Yes, FWA. No sense going east and taking the French territory of FEA so that the Brits can quickly claim it well into the future.
League Global 1940 2nd edition non-ranked Team Tournament
-
@gamerman01 said in League Global 1940 2nd edition non-ranked Team Tournament:
101 is USA dd
There were scads of destroyers in the Atlantic in spring 1940i like the us destroyer there
-
@oysteilo said in League Global 1940 2nd edition non-ranked Team Tournament:
@gamerman01 said in League Global 1940 2nd edition non-ranked Team Tournament:
101 is USA dd
There were scads of destroyers in the Atlantic in spring 1940i like the us destroyer there
keep in mind bids always go to the nation aleady present in the zone/area unless otherwise noted/agreed
-
@Stucifer thx for setting up the game file.
Feel free to kick things off with G1 whenever you are ready!
-
setup doesn’t seem to be changed.
-
-Updated-
2v2 Tourney Setup.tsvg–
From my limited look, focusing on Axis opening strategy.
G1 on Russia is an option to eliminate that fighter, but would take a lot of resources away from attacks on the much-strengthened British fleet. Doable if we skip attacking 111 and leave Italy to its inevitable fate by not providing a fighter for the Taranto scramble.
Sealion posture is decent, if we go hard at 110 & 111 and leave 106 unperturbed we have excellent odds to take out both fleets, even with scrambles; however scrambles would chew up our air power and hurt our odds on London quite a bit. We can offset those losses with a 2-fighter+DD buy G1 (save 2); so not capturing Normandy or S. France G1 leaves us with 70 IPCs needed for a 10-transport buy. Risky still as you now do not have a carrier for naval support - if going for SeaLion, probably need to skip 111.
Not having an extra 2 UK subs going into the Med (quite popular) gives some glimmer of hope that Italy won’t be dead in the water round 1, but supporting a North Afrika campaign is probably still an unwise distraction from Germany’s eastern ambitions.
A J1 is still very much on the table, with most of the Allied bonus units going to Europe. China will be a little costlier to take down, or at least riskier with the AAA, particularly Hunan . And has some units where a bid would normally not allow (Chahar, Anhwe, Hopei) which influences opening territory grabs somewhat.
-
Nice analysis! Cool that the fighter in E. Poland makes a G1 attack on Russia more appealing. Don’t see that very often these days.
-
@Booper I think the bid going so heavy to UK and being in the 45+ range, combined with the strength of the J1, makes a G1 very unappealing to most league players. However with a weaker bid placement like this, could see it make a comeback. The German income can spike very quickly with a good G1 opening.
-
@Jacob16 is back and seems very interested to play,
I don’t imagine an Axis team would want to take a 3rd, but will a team take Jacob and play Allies?
-
I will team up with anyone who wants me. I just have not been good with reading all the messages in this thread lately, so I don’t 100% know what’s going on.
-
@gamerman01 We would be talking about 77 IPC for the allies assigned to strategic points, that’s strong, I would like you to publish the game.
-
@Booper yes, the Russian player had preferred a less expensive but safer gift, this alters the dynamics of the game, this fighter is like a deer that positions itself in front of you in a hunt that has just begun, the historical reality is not reflected by the fighter, it is reflected by Germany’s need not to attack it, but if it does not, it will become another whip for exchanges, so the purchases must be well adjusted to this deployment, they did not really give Russia a fighter, they gave it the burden of advancing its defense from the first turn.
-
It’s a setup for this little tournament only, with the idea that the setup will not be optimal bid placement by the bidder and that the Allies need more than normally bid as a result of nonoptimal bid placement.
A little historical flavor is thrown in for fun. I’m really happy some of my ideas were popular, such as the US destroyer in the Atlantic. It should not be over-analyzed, for it was not developed by a mastermind or vaunted team of game designers.
-
The Soviet Union had a massive air force presence in its western military districts even before Operation Barbarossa, though much of it was obsolescent and poorly positioned.
Here’s the breakdown of Soviet aircraft stationed in European Russia before June 1941, which includes 1940 deployments:
Soviet Aircraft in Western Military Districts (Pre-Barbarossa)
Military District Approx. Aircraft Count
Leningrad ~1,270
Baltic ~1,140
Western (Belarus region) ~1,560 to 1,825
Kiev ~1,672
Odessa ~950
Total (Western USSR) ~6,500 to 6,900
These numbers reflect combat aircraft, not trainers or transports.
What Happened in June 1941?
• On June 22, 1941, the Luftwaffe struck 66 major Soviet airfields, destroying ~2,000 aircraft on the ground in a single day.
• By the end of 1941, Soviet losses totaled ~21,200 aircraft, with another 5,240 disappearing from the order of battle.
For Axis & Allies Setup
If you’re modeling the Soviet air force in 1940 (pre-France invasion), it’s fair to assume:
• Thousands of planes were already deployed westward, anticipating conflict with Germany.
• Most were obsolete models like the I-15, I-16, and SB bombers—not much match for the Luftwaffe.
• The Soviets had numerical superiority, but not tactical or technological parity. -
I’m not going for historically accurate, you should be careful with that in Axis and allies. But if Larry can throw a Chinese fighter in the game that fights with Chinese troops because of the US flying tigers, then gamerman can put 1 Russian fighter on East Poland to simulate thousands of Russian fighters that were there in 1940, for a 3 game tournament.
-
I hope you enjoy the alternate setup overall. It was meant to be enjoyed.
Wait, you’re not even participating.
Yeah, short answer, we’re just having fun. -
@Betano said in League Global 1940 2nd edition non-ranked Team Tournament:
@gamerman01 We would be talking about 77 IPC for the allies assigned to strategic points, that’s strong, I would like you to publish the game.
Indeed, there are 2 games underway using this bid placement structure. Sides were determined by dice roll or player preference. Feel free to follow along!
-
@gamerman01 Incredible losses, but they had them on that side because they knew the Germans would attack them at some point, but they didn’t know how or when, and I understand that Starlin didn’t believe intelligence reports from Soviet spies who announced the German operation in advance.
-
@Booper Yes of course , I want to continue the games and I also already have the configuration saved to play it, it’s that in Triple A everyone puts different numbers and it would be good to look for a stable default option and this could be a good precedent.
-
@gamerman01 The three destroyers you added make a big impact. The one in SZ 91 goes without saying, since it guarantees the attack on the Italian transport in SZ 96 and frees up the Gibraltar fighter to help at Taranto, so the London fighters are not as critical if you want to use them in SZ 110 along with the other added destroyer. The one that might seem less impactful — but really isn’t — is the one in SZ 101, because it becomes the key unit for hunting down the submarines that usually win in SZ 106.
-
@gamerman01
Benefits of the Destroyer in SZ 110
1)-Easily eliminates the remaining German units in SZ 106.
2)-The UK does not have to use its own destroyers for this task, leaving them free for other actions.
3)-SZ 106 is the naval base for both Nova Scotia and Quebec, so it could not be used or transport its units.
4)-SZ 106 is a Convoy Disruption zone, so the two subs there would be costing the UK 3 IPCs.
5)-With several subs in the Atlantic, the US Navy must have at least one destroyer for blockades and sub-hunting in the Atlantic.
Suggested Topics
