L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3

[trulpen]

@Amon-Sul said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

yes if u do play your standard play, and me too

I will. You won’t. ;)

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

@Amon-Sul said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

yes if u do play your standard play, and me too

I will. You won’t. ;)

;)

[Amon-Sul]

i forgot to take chile

i would have 101

but its maybe better this way to finish with 99 xd

[Amon-Sul]

As for this game,

I think that the allies couldnt gain so much without the element of surprise for the axis, as your axis could gain in a rematch against my allies.

I think that this game in which i was one VC from victory on both sides of the board, just proves how powerfull axis are. They do not need taking the world, 8 VC in Europe or 6 in the Pacific.

With so many starting units, planes, tanks, central position, i just think the allies need a bigger bid boost to counter them.

Ok, u ve lost Cairo early, and it has set u back from the start, but Japan was spreading immensely from the start (ok u were at times too passive with Uk Pacific), but still i have an impression that those axis dudes are so strong.

For example, Ur russia was buying artillery from the begining, building its offensive troups, buying even tanks, and still it could not break German lines, while Germany was spending heavily on its navy.

Maybe USA choosen the wrong path, but hard to blame em, since if they ve sent too much in the Atlantic, the Pacific would be taken earlier , or vice versa.

Germany had the means to cripple UK economy, and with the help of Italy and Japan, UK was pretty much neutralized.

i am looking forward to a new game with axis to see how it will work. i am curious if my calculations are correct or not.

cheers

[trulpen]

I will try and write an analysis of this game as well, but just shortly.

I think the main mistake for Russia was to help out China. It was actually not called for. R should’ve focused on flattening G. I believe that was very possible, but more units were needed. Especially not have to direct some of the central forces south, but using the eastern reinforcements for that purpose.

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

hink the main mistake for Russia was to help out China. It was actually not called for. R should’ve focused on flattening G. I believe that was very possible, but more units were needed. Especially not have to direct some of the central forces south, but using the eastern reinforcements for that purpose.

well, yes , that is true, but in that case japan would get sooner on the walls of india and hawaii.

and that soviet stack was moving slow. to reach eastern poland from novo, well its 5 rounds if i am correct.

but its definitely an option to help russia make a progress. the other smaller are the units u ve sent to middle east, but they were definitely a really good help for the brits

[Amon-Sul]

or as u mention u could maybe send those siberia guys via novo and kazahstan to caucasus.

[trulpen]

True. Calcutta would likely have fallen earlier, but think that’s completely ok if Germany crumbles. Then US can focus 100 % on Pac.

3 moves to Caucasus from Novosibirsk, relieving buy for inf, art, mech, tank from Moscow.

[trulpen]

Built quite many inf in Stalingrad. Better not to have to do that.

[trulpen]

I think a better player would’ve wiped Germany off the map. I believe it’s very dangerous to let Russia turn into a monster like that.

[trulpen]

The very reason why a G3-5 Sea Lion totally sucks.

[trulpen]

Lets see if we reach +2k posts… ;)

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

I think a better player would’ve wiped Germany off the map. I believe it’s very dangerous to let Russia turn into a monster like that.

Well, my point of view is that even with agressive Russia as urs was (buying art from the start, buying tanks), germany can hold off Russia if its able to

• have a good economy
• have an IC near the front (a major in Romania quite help my cause)
• have a large aircraft, especially much bombers which can strike any Soviet stack and combined with land units turn it into ashes

Germany starts with so many units, so much tanks, so much air, land. It plays just before Russia, it has all neceserally to either crack or defend against Russia. It is the UK and USA that must help Russians to make their breakthrough, but if USA goes to heavily in the Atlantic well, then Japan can became a godzilla, so its all so connected and interesting, but i somehow have an impression that the allied bids will grow and grow

a few years ago here people where bidding 8 ipc for axis, now the allies got 8 bid.

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

Lets see if we reach +2k posts… ;)

i think we will not xd

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

The very reason why a G3-5 Sea Lion totally sucks.

depends how well it is done, and that depends on strategy and dice.

[trulpen]

@Amon-Sul said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

The very reason why a G3-5 Sea Lion totally sucks.

depends how well it is done, and that depends on strategy and dice.

For once, I don’t argue about dice. ;)

No, I beg to differ. Early Sea Lion always sucks against a competent opponent. Even if competently executed. That’s my view.

I have to see it successfully done before I change my mind. Do you want to try it against me? :)

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

@Amon-Sul said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

The very reason why a G3-5 Sea Lion totally sucks.

depends how well it is done, and that depends on strategy and dice.

For once, I don’t argue about dice. ;)

No, I beg to differ. Early Sea Lion always sucks against a competent opponent. Even if competently executed. That’s my view.

I have to see it successfully done before I change my mind. Do you want to try it against me? :)

i had it sucesfull in the past. but in one game, i had much problems after it.

well, the thing with sea lion is that u dont go for it at all costs. u watch if uk is doing low defense of uk, and if russia is very defensive, if u have enough air after rd 1, if u took 70 ipc in rd1 etc…

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

@Amon-Sul said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

The very reason why a G3-5 Sea Lion totally sucks.

depends how well it is done, and that depends on strategy and dice.

For once, I don’t argue about dice. ;)

No, I beg to differ. Early Sea Lion always sucks against a competent opponent. Even if competently executed. That’s my view.

I have to see it successfully done before I change my mind. Do you want to try it against me? :)

i almost did actually in our last game, in early rounds, and in later ones.

[trulpen]

I think I always build low def in London hoping to lure G into Sea Lion. I might be wrong, but I consider it a trap. :)

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in L20 #2 Amon-Sul (X) vs trulpen (A+7) BM3:

I think I always build low def in London hoping to lure G into Sea Lion. I might be wrong, but I consider it a trap. :)

then if u play a few games against me, i ll take it. and u ll see its not so easy taking it back, nor taking berlin with russia :P: