GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

[GogTheMild]

Has anyone thought about replayability here?

it seems that each new version reduces the opportunities for ahistorical alternatives. In 3.0 the Axis can no longer invade Turkey (see note), and Axis subs can no loger sail from Suez to the Atlantic (or vice versa). Probably accidental that both of these changes work against the Axis. But as SuperMax says, one is increasingly squeezed into a narrow range of options which essentially involve replaying the actual historical sequence.

Note: yes they can, but then Russia DoWs; so no Axis player in their right mind would do it. It is not as if invading Turkey is even a very clever thing for the Axis to do, but it can add a bit of fun against a weaker Allied player. Sorry, I meant "could".

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Has anyone thought about replayability here? I know I am not the only one with this opinion.

I don't agree that a turn 2 blitzkrieg is that risky as the Axis. I posted a thread about how you can take Belgium on turn 2 with a very high success rate. During the GS v3.0 beta people complained that blitz was too easy to do. Just try it and see how it goes.

The Dutch too invincible??? I really don't get that. Their forces are so easy to crush I never struggle to take them out in 1 turn. The main reason Plaid struggled in this game was that Belgium was DoW'ed separately thus letting the Dutch spawn at full strength.

I think you are making the mistake or comparing the game balance upon THIS game which is a fluke. Morris did a turn 1 Dyle and Plaid was not prepared for it. So he didn't move into Holland immediately. He even got mud in both October 1939 turns and the November 1939 turn. That happens in 1 in 20 games.

I have even posted a suggested altered Allied 1939 scenario setup making a turn 1 Dyle almost impossible. That gives the Axis better time to finish off Poland and rail units to the west to respond to a turn 2 Dyle. The Axis can even go for a turn 2 or turn 3 blitz in the west. Just play with the Altered 1939.scn file. I can send that one to all who want it.

I don't buy that the Axis are struggling in GS v3.0 in general. Currently I'm playing the Axis against Jim and my subs are ruling the Atlantic. They seem to get away with most attacks. I go after escorted convoys and don't seem to get annihilated like the subs used to in GS v2.1. We are in the Spring of 1943 and the Axis have taken Leningrad, Stalingrad, moved to the Caucasus and stand at the gate of Moscow. They have technological advantage over the Russians so the Allies will struggle to kick the Germans back to Berlin. Eventually the Axis line in the east will crumble and they will have to retreat, but I expect to win this game comfortably. The Allies have made some progress in the Med, but they have to work hard to kick Italy out of the war. In Germany I have an 1 SS panzer, 3 mechs (2 SS) and several corps units in reserve that could be sent to France or Italy dependent upon where the Allies would land. I have 2 tac bombers and 3 fighters who could just fly to the next Allied operation. So a 1943 Overlord would have problems.

Compared to the games I have done with GS v2.1 I feel that the Axis is quite more potent in GS v3.0.

If you argue to make the Axis even stronger then you would really unbalance the game in the hands of an experienced Axis player.

We are making a historical simulation here. Not an Axis & Allies kind of game that can branch out in many crazy ways. Ahistorical strategies is still possible, but should not become the preferred ones. That is one reason altering the Allied 1939 setup could be necessary. Then a Dyle would take place on turn 2.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Has anyone thought about replayability here?

it seems that each new version reduces the opportunities for ahistorical alternatives. In 3.0 the Axis can no longer invade Turkey (see note), and Axis subs can no loger sail from Suez to the Atlantic (or vice versa). Probably accidental that both of these changes work against the Axis. But as SuperMax says, one is increasingly squeezed into a narrow range of options which essentially involve replaying the actual historical sequence.

Note: yes they can, but then Russia DoWs; so no Axis player in their right mind would do it. It is not as if invading Turkey is even a very clever thing for the Axis to do, but it can add a bit of fun against a weaker Allied player. Sorry, I meant "could".

If you play against a weaker Allied player you can certainly go after Turkey while you still do Barbarossa. You would win regardless. Why should GS v3.0 allow players to get away with any kind of attacks, attacks that would probably not have been possible in the real war. Do you really think Stalin would just sit idle while the Germans rushed into Turkey and move his forces to the Russian border? Don't you think the Russians would have mobilized?

CEAW is rather special since neutral major powers can't move their forces. That means mobilization is hard to simulate without activating the country. If you activate Russia when the Germans DOW Turkey it doesn't mean the Russians show up strong. They are still hit with the -27 morale loss and they have a lot of lousy forces. So the Germans can expect to advance well into Russia.

I get the feeling that quite a few players want to have the cake and eat it as well whey they play the Axis. They would like to make an all out assault hoping to sweep the board and get to Omsk. The truth is that it was an almost impossible dream. You don't have the oil and manpower to do that. So when they see that GS v3.0 don't give them that possibility they are disappointed and want the game balance changed. If we altered the balance to be able to see the Axis utterly crush Russia then any able Axis player would win the game. Conquest of Omsk should only happen if there is a BIG skill difference between the Axis and Allied player.

When analyzing the Axis play I see that one reason they begin to struggle in 1942 and 1943 is that they push too hard in 1941, particularly in Russia. They attack every turn until the severe winter hits. OK, they gain more ground until that time, but when the winter hits they get so far down on morale. When I play the Axis I often stop attacking even in September and begin to dig-in at a good defensive line. Often I get to the Donets and to the forests near Moscow. I build lots of corps units during 1941 to form a double defense line. I only have about 6 armor and 6-7 mech units in 1941. Maybe 5-6 tac bombers and 4-5 fighters (German). When the severe winter hits my units are at max morale and only drops 25 from 85. The line is doubled and units are dug-in. So I don't have to yield ground during the winter. The Russians storm my line and I can replace / repair the losses to hold this line. By being conservative in 1941 I don't have to yield ground in 1941 and the Axis losses are low.

In 1942 I repeat the same procedure. I push a bit making sure I kill some Russian units each turn until I find a good defensive line to hold for the 1942 winter. Even if you get fair weather in the fall doesn't mean you have to attack.

Maybe a different approach to how you play the Axis could be useful.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Yes, this game is quite an exeption, but on the other hand I never had a game where Axis survied till 1945 (besides two I lost completely a looong time ago). When playing Axis its up the hill from the very beginning, when I play Allies I don't have any stress at all as in 1943 you usually has such a power that can devastate any Axis defenses quickly.

Look at the game with Gog. I used it to test if my feeling that convoys are not important at all is true. I skipped Atlantic totally, I got like 300 PPs of convoys in total for the whole game and well, its end of 1943 and I am at the gates of Germany from both West and East. If Germans go for convoys they bleed themselvs, an additional bonus for Allies - this simply comes from the fact that thay have too little PPs in comparison to what is required to barely hold till 1945, not to mention to win the game.

Strange that I got a competely different result when I play the Axis in GS v3.0. I have never had an easier time with my subs in the Atlantic. I go after escorted convoys and inflict 20+ damage per hit and can quickly sink convoys with 2 wolfpacks of 3 subs each. The Allied player really has to put effort into ASW and radar tech to harm those subs and get control. Ignoring the Atlantic for the Allies will make the Axis job even easier sinking those convoys.

What causes your Axis lines to be crushed so quickly every time? Allied air power? When I play the Axis I buy quite a lot of fighters and focus on dogfight. I don't overbuild the number of tanks, bombers and mechs. With my fighters I often target the Allied air units (particularly bombers) and use my tech advantage to decimate these air units. E. g. the Russians struggle for long to move up against the Axis fighters unless it's severe winter. If they put their bombers in a forward position they will be crippled by airbase attacks. In order to support the fighter attacks you need oil and that means you can't afford many other oil consuming units.

I often like to use th Luftwaffe bombers to harass the Allied tank units. If these units get hit even before they get to the front line they can't inflict the damage they need to make a hole in the line. If the enemy tank units are at the front line the German panzers can finish these off.

So by going after these Allied units I can delay invasions for quite some time. When I can't afford to repair my air units or the Allies have caught up with the Air techs I need to change the strategy. Then it's time to make controlled retreats keeping the air units back in reserve for critical counter attacks.

I don't say it's easy to be the Axis player, but with a clever strategy you can delay the Allies long enough to have a chance to win the game. Against inferior opponents you should be able to hold Paris, Rome and Berlin to the very end.

I think one of the hardest parts of the GS strategy for the Axis is to know when it's time to switch from being aggressive into being defensive. If you attack for a few turns too many you end up being overrun and then you can't stop the steamroller. You have to focus enough resources on Russia to ensure they can't get momentum from the 1942 winter offensive and then through 1943. If you can hold the position in the fair weather turns in 1943 then you have a chance of keeping them out of Germany till the end. I rarely attack Allied units unless I know I can destroy them. Even if you get positive odds you just help the Allied player by attacking. The reason is that your own units get depleted too. The Allied strategy is to use war of attrition against the Axis until the sheer number of losses have become so high that the double line crumbles. Keeping up the losses is the way to Allied victory. So you don't help the Allies by making even more losses. The Allies don't lack units from 1943 and later. So it won't help if you destroy a few extra Allied units in counter attacks. The exception is attacks to kill bridgeheads etc. so the defensive line can be restored.

[Morris]

Sept 15th 1940 fair



Axis made two breakthrough & killed several Allies units including many British ! Allies use their reserve to counter attack & sucessfully kill the lead panzer & a Mech ! meanwhile another panzer was cut off the supply . If next turn is bad weather , France will be able to hold much longer .

[Morris]

Has anyone thought about replayability here? I know I am not the only one with this opinion.

I don't agree that a turn 2 blitzkrieg is that risky as the Axis. I posted a thread about how you can take Belgium on turn 2 with a very high success rate. During the GS v3.0 beta people complained that blitz was too easy to do. Just try it and see how it goes.

The Dutch too invincible??? I really don't get that. Their forces are so easy to crush I never struggle to take them out in 1 turn. The main reason Plaid struggled in this game was that Belgium was DoW'ed separately thus letting the Dutch spawn at full strength.

I think you are making the mistake or comparing the game balance upon THIS game which is a fluke. Morris did a turn 1 Dyle and Plaid was not prepared for it. So he didn't move into Holland immediately. He even got mud in both October 1939 turns and the November 1939 turn. That happens in 1 in 20 games.

I have even posted a suggested altered Allied 1939 scenario setup making a turn 1 Dyle almost impossible. That gives the Axis better time to finish off Poland and rail units to the west to respond to a turn 2 Dyle. The Axis can even go for a turn 2 or turn 3 blitz in the west. Just play with the Altered 1939.scn file. I can send that one to all who want it.

I don't buy that the Axis are struggling in GS v3.0 in general. Currently I'm playing the Axis against Jim and my subs are ruling the Atlantic. They seem to get away with most attacks. I go after escorted convoys and don't seem to get annihilated like the subs used to in GS v2.1. We are in the Spring of 1943 and the Axis have taken Leningrad, Stalingrad, moved to the Caucasus and stand at the gate of Moscow. They have technological advantage over the Russians so the Allies will struggle to kick the Germans back to Berlin. Eventually the Axis line in the east will crumble and they will have to retreat, but I expect to win this game comfortably. The Allies have made some progress in the Med, but they have to work hard to kick Italy out of the war. In Germany I have an 1 SS panzer, 3 mechs (2 SS) and several corps units in reserve that could be sent to France or Italy dependent upon where the Allies would land. I have 2 tac bombers and 3 fighters who could just fly to the next Allied operation. So a 1943 Overlord would have problems.

Compared to the games I have done with GS v2.1 I feel that the Axis is quite more potent in GS v3.0.

If you argue to make the Axis even stronger then you would really unbalance the game in the hands of an experienced Axis player.

We are making a historical simulation here. Not an Axis & Allies kind of game that can branch out in many crazy ways. Ahistorical strategies is still possible, but should not become the preferred ones. That is one reason altering the Allied 1939 setup could be necessary. Then a Dyle would take place on turn 2.

Borger , I have to say that your words always convince me & believe you are right ! But the facts usually against it right after your words ! Until now , in China we have just finish around 25 3.0 pbems , & only 3 of them Axis win , one even . the rest 21 all allies win ( 16 win before 1944). I don't mean this is the proof of game unblance , but it seems that it is very difficult to achive a victory as an Axis player !

Jim is an good player with a lot of experience , but not an elite ! I know you won't agree to play with me after I have asked for this opportunity for more than 20 times . Please find several elite player to test with you whether the Axis has good chance to win . No matter who use Axis , if the Axis can win 30% of the pbem between equal lvl players , I would like to accept the game is balance at present .

BTW , I am here to accept anyone's challenge who believe Axis have chance to defeat Allies in this game . I will pay a free two way business class airticket (within 12000km) for the person who can defeat me by using Axis for two times !!!!

[supermax]

Borger, i think you said it right. You have created an historical simulation where different alternative routes are NOT RECOMMENDED if you want to have a chance of resisting as the germans till maybee 1945. (that doesnt mean i like that however).

As you also have said we are not playing Axis and Allies.

And as i have said sadly i (and many others) will get bored of this type of playing very fast.

Didnt you notice that the number of AAR has been greatly reduced in the last year? There is a reason for that... For myself, why would i do an AAR on the same type of games again and again? You wont see an AAR from me or other people until we can get soemthing new to talki about... Less AAR = Less activity and less commited players.

What you are doing is quite a fine product and quite a fine version, but by narrowing the options you are simply reducing the player base to only the ones that likes historical only. I think you could at least agree to that.

In the end, its just a game, but i think some people might want to recreate reality too much .

It is a fact that you will loose players if they after playing 5 games the timeline is pretty much the same and the outcome also is...

I mean, what is the fun of doing it always the same way? Sure there will be little variations, but i long for the days where you could actually have a game where the other player could not expect your next move because it was in "uncharted" territory as to historical. Sure most game could be the same, but at least once in a while you would have a truly exciting game for a change.

Conclusion (my opinion): Not the end of the world, after i am done and get bored i'll just go out of transmission for another 6 months. till i miss the game again and come back for a few games!

Suggestion: Why dont we put more options into the thing? So we could customize the games more?

[Cybvep]

If we truly want to shake things up WITHOUT making major changes to stats, I recommend an alternative Victory Conditions system, based on victory points. You would get points for capturing cities and holding them, would lose points for losing MP and PPs etc. and suddenly the whole game would feel more fresh . The best part? It would be optional.

Seriously, by changing the VCs you can change the game's dynamics drastically.

BTW Dyle is NOT historical. It didn't happen IRL, France never attacked Belgium. So what Morris is doing here is actually using an ahistorical strategy to great effect.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Borger, i think you said it right. You have created an historical simulation where different alternative routes are NOT RECOMMENDED if you want to have a chance of resisting as the germans till maybee 1945. (that doesnt mean i like that however).

As you also have said we are not playing Axis and Allies.

And as i have said sadly i (and many others) will get bored of this type of playing very fast.

That is probably true, but GS v3.0 has reached the end of the line. There are limitations to what you can add to that old engine, e. g. diplomacy. I think CEAW 2 (if it will be made) will continue where GS v3.0 left. THEN it could be possible to add a lot of different options for variety.

I think there is a big difference between your and my playing style. I get bored with games that deviate too much from what was historically possible. Therefore I never got fond of games like Axis and Allies. I lost interest in World in Flames because it became too complicated even though it had many interesting options. I like games where you can learn by practise how the game flow really works. Almost like chess. Many people blame chess being too predictable with too many draws etc. I see it the other way around. In chess you can learn how to master the game and you can see who is best.

If you get bored with games that could become repetitive then I'm sure you find a lot of other games around that suit your playing style better. Personally I don't find GS repetitive. I learn something in every game despite following quite often a partially historical path. In my latest game against Jim I wanted to invest more in Libya as the Axis hoping to get to Port Said to close the Suez. I learnt the hard way that my strategy didn't work and my offensive was repulsed. So next time I have to improve my plan. That is some variation for me. It's inevitable that the Axis will be at war with USA and USSR and eventually will get overwhelmed. The fun is to try different ways to delay when that happens and see what works to stop them.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Borger , I have to say that your words always convince me & believe you are right ! But the facts usually against it right after your words ! Until now , in China we have just finish around 25 3.0 pbems , & only 3 of them Axis win , one even . the rest 21 all allies win ( 16 win before 1944). I don't mean this is the proof of game unblance , but it seems that it is very difficult to achive a victory as an Axis player !

Jim is an good player with a lot of experience , but not an elite ! I know you won't agree to play with me after I have asked for this opportunity for more than 20 times . Please find several elite player to test with you whether the Axis has good chance to win . No matter who use Axis , if the Axis can win 30% of the pbem between equal lvl players , I would like to accept the game is balance at present.

I think if you play against the same people all the time you will get skewed results. You learn a particular playing style and you know your opponents well. Against those opponents you have probably found a way where the Allies shine. But also remember that when you meet other players with a different playing style (Joerock, Hü, Supermax) you don't shine as much with the Allies. In order to get data about the game balance you need to analyze each game and try to play against different types of players.

I'm pretty sure that if the Axis try a lot of alternate strategies then they could go down in flames and lose as early as 1943. E. g. a failed Sealion means Barbarossa will become too weak. However, if you succeed with Sealion you have a very interesting game ahead.

So before we can use any data for game balance analysis we need to know which strategies were used in each game. We also need to know about the playing styles of each player. Do the Axis player fight to the best of his ability when the tide turns and he has to switch from offensive to defensive. I've seen quite a few examples where Axis players lose interest in the game after their main strategic goals weren't reached. They believe that they might probably lose and thus don't give it all to survive for as long as possible. Then a minor defeat can end up being a major defeat. Some players fight like lions and can change a likely defeat into a victory.

Not even I have all the data to tell for certain that GS v3.0 is balanced. All I know is that my experience is that I feel that the Axis are more potent in GS v3.0 compared to GS v2.1. During testing I have tried the SAME strategy against different players because that would give more similar data. In GS v2.1 I could lose control during the winter of 1942 and feel the heat in 1943. In GS v3.0 I feel that the Allies start pushing me later because the subs inflict more damage. That means I can hold the Russians longer.

When you speak about the game not being balanced you need to speak about WHY you make that conclusion. Why are the Axis players crumbling too early? Is it that the Allies can build too many airplanes to bomb the German lines too early? What did these Axis players do in the Atlantic? Did they go aggressively against convoys or not? There are many factors to analyze before making conclusions.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Another thing to consider is that if we make GS v3.0 balanced for YOU then it can become completely unbalanced for many others. It's very hard to make a good balance for all player strengths. Elite players find ways to play that can be quite different from others.

E. g. you created the armor blob, then the mech blob and even the UK garrison blob. Most players don't even know that is possible. So if we balance the game against strategies like the blobs then players following a noral strategy would feel the game is not balanced at all. THAT is a big dilemma.

When we made the BJR mod and later GS our goal was to make a fun game for most players, not necessarily elite players. The majority of the players are not elite and those should be the target. Quite often elite players can find other ways to challenge themselves.

E. g. do you know that we have altered the game advantage rules quite a lot now so you could e. g. start a game with minor Axis advantage and try how that works. It would give the Axis slightly more production. If that doesn't give you the challenge you want then you can try moderate Axis advantage and even big Axis advantage.

These advantages are much less than they used to be.

Here are the bonus rules. These values are added to the base PP production for each power with the bonus
and then multiplied with the war effort.

Try some games using different Axis advantages and then you could figure out how much advantage do you need to give the Axis for your games to end up with about 50% Axis victory.

/* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
/* PP bonus rules. Bias settings */
/* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
GERMANY_MINOR_BONUS 3
GERMANY_MODERATE_BONUS 6
GERMANY_LARGE_BONUS 12
ITALY_MINOR_BONUS 1
ITALY_MODERATE_BONUS 2
ITALY_LARGE_BONUS 4
UK_MINOR_BONUS 1
UK_MODERATE_BONUS 2
UK_LARGE_BONUS 4
FRANCE_MINOR_BONUS 1
FRANCE_MODERATE_BONUS 2
FRANCE_LARGE_BONUS 4
USA_MINOR_BONUS 1
USA_MODERATE_BONUS 2
USA_LARGE_BONUS 4
USSR_MINOR_BONUS 2
USSR_MODERATE_BONUS 4
USSR_LARGE_BONUS 8

[Blathergut]

Thank you for remembering us lowly souls who enjoy the game without being good at it.

[Cybvep]

E. g. do you know that we have altered the game advantage rules quite a lot now so you could e. g. start a game with minor Axis advantage and try how that works. It would give the Axis slightly more production. If that doesn't give you the challenge you want then you can try moderate Axis advantage and even big Axis advantage.

This is quite interesting... and fully moddable. I often forget about this option. If somebody thinks that the Axis is not strong enough, their can boost it easily...

[supermax]

mmmm borger we aresaying the same thing.

our playstyles arent that different you know, it just that i like to try different outcomes.

whats youve seen from me on the aar are the games where i thought there was something interesting to talk about.

youd be surprised how much i can play very rigidly and according to the timeline. i just dont always do it thats all.

but you are right in the sense that yes you might be more of a chess-mentality player and that i am more a world in flames type.

in the end,its a moot point. we both get what the other is saying.

exception is that you are the one with the skills to modify the game. i cant

anyway,i wont be commenting again.

the mod is great, it just cant be played 20 times for guy likeme.

[pk867]

Hi,

That is the purpose of the general.txt file Lots of things can be modified without having to worry about coding compiling and such.

As long as both players have the same changes when you start and play the game so there are no checksum errors. You just have to keep a copy

of the original so when you play another that does not have the same changes.

[Kragdob]

I have never had an easier time with my subs in the Atlantic. I go after escorted convoys and inflict 20+ damage per hit and can quickly sink convoys with 2 wolfpacks of 3 subs each. The Allied player really has to put effort into ASW and radar tech to harm those subs and get control. Ignoring the Atlantic for the Allies will make the Axis job even easier sinking those convoys.

I do ignore Atlantic and let Germans own it. What changed for Allies? Almost nothing. From my experience you can completely ignore Atlantic and I do it in almost every game (of course if Axis is weak, then I buy an adequate number of DDs to have that extra convoy income and bleed Germans on the sea). Allies need to transport one unit (American GAR to be Eisenhower HQ) through Atlantic and it is possible to do with the starting naval forces.

What causes your Axis lines to be crushed so quickly every time? Allied air power? When I play the Axis I buy quite a lot of fighters and focus on dogfight. I don't overbuild the number of tanks, bombers and mechs. With my fighters I often target the Allied air units (particularly bombers) and use my tech advantage to decimate these air units. E. g. the Russians struggle for long to move up against the Axis fighters unless it's severe winter. If they put their bombers in a forward position they will be crippled by airbase attacks. In order to support the fighter attacks you need oil and that means you can't afford many other oil consuming units.

I rarely play Axis, so my opinion is from Allied side Yes it is very easy to crush Axis line, depending on the game, starting as early as from 1942. The fact is that Axis don't have tech advantage in the game unless Allies let them have it (the Wester ones). Often Germany sacrifices tech and then Allies has the advantage. Axis can't afford to buy air coverage for both fronts so usually one of them collapses or even better is bled out by Allied FTR force. On the West Allies have superior tech, on the East it is numerical advantage. Wherever in the game you have air advantage you can start killing Axis units in numbers (5-6 per turn) and Axis are not able to sustain that long. The problem is that it can start as early es in 1942 (on both fronts) and there is nothing (I know) to stop it.

I often like to use th Luftwaffe bombers to harass the Allied tank units. If these units get hit even before they get to the front line they can't inflict the damage they need to make a hole in the line. If the enemy tank units are at the front line the German panzers can finish these off.

I is even better you deplete your air force more quickly I rarely buy tanks they are usefull in very narrow situations and costly so on my your bombers wouldn't have much to attack

This is my feeling, maybe I play this game well, but I don't see any evidence in the AARs that Axis can stand under regular scenario.

[Cybvep]

If you almost never lose, maybe you should find better opponents? If you are already playing against elites, maybe it's time to consider the Minor/Major Advantage option . Or play as the Axis more often...

[Crazygunner1]

Maybe we could put in more options in the menu. 98% of the games, are run with the same settings. Perhaps we can alter some options that makes for greater diversion if possible. Most of these option have farily small impact.

-Trying a game without oil can be fun, that is a big one, maybe there can be more bigger options like that to get diversion.
-No diplomatic relations, however that will work?
-No manpower will certanly change things

Things like that...

There use to be more AAr around that tried different options, lately there seems to be none.

[Kragdob]

If you almost never lose, maybe you should find better opponents? If you are already playing against elites, maybe it's time to consider the Minor/Major Advantage option . Or play as the Axis more often...

I though that 'advantage' options are when there is imbalance between players...

But IMHO if I use the same formula for Allied victory all over in all my games and it never failed then maybe something is wrong? Or, maybe I am not fitted as Borger says From my POV Allies are just too strong, if played correctly Germans have no chance to really hurt them.

I suggest moving this conversation to different thread.

[JimR]

Thank you for remembering us lowly souls who enjoy the game without being good at it.

Hear, hear!