Increase German PPs income

[Cybvep]

Thanks for nice tips, but you didn't answer my question .

What do you mean by "strong Barbarossa"?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Strong Barbarossa is when you are at the build limit of armor, mech and air units. Like 7+ panzers, 7+ mech and 5+ German tactical bombers. So many offensive units means you should be able to crush 3-4 Russian mechs on the first turn and pursue the remaining corps and mech units trying to retreat.

A more normal Barbarossa has about 5 panzers, 5 mech, 3-4 tactical bombers. Both the strong and normal Barbarossa should have enough corps units to cover all front line hexes with Axis units and have a few German corps in the second line. That can happen if some of the strong units are in England or Egypt at the start of Barbarossa.

When I do my Barbarossa I usually can afford to have a total of 4 leaders (including Rundstedt), 6 panzers, 6 mech, 5 tactical bombers, 4 fighters, 6 subs and maxed out labs. All are German. In addition comes the Axis minors and Italy. That means a semi strong Barbarossa with still some power in the Atlantic.

I think the real Germans started with a pretty strong Barbarossa because they didn't commit much to other front sections. Maybe with the exception of subs in the Atlantic.

Giving Germany more PP's means that even average Joe can get enough units for a strong Barbarossa and still have spare units to make noise elsewhere. I think that you have to decide how you commit your units. Do you spread them on several areas to be offensive several places or focus your strength one place to do more damage there.

Since many Russians now run very fast in 1941 I guess you can get away with just a normal Barbarossa and not a strong one. You can instead have some offensive forces in Libya. You don't need hordes of Germans in the Summer of 1941 just walking eastwards. It's probably better to build units after Barbarossa started and rail them to the front line in time for the winter offensive. So the strength of the Germans in May 1941 usually determines how fast you can crush the main defensive units and how many rear mech units you can reach before Russia retreats their units to safety. After turn 1 of Barbarossa you can't use your firepower except killing garrisons left behind in cities.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Regardless of what I say we wont alter the German PP production at the moment. We want to learn how the sub evasion works on game balance.

[Cybvep]

I don't support a general German PP increase, either. I wanted to know what you meant by "strong Barbarossa". Anyway, you wrote it yourself - RL Germany made strong Barbarossa. You also wrote that they were active in the Atlantic. You forgot to mention that they also took part in a failed Battle of Britain in 1940, conquered Norway, Yugoslavia AND Greece, started Barbarossa on 22nd of June, not in May (and still made a strong one), and were conducting offensives in Egypt. I would like somebody to try it in CEAW .

[Morris]

I think the Germans perform well in Barbarossa as is. Starting in May 1941 means they have plenty of time to reach the historical line or even beyond. Look at Morris who went all the way to Stalingrad in 1941.

8 Russian garrisons as a strategic reserve won't mean much regarding the Russian counter offensive. They're meant to show up to just delay the Germans a little.

The Siberian reserves have to show up when they did historically. They arrive far to the east so it takes some turns to get them to the front line.

I think you're in for trouble if you overstretch as the Axis in 1941. I usually get to the Don line and dig in there even if I could go further. Every turn you rest means more efficiency regained and step losses repaired. Once the Russian offensive begins you see where the strong units are. Then you RETREAT in that area so Russia can't kill many of your units. If you stubbornly hold on to all you captured in 1941 you will get a bloody nose. See how Joerock did it against Morris. He retreated all the way to Odessa and Kiev and still won as the Axis.

You need to keep your Axis units in the rail support area when the 1941 winter hits. This way you can rail out units if you really have to and you have supply level 4. If you place the Luftwaffe in Eastern Poland or the Baltic States or the southernmost part of Russia then they're less hit by the weather effect.

I usually use the Luftwaffe to hit the Russian tanks and mech BEFORE they reach the main defense line. Then the tanks lose efficiency and steps and can't do as much damage. It costs a bit of oil so you need to save up before the winter begins. That happens if you dig-in after September 30th 1941.

So my best advise to Axis players is not to be greedy in 1941. Get to the historical line and dig-in behind rivers or in forest terrain. Be prepared to retreat where the Russians are strong in the winter. You get your revenge in 1942.

NIce lesson ! I do learn a lot from it ! Thanks Borger !
BTW , If Axis doesn't hit USSR as much as possible , the USSR's pp will be around 135--145pp each turn without count the convoy . Even Axis can lose few units in 1941 , but Axis have to face a very strong Red army in 1942 (around 8arm ,10mech ,5tac.5 ftr ,more than 40 corps including 4 guards)! Meanwhile the tec of USSR is catching up with AXis rapidly especially on antitank & dogfight if they focus on it ).If Red army won't be too agressive & make no mistake , Axis will be too difficult to achive much in 1942 & the initiative of war will be exchanged whenever you have to face a combine landing in the west by UK & USA ! Do you think so sir ?

[Kragdob]

RL Germany made strong Barbarossa. You also wrote that they were active in the Atlantic. You forgot to mention that they also took part in a failed Battle of Britain in 1940, conquered Norway, Yugoslavia AND Greece, started Barbarossa on 22nd of June, not in May (and still made a strong one), and were conducting offensives in Egypt. I would like somebody to try it in CEAW .

This is my point for proposing this change. I don't know why you are so focused on Barbarossa as this is quite balanced if you ask me.

The real problem is that if Germans wants to prepare the Barbarossa Borger mentions they are not able to do much elswhere. In NA you need minimum 1 FTR, 1 TAC, 1 ARM and 1 MECH which is 330 PPs not including casualties you need to replace.

If you want to harass UK a little in 1940 (like Battle of Britain or Malta bombing) you need to build FTRs - not necessity for Barbarossa so you need to subtract the bill from your Barbarossa budget (180 or 270 PPs).

This alone gives you extra 500 PPs you would need if you want to conduct any operations. Extra SUBS will also cost 200 PPs.

The extra PPs I mean is for fighting the West - if someone spends it on Barbarossa than he is shoting his knee as additional tank or few INF corps doesn't really makes that much difference in 1941.

Watch carefully what will happen if you do not make UK bleed in 1940 in my AAR with Morris - this is not exception I win most of my Allies games like that.

[Morris]

RL Germany made strong Barbarossa. You also wrote that they were active in the Atlantic. You forgot to mention that they also took part in a failed Battle of Britain in 1940, conquered Norway, Yugoslavia AND Greece, started Barbarossa on 22nd of June, not in May (and still made a strong one), and were conducting offensives in Egypt. I would like somebody to try it in CEAW .

This is my point for proposing this change. I don't know why you are so focused on Barbarossa as this is quite balanced if you ask me.

The real problem is that if Germans wants to prepare the Barbarossa Borger mentions they are not able to do much elswhere. In NA you need minimum 1 FTR, 1 TAC, 1 ARM and 1 MECH which is 330 PPs not including casualties you need to replace.

If you want to harass UK a little in 1940 (like Battle of Britain or Malta bombing) you need to build FTRs - not necessity for Barbarossa so you need to subtract the bill from your Barbarossa budget (180 or 270 PPs).

This alone gives you extra 500 PPs you would need if you want to conduct any operations. Extra SUBS will also cost 200 PPs.

The extra PPs I mean is for fighting the West - if someone spends it on Barbarossa than he is shoting his knee as additional tank or few INF corps doesn't really makes that much difference in 1941.

Watch carefully what will happen if you do not make UK bleed in 1940 in my AAR with Morris - this is not exception I win most of my Allies games like that.

To build a strong Barbarosa or to weak UK in 1940-1941 , Axis usually only be able to accomplish one mission ,it is almost impossible to achive both . Whether a strong UK or a strong USSR is fatal to Axis in 1942 !

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't support a general German PP increase, either. I wanted to know what you meant by "strong Barbarossa". Anyway, you wrote it yourself - RL Germany made strong Barbarossa. You also wrote that they were active in the Atlantic. You forgot to mention that they also took part in a failed Battle of Britain in 1940, conquered Norway, Yugoslavia AND Greece, started Barbarossa on 22nd of June, not in May (and still made a strong one), and were conducting offensives in Egypt. I would like somebody to try it in CEAW .

In my Axis games I take Denmark and Norway and go for Yugoslavia and sometimes even Greece. I send 3-4 German units into Libya checking what the Allies are up to. I send in 3-4 Italian units too so I can do something in case the Allies don't reinforce the area.

I also fight the battle of Britain because my strategic bomber bombs London down to 0 steps before leaving for the east. If the Allies let the fighters respond then I fight there.

Despite all mentioned above I manage to have a pretty strong Barbarossa.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If France falls early I might go for Greece early too. Then I use Crete as an airbase to push into Egypt. From Crete the air units can quickly fly to the east front once you have crippled the Allied force in Egypt.

So it's certainly possible to be offensive several places, but not at the same time unless you weaken all front sections. Barbarossa is too important to not do right.

Again I say that we will see how the sub warfare will be after the sub evasion rules. That means fewer PP's for UK and lower sub repair bill for the Germans. We don't know yet how that affects the German play before 1942.

One thing you can do is to send 2 German fighters to Libya and 1 tactical bomber. The Italian air units do better in Russia since the Russian airforce is still weak. With the air units from Hungary, Romania and Finland you should still have a decent air force for Barbarossa. You don't need German fighters in Russia until the winter of 1941 so you have time to let the fighters be at other front sections. I usually send a few German fighters to Russia in case the Allied player is aggressive with the Russian fighters. If not then the Axis minors and Italians will have to intercept these fighters.

So the Germans can certainly fight in North Africa if they really want to. The real Germans certainly didn't invest much there. Rommel had just a fraction of the troops he needed to take Cairo. Had he been given what he wanted then I'm sure we wouldn't speak about El Alamein, but rather about the battle of Suez.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't like changing the production because it can have side effects we don't know about. If we really want to do something then you need to look at the OOB's. Maybe Italy could get a fighter unit spawning in Libya when they activate at e. g. 5 steps (similar to the Malta fighter). Such minor things can be done without altering the production long term.

If we give Italy some morale boost for taking Port Said and drop the southern convoy slightly in strength then that will encourage warfare in Libya. Maybe something similar should be linked to Greece as well.

Instead of +10 morale for Port Said you could have +5 morale for Athens and +5 morale for Port Said. Many Axis players ignore Greece so with a morale boost they could maybe consider doing it more.

Did the fall of Greece affect the Allied operations in the Mediterranean? Was it maybe harder to send the southern convoy through the Mediterranean due to higher losses from airstrikes etc.?

I think Germany is strong enough so if we do anything we should look at Italy and the Axis minor powers. If they become slightly stronger then Germany can afford sending some units elsewhere. Maybe people can look at the Axis minor and Italian OOB's.

E. g. I know that the Axis minors had several cavalry corps. We have changed them into a single mech corps for Hungary and Romania. So you have 2 mechs in total.

Another possibility could be to upgrade corps units to cavalry for some PP's. Cavalry units could have the same stats as corps except +1 shock attack and +1 movement.

I'm not saying we are doing this, but first we need to pinpoint what is the real problem here and then see if it can be fixed without altering the balance elsewhere.

The bad thing about a PP boost is that you never know what the players spend their PP's on. Some would build even more armor and mech for Barbarossa and you've just caused an imbalance. Others would go for subs and fighters. If Axis minors get units that means they can free up slots along the Barbarossa border for German units that can be elsewhere. If the Axis player sends all Germans to the east anyway then Barbarossa will be slightly stronger, but not so much as if you had more German units.

[Cybvep]

So the Germans can certainly fight in North Africa if they really want to. The real Germans certainly didn't invest much there. Rommel had just a fraction of the troops he needed to take Cairo. Had he been given what he wanted then I'm sure we wouldn't speak about El Alamein, but rather about the battle of Suez.

Except that ATM pretty much nobody does that and conquering Suez is rather inconsequential, anyway.

Rommel was good at conducting operational and tactical manoeuvres, but IMO many people greatly overestimate his abilities. This is mostly because of the fact that while people love the stuff directly connected with the fighting, they rarely pay attention to logistics. Rommel didn't understand that just because you WANT to do sth doesn't mean that you CAN do it and repeatedly ignored logistical problems. All these "what ifs" about additional tanks etc. often ignore logistics, too. Forgive me, then, if I don't share your faith in Rommel. He was a good commander, but not a brilliant one. A great commander knows that logistics is an essential element of every major operation and that in many cases it determines whether the operation will ultimately succeed or fail.

I don't like changing the production because it can have side effects we don't know about

Agreed.

If we give Italy some morale boost for taking Port Said and drop the southern convoy slightly in strength then that will encourage warfare in Libya.

Exactly my thoughts.

Instead of +10 morale for Port Said you could have +5 morale for Athens and +5 morale for Port Said. Many Axis players ignore Greece so with a morale boost they could maybe consider doing it more.

Sounds interesting...

Did the fall of Greece affect the Allied operations in the Mediterranean? Was it maybe harder to send the southern convoy through the Mediterranean due to higher losses from airstrikes etc.?

Yes, it affected the Allied operations, but not because of the conquest of Greece per se, but because of the fact that the Allies sent forces there. The generals opposed this, but Churchill wanted to show the Americans that he had the resolve to fight the Axis on the mainland and support his allies instead of abandoning them. Therefore, the reasons for supporting Greece were political in nature. This weakened the Allied forces in the NA and made Rommel's counter-attack easier.

[joerock22]

I don't consider GS to have a major balance problem. As the creators have been saying for years, it is harder to play as the Axis. It is easier to lose as the Axis if you make a mistake. But in my experience I am able to win or lose on both sides depending on how well I play, not on which side I play.

That said, I am not opposed to small changes that favor the Axis side, such as the Italian morale boost, to make it a little easier on them. But a general increase in PPs seems like too much.

[Morris]

I don't consider GS to have a major balance problem. As the creators have been saying for years, it is harder to play as the Axis. It is easier to lose as the Axis if you make a mistake. But in my experience I am able to win or lose on both sides depending on how well I play, not on which side I play.

That said, I am not opposed to small changes that favor the Axis side, such as the Italian morale boost, to make it a little easier on them. But a general increase in PPs seems like too much.

You are an elite who can control the mistakes axis usually makes ,but few players can play axis as well as you ！at least I can't. if anyone think he can play as well as you ，I will challenge him at once !

[Cybvep]

In a well balanced MP game, both sides should have a similar chance to win IMO. Obviously, I'm talking about winning the game, not winning the war.

[GogTheMild]

I pretty much agree with everything Cybvep said in his 29th March post. (Except that the generals didn't oppose Churchill over Greece .) Doing all of that would add a bit of variety and interest with minimal balance shift for the average player. (Which I hope one day to be.)

[Cybvep]

Except that the generals didn't oppose Churchill over Greece

It was Churchill who wanted to support Greece. For political reasons, not military ones. Wavell didn't approve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Wa ... y_commands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... nary_force
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=1

However, in February Wavell had been ordered to halt his advance into Libya and send troops to Greece where the Germans and Italians were attacking. He disagreed with this decision but followed his orders. The result was a disaster. The Germans were given the opportunity to reinforce the Italians in North Africa with the Afrika Korps and by the end of April the weakened Western Desert Force had been pushed all the way back to the Egyptian border, leaving Tobruk under siege.

Little more than a month later, the British reconsidered. Winston Churchill aspired to recreate a Balkan Front comprising Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey,[39] and instructed Anthony Eden and Sir John Dill to resume negotiations with the Greek government. A meeting attended by Eden and the Greek leadership, including King George II, Prime Minister Alexandros Koryzis—the successor of Metaxas, who had died on 29 January 1941—and Papagos took place in Athens on 22 February, where they decided to send a British Commonwealth expeditionary force.[40] German troops had been massing in Romania and on 1 March, Wehrmacht forces began to move into Bulgaria. At the same time, the Bulgarian Army mobilised and took up positions along the Greek frontier.

By 9 Feb 1941, as the Allied troops reached El Agheila, Libya, the Italian Tenth Army had ceased to exist. In about 10 weeks, the Allied forces advanced 800 kilometers and captured a total of 130,000 Italian and colonial personnel (including 22 officers of general rank), 400 tanks, and 1,290 artillery pieces; about 32,000 Italian troops were able to escape Cyrenaica. For this victory, the Allies suffered 494 killed and 1,225 wounded. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill ordered the offensive halted so that some of the men could be routed to defend Greece from Axis attack. The Axis forces, however, did the opposite, transferring in Italian and German troops into North Africa for a major counter-offensive.

[GogTheMild]

Probably one for a different thrad .

People said all sorts of things after it became obvious that it was a stupid decision. But just to come back on your "Wavell didn't approve." Wavell was in Athens prior to the German invasion with the British Foreign Secretary on a trip to decide, jointly, whether to send military forces and how many. One of Wavell's staff officers wrote: "Eden asked General Wavell to say his piece. ... I remember praying that he would voice some doubt. ...Wavell told the negotiators that it was his considered view that the assistance being offered held out every chance of permitting the Allies to withstand a German advance into Greece." Wavell stuck to this view even afterwards .

Another: "In point of fact only a single staff officer opposed it from the start. [The one quoted above.] ... Both Wavell and Wilson* maintained afterwards, and in cold print, that in the light of their then knowledge they would do it again."

And another: The head of planning wrote a paper, unsolicited "drawing attention to the great dangers of the campaign. ... I remember [it] coming back from General Wavell. ... written in his own hand across the top "War is an option of difficulties." We admired the spirit but questioned the judgement."

I could go on, but it's late. To put it no more strongly, the attitude of Wavell was not one of clear and unwavering opposition.

*Wilson was at the time GOC Eygpt and later GOC Greece.

[Morris]

In a well balanced MP game, both sides should have a similar chance to win IMO. Obviously, I'm talking about winning the game, not winning the war.

Do you think both sides have a similar chance to win in the present GS 2.1 ?

[richardsd]

In a well balanced MP game, both sides should have a similar chance to win IMO. Obviously, I'm talking about winning the game, not winning the war.

Do you think both sides have a similar chance to win in the present GS 2.1 ?

I think that (Dyle plan aside) the game is well balanced for equivalent skilled players, noting that the Axis has little room to recover from errors

I judge this for 1945 victory conditions

[Cybvep]

In a well balanced MP game, both sides should have a similar chance to win IMO. Obviously, I'm talking about winning the game, not winning the war.

Do you think both sides have a similar chance to win in the present GS 2.1 ?

I used to think the game was quite well balanced, but now I don't know. It seems that most players think that it's easier to win as the Allies. We will see how the new changes to sub warfare affect this in 2.2.

noting that the Axis has little room to recover from errors

This is certainly true. Usually one major error costs you the game when you are playing the Axis.