Morning Herr Kaleun. Glad to hear you enjoyed your game. Has been a while since I played Europe, but will try and help.
1. Global needs a bid for the Allies. Europe, I thought some suggested the opposite! The Axis could have one.
I would play without for a few games, just to see if the Axis always win. I thought I remembered that the US, with its At War NO, had far too much money to spend in Europe. (In Global, it would need to be shared, between the two theatres.)
2. I think one Ft and 6 Inf is the sound UK1 move. I always used to do Taranto too, although, without the Global bid in the Med, it can be risky. Killing the Italian ground troops, might have been a better option.
3. I would always place max number of units in England, if TTs were bought as Germany on G2. Make the Germans pay for the Island. Could fail!
4. You are right to day that Germany needs its Air for Russia, so perhaps the Med fleet attack was a mistake. Can’t be sure.
5. I would always take Gib, as Italy, even if it could be recaptured by the Allies.
Thanks, Herr Wittmann!
The reason I felt less than happy about Taranto afterwards (Boris and I played the Allies), was that in spite of it being successful in this particular game, the absence of several fighters from the UK made it impossible to defend it against the G3 Sea Lion threat. Germany had purchased CV + DD + SS round G1, and then all transports G2, which together with its entire intact air force, was just too much no matter what we would have done UK2.
So in that situation, to avoid a G3 Sea Lion, the UK would have needed to keep everything at home, purchased nothing but inf UK1, and maybe even send the Gib fighter back, foregoing Taranto entirely. But that wouldn’t have been very attractive either. Now that’s hindsight of course, we didn’t even see it coming.
But thanks again for your insights. If G1 works out so very well for them again, I’ll probably think again…. it just didn’t feel very good to lose the UK so soon, though in the end, I wasn’t even sure who was better when we stopped.
Taking England helps Italy get strong, but to win the game Germany needs Russia’s three VPs. Russia still in the game, means the Allies still have a chance. Taking London and keeping it long term, are two different things. Once in the war, America has a lot of income (no Japan, about which to worry) amd can concentrate on Retajing London.
I think you hit the nail on the head, when you talked about Germany’s Air. They need it for Russia. If list over England, things are harder.
Play the same again, buying 6 Inf and Ft. Maybe forgo, Taranto in favour of Tobruk and see what you all think.
Have fun.
@Herr:
Thanks, Herr Wittmann!
The reason I felt less than happy about Taranto afterwards (Boris and I played the Allies), was that in spite of it being successful in this particular game, the absence of several fighters from the UK made it impossible to defend it against the G3 Sea Lion threat. Germany had purchased CV + DD + SS round G1, and then all transports G2, which together with its entire intact air force, was just too much no matter what we would have done UK2.
With that G1 buy, it was definitely a mistake to go Taranto. I would only Taranto on UK1 if you believe Axis is likely to Barbarossa. To safely Taranto in Europe you need to bring all of the UK units in 97 in addition to 2 fig 1 bmb from UK. That only leaves 1 fighter left to counterattack 110 and/or 111. So on alot of occasions you have to accept that Taranto is not feasible and take comfort in the knowledge that soon enough USA will unbalance the game in favor of Allies. There’s no reason to assume that you’ll be screwed long term if you don’t Taranto UK1.
Europe is remarkably close to balanced but gun to my head I think Allies have the advantage. However, Axis should be able to win consistently w/o a bid if they have the better strategies.
In a series of games between equally good players, I calculated that in every 20 games, the Allies will win 12 with standard dice and 9 with low luck. Interesting right?
@Herr:
Thanks, Herr Wittmann!
The reason I felt less than happy about Taranto afterwards (Boris and I played the Allies), was that in spite of it being successful in this particular game, the absence of several fighters from the UK made it impossible to defend it against the G3 Sea Lion threat. Germany had purchased CV + DD + SS round G1, and then all transports G2, which together with its entire intact air force, was just too much no matter what we would have done UK2.
With that G1 buy, it was definitely a mistake to go Taranto. I would only Taranto on UK1 if you believe Axis is likely to Barbarossa. To safely Taranto in Europe you need to bring all of the UK units in 97 in addition to 2 fig 1 bmb from UK. That only leaves 1 fighter left to counterattack 110 and/or 111. So on alot of occasions you have to accept that Taranto is not feasible and take comfort in the knowledge that soon enough USA will unbalance the game in favor of Allies. There’s no reason to assume that you’ll be screwed long term if you don’t Taranto UK1.
Europe is remarkably close to balanced but gun to my head I think Allies have the advantage. However, Axis should be able to win consistently w/o a bid if they have the better strategies.
Thanks a lot. Like I said, we’ve never played Europe before and went with our (also very limited) experience with Global.
As a followup question: without Taranto, what’s the best option for the UK Med fleet?
@Charles:
In a series of games between equally good players, I calculated that in every 20 games, the Allies will win 12 with standard dice and 9 with low luck. Interesting right?
That’s interesting indeed. How did you do that calculation? And are you making assumptions about a specific optimal strategy for each side to follow?
@Herr:
Thanks a lot. Like I said, we’ve never played Europe before and went with our (also very limited) experience with Global.
As a followup question: without Taranto, what’s the best option for the UK Med fleet?
Consolidate in 92 if possible. One often needs an airbase in Gibraltar to pull this off, so it may not be an option if UK needs to spend all of its UK1 income on defense. But consolidating in 92 can be a decent option against Sea Lion (if it’s feasible), because your air/naval will be in range of London (unlike Taranto).
Failing that, you can consider running the fleet (in 97) to 76. If you run around the Cape straight away you arrive at sz 92 on UK4. By that time, USA should have plenty of fleet to join you, and you can begin your North Atlantic naval campaign in earnest on round 5.
@Herr:
@Charles:
In a series of games between equally good players, I calculated that in every 20 games, the Allies will win 12 with standard dice and 9 with low luck. Interesting right?
That’s interesting indeed. How did you do that calculation? And are you making assumptions about a specific optimal strategy for each side to follow?
It was a mini tournament between 12 players most of which were around average (meaning not so good) skill. Total of 96 games if I recall correctly. The first rounds of the tourney were standard dice and the semi-finals and finals were low luck. It was a very simple calculation.
@Herr:
Thanks a lot. Like I said, we’ve never played Europe before and went with our (also very limited) experience with Global.
As a followup question: without Taranto, what’s the best option for the UK Med fleet?Consolidate in 92 if possible. One often needs an airbase in Gibraltar to pull this off, so it may not be an option if UK needs to spend all of its UK1 income on defense. But consolidating in 92 can be a decent option against Sea Lion (if it’s feasible), because your air/naval will be in range of London (unlike Taranto).
Failing that, you can consider running the fleet (in 97) to 76. If you run around the Cape straight away you arrive at sz 92 on UK4. By that time, USA should have plenty of fleet to join you, and you can begin your North Atlantic naval campaign in earnest on round 5.
Thanks again. In this particular game, we might have gone to 92 even without the Gibraltar airbase because Germany didn’t take out SZ110 and those ships could also have joined in. Especially if the UK uses only planes against SZ96 (accepting the risk to lose one) to allow the SZ98 DD to stay with the other ships. The odds would then be against Italy if they would attack that fleet.
@Charles:
@Herr:
@Charles:
In a series of games between equally good players, I calculated that in every 20 games, the Allies will win 12 with standard dice and 9 with low luck. Interesting right?
That’s interesting indeed. How did you do that calculation? And are you making assumptions about a specific optimal strategy for each side to follow?
It was a mini tournament between 12 players most of which were around average (meaning not so good) skill. Total of 96 games if I recall correctly. The first rounds of the tourney were standard dice and the semi-finals and finals were low luck. It was a very simple calculation.
That’s an interesting experiment indeed. Amazing that you got so many players together, and could also try both low luck an standard - I’m usually happy when I finally manage to get a single game going.
If the difference is indeed statistically significant, and given that over such a number of games there shouldn’t really be an imparity in dice outcome between the sides and probably not in playing style either, it would seem to imply that the Axis would have more opportunities for battles that they are supposed to win but that are risky, and could ill afford to lose - which low luck would guarantee them.
I actually didn’t get to organize or play any of these games but I got most of these players in my group by offering to host the finals. They gave me the statistics of the other games which I used to calculate the numbers. Most of these games centered around Moscow and others told me that the Germans getting diced trying to take it unless they kept building up for awhile (both bad for Germany). Finally in the low luck final games, Germany knew it could get Moscow even with close odds making a big difference.
@wittmann:
Taking England helps Italy get strong, but to win the game Germany needs Russia’s three VPs. Russia still in the game, means the Allies still have a chance. Taking London and keeping it long term, are two different things. Once in the war, America has a lot of income (no Japan, about which to worry) amd can concentrate on Retajing London.
I think you hit the nail on the head, when you talked about Germany’s Air. They need it for Russia. If list over England, things are harder.
Play the same again, buying 6 Inf and Ft. Maybe forgo, Taranto in favour of Tobruk and see what you all think.
Have fun.
I agree, we played Europe 40 and I successfully conducted Operation Sea Lion. However keeping an occupation force in UK, and fending off a relentless US player milked my Luftwaffe forces dry.
Berlin fell to the Red Army after the official worse defending dice rolls.
Personally, i take Axis with a 3 bid otherwise il take Allies. If i capture london, i always look to bomb gibraltar and avoid capturing it but Sea Lion is a bad move in Europe IMO
Could someone explain the “bid” in the first question?
@Oyvind:
Could someone explain the “bid” in the first question?
It is a way of evening up the playing field when it is generally considered that one side has an advantage over the other. Using this as an example:
@Colt45:
Personally, i take Axis with a 3 bid otherwise il take Allies.
Colt45 554 has said that they’ll take Axis if they are given a bid of 3. This means that at the start of the game before the first turn they either get to put down units to the value of their bid, 3, in any of their territories, or accept 3 bonus IPC into one of their countries for spending at a later time.
In a general bidding arrangement, the opponent would have the opportunity to take the Axis for a bid of 2 if they thought they could win with that and that process repeats until a bid has been determined and teams are set.
A bid of 3 is considered a pretty well balanced game. I believe the current bid for 1940 Global is sitting between 20-30 for the Allies. We can read into that that people think that playing the game without bids leads to many more Axis wins than Allied wins by evenly matched players.
