By 1943 Russia had 2-5 times as many tanks as germany on every front. 2-10 times as many planes. 2-5 times as many artillery pieces, and 2-5 times as many infantry units. Remember Germany had to send 15-20 % against the allies in the west. Norway, france, Homeland Germany, Denmark, and other occupied states, while as Russia had nearly all of its forces Against Germany since Japan was NEVER going to attack russia after it had previous battles against Russia and saw it was hopeless as well as Japan had its hands full against the other Allies. This is just Russia VS. Germany. The allies (UK, Canada, and US) had 10 times as many tanks as Germany and 10 times as many aircraft. Japan was equally screwed. US built over 100 Carriers in WW2. Japan had a total in the 20’s, but never at one time due to battle losses. The US built over 1,300 warships. Japan could never have handled this. No matter what you say the Axis had about a 5% chance to win WW2. this only if Moscow would have gotten taken, but if you read military history you will see that this probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway seeing as how Russia moved its factories back into Siberal in the Ural mountains region. Germany never could have taken Russia due to Russia’s huge size as well as huge manpower advantage, industrial advantage, only one front to deal with, and the fact that their front lines were in Russia meaning tanks and airplanes could drive and fly strait into the battle off the assembly line. While as Germany’s front lines in 1942 were far from Germany’s industry. If the game was ever played to history allies would win 98 percent of the time with two equally skilled players IMO. This is why the game is made to recreate history sort of, while being playable so that both sides have an equal chance of winning.
Krieghund - Alpha final question
-
In Alpha final, can the Allies claim FIC for themselves in the same way they can take Dutch East Indies while NOT at war with Japan? Or since it is French owned, it stays French?
-
In Alpha final, can the Allies claim FIC for themselves in the same way they can take Dutch East Indies while NOT at war with Japan? Or since it is French owned, it stays French?
Stays french, acts french. Can only be controlled by an Allied power if they capture it from an Axis power, and only so long as Paris is in Axis hands.
-
In Alpha final, can the Allies claim FIC for themselves in the same way they can take Dutch East Indies while NOT at war with Japan? Or since it is French owned, it stays French?
Stays french, acts french. Can only be controlled by an Allied power if they capture it from an Axis power, and only so long as Paris is in Axis hands.
I think Ho Chi Minh would have a problem with that… Haha, sorry, couldn’t resist that bad joke. :-D
-
Bump.
-
It’s no different than any other capital-less french territory.
No reason to think otherwise. -
Yea,
But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?
And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.
It’s B.S.
And it’s a good question for Jim to be asking.
-
Kcdzim is correct.
But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?
It’s the same.
And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.
Because it makes no difference.
-
But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?
It’s the same.
And in Pac only you assume that Paris is always occupied by Axis powers during the course of the game
-
Yea,
But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?
And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.
It’s B.S.
And it’s a good question for Jim to be asking.
Why the HELL does Russia get their 9? I mean, really. Why?
Like, seriously, considering how long some games go the Allies could have a moon base giving 1 IPC.
-
And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.
Because it makes no difference.
Well to be fair, Germany could still use 70 IPCs as opposed to 68 on G2.
-
france starting income is 17 and not 19??? wut?
-
Only in the Europe-only game.
-
Because it makes no difference.
I really DISAGREE with that. Those 2 Ipc’s are CRUCIAL for a valid Sea-Lion. And in the right circumstances making one less spread out battle, to achieve the 70 IPC’s required.
-
who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.
-
who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.
It depends on what UK does. Germany has to at least threaten sealion in most games and force UK to at least guard against it.
-
@seththenewb:
who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.
It depends on what UK does. Germany has to at least threaten sealion in most games and force UK to at least guard against it.
Still depends on the Axis’ Unified Strategy… I’ve ignored UK after G1 before and taken Moscow.
-
Yea,
But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?
And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.
It’s B.S.
And it’s a good question for Jim to be asking.
I don’t read Russia getting +9 when playing Europe 40 on its own anywhere. Where does it say so??? I’m confused…
-
who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.
Has anyone trieb SBRs with the two German bombers on turn 1 to not allow the Brits to place many units there or having to pay for repairs first? If the bombers are not shot down they should do an average of 5 IPC damage each, which is 10 IPC in total. (23 + 22 as per the 3.9 alpha rules. Of course the Brits can use their fighters as interceptors, so the German will also have to send along one or two fighters, but if the British do that, then they won’t be able to scramble into an adjacent sea zone that will undoubtedly also be under attack.
-
who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.
Has anyone trieb SBRs with the two German bombers on turn 1 to not allow the Brits to place many units there or having to pay for repairs first? If the bombers are not shot down they should do an average of 5 IPC damage each, which is 10 IPC in total. (23 + 22 as per the 3.9 alpha rules. Of course the Brits can use their fighters as interceptors, so the German will also have to send along one or two fighters, but if the British do that, then they won’t be able to scramble into an adjacent sea zone that will undoubtedly also be under attack.
Well, the fighters plus AA would probably knock down 1 bomber, so it’s not close to profitable.
-
who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.
Has anyone trieb SBRs with the two German bombers on turn 1 to not allow the Brits to place many units there or having to pay for repairs first? If the bombers are not shot down they should do an average of 5 IPC damage each, which is 10 IPC in total. (23 + 22 as per the 3.9 alpha rules. Of course the Brits can use their fighters as interceptors, so the German will also have to send along one or two fighters, but if the British do that, then they won’t be able to scramble into an adjacent sea zone that will undoubtedly also be under attack.
Well, the fighters plus AA would probably knock down 1 bomber, so it’s not close to profitable.
Of course you’d have to send, say, 2 German fighters along as well. Losses can then be taken on the fighters. Then only the AA would fire two dice in total against the two bombers. Not such a high probability of losing them then. I do agree with you it’s a high risk strategy, but if one is really hell-bent on trying Sea Lion thebn it will certainly help to make placing units on the UK more costly and difficult.
Suggested Topics
