Well, they(British player) can enforce a breaktrough through Vichy, and your Ships aren't doing that great are they, The Axis navies can't play attrition warfare like this with the RN.
I think Brits lost momentum. Going through Southern France was, IMHO, a bad idea. They should have left Spain and strike Germany or Italy with all its might somewhere else where it hurts more to the Axis.
I think GB failed to achieve his main objective. And that was too suck troops from the eastern front. His gains in Western Europe may have just about swung the battle for the atlantic in his favor, but it has resulted in a much shorter front for the Germans, and even then it looks like the GB is stretched thinner than the GER.
I think Brits lost momentum. Going through Southern France was, IMHO, a bad idea. They should have left Spain and strike Germany or Italy with all its might somewhere else where it hurts more to the Axis.
Unless UK is short on convoys,supply should not be an issue. Northern France has lots of ports and since UK has naval supremacy (vis a vis subs) and air supremacy, nothing short of a major Axis attack should be able to push them back.
The infrastructure need to regenerate after battle/change of ownership aswell doesn't it?
I have had many supply issues in spite of having plenty of ports availiable.
I think Brits lost momentum. Going through Southern France was, IMHO, a bad idea. They should have left Spain and strike Germany or Italy with all its might somewhere else where it hurts more to the Axis.
I think GB failed to achieve his main objective. And that was too suck troops from the eastern front. His gains in Western Europe may have just about swung the battle for the atlantic in his favor, but it has resulted in a much shorter front for the Germans, and even then it looks like the GB is stretched thinner than the GER.
Erm, Japanese fighters in France? That's rather gamey.
What's US neutrality like and the British player surely has a trump card? He's been lucky and very unpredictable. I'm sure he's got something more random up his sleeve.
I'm hopeful the Russian player will hold out for the Allies to gain strength.
My criticism concerning the ENG landing revolves on the too small amount of troops dedicated to this attack. It seems ENG was far from going all out in France only using 10-15 Divs total. The initial succes of catching Axis red-handed with to few forces in the West was thus wasted to early, as a handfull of tanks apparently sufficed to contain ENG and stall any advance or the linking of forces.
I miss the clear focus of this crucial ENG attack to save Russia. A "Schwerpunkt" would have been a different animal...
IMHO, he could have landed 15 divisions next to La Rochel (or how it is spelled) and entrap a whole army instead of slugishly moving north from spanish border. It was wastage of MP and momentum.
I know I'm responding a little late to the debate regarding gamey tactics, but I think it's a really good idea that when Barbarossa starts, Germany should get a second player. ... Granted, more could have been done before Barbaraossa to prepare the defenses in France or Spain, but it seems hardly fair that the USSR gets a second player while Germany only gets one the entire game.
if the USSR gets 2 players, Germany should too, Far east doesn't matter until Japs are next to the Urals .
And oh boy... when will paradox include a spell-check on this page. Technology makes you lazy and ignorant...
We have to make do with the players we get, sadly. Maxyboy was using another players account and took care of the Japanese front from SirHenry. So we were playing 3 vs 3, just with one player on two computers. So, IMHO, the player setup is a non-issue. We just have to make do with what we get, and in a few circumstances, the Axis chose to double up on Japan instead of Germany.