Germany started the war August 16, 1938 with a declaration of war on Netherlands. Two months of hard fighting later, France is annexed and UK puppeted.
Not a bad night's work.
Not a bad night's work.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Don't forget the victorious Italian army in all of French North Africa, Egypt, Palastine, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and half of Persia.
(note the Italians already had annexed Ethiopia, Albania, Yugo, Greece, and half of Turkey)
Too bad I was just starting to race Japan to conquer half of India when we decided to puppet the UK.
(note the Italians already had annexed Ethiopia, Albania, Yugo, Greece, and half of Turkey)
Too bad I was just starting to race Japan to conquer half of India when we decided to puppet the UK.
India
Ulster sounded like he was starting to get the wrong end of the fight there. I hope he did need the help because puppeting is starting to look to me like it was not the best outcome. Australia now has over 100 ships, because they got the Royal Navy, Malta, Gibraltar and some other formerly British provinces of some importance. The whole reason I wanted to puppet UK was to get the Royal Navy in our hands for use against the USA, and it slipped away.
Ulster sounded like he was starting to get the wrong end of the fight there. I hope he did need the help because puppeting is starting to look to me like it was not the best outcome. Australia now has over 100 ships, because they got the Royal Navy, Malta, Gibraltar and some other formerly British provinces of some importance. The whole reason I wanted to puppet UK was to get the Royal Navy in our hands for use against the USA, and it slipped away.
Follow-up
That was not a very detailed AAR guys...and I'm sure you wouldn't make a public post simply to gloat. In the interest of helpful feedback, I offer the following observations:
1. Germany, Italy and Japan effectively employed the "avalanch" strategy against the UK, which has become a staple of our games involving the canned Paradox '36 scenario. The strategy involves a simultaneous attack by the Axis against the UK on all fronts. The USA and Russia are left alone. The UK player (me) is then buried in managerial tasks and can't fight effectively on any front.
2. To make the avalanch strategy work most effectively in Europe, the Axis used a very important technique. First they launched a coup in Turkey and installed a fascist government. Then they invaded Turkey. They did this to prevent a DoW by France when invading a democratic country (which Turkey was before the coup). Second, they invaded Persia. In my view, the Turkey and Persia invasions were key because it allowed them to open up "sub-fronts" in the middle east, thereby exacerbating the effect of the avalanch strategy.
3. The effectiveness of the avalanch strategy was most evident when Germany invaded the UK. I didn't even know the UK was invaded until just before London fell. As I'm sure fpolli will confirm, my forces (what little I had in the UK) just sat there and did nothing. I was too busy trying to fend off attacks in the middle east and Asia.
4. In Asia, the Japanese did not attack China or any other European countries...they only attacked British holdings. The big attack came in India, which made good gains early on. But India is a big country and leaves the Brits lots of room to retreat. This allowed British forces to regroup and counterattack the Japanese flanks, which was having some success towards the end.
5. In hindsight, when playing the UK in Paradox's '36 scenario, the UK should mass her forces in two places. The home island is one, and then either pick India or Egypt. Simply concede the rest of your empire to the Axis early in the game. The avalanche strategy prevents the UK from effectively defending all of its valuable holdings, even if the UK can muster decent defensive forces in those provinces. And the Paradox '36 scenario has virtually no limits on Axis aggression early in the game...so the UK player has to assume going into the game that most of the non-democratic minors in Europe and Asia will quickly become Axis controlled.
6. The other thing worth mentioning in the AAR is that the Soviet Union stood on the sidelines. A quick Soviet DoW on the Axis might help counter the avalanche strategy. In our game the Soviets were positioned to play this role. The Soviets had taken Romania, and therefore had a common border with the Axis. The Soviets also had half of Persia, and could have attacked the Axis in the middle east. But no Soviet offensives were forthcoming. How effective the Soviets would have been? I'm not sure, but it certainly would have forced the Axis to devote at least some resources away from the avalanche strategy. I would interested to know if the Axis were able to convince the Soviets not to intervene, or whether this was an independent decision...and if so, what was the strategic thinking behind it.
Although I was completely vanquished, I thought the game was a lot of fun. I think I fought more battles in one night's session than all of our other sessions over the past six months combined! It was non-stop action.
That was not a very detailed AAR guys...and I'm sure you wouldn't make a public post simply to gloat. In the interest of helpful feedback, I offer the following observations:
1. Germany, Italy and Japan effectively employed the "avalanch" strategy against the UK, which has become a staple of our games involving the canned Paradox '36 scenario. The strategy involves a simultaneous attack by the Axis against the UK on all fronts. The USA and Russia are left alone. The UK player (me) is then buried in managerial tasks and can't fight effectively on any front.
2. To make the avalanch strategy work most effectively in Europe, the Axis used a very important technique. First they launched a coup in Turkey and installed a fascist government. Then they invaded Turkey. They did this to prevent a DoW by France when invading a democratic country (which Turkey was before the coup). Second, they invaded Persia. In my view, the Turkey and Persia invasions were key because it allowed them to open up "sub-fronts" in the middle east, thereby exacerbating the effect of the avalanch strategy.
3. The effectiveness of the avalanch strategy was most evident when Germany invaded the UK. I didn't even know the UK was invaded until just before London fell. As I'm sure fpolli will confirm, my forces (what little I had in the UK) just sat there and did nothing. I was too busy trying to fend off attacks in the middle east and Asia.
4. In Asia, the Japanese did not attack China or any other European countries...they only attacked British holdings. The big attack came in India, which made good gains early on. But India is a big country and leaves the Brits lots of room to retreat. This allowed British forces to regroup and counterattack the Japanese flanks, which was having some success towards the end.
5. In hindsight, when playing the UK in Paradox's '36 scenario, the UK should mass her forces in two places. The home island is one, and then either pick India or Egypt. Simply concede the rest of your empire to the Axis early in the game. The avalanche strategy prevents the UK from effectively defending all of its valuable holdings, even if the UK can muster decent defensive forces in those provinces. And the Paradox '36 scenario has virtually no limits on Axis aggression early in the game...so the UK player has to assume going into the game that most of the non-democratic minors in Europe and Asia will quickly become Axis controlled.
6. The other thing worth mentioning in the AAR is that the Soviet Union stood on the sidelines. A quick Soviet DoW on the Axis might help counter the avalanche strategy. In our game the Soviets were positioned to play this role. The Soviets had taken Romania, and therefore had a common border with the Axis. The Soviets also had half of Persia, and could have attacked the Axis in the middle east. But no Soviet offensives were forthcoming. How effective the Soviets would have been? I'm not sure, but it certainly would have forced the Axis to devote at least some resources away from the avalanche strategy. I would interested to know if the Axis were able to convince the Soviets not to intervene, or whether this was an independent decision...and if so, what was the strategic thinking behind it.
Although I was completely vanquished, I thought the game was a lot of fun. I think I fought more battles in one night's session than all of our other sessions over the past six months combined! It was non-stop action.
Yes I have to confirm our strategy centered on giving you, the human player, way too much to do all over the world simultaneously. One area that humans are weaker then the AI is in this one aspect. I have yet to see a UK player (myself definately included) that can whip around the globe managing the British forces in Asia, India, Africa, Europe, and even the home islands, all at once! Also we had subs in the Atlantic and one little 'ol Italian transport was busily taking islands in the Atlantic.
I agree that the Axis has few controlls on it in the early game. Our answer to this is the creation of the 1938 scenario see the post here about it.
Here
I agree that the Axis has few controlls on it in the early game. Our answer to this is the creation of the 1938 scenario see the post here about it.
Here
The '38 scenario
I actually thought that the '38 scenario (The Eve of War) had a much different purpose. As I understand it, the strength of the Eve of War is that it speeds up games so that pick-up games become an actual possibility. The Eve of War doesn't change the mechanics all that much. The Axis can still rapidly expand in the early going and employ the tri-fecta avalanche strategy.
Fpolli's Blood Reich mod is the one that changes the game to more realistically constrain the Axis early on. The US DoW events also mean that Japan will be precluded from attacking the allies early in the game...thereby negating one of the pillars in avalanche strategy. For those of you who haven't tried Fpolli's Blood Reich mod for MP games, I highly recommend it.
I actually thought that the '38 scenario (The Eve of War) had a much different purpose. As I understand it, the strength of the Eve of War is that it speeds up games so that pick-up games become an actual possibility. The Eve of War doesn't change the mechanics all that much. The Axis can still rapidly expand in the early going and employ the tri-fecta avalanche strategy.
Fpolli's Blood Reich mod is the one that changes the game to more realistically constrain the Axis early on. The US DoW events also mean that Japan will be precluded from attacking the allies early in the game...thereby negating one of the pillars in avalanche strategy. For those of you who haven't tried Fpolli's Blood Reich mod for MP games, I highly recommend it.
The Avalanche Strategy
Well, no, not to gloat, but perhaps to brag. I was just too lazy to try and drag into my memory for the details.
I think the only way the Axis can win is to knock either the British or the Russians out of the game quickly, before anybody else can respond. Had Russia DOW'ed as soon as Germany entered France, the game would have been different, as Germany immediately would have pulled out of France and put everything into defending the East Front. The idea with you was to divide your attention. Based on the fact that we saw no signs of UK troops in France, and how heavily you appeared to be fortifying in Egypt and India, I suspected that when war came you would basically leave France to the AI. That gave me hope that we could conquer France before Russia stirred.
The invasion of UK was not part of the Axis strategy but was a happenstance. I had a sub sitting off Ireland and just happened to notice after finishing off France that Edinburgh, Cardiff, Perth and a couple other provinces were totally empty. When I saw beach provinces empty I sent a fleet to the opposite coast and saw that Conventry and Sheffield were also completely empty. So I sent a plane over and saw that London had no ground troops in it! Apparently, you only had 8 divisions in England, with six of them on the Channel coast and 2 in Bristol.
It was too big an opportunity to resist. I only had six transports in my navy and no invasion troops massed. I diverted two armored corps, a mechanized corps and an infantry corps that were marching across Germany towards the Polish frontier back to the coast, loaded up my transports and went.
So the invasion of the UK was I guess an accidental byproduct of the Avalanche strategy, and not at all a part of it.
Absolutely. You cannot try to hold everything. I would give up Egypt as it is the least valuable and the most easily recaptured. But you absolutely have to keep the home islands defended. You cannot leave open beach provinces. You also had very little navy in the area, which was key. I've had a Japanese ally and now a UK adversary make the mistake of leaving the home islands lightly defended, and in both cases it proved fatal for that player. Invading UK was not even in the long-range plans, because I've already learned that it is impossible against a careful and attentive UK player. I've had my butt handed to me trying it. I will not expect you to ever make the strategic choices again that you made in this game.
I can correct one factual error here and confirm that the Axis did not convince the Soviets not to intervene. Japan massed on his Asian border to dissuade him from moving into Poland, but that was about all we did. An offer had been made to divide Romania, but that offer was rejected sub silentio.
The error is that the Soviets had Romania when we invaded. They did not. Early in my battle in Netherlands, USSR declared war on Romania. Germany learned of this too late to prevent USSR from getting the provinces we needed to form a land bridge between our European holdings and Turkey. We purposely left Romania and Poland as a buffer until we were done with France, because the one thing Germany fears is a Russian DOW while Germany is trying to conquer France. I wanted Russia to have to take on 20% dissent to attack me, and I wanted the time to respond that having a buffer would give me.
The one fear I had was a Russian invasion while I was trying to conquer France. When it never came, I knew I was in good shape. I don't know why it never came. It's probably too late now, because we've been able to establish defenses in the East.
As for the 38 scenario, you are right about its purpose, but it also does prevent the very early Axis rampage, because by the time the scenario STARTS, all that rampagin usually has been done, and the scenario starts with just Ethiopea, Albania and Austria having been conquered.
But the Early Axis Rampage rarely contributes to long-term success. The 36 scenario favors the anti-Axis generally.
Anyway, thanks for the lengthy work, and I did not want to gloat over your fallen body. It's been my fallen body many times, and certainly will be many times again.
Well, no, not to gloat, but perhaps to brag. I was just too lazy to try and drag into my memory for the details.
I think the only way the Axis can win is to knock either the British or the Russians out of the game quickly, before anybody else can respond. Had Russia DOW'ed as soon as Germany entered France, the game would have been different, as Germany immediately would have pulled out of France and put everything into defending the East Front. The idea with you was to divide your attention. Based on the fact that we saw no signs of UK troops in France, and how heavily you appeared to be fortifying in Egypt and India, I suspected that when war came you would basically leave France to the AI. That gave me hope that we could conquer France before Russia stirred.
The invasion of UK was not part of the Axis strategy but was a happenstance. I had a sub sitting off Ireland and just happened to notice after finishing off France that Edinburgh, Cardiff, Perth and a couple other provinces were totally empty. When I saw beach provinces empty I sent a fleet to the opposite coast and saw that Conventry and Sheffield were also completely empty. So I sent a plane over and saw that London had no ground troops in it! Apparently, you only had 8 divisions in England, with six of them on the Channel coast and 2 in Bristol.
It was too big an opportunity to resist. I only had six transports in my navy and no invasion troops massed. I diverted two armored corps, a mechanized corps and an infantry corps that were marching across Germany towards the Polish frontier back to the coast, loaded up my transports and went.
So the invasion of the UK was I guess an accidental byproduct of the Avalanche strategy, and not at all a part of it.
Absolutely. You cannot try to hold everything. I would give up Egypt as it is the least valuable and the most easily recaptured. But you absolutely have to keep the home islands defended. You cannot leave open beach provinces. You also had very little navy in the area, which was key. I've had a Japanese ally and now a UK adversary make the mistake of leaving the home islands lightly defended, and in both cases it proved fatal for that player. Invading UK was not even in the long-range plans, because I've already learned that it is impossible against a careful and attentive UK player. I've had my butt handed to me trying it. I will not expect you to ever make the strategic choices again that you made in this game.
I can correct one factual error here and confirm that the Axis did not convince the Soviets not to intervene. Japan massed on his Asian border to dissuade him from moving into Poland, but that was about all we did. An offer had been made to divide Romania, but that offer was rejected sub silentio.
The error is that the Soviets had Romania when we invaded. They did not. Early in my battle in Netherlands, USSR declared war on Romania. Germany learned of this too late to prevent USSR from getting the provinces we needed to form a land bridge between our European holdings and Turkey. We purposely left Romania and Poland as a buffer until we were done with France, because the one thing Germany fears is a Russian DOW while Germany is trying to conquer France. I wanted Russia to have to take on 20% dissent to attack me, and I wanted the time to respond that having a buffer would give me.
The one fear I had was a Russian invasion while I was trying to conquer France. When it never came, I knew I was in good shape. I don't know why it never came. It's probably too late now, because we've been able to establish defenses in the East.
As for the 38 scenario, you are right about its purpose, but it also does prevent the very early Axis rampage, because by the time the scenario STARTS, all that rampagin usually has been done, and the scenario starts with just Ethiopea, Albania and Austria having been conquered.
But the Early Axis Rampage rarely contributes to long-term success. The 36 scenario favors the anti-Axis generally.
Anyway, thanks for the lengthy work, and I did not want to gloat over your fallen body. It's been my fallen body many times, and certainly will be many times again.
On the issue of Russia, I'm not sure why he didn't DoW. I implored him to take Romania or Poland so as to create a common border, which in turn creates the possibility of a Soviet response to a German attack. In fact, he asked if the UK would sign a mutual defense treaty...which I was agreeable to. The standard '36 scenario allows for Soviet aggression early in the game. Russia did not take advantage of this enough, in my opinion. I suspect it was a calculated move designed to keep dissent down.
As for France, I purposely did not take military control because I was fearful that doing so would hurt me in the long run. It would only assist the Axis' avalanche strategy. Obviously, declining to take over French forces isn't enough...the UK also needs to shed responsibility for other regions. Or perhaps, the UK could defend France at the expense of other regions, such as India and Egypt. But I don't see how a UK player could defend all three (plus the home island) from the avalanche strategy.
As for the invasion of the UK home island, it may not have been part of the avalanche strategy, but it certainly fits nicely...even if the German effort is halfhearted or ultimately unsuccessful. Even a token German invasion of the home islands forces the UK player to devote time away from the other regions of the world...thereby making those regions easier to conquer.
On the '38 scenario, I understand that it starts later and that the Axis have not yet started their rampages. My point was just that there is little stopping them from doing so once the game starts. Sure, allied war entry is up a bit...but it increases at such a slow rate that the Axis should be able to invade numerous minors and position themselves for the avalanche strategy well before war entry hits 100%. There is also very little stopping the Soviets and Japan from going on their usual rampages that are so prevalent in the Paradox '36 scenario. I'm not sure that pushing the calendar back two years will change this dynamic.
As for France, I purposely did not take military control because I was fearful that doing so would hurt me in the long run. It would only assist the Axis' avalanche strategy. Obviously, declining to take over French forces isn't enough...the UK also needs to shed responsibility for other regions. Or perhaps, the UK could defend France at the expense of other regions, such as India and Egypt. But I don't see how a UK player could defend all three (plus the home island) from the avalanche strategy.
As for the invasion of the UK home island, it may not have been part of the avalanche strategy, but it certainly fits nicely...even if the German effort is halfhearted or ultimately unsuccessful. Even a token German invasion of the home islands forces the UK player to devote time away from the other regions of the world...thereby making those regions easier to conquer.
On the '38 scenario, I understand that it starts later and that the Axis have not yet started their rampages. My point was just that there is little stopping them from doing so once the game starts. Sure, allied war entry is up a bit...but it increases at such a slow rate that the Axis should be able to invade numerous minors and position themselves for the avalanche strategy well before war entry hits 100%. There is also very little stopping the Soviets and Japan from going on their usual rampages that are so prevalent in the Paradox '36 scenario. I'm not sure that pushing the calendar back two years will change this dynamic.
WE
Well, whether allied WE goes up too slowly or too quickly is a matter of some considerable debate. And French warentry jumps quite a bit on German DOWs. I was running some tests one day and French WE went up 15 points on a German DOW no matter who was the victim of the DOW. So the Axis have a limited number of attacks before they have to be ready for war with the Allies. If the Axis attack several countries (without using the exploit of having Italy do all the attacking), they will be at war with the Allies before 1939 whether the attacks happen in 1936 or 1938.
Well, whether allied WE goes up too slowly or too quickly is a matter of some considerable debate. And French warentry jumps quite a bit on German DOWs. I was running some tests one day and French WE went up 15 points on a German DOW no matter who was the victim of the DOW. So the Axis have a limited number of attacks before they have to be ready for war with the Allies. If the Axis attack several countries (without using the exploit of having Italy do all the attacking), they will be at war with the Allies before 1939 whether the attacks happen in 1936 or 1938.
AAR: The Next Installment
The weak and foolish cower in their huts as the Forces of Darkness sweep across the globe. The tide of Axis triumph continued through May 5, 1939 as Germany consolidated its control of France and U.K. Hitler removed his minister of security and installed Frick, the Prince of Terror, to wring more productivity out of the craven French workers. It worked, allowing Germany to rival even the United States for gross national product. With its increasing industrial might, the German war machine grows more powerful in numbers and technology, ready for the challenge presented by the United States and Soviet Union, both undaunted and doubtless itching for a chance to challenge Germany's rightful place as the dominant European power.
While Germany concentrated on tightening its grip over the countries already conquered, Japan and Italy completed the conquest of the overseas colonies of Belgium and Netherlands, allowing Germany to add those nations to the glorious Reich. Germany and Japan then knocked two more nations out of the Alliance of Western Imperialism, with Japan adding Australia to the Empire of the Rising Sun and Italy inviting South Africa to be part of the New Roman Empire.
By early 1939, Germany had secured the Baltic Sea from American naval passage by capturing Denmark and was ready to rectify two historical accidents. First, Germany put an end to the Versailles Treaty abomination of Czechoslovakia. Then, immediately following the reconquest of Czechoslovakia, the Wermacht brought the Poles back to where they belong -- in the service of the German People. Through all of this, the mighty Russian Bear made not a roar, but prudently pulled his armies back and away from the unstoppable Panzers.
By May 5, 1939, it was all over. The German Army moves to take up defensive positions on its new frontier, to protect the Reich from Soviet aggression. New divisions and fortifications are added to prevent the Americans from successfully doing the bidding of their British masters. Soon, German Europe will be impregnable.
The American government confirmed its intellectual bondage to the British Imperialists by declaring war on Germany without any provocation whatsoever, abandoning its honorable policy of non-intervention. But the American government miscalculated on the support of its population for such a move, and the American people demonstrated their love of peace by an outpouring of opposition to the warmongering government. Soon, the government should fall and a new government take its place.
Germany wishes to announce to the governments of the Soviet Union and the United States that it will defend its borders to the last American and Russian.
The weak and foolish cower in their huts as the Forces of Darkness sweep across the globe. The tide of Axis triumph continued through May 5, 1939 as Germany consolidated its control of France and U.K. Hitler removed his minister of security and installed Frick, the Prince of Terror, to wring more productivity out of the craven French workers. It worked, allowing Germany to rival even the United States for gross national product. With its increasing industrial might, the German war machine grows more powerful in numbers and technology, ready for the challenge presented by the United States and Soviet Union, both undaunted and doubtless itching for a chance to challenge Germany's rightful place as the dominant European power.
While Germany concentrated on tightening its grip over the countries already conquered, Japan and Italy completed the conquest of the overseas colonies of Belgium and Netherlands, allowing Germany to add those nations to the glorious Reich. Germany and Japan then knocked two more nations out of the Alliance of Western Imperialism, with Japan adding Australia to the Empire of the Rising Sun and Italy inviting South Africa to be part of the New Roman Empire.
By early 1939, Germany had secured the Baltic Sea from American naval passage by capturing Denmark and was ready to rectify two historical accidents. First, Germany put an end to the Versailles Treaty abomination of Czechoslovakia. Then, immediately following the reconquest of Czechoslovakia, the Wermacht brought the Poles back to where they belong -- in the service of the German People. Through all of this, the mighty Russian Bear made not a roar, but prudently pulled his armies back and away from the unstoppable Panzers.
By May 5, 1939, it was all over. The German Army moves to take up defensive positions on its new frontier, to protect the Reich from Soviet aggression. New divisions and fortifications are added to prevent the Americans from successfully doing the bidding of their British masters. Soon, German Europe will be impregnable.
The American government confirmed its intellectual bondage to the British Imperialists by declaring war on Germany without any provocation whatsoever, abandoning its honorable policy of non-intervention. But the American government miscalculated on the support of its population for such a move, and the American people demonstrated their love of peace by an outpouring of opposition to the warmongering government. Soon, the government should fall and a new government take its place.
Germany wishes to announce to the governments of the Soviet Union and the United States that it will defend its borders to the last American and Russian.
Regarding the avalanche tactic...
I think that trying to overextend a nation by many simultaneous attacks is a good tactic that shold be allowed but when players talk about overwhelming a human player with too many tasks I react. This is not warcraft where speed of mousecontrol should decide whos winning. I think a human player, especially UK and maybe Germany should have all the right in the world to pause whenever he feels he needs it to reflect over his situation and make neccessary adjustments. Its a strategy game and no rts-game after all. Just my personal opinion of the game...
I think that trying to overextend a nation by many simultaneous attacks is a good tactic that shold be allowed but when players talk about overwhelming a human player with too many tasks I react. This is not warcraft where speed of mousecontrol should decide whos winning. I think a human player, especially UK and maybe Germany should have all the right in the world to pause whenever he feels he needs it to reflect over his situation and make neccessary adjustments. Its a strategy game and no rts-game after all. Just my personal opinion of the game...
Dogred,
I think that the main reason there was no DOW by the Soviets was the fact that he was effectively surrounded. Axis gains in Turkey and Persia created a huge border in which he was forced to dedicate border defenses. Additionally, in the east, Japan rattled sabers and beefed up the border just prior to the Axis invasion of France. We simply sent many reminders to the Soviets that they were surrounded.
Sometimes HOI is like poker.
Ulster
I think that the main reason there was no DOW by the Soviets was the fact that he was effectively surrounded. Axis gains in Turkey and Persia created a huge border in which he was forced to dedicate border defenses. Additionally, in the east, Japan rattled sabers and beefed up the border just prior to the Axis invasion of France. We simply sent many reminders to the Soviets that they were surrounded.
Sometimes HOI is like poker.
Ulster
Avalanche
Yes, juv, I think there is a big difference between a strategy of simultaneous attacks on different fronts to divide the commander's attention, and a stratagem of creating overwhelming popups to frustrate the player. One is modeling warfare, the other one is just manipulating game mechanics.
Yes, juv, I think there is a big difference between a strategy of simultaneous attacks on different fronts to divide the commander's attention, and a stratagem of creating overwhelming popups to frustrate the player. One is modeling warfare, the other one is just manipulating game mechanics.
I actually view the distinction differently. As I see it, there is really two sub-components to the avalanche strategy. The first component involves striking at the UK on all fronts in order to overwhelm the UK's limited military forces. The second component is to attack on all fronts to overwhelm the human player with management decisions (which can crudely be represented by the pop-ups) such that, even if he had equal or superior forces in a particular region, he will still loose because he is too busy managing other areas. As Tank post demonstrates, this second component was a key part of the Axis strategy in the game we played.
Although I've described these as two distinct components, they are really a difference without a distinction in HoI. If you have one, you have the other. The counter strategy is for the UK to simply give-up strategically import parts of its empire because even if it could muster enough forces there, the human UK player cannot devote the necessary time to managing the tactical battle in those areas.
As someone else pointed out in another thread, Churchill might have said "abandon India because we need our forces there in other areas," but we would never have said, "we need to abandon Singapore, Hong Kong, and Egypt because I'm too busy reading these reports on our shipping losses in the Atlantic." But in HoI, the later is the reality. It is the tail that wags the dog, so to speak.
The next generation of WWII grand strategy games should develop a system where players can assign control and command of army groups, or regions, to the AI (in the form of military leaders). The competence of the AI could be based on the leader's traits. Leader traits could be enhanced with experience (which is the only method used by HoI), technology and (as has been proposed) training (such as war game events).
We might laugh at such a prospect from our current vantage point given that the AI is so lousy in HoI. But developing a competent AI is not impossible...I've played other games that have good AI...I've seen gamers develop excellent AI on their own...it is doable.
Although I've described these as two distinct components, they are really a difference without a distinction in HoI. If you have one, you have the other. The counter strategy is for the UK to simply give-up strategically import parts of its empire because even if it could muster enough forces there, the human UK player cannot devote the necessary time to managing the tactical battle in those areas.
As someone else pointed out in another thread, Churchill might have said "abandon India because we need our forces there in other areas," but we would never have said, "we need to abandon Singapore, Hong Kong, and Egypt because I'm too busy reading these reports on our shipping losses in the Atlantic." But in HoI, the later is the reality. It is the tail that wags the dog, so to speak.
The next generation of WWII grand strategy games should develop a system where players can assign control and command of army groups, or regions, to the AI (in the form of military leaders). The competence of the AI could be based on the leader's traits. Leader traits could be enhanced with experience (which is the only method used by HoI), technology and (as has been proposed) training (such as war game events).
We might laugh at such a prospect from our current vantage point given that the AI is so lousy in HoI. But developing a competent AI is not impossible...I've played other games that have good AI...I've seen gamers develop excellent AI on their own...it is doable.