Morris vs Joe Rock

[PionUrpo]

IMO a mistake for the Soviets to concentrate all on this Uralsk blob and not even trying to take back the Grozny oilfield? Should be both strategically more important and easier against defending tanks.

Southern parts are less affected by the severe winter so the Axis units there aren't as vulnerable as up north.

[kaigab73]

i think they can place new units. in my games, they keep placing new units even if caucasus is cut from moscow

[Diplomaticus]

i think they can place new units. in my games, they keep placing new units even if caucasus is cut from moscow

Is there no way we can fix this glitch? I assume that it's due to the fact that those isolated Russian units/cities south of the Rostov-Grozny line can draw 'major capital' supply from the Middle East. That gives supply '4' at that range. We've already fixed the rail rules so Allies can't use the (nonexistent) railroads between the Caucasus and Persia; I wonder if we could do a similar fix to the rail gauge thing to prevent them from drawing anything but "truck supply" from Middle Eastern cities?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Is it really accurate that the Russians couldn't place new reinforcements in southern Russia even if the Germans reach the Caspian Sea? There lived a lot of people south of the Caucasus.

Game wise I think it's like this because the Allies get supply from Basra and supply level 4 is 40 hexes from Basra. You need supply level 4 or 5 to place new units.

[kaigab73]

Is it really accurate that the Russians couldn't place new reinforcements in southern Russia even if the Germans reach the Caspian Sea? There lived a lot of people south of the Caucasus.

yes, it is. Building a division isn't just catching some people. it is recruiting people, training them, producing the equipment, equip the unit, and then send to combat. there's no way russian could create entire corps (division, tanks, and such) in caucasus if cut from Moscow.

as it is it's kinda silly, you isolate caucasus, and still he can build air units, tanks and everything he wants. basically it means germany will never be able to get to baku.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You can only put one unit per city and if you get past the Caucasus then they can only place units in Baku and Tbilisi.

The Russians formed units all over Russia. They didn't need to be close to Moscow for that. Many units were formed in Siberia and sent to the front line. The Russians can rail units to the east bank of the Caspian sea and sail it to Baku. I think the port was called Krasnovodsk.

[Kragdob]

You can only put one unit per city and if you get past the Caucasus then they can only place units in Baku and Tbilisi.

The Russians formed units all over Russia. They didn't need to be close to Moscow for that. Many units were formed in Siberia and sent to the front line. The Russians can rail units to the east bank of the Caspian sea and sail it to Baku. I think the port was called Krasnovodsk.

If you look at the situation you can say that Soviets should be able to place the units in Caucasus. It was actually pretty much cut off from mainland in 1942 since the only railway network was along Volga (through Stalingrad) to Astrakhan.

Since you get supply through Iran route why Soviets shouldn't be able to put units in Baku/Tibilisi? It is limited since you can place only two units per turn so in my view it is ok.

[kaigab73]

personally i think GS is too much biased towards allies to the point game isn't even fun to play as allies, it's too easy. maybe this was historical (after all allies had much more production than axis and it was just due to allies mistakes in strategy which allowed germany to last 6 years) but this is a game.

I mean, seeing russian airfighters with better tech than germans even when german tech in dogfight is maxed out, and this goes for any russian unit...russian units in 1941 were shitty, it took 2-3 years to get to a level similar to the german one, in the game in '41 you see hordes of mech and armor that all have better tech (or at least in the attack values).

in a game as allies, in late '40 i can have for attacking lybia 8-10 corps as UK (don't know why there are so many english/australian/ in africa, historically english had a way less numerous army than italians with much better quality here UK has in africa like 500000-800000 men for fighting italy) 2 air fighters (malta garrison which is always moved to afrika in any game) and this without moving a single unit from UK but just using what i have and moving the canadians to africa. i mean, why this? it makes war in africa useless, and as a consequence axis player abandon africa always. yes you can focus as axis on africa, but it's very expensive and it forces you to not go for barbarossa and this leads with red army in berlin in '44.

[kaigab73]

You can only put one unit per city and if you get past the Caucasus then they can only place units in Baku and Tbilisi.

The Russians formed units all over Russia. They didn't need to be close to Moscow for that. Many units were formed in Siberia and sent to the front line. The Russians can rail units to the east bank of the Caspian sea and sail it to Baku. I think the port was called Krasnovodsk.

If you look at the situation you can say that Soviets should be able to place the units in Caucasus. It was actually pretty much cut off from mainland in 1942 since the only railway network was along Volga (through Stalingrad) to Astrakhan.

Since you get supply through Iran route why Soviets shouldn't be able to put units in Baku/Tibilisi? It is limited since you can place only two units per turn so in my view it is ok.

yes but we are talking about 2 corps per turn (20 days)...have you an idea of how many men it is ?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The soldiers for the corps units will have to be recruited locally and trained locally. It's a VERY long way from Moscow to Baku.

Regardless of accuracy we will not change this because it means having to change the supply rules regarding Basra and that can cause a lot of issues delaying the release even further. We don't want that.

The best way to take Baku is for the Germans to take Egypt and push through Persia while still keeping pressure in the north. Taking Baku just from the north would have been a very hard task and the Allied player would have made a big mistake to lose Baku.

Russia in this game is not in a position where they can afford to place many units in the south. The have other front sections to worry about. Air units can easily get to the south by rebasing so they don't have to be built there. The Germans are still nowhere near Baku so it's not urgent to get tanks etc. in the south.

It's more important to neutralize the blob near Uralsk because these units will be able to storm towards Omsk when the weather changes to clear.

So I don't really see a problem here. Units popping up in the south can be seen as units arriving from offmap locations. E. g. Russia could build the units in Siberia and rail them via Persia and then to Baku or sail them across the Caspian Sea in the offmap area.

In most games you can actually place reinforcements in any city, even if not in direct link with the capital. So GS is stricter than most games there.

If you look at the south you have several nations there like Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. They're bigger than most minor power countries and they can place new units. Think of Baku as a "capital" for the southern region. It's a huge city. More than 2 million people are living there now. I think you have enough soldier material there to form corps sized units.

[Morris]

It's more important to neutralize the blob near Uralsk because these units will be able to storm towards Omsk when the weather changes to clear.

.

Yes , Borger is quite right . The mainreason for the Uralsk compaign is USSR could not accept a bloc of Germany panzers in Uralsk when weather turns fair in 1942 . Besides to Omsk . USSR also afraid of being double cut off from Cacausus to Moscow .It is fatal point .

[Kragdob]

personally i think GS is too much biased towards allies to the point game isn't even fun to play as allies, it's too easy. maybe this was historical (after all allies had much more production than axis and it was just due to allies mistakes in strategy which allowed germany to last 6 years) but this is a game.

I mean, seeing russian airfighters with better tech than germans even when german tech in dogfight is maxed out, and this goes for any russian unit...russian units in 1941 were shitty, it took 2-3 years to get to a level similar to the german one, in the game in '41 you see hordes of mech and armor that all have better tech (or at least in the attack values).

in a game as allies, in late '40 i can have for attacking lybia 8-10 corps as UK (don't know why there are so many english/australian/ in africa, historically english had a way less numerous army than italians with much better quality here UK has in africa like 500000-800000 men for fighting italy) 2 air fighters (malta garrison which is always moved to afrika in any game) and this without moving a single unit from UK but just using what i have and moving the canadians to africa. i mean, why this? it makes war in africa useless, and as a consequence axis player abandon africa always. yes you can focus as axis on africa, but it's very expensive and it forces you to not go for barbarossa and this leads with red army in berlin in '44.

It seems for me you haven't played GS2.1. If you cannot focus your labs until Soviets are at war then you get fighter parity (if you are lucky) in early 1944. Before you are beaten up by German air force. Soviet lack fuel so they cannot afford neither big amount of tanks and TACs. If you play smartly with labs as Axis Allies have very hard way to Berlin especially for 1942 Barbarossa. For me skipping Russia in 1941 is easier to win as Axis but I'm not experienced so you can argue.

If you are able to gather such force in Africa and you don't have Germans knocking to London then probably Axis plays it poorly (you can see it in my AAR with PionUrpo what happens when you leave UK empty).

yes but we are talking about 2 corps per turn (20 days)...have you an idea of how many men it is ?

As for any placement it takes also any earlier preparation that are invisible as with any placement in any town.

[kaigab73]

If you are able to gather such force in Africa and you don't have Germans knocking to London then probably Axis plays it poorly (you can see it in my AAR with PionUrpo what happens when you leave UK empty).

In my game as UK i have in january '41:
- in africa 9 corps (7 of which are already in africa just moved the canadians there) and 2 air fighters
- in UK 4 mech and 1 Inf, 3 fighters 1 Tac 1c strategi bomber

yes, axis can try sealion in '41 and have the russians in Berlin early '44. The fact is that sealion should give way more advantages to axis. In real war, with UK conquered, war would have ended, all countries in europe would have begged germany to join Axis. In the game Axis must spend lot of MP and PP to take UK and then it is weaker than if it didn't try and simply can't stand the russians.

Maybe it could be done that if London is conquered, all countries in europe not conquered (spain portugal greece jugoslavia and Turkey) join Axis because between Germany and Soviet Union they would all choose the germans (and obviously Soviet Union war effort goes to 100% as soon as UK lose London).

my concerns are that in reality ww2 was not a positional war, it was a war of movement and campaigns in africa and russia were exciting. as the GS is heading, axis must:
- evacuate africa or avoid barbarossa to have any chance to not lose
- play barbarossa "safe" or skip it entirely in '41

the problem with africa is simply that UK isn't a key factor in making axis win the game. the PP and MP spent to take UK is way more than the advantage

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't agree with the last post.

Let's say we have a rule where the Allied powers sue for peace if London falls. What would happen then? Every Axis player would go for broke and invade England. A dedicated Axis attack will prevail for sure. Then the game is over in 1941. Is that what we want? We don't know for sure what would have happened if England fell. With Churchill alive I think they would have fought on from Canada and the colonies. USSR would certainly not do nothing. Hitler really wanted war with USSR and only fought in the west to not fight on two fronts. So with England gone then Germany would engage in war against USSR.

Nobody knows what USA would have done, but I think they would have helped UK as they did in the real war and joined the fight when Japan invaded in December 1941.

So all we talk about is how the minor powers would have reacted. Maybe Spain could have been persuaded to join the Axis. Getting Gibraltar would be tempting for Franco. We have rules allowing Spain to join the Axis so the Germans just need to ensure it happens.

I think the current rules simulate well how the UK would deal with Sealion.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I also don't agree that the Germans have almost no chance in this game. Then you need to play against elite players like Morris and Supermax. When they capture Omsk and knock Russia out of the war then I guess you will think otherwise.

The Russian techs are actually inferior to the Germans for most of the game. So I don't understand why you say the Russian air units are superior to the German air at the start of Barbarossa. I've never seen that.

You can't look at the 1939 techs of USA and USSR because those are calibrated to have the correct techs when they join the war in 1941. These countries get limited war effort and thus labs prior to the war so they can't advance the techs as much as the Germans can.

If you look at Barbarossa you see the Germans have better tech in almost all areas. Especially if Germany maxes out the labs. Playtesting actually shows that it's hard for the Allies to deal with the strong German armor and air units. The main reason the Allied often prevail in the end is because the Germans run out of oil and these units become sitting ducks. So a clever Axis player can keep the oil levels high enough to the very end and win the war.

It's more challenging to be the Axis, but if you know what you're doing then you have good chances to win.

In GS v2.1 prior to RC11 I managed in 1942 in all my Axis games to reach the Caucasus, grab Leningrad and Stalingrad and hold the line through 1942. So my Germans were in a better position in 1943 than in the real war.

In order to win with the Axis you need to understand the combat mechanisms of GS and use them to your advantage. If you don't attack efficiently then you will end up in a war of attrition you will eventually lose.

My feeling about the GS balance is that a clever Axis player will win because he will conceal his weaknesses (oil and manpower) and focus on his tech advantage. Just look at how Supermax as the Axis managed to stall the Allies for years with his Germans. He didn't get far into Russia, but formed a very strong defense and destroyed all the Russian attempts to get a breakthrough. The Axis player might lose if he becomes too aggressive and tries to much. Then the Allies will wear down the Axis.

We still need playtesting feedback from games started with RC11, but my gut feeling tells me that Barbarossa should be pretty balanced and fun for both sides.

[kaigab73]

Just a note: i am playing GS 2.0. can't say anything regarding what you are changing.

[kaigab73]

I don't agree with the last post.

Let's say we have a rule where the Allied powers sue for peace if London falls. What would happen then? Every Axis player would go for broke and invade England. A dedicated Axis attack will prevail for sure. Then the game is over in 1941. Is that what we want? We don't know for sure what would have happened if England fell. With Churchill alive I think they would have fought on from Canada and the colonies. USSR would certainly not do nothing. Hitler really wanted war with USSR and only fought in the west to not fight on two fronts. So with England gone then Germany would engage in war against USSR.

Nobody knows what USA would have done, but I think they would have helped UK as they did in the real war and joined the fight when Japan invaded in December 1941.

So all we talk about is how the minor powers would have reacted. Maybe Spain could have been persuaded to join the Axis. Getting Gibraltar would be tempting for Franco. We have rules allowing Spain to join the Axis so the Germans just need to ensure it happens.

I think the current rules simulate well how the UK would deal with Sealion.

i didn't say that the game should end. i just said that as it is now, sealion is useless. by doing sealion against any decent player you are almost sure to lose the game as axis to the russians.

Churchill alive or dead doesn't make a difference, without UK homeland, UK would have done nothing. UK colonies were colonies and problably would have revolted to UK. all industry was in UK.
and without UK, USA would have done nothing, problably just fighting Japan in pacific and trying to organize peace treaty.

this is why i say that even if letting UK and USA keep fighting (even if quite difficult to happen in real life) at least Spain should join the Axis if London is in german hands as all minors in europe (at least this compensate the PP spent by germany). this way at least allies must focus primary on avoiding sealion (which is what UK did after all till germany attacked russia) instead of moving troops to africa.

btw, i don't understand why so many english troops have been put in africa. which is the reason? with supply rule it's already quite difficult (and useless and expensive) for axis to reach suez...with the troops now in africa, is nearly impossible.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Allied troops are the same as the ones that were put there in CeaW. They simulate the units coming from the Far East. They are locked there until Egypt joins in August 1940.

The Italian units start in Italy so you can decide where to send them. It's easy for the Axis to get a total of 10 or so corps units in Libya and that's more than the Allies will have. The Allies need to send these from Canada / England and the transports can be intercepted. The Axis just needs to sail units across the Ionian Sea.

So if the Axis player wants to he can crush the Allies in Egypt, but it could take so long so Barbarossa will suffer.

Sealion would have been a huge gamble for the Axis and nobody knows how countries would respond to London falling. That would be just speculation.

It's also not a given the Axis will lose if they take England. They can still do some damage to the Russians. The UK units will suffer a lot from lower efficiency due to not controlling England so that means the western Allies are out of the game until USA joins.

What the Germans can not do is to do Sealion, invade Egypt and still storm deep into Russia in 1941. They just didn't have the resources for that. So if you do Sealion you need a different strategy in Russia. You can still invade in 1941 and kill the border units. You probably won't storm to the Don, but you can reach the Dnepr. You should be able to bleed the Russians enough so you can make progress in 1942. With a good strategy you should be able to hold the Russians at bay when the tide turns. At least for long enough to prevent Berlin falling too early.

GS is not a game where you can expect to sweep the board as the Axis. You're stronger than the Allies in 1940-1941, but not so strong you can be on the offensive everywhere. You need to pick your main targets and not chew over too much.

Do you have playtesting evidence that the Axis almost automatically loses if they do Sealion?

[Morris]

Jan 29th 1942 severe winter

Uralsk compaign continue ,We lost two INF & one wounded .We transfer one more INF to the bloc . Generally we hold & will hold until the last soldier .

The situation at the start of this turn :





The situation after Axis's move .

[Diplomaticus]

I'm starting a new thread to continue the above debate (getting a bit off-topic for this AAR).