New Year's Resolution for all the Larry Lobbyists

The most effective russian players I’ve encountered are the ones that are able to build up a force that is able to threaten a counter on a german stack. If a good german player wants to go for Moscow they are able to get it, however I’ve seen plenty games where the UK/USA are putting enough pressure on the  German player for him to stop just in front of Moscow. If the Russian player only has bought inf at this point there is not much of a threat for the German player to keep russia contained and slowly kill it economically. However if there is a stack of paired inf/art the pushback power is a lot bigger and thus Germany can be challenged and Russia may be able to break the German wall.

I’ve played third reich. There is both an 80s version, and a 90s version of that game. They are quite different. However, it is alot simpler and smaller than WiF. I am currently playing a game called Scorched Earth, Urals Mod in the Europa System. This game has baseunits being divisions and regiments. It playes the entire war on the eastern front. Each space is a hexagon at about 25 km accross. you usualle have about 3000 pieces on the map at any given time, when only playing the eastern front. If you play once a week, you will actually use like 8 years to play the 4 years from 41 to the end of 45.

Germany needs to destroy remaining Allied ships in the Med on turn 2.  They don’t need their air force for anything else that turn.  Losing a couple of planes stinks, but getting the Italian income back up is worth it.  Italy should be able to give stress to Egypt around turn 3-4.  UK can usually defend there, but at a cost of spending heavily in Africa instead of rebuilding the Atlantic fleet.

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

I noticed this question posted by Black Elk in a couple of threads, so I sketched out the following answer which I’ll post in both threads.

I’d be in favour of using the term “Commonwealth” (“the Commonwealth”, “the Commonwealth nations”, etc.).  For the period from the end of WWI to the end of WWII (thus in a time frame which works for A&A 1940), the term “Commonwealth” can be interpreted as referring more or less just to the six self-governing Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire (originally the Irish Free State) and Newfoundland (which, it should be noted, voluntarily agreed to go back to being ruled from London during the Great Depression).

The phrase “(British) Commonwealth of Nations” originated – at first with unofficial status – in the late 19th century, resurfaced (still unofficially) in 1917, and finally received official recognition in 1921.  It was intended to be used in parallel with (or in some cases as an alternative to) the phrase “British Empire”, an example being Churchill’s famous statement that “if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: This was their finest hour.”  The “Commonwealth” usage arose in recognition of the fact that a number of British territories had become self-governing – the first such case being Canada, the original “Dominion” – and that therefore they had a greater degree of sovereignty than the Britain’s colonies, protectorates and mandates.

Dominion status was granted to Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, Newfoundland in 1907, South Africa in 1910 and the Irish Free State in 1922 (it became Eire in 1937).  Via the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, it was recognized that these six Dominions were equal in status with the UK and that they were “freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”  Strictly speaking, it could be argued that the UK was also an equal-status “member” of the Commonwealth rather than its head, but this would be a bit like arguing that the Augustus was basically an ordinary Roman Senator who simply happened to be “first among equals” in the Senate rather than the Emperor (an argument which Augustus himself liked to make).  A similar dynamic existed within the Commonwealth by virtue of the fact that the UK’s (resident) Sovereign was recognized by the Dominions as their (absentee) Head of Statec – so Churchill’s phrase “the British Empire and its Commonwealth” is actually a good description of the asymmetrical relationship that existed at the time.

The phrase “Commonwealth” as it is used today has important differences with what it meant in 1940, since it now covers more than 50 entities.  Back in the 1930s, it essentially referred just to Britain and its self-governing Dominions, of which there were six.  The list started growing after WWII, when India, Pakistan and Ceylon were granted Dominion status, but the only British territories to achieve Dominion status prior to WWII were the six so-called “white colonies” whose population was preponderantly of European ancestry.  So all in all, I think it’s historically justifiable to refer to the A&A 1940 “grey sculpt” block as simply “the Commonwealth,” which is certainly more convenient than the convoluted phrase “the self-governing Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”  “The Commonwealth Dominions” (perhaps “the CDs” in shorthand?)  would be my second choice: it’s longer than just “the Commonwealth” but it’s a trifle more accurate since it excludes the UK and thus refers only to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland.

Pull them all back and see what happens.  If Germany buys transports for a sea lion attack on London, then go back to Amur and then down into China and help them take and hold Kiangsu and maybe even Hongkong.  You might prevent a Pacific VC win if you are lucky.  Don’t forget you can mobilize new Chinese infantry on top of your Russians.

If Germany does not buy transports and masses troops along the Russian border for a G3 attack, then you better start marching them all West.

However, if Germany launches Barbarossa on G2 they may be too little too late anyway.  A German attack could start out as a mass of tactical bombers, armor, artillery and infantry in Hungary that moves East 1 territory per turn.  Meanwhile 10 mechanized infantry are built each turn in Germany to replace infantry losses.  The mechs also protect the tactical bombers in East Poland.  The schedule is East Poland G2, Belarus G3, Bryansk G4, then Moscow G5 onward.  Ukraine probably  evacuates.

So Germany is attacking Moscow G5, but there are 6 Far East troops in Samara and another 14 units in Novosibersk.  Those replacements make it possible for Russia to hold on as Germany batters Moscow G6, G7, G8, and just maybe the Germans will finally run out of infantry and die.

It only applies to Russia and the US. Japan is at war.China is not part of the WESTERN Allies. Remember: the West consists of the Americas, Western Europe, South Africa, and ANZAC

Nice Markers, indeed.