Some disagreement with the Commander Grand Strategy

[TotalerKrieg]

Having said all this, I believe it would be fair to remove the 2 Canadian garrisons in Fredericton and Halifax. They are probably no longer needed to deter a German invasion of Canada and I for one have seen a growing # of players deploying them to France or Britain.

I think that opportunity to conquer USA and Canada is good thing, so why they shall not have their foothold?

Well, there was a military presence in Halifax right from the beginning of the war as far as I understand it. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Field_ ... _Artillery

So in my opinion Halifax should get a garrison, maybe not at full strength, but certainly a unit which can gain entrenchment and then be reinforced if the Axis hordes show up.

The Fredericton garrison was placed there by the GS team to prevent the Axis from declaring war on "Canada" and occupying the port without firing a shot and simultaneously killing the Lend Lease destroyers If there was some way to allow Canadian forces to reinforce the city before the Axis can take it then I would support removing the garrison. Otherwise, my opinion is that it should stay to be prevent the even more non-historical gaming maneuver which caused the Fredericton garrison to be created in the first place.

Of course the opinions that matter are the GS team's and not mine...

[rkr1958]

Of course the opinions that matter are the GS team's and not mine...

That's not true. There have been more changes than I can count made to GS based on requests, questions or issues posted on this board and outside the GS Dev and test teams. A significant portion of the latest set of updates in the works originated in such a manner.

By the way, the latest set of changes in the works includes contested amphibious invasions (which you're probably already aware of), elite units, numerous new "chrome" features and ... airborne units.

[ftgcritt2]

I definitely think that the games feel a lot more scripted in the GS mod. It's like the same thing happens every time. And if you, as the Axis, deviate at all from a set time line of events then your Barbarossa really suffers and you have no chance against the Russians. It seems like in their quest to make a more realistic game, they closed off most of the map. Spain, East Africa, the Middle East, America, and half of Russia might as well not even be on the map because you're never going to make it that far. Ever. Unless you play against someone who's never played before. But all that being said, I still think GS is the FAR superior game. The mechanics are far and away better than they were in Vanilla, and the map is much more accurate. I just wish that they would make a game that had all of the realistic aspects of GS (air attack limits, amphibious landings, sub rules, realistic map, etc.) without shutting off half of the map and constricting the Axis player to a historical time line of events.

[TotalerKrieg]

That's not true. There have been more changes than I can count made to GS based on requests, questions or issues posted on this board and outside the GS Dev and test teams. A significant portion of the latest set of updates in the works originated in such a manner.

Apologies! I did not mean to imply that the GS team does not read or think about suggestions made by others. I guess I was just saying the obvious, that you guys will be the ones to make the decisions about the fate of the two Canadian garrisons, or even if they are reconsidered at all.

By the way, the latest set of changes in the works includes contested amphibious invasions (which you're probably already aware of), elite units, numerous new "chrome" features and ... airborne units.

I am really looking forward to the next release. In fact I am not starting any new v. 1.06 games as I am waiting until the next edition is released.

I just wish that they would make a game that had all of the realistic aspects of GS (air attack limits, amphibious landings, sub rules, realistic map, etc.) without shutting off half of the map and constricting the Axis player to a historical time line of events.

The victory conditions of GS by their nature do restrict the game somewhat. You are being compared to the real Axis powers and if you can last longer than they did so it does cause the game to be follow essentially that course of the war. I think it would be neat if you could follow alternate outcomes of the war. For example, if you could select an option that GB signs a treaty with Germany after France falls (ie no Winston Churchill present to refuse to sign a cease fire) and play out the game with that impact (ie just the Axis vs. the Soviet Union or whatever they decide to do until the SU and the US enters the war). You could also select another version where GB signs a peace treaty with Germany and Spain joins the Axis (in my opinion, a likely situation if GB signed a peace treaty with Germany). The victory conditions would have to be different in those scenarios obviously (probably play out the war until the bitter end), but it would allow different games to be played. I don't know if this is even possible given the current game setup though, but it would be great fun to play out those scenarios with other people (at least for me).

[harrybanana]

I just wish that they would make a game that had all of the realistic aspects of GS (air attack limits, amphibious landings, sub rules, realistic map, etc.) without shutting off half of the map and constricting the Axis player to a historical time line of events.

The problem is that, at least in my opinion, you can't have a "realistic" game that at the same time allows Germany all the options you would like to see. For example, there is just no way Germany could realistically have been able to invade the US at any time within the time span of this game. This is not an option that the German High Command ever had or would have had even if they had conquered Britain. They did not have the transports (or the abilty to build them in sufficient numbers), they did not have the shipping to supply a force of any significant size at that distance and most importantly they did not have the navy to protect that shipping. Look at how much trouble the Italians (with a much larger navy than Germany) had in supplying a relatively small force in Africa; which, of course, was a much shorter distance.

I agree with you that it is "unrealistic" that Russia will DOW Germany in late 41 if Germany doesn't DOW Russia 1st. In fact I doubt Russia would ahve entered the War anytime soon. The biggest blunder Hitler made was in DOWing Russia before Britain was subdued. But if you take this out of the game and simply play until 45 w/o Russia ever entering the War, then the Axis will win every game.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Skilled players can definitely attack Spain and enter Egypt and still have a strong enough force to deal with Russia. What you can't do is to start Sealion, attack Spain and go against Egypt and believe you can also take on Russia.

You have to select your battles. You can't do them all. It's not a given that you win the game by hitting Russia hard. Maybe it's just as good to invade Spain and Egypt to make the Mediterranean into an Axis lake and then get oil from Iraq. Then you can just attack Russia in the fall of 1941 to get to the Dnepr line. Then you can try to defend there or maybe push to the next river line.

There are many different options you can do and if you read the AAR's you see successful Axis Sealion attacks and conquest of Egypt etc. But by doing this you can't expect to get to Moscow and beyond in 1941.

I think people who complain about this are used to the vanilla game when you could actually sweep the board as the Axis if you were good enough. That is not possible in GS unless you play against the AI or a very weak opponent. There are several nice targets for you to choose between. You can do some of them, but not all. From the AAR's I read I see that a mistake many German players do is to push too hard in 1941 and then they get seriously hurt when severe winter hits. Players who did Sealion start Barbarossa late and they play as if they want to compensate from the late start by attacking for as long as possible. It's probably better to make a limited goal and dig in once you get to that goal.

It's even possible to not push hard in Russia in 1941 and instead build for defense in the east. It's not fun for the Russians to attack in non winter weather until 1943. If you stay out of core Russian hexes you won't be hurt by the severe winter effect. So there are alternative options to try. But if you feel you have to take Moscow when you're the Axis then you can have problems if you also have big forces in Britain, Spain and the Middle East.

[StevenCarleton]

We almost always go big against the Soviet Union because its such a potential threat and it has lots of resources to capture. Spain & Egypt don't have much to offer and those areas are vulnerable to superior allied naval forces. Other than convoys, there really isn't a way for the western allies to offer direct military support to Stalin so he's isolated.

Due the enormous Allied & Soviet power in '44 & '45, its nice to have a big buffer in the East so you can build up against D-Day.

In other games, there are random diplomatic variants allowing Spain to join the war, or at least let Axis force use its territory, which adds nice variety.
It would also be nice if Germany could send PPs to Italy so Mussolini could build more ships and planes.

In the vanilla game, southern Europe seems somewhat easy to defened due to the rugged terrain, few ports, etc., but GS seems to have changed the balance somewhat - would love to hear feedback on this....

Not arguing here with Stauf., just giving the viewpoint of a mere mortal!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

With the addition of 1 German para division in 1940 (must be purchased) then Sealion can become even more interesting if the para is used well. E. g. you can use the para to block the path from the British mech to the beachhead so the beachhead unit isn't attacked on the turn it landed.

Amph capability (expensive, though) means the Germans can try to push into Britain with a better chance of success. You won't benefit as much from putting air units on the coast line to block landings.

What we need to see is that Sealion takes so much time to complete that you will not be able to sweep the Balkans and have an early Barbarossa start. That means you sacrifice something for doing Sealion. If not it will become the norm to do Sealion before Barbarossa. It should be possible, but not in every game.

World in Flames was flawed in my mind partly because most Axis players went for Spain first and could then go after Russia with good hopes of getting deep into Russia. Many German players blitzed into France in Sep/Oct 1939 and with some luck got all the way to Paris. It became harder in WIFFE, but it still shows that players are experts in finding ways to exploit game balance weaknesses. It's almost impossible to design a game that can stop all exploits, but you should definitely stop the game breaking ones.

I think that in most strategic WW2 games you will see Germany do Barbarossa. One reason is that the big threat in the east needs to be subdued before they become too dangerous. This happens independently of what you do prior to Barbarossa.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The choice you have is from what to do after France.

1. Sealion
2. Norway / Denmark
3. Spain / Gibraltar
4. Balkans
5. Egypt => Iraq
6. Turkey

All these options are possible and quite good. You can only do a few of them so you need to select your options. The historical ones were 2, 4 and partly 5. If you can pick all these options and still have a strong Barbarossa then something is wrong.

One interesting option could be to go for Balkans immediately after the fall of France and then straight for Turkey. The reason is to have units close to Baku before Barbarossa and also a chance to threaten to enter Iraq from Turkey. I've rarely seen this strategy, but it could be hard for the Russians to stop if you get to Ankara fast enough as the Germans. With amphs and Paras you could sail from Constanta and get to Samsun and use it as a base to storm to Ankara. The Romanian DD can provide supply.

So it's not a given you have to follow a predefined path before you start Barbarossa. I've even seen players going on the defense in the east in 1941 as the Axis using all their strength against Britain. Then Iraq and Gibraltar falls for sure. You could combine it with Sealion and make it very hard for the Allies to get back. You get problems with the Russians, but if you just let them attack instead you get oil bonus as long as possible and delay the Russian gear up to full production. The downside is that the Russians will get their units to safety, but you can attack in late September for a one turn crush of the front line Russian units so they get the -30 efficiency penalty. Then the Russians will still suffer from this when winter hits.

So there are many strategies that could be followed as the Germans. So what's stopping people from trying out such strategies? Is it because they believe the historical path is the optimal one? We all know that ends with German defeat.

[StevenCarleton]

Isn't the main problem with an Axis Med. strategy after France the same problem the Germans had historically: The weak Italian fleet? If anything, CEAW seems to overestimate the quality of the Italian navy and the weak cooperation between German and Italian forces. The Germans seem to have had good reasons for not considering a Med strategy, and only went south when the Italians bungled things.

If you've decided on Sealion after France, invading Spain makes sense so you can bring the Italian fleet to the Atlantic. You've already got strong ground & air forces in the West. Hmmm....

[ftgcritt2]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention enough, but I don't ever recall seeing a GS AAR where the Axis player successfully conquered Iraq. I've seen it in the BJR mod, but GS made it a lot harder. I made a very serious effort in my game against Joe to make it to Iraq, but was overwhelmed near Damascus by poor supply and unlimited Allied resources (not to mention Joe's expertise). But aside from that, has anyone ever captured and held the Iraqi oil fields for any significant amount of time in GS against a competent oponent?

[StevenCarleton]

Why do you say GS made it harder?
Did you invade Syria via Egypt?

[ferokapo]

(...)

One interesting option could be to go for Balkans immediately after the fall of France and then straight for Turkey. The reason is to have units close to Baku before Barbarossa and also a chance to threaten to enter Iraq from Turkey. I've rarely seen this strategy, but it could be hard for the Russians to stop if you get to Ankara fast enough as the Germans. With amphs and Paras you could sail from Constanta and get to Samsun and use it as a base to storm to Ankara. The Romanian DD can provide supply.

(...)

I have tried this against the AI in a previous version of GS. It looks promising on paper, but the execution is not worth it as long as you have to ship units to Turkey, instead of railing them. This means extra PPs per unit, and a hefty cost if you want to assemble a force strong enough to attack Iraq or Russia. If you could rail over the strait of the Bosporus, it would be diffirent. Can you implement that?

[massina_nz]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention enough, but I don't ever recall seeing a GS AAR where the Axis player successfully conquered Iraq. I've seen it in the BJR mod, but GS made it a lot harder. I made a very serious effort in my game against Joe to make it to Iraq, but was overwhelmed near Damascus by poor supply and unlimited Allied resources (not to mention Joe's expertise). But aside from that, has anyone ever captured and held the Iraqi oil fields for any significant amount of time in GS against a competent oponent?

Trulster did this to me in his AAR, but I was very much a newbie then. I'm now a battered newbie

[pk867]

Hi,

There was no rail line across the strait in ww2 and korean timeframe. So the short answer is no.

Once you capture Turkey you have supply level 4 which you can rail inside of Turkey and beyond.

[trulster]

IMO having to pay the 8 pp cost per unit is just too much for sending forces to Turkey and does not make sense either. The Bosporos is extremely narrow, so if the game engine allows it a nice soloution would be to make it possible to rail to Istanbul (Asian side), and then from there to Mid East in a 2nd rail move. This would make the alternative Turkish option possible.

[pk867]

Hi,

The first bridge across the strait was in 1973 and is 3500 ft long.

Historically you had to cross the strait over the water.

Turkey was not going to be easy to take.

[ferokapo]

Hi,

The first bridge across the strait was in 1973 and is 3500 ft long.

Historically you had to cross the strait over the water.

Turkey was not going to be easy to take.

Yes, I know that. But in order to ferry troops across, you can use the many ships that were used for daily traffic. Small boats for troops, ferries for the heavier equipment. I don't think that it makes sense to apply the same rules to a short hop across a broad river, and the crossing of an ocean. The current rules are meant for the latter.

A compromise would be to reduce the shipping cost across the Bosporus to, say, 2 PPs. If that is possible within the constraints set by the game engine.

With the current rules, Turkey is not an option. I'm not saying that it should be one, but if you want it to be an option for the axis, you have to make it easier or cheaper to get troops there once it has been conquered.

[pk867]

Hi
We have at least started a discussion.

[ncali]

Actually, this could be considered an extension of a discussion in February!

viewtopic.php?t=15023