

Morris wrote:
PionUrpo wrote:As we've seen in several AARs already this strategy certainly works very well against most players.

I guess the question then is what would You do to reduce the effectiveness of it?
If i did it with high effectiveness & skillful tac & trick , the result will be considered as my skill reason . I just want to be as simple as possible . No skill , No surprise , No trick ,suffre all bad lucks( such as the extreme 5 fair turns in 1939) .
If you want to watch my skill , I will show you in the Next AAR with Max which I will be the Axis . :)
I get that. You basicly just bashed simply overwhelming the Axis PP and MP. That was VERY evident in the AARs.

However, the question was what kind of changes would you make to the game so that the simple strategy you've been using wouldn't work so well anymore? Instead of waiting for the AAR you should write up some ideas on the Betatesting forum so proper changes can be implemented and tested in time.

Diplomaticus
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:10 pm

Post by Diplomaticus » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 am

zechi wrote:What about the idea that the Allies lose manpower if the lose ground and cities....

The same situation should apply to the Soviets. If the Axis get to much ground and cities, the manpower situation for the Soviets should suffer. This would represent the many unexperienced conscripts which were used to fight in 1941/1942 for the Soviets from the unoccupied parts of the Soviet Union....

Of course if the Allies liberate cities/areas from the Axis they should regain manpower.

Last but not least I want to suggest that the Soviets and British should actually attack Persia to get the LendLease in this area running. It should be an easy invasion with proper preparation (1-2 turns), but I think that Allies should not get Persia and the Lend Lease for free. This would force the Soviets to actually use some of their Armies in summer 1941 for other purposes then retreating. Furthermore, the British should use some of their Middle East forces to invade Persia, so they cannot use their full force for early D-Days, Libyan invasion, Husky etc.

Persia lasted for about 20 days in the real war (longer then the Netherlands for example), which would be about 1 turn. More information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Sovi ... on_of_Iran

The Anglo-Soviet invasion began in late August 1941, so at least the Soviets should get no Lend Lease before mid of September 1941 from this route.

Just my 2 cents!
Zechi, I think these are great suggestions. One of the things that makes the game fun to play is that players must look over the board and consider the strategic value of hexes--cities, fortresses, rail caps, oil wells, etc.--and then gear their offensives to capture those that seem essential. Adding a manpower effect as you suggest above would give an incentive to more dynamism, especially on the Eastern Front.

Your suggestions about Persia seems right on too. It does seem to be too easy now. If the Germans have to conquer Holland, why don't the Brits & Russians have to conquer Persia?

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Post by Morris » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:44 pm

rkr1958 wrote:Morris,

Based on this game and other games that you've played what specific recommendations do you have to address game balance? Our objective is to balance the game in the most historical manner possible.
I am so glad to learn that you are talking about to do some adjustment to sub’s oil . I agree to no fuel cost when sub attack ,& it will be great to decrease the price to 50 .It is really a wonderful change when I will play Axis against the Great Supermax . But after the joy of this . I have to calm down & explain my against opinion .
As we know that , in real history ,the Axis had three disadvantages : manpower , fuel ,& GDP . I think the present game is almost well balanced these three field . As an Axis player , to solve the oil problem ,there are only two way , cost control the oil consumption ,or to conquer the oil field . The present game engine is well balanced it .We can not help the Axis to solve this problem by changing the fuel consumption data . This is one of the basic task for the Axis player who want to win the game .

BTW, I just provide my several rough ideas which I want to change to make this great game perfect :
1 USSR should suffer a surprise attack penalty at all weather before Aug 1941 .
2 Give USSR a morale loss if USSR lose Moscow .
3 Allow Allies troops enter into Russia to enforce USSR after Moscow fall .
4 Remove or delay the 8 GAR which originaly appears on Aug 1st 1941
5 UK should suffer a morale loss after London fall
6 If Germany surrender , Allies win .( Italy won’t fight alone if Germany surrender)
7 If Uk surrender ,US will suffer a morale loss .
8 Make the siberian troops no guards & permit USSR build guards (same number of SS)

However , even without anymore change , the present GS is already the greatest WW2 strategy game . It is a great opus which I will play it all my life !
:)

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Cybvep » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:15 pm

USSR should suffer a surprise attack penalty at all weather before Aug 1941 .
How does it work ATM?

IMO the USSR should suffer morale loss when each important city falls (Minsk, Kiev, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow). In most games both Minsk and Kiev fall, so the Axis would get a boost in their 1941 offensive.
Give USSR a morale loss if USSR lose Moscow .
I agree with this, but I doubt that most Axis players will even reach Moscow in 1941, so this wouldn't have a great effect in most games.
permit USSR build guards (same number of SS)
Bad idea. The USSR doesn't lack PPs.
Allow Allies troops enter into Russia to enforce USSR after Moscow fall .
This could easily lead to exploits. Nobody wants to face your uber RAF fighters in Russia.
UK should suffer a morale loss after London fall
Agreed. A successful Sea Lion should be more crippling for the Allies.
If Uk surrender ,US will suffer a morale loss .
When was the last time the UK surrendered?

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4710
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:45 pm

Diplomaticus wrote:I don't see how this solves the issue. This way the UK can just build more fighters too. In a normal game, it's not at all out of the question for the UK to have 3-4 fighters based in Great Britain fairly early. They get 2 for free, and building at least 1 more isn't that hard to do in most cases.

So to have even air parity over the Channel/France/Western Germany, Luftwaffe needs 3-4 fighters. Then the UK gets a couple more in the Med, so to have parity there (Italian fighter not worth much) they should have a couple more. And then how many for Barbarossa?

If the historical situation was that the Luftwaffe was able to have parity or better in the early war in all theaters of the war, IMO the game doesn't represent that well.

Since air supremacy is critical for these amphibious invasions to be successful, perhaps this is the aspect we should be looking at, moreso than subs.
I proposed in the beta thread to move the Canadian fighter to Canada when Belgium falls instead of spawning in Liverpool. That should give Germany air superiority in the early phases of Case Yellow, especially if they build a third fighter.

Cheaper fighter prices will help UK as well, but it will certainly help Germany. If the strategic bombers increase the price to 110 and it's those bombers that inflict losses to the German economy I think lower fighter prices will help Germany more than the Allies.

I think dropping the fighter to 90, tactical bomber to 100 and increase the strategic bomber to 100 should only be done if we at the same time increase the mech to 55 and armor to 85. This way we won't have inflation in units.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4710
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:50 pm

All countries lose manpower production from losing railcap cities. E. g. Russia will lose 20 manpower production from losing Moscow.

I don't think Russia should suffer a morale loss if they lose Moscow. Russians aren't like other people. For them a city is just a city and they would fight even harder if they lost important cities like Leningrad and Moscow. Stalin was prepared to evacuate from Moscow to Kuybyshev and the Russian people still had the morale up.

If we remove the supply range reduction in 1939-1941 then losing Moscow can become easier and I think the Russians suffer enough by losing manpower, railcap and a lot of production.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4710
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:52 pm

Britain will actually suffer quite a substantial morale loss if you destroy units in Britain. It's not enough to take London. You need to destroy most of the units in Britain. So we already have a morale penalty for UK if they lose Britain.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4710
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:54 pm

We're about to try out many significant changes to the game balance and that means I think we have to look at the result of these changes before suggesting even more. Maybe something we felt was broken would become fixed and something that was fixed would again become broken. The more changes we introduce the bigger the risk for having to re-tweak again. So I propose we just try out the changes proposed and then run a few test games to check the impact of the changes. It's easy to get back to old values again if some of the changes didn't work.

ferokapo
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:09 am

Number of submarines

Post by ferokapo » Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:36 pm

Considering the number of submarines, I would like to point out the following:

In September 1939, the Kriegsmarine had a little more than 50 submarines, represented by 3 flotillas in game.

At the end of 1942, the number had risen to more than 200. This would then equal 12+ flotillas. Has anyone ever seen this number in game? What would the additional costs be under the new rules for maximum number of units of a given type?

On another side note: The Regina Marina had 100 subs in 1940. This would be 5-6 flotillas (alwas comparing to the 3 initial German ones).

Post Reply

Return to “Commander Europe at War : AAR's”