Well it looks like that evened things out at least a bit!! yeesh 🤣
trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5
-
TripleA Turn Summary: French round 7
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3, version: 3.4
Game History
Round: 7 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 5 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC 2 fighters and 1 infantry moved from New South Wales to Queensland 1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from New South Wales to South Australia 1 fighter moved from New South Wales to Queensland Combat - ANZAC Battle in Queensland ANZAC attack with 3 fighters and 1 infantry Japanese defend with 1 airfield, 1 harbour and 1 infantry ANZAC roll dice for 3 fighters and 1 infantry in Queensland, round 2 : 1/4 hits, 1.67 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 infantry in Queensland, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Queensland ANZAC win, taking Queensland from Japanese with 3 fighters and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Battle in South Australia ANZAC attack with 1 artillery and 3 infantry Japanese defend with 1 infantry ANZAC roll dice for 1 artillery and 3 infantry in South Australia, round 2 : 0/4 hits, 1.00 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 infantry in South Australia, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits ANZAC roll dice for 1 artillery and 3 infantry in South Australia, round 3 : 1/4 hits, 1.00 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 infantry in South Australia, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese and 1 infantry owned by the ANZAC lost in South Australia ANZAC win, taking South Australia from Japanese with 1 artillery and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for ANZAC: 1 infantry Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - ANZAC 3 fighters moved from Queensland to New South Wales 3 infantry moved from New South Wales to South Australia 4 infantry moved from New South Wales to South Australia 1 fighter moved from Hawaiian Islands to Midway 1 cruiser moved from 28 Sea Zone to 10 Sea Zone Place Units - ANZAC 3 infantry placed in New South Wales Turn Complete - ANZAC Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 0 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 62 Sea Zone. Rolls: 5,4 ANZAC collect 7 PUs; end with 12 PUs Combat Move - French Non Combat Move - French 1 infantry moved from Morocco to Algeria Turn Complete - FrenchCombat Hit Differential Summary :
ANZAC : -1.67 Japanese : 0.00 -
TripleA Turn Summary: Germans round 8
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3, version: 3.4
Game History
Round: 8 Research Technology - Germans Purchase Units - Germans Germans buy 5 artilleries, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter, 11 infantry, 2 submarines and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Germans 1 infantry moved from Scotland to Eire Germans take Eire from British 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer moved from 112 Sea Zone to 111 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 112 Sea Zone to 111 Sea Zone 8 armour and 3 mech_infantrys moved from Caucasus to Persia 1 bomber moved from Western Germany to Persia 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Rostov to Persia 1 mech_infantry moved from Kazakhstan to Eastern Persia Germans take Eastern Persia from British 2 infantry moved from Volgograd to Tambov 1 artillery moved from Rostov to Tambov 2 infantry moved from Western Ukraine to Bryansk 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Urals to Bryansk Combat - Germans Battle in 111 Sea Zone Germans attack with 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber Americans defend with 1 submarine Germans roll dice for 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber in 111 Sea Zone, round 2 : 3/5 hits, 2,67 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 submarine in 111 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0,17 expected hits 1 submarine owned by the Americans lost in 111 Sea Zone Germans win with 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Americans: 1 submarine Battle in Bryansk Germans attack with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Russians defend with 1 artillery Germans roll dice for 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Bryansk, round 2 : 1/4 hits, 1,50 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 artillery in Bryansk, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 artillery owned by the Russians lost in Bryansk Germans win, taking Bryansk from Russians with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4 Casualties for Russians: 1 artillery Battle in Tambov Germans attack with 1 artillery and 2 infantry Russians defend with 1 infantry Germans roll dice for 1 artillery and 2 infantry in Tambov, round 2 : 1/3 hits, 0,83 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 infantry in Tambov, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Tambov Germans win, taking Tambov from Russians with 1 artillery and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry Battle in Persia Germans attack with 8 armour, 3 bombers, 1 fighter, 3 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber British defend with 2 artilleries, 1 factory_minor, 2 fighters, 6 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber; ANZAC defend with 2 fighters Germans roll dice for 8 armour, 3 bombers, 1 fighter, 3 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber in Persia, round 2 : 9/16 hits, 7,67 expected hits British roll dice for 2 artilleries, 4 fighters, 6 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Persia, round 2 : 4/13 hits, 5,83 expected hits 1 tactical_bomber owned by the British, 1 armour owned by the Germans, 2 artilleries owned by the British, 3 mech_infantrys owned by the Germans and 6 infantry owned by the British lost in Persia Germans roll dice for 7 armour, 3 bombers, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber in Persia, round 3 : 5/12 hits, 6,67 expected hits British roll dice for 4 fighters in Persia, round 3 : 3/4 hits, 2,67 expected hits 2 fighters owned by the ANZAC, 3 armour owned by the Germans and 2 fighters owned by the British lost in Persia Germans win, taking Persia from British with 4 armour, 3 bombers, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 41 Casualties for Germans: 4 armour and 3 mech_infantrys Casualties for British: 2 artilleries, 2 fighters, 6 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Casualties for ANZAC: 2 fighters Non Combat Move - Germans 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Persia to Northwest Persia 1 bomber moved from Persia to Egypt 1 bomber moved from Persia to Egypt 1 bomber moved from Persia to Northwest Persia 4 armour and 2 mech_infantrys moved from Kazakhstan to Northwest Persia 4 infantry moved from Caucasus to Northwest Persia 1 infantry moved from Volgograd to Samara 1 armour moved from Yakut S.S.R. to Timguska 2 armour and 1 mech_infantry moved from Urals to Kazakhstan 1 mech_infantry moved from Urals to Kazakhstan 1 infantry moved from Novgorod to Archangel 1 aaGun, 6 artilleries and 13 infantry moved from Novgorod to Belarus 1 aaGun moved from Volgograd to Rostov 1 aaGun moved from Ukraine to Rostov 3 artilleries and 1 infantry moved from Ukraine to Rostov 1 infantry moved from Western Ukraine to Ukraine 6 infantry moved from Western Germany to 112 Sea Zone 6 infantry and 3 transports moved from 112 Sea Zone to 111 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 112 Sea Zone to 111 Sea Zone 6 infantry moved from 111 Sea Zone to Scotland 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Western Germany to Egypt 1 fighter moved from Southern Italy to Egypt 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Bryansk to Rostov 1 mech_infantry moved from Rostov to Northwest Persia 4 armour moved from Rostov to Northwest Persia Place Units - Germans 3 artilleries placed in Ukraine 3 infantry placed in Western Ukraine 3 infantry placed in Volgograd 1 artillery and 2 infantry placed in Novgorod 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 3 infantry placed in Western Germany 1 transport placed in 113 Sea Zone 2 submarines placed in 112 Sea Zone 1 destroyer placed in 110 Sea Zone Germans undo move 7. 2 submarines placed in 113 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Germans Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 1 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 109 Sea Zone. Rolls: 1 Germans collect 68 PUs (1 lost to blockades); end with 68 PUs Trigger Germans 5 Swedish Iron Ore: Germans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 73 PUs Objective Germans 7 Control of Balkans: Germans met a national objective for an additional 2 PUs; end with 75 PUs Objective Germans 6 Control Iraq Or Persia Or Northwest Persia: Germans met a national objective for an additional 2 PUs; end with 77 PUs Objective Germans 3 Control Caucasus: Germans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 82 PUs Objective Germans 2 Control Novgorod Or Volgograd Or Russia: Germans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 92 PUsCombat Hit Differential Summary :
Germans : -0,33 British : -1,50 Americans : -0,17 Russians : -0,67 -
That’s a tough blow in the ME. Sorry for that.
-
@trulpen said in trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5:
That’s a tough blow in the ME. Sorry for that.
I felt I had to gamble that you wouldn’t attack.
-
With a 95 % battle and gaining a mIC and taking out all that air making Cairo rather safe, it was an obvious move. But I agree blunders do happen.
-
Ok, I’ve posted your result.
Yeah, you had to go for it, I totally agree. There was always a very slim chance of either a major dicing or you somehow not noticing that you should attack. I’d pretty well lost this game already so I sort of had to try some strange things.
Thanks for the game, was still fun even though I didn’t get any real luck here.
Keen to go again when/if you’re ready. We can just say that it’s a game to be reported in 2020. Probably would be next season by the time it’s done.
-
Thanks for the game! Maybe we can share some thoughts?
I think I have atleast one more game kickin’ in, so no worries.
-
Thoughts? ok.
This game bucks some of the conventional wisdom. Normally, with a J3 DOW you don’t expect Japan to get out of control but they did. Obviously my focus on the Atlantic with USA was a large factor here. Also, with a ftr bid in Scotland, I expected only SZ110 to be attacked but you attacked both fleets pretty successfully. The other unexpected outcome was I did a SZ92 stack but still lost Egypt early. I suppose there were some other options here. The most obvious option would be Taranto. One option I didn’t really think about was keeping the CV in SZ98 but using the DD and one of the Cruisers to block. In this way you might be able to do a SZ92 stack UK2, although you do need to keep Gibraltar. Losing Gibraltar is a real problem so you may need to use the UK SZ109 TT to land troops to defend it which means its vulnerable to the Italian sub attacking it; then you may want to use the DD to defend it which means it can’t attack the sub in SZ106. It’s quite a weak option to move the CV through the Suez IMO. Having it join a fleet in SZ39 is an option but I don’t know how strong it is. I also wonder if it would be a good idea to stack up Sudan. That way you can’t corner Egypt with the Tobruk and Ethiopia forces.
I’m not really sure but I’m inclined to think that Taranto is a better option than most of these, even though I don’t like the idea much. At least only one Italian transport should survive. Just has a pretty high chance of a pretty nearly game ending failure.
I really disliked leaving Syria to go Vichy but I calculated that I couldn’t spare the mech in Egypt without leaving a blocker in Alexandria, which I also didn’t want to do. Not continuing the battle in Iraq proved to be a mistake but I was really keen on the idea of Iraq going ANZAC, I just don’t really know why because I saw that you were positioning for a possible early ANZAC crush so building an IC there would not have been a good idea.
So same sides and bid for the next game? If so, same placement.
-
Oh, one more thing. I thought I had something with the S France beachhead, but I didn’t think that it would be enough. Had I kept that beachhead, then also landed on Korea, we could have still had a game. Maybe then I would have had to consolidate Persia and delay an attack on Egypt which I was obviously planning. I also think it was a mistake to move my entire E Siberia stack to meet the tank when the Korea landing was probable.
-
From the Axis perspective, taking the Solomons early was certainly a mistake. USA just smashed your forces and they achieved nothing. Also, not enough forces were within range of Sumatra to take it J3. That should have been something which was intended to be done and stacking it should have been anticipated. As previously mentioned, the Germans over invested in navy IMHO even though they won. The heavy investment in Japanese transports was a bit unexpected but it seems to have enabled a lot of Japanese early action at sea.
On land, Japan was a bit weaker than I would have expected but it was probably a price worth paying. Good move there, I think.
One thing I didn’t love was the investment in ICs for both Shantung and Kiangsu. I think Shantung would be better omitted, otherwise much money gets absorbed and in a way which doesn’t help any major cause for Japan. Pushing China back is not that high a priority but Japan has little else to do for the first couple of turns in a J3 DOW scenario.
Perhaps you should consider taking FIC J2. It only costs you 8IPC and you can land a tank there which can take Malaya J3 if the Allies don’t block it and blocking costs another infantry.
I guess moving the US sub to the Indian Ocean was a waste of time. It might as well have been killed.
Perhaps that’s enough post game analysis.
-
I will add another thing. I strongly agree with your J1 buy. Regardless of DOW, the 1IC 2TT buy is the strongest possible IMO. Without the IC, China gets too strong. The third TT makes little difference. While a single TT doesn’t allow enough expansion of Japan.
Paragraph breaks in the last post weren’t quite right.
-
Grabbing the Solomons J3 was a consequence of something I’ll likely never try again - or atleast do differently - namely grabbing the New Hebrides J2 for an outpost towards the aussies were I’d be able to land air J3. Probably not very necessary, actually more stupid, but I guess I found the idea to be cool at the time. If I remember correctly, I simply had a choice J3 to abstain from DOW and save the tr or DOW and either crush ANZAC or grab a lot of income increase while pushing UK-Pac down into a hole. By J3 the choice was obvious. Wonder why it wasn’t so J2? Guess I wanted to put some unconventional pressure on the Allies. Actually, it made the USN displaced for one round, which made Japans life a bit easier. So it wasn’t too bad result with sacrificing that tr, I think. You are right about Sumatra and such though.
I will definitely change my standard G1 buy for BM3.
I think you’re right about not needing a full russian contingent to stop my meager tank. 2-3 inf would’ve been sufficient, and the rest could support a US landing in Korea. Ofc, I would likely have played Japan differently and perhaps lose my transports in order to stack up in the Carolines for strong naval pressure against the USN. Then there’d be no landing or if there’d be one anyway, Korea would fall easily soon enough anyway.
Can’t be certain, but I believe Taranto is the best option for UK1. It cripples Italy, which is worth a lot.
I like the J1 buy a lot. I also like the second mIC in Kiangsu. Especially in BM3 Japan must have an abundance of land units in Asia. Of course it’s possible to achieve the same with a transport line, but being more flexible, it’s also a costlier (must include a naval base) and more sensitive for disruption. If Russia enters Manchuria, one mIC will easily be overwhelmed, while the two quickly can support a serious defense.
To support Asia with 6 land units every round, 2 mICs cost 24 while 6 tr + nb cost 59. Of course the equation is not that simple, since trannies used for taking over islands can be used for the purpose. That will tie them up though and my experience tells me that Japan needs transports elsewhere almost all the time.
Without a second early mIC Japan risk running thin on land units in Asia which is critical. Japan must be able to counter an UK offensive while at the same time keeping China at bay. The latter is definitely not as important, yet a nuiscance. If I can’t take the Chinese out without too much cost, I try to. Relieves the rest of the board for Japan, which is the big advantage.
Like you say a fig in Scotland might be too much. Sure stirs things up in G1. I was lucky this time, but with less luck Germany might well be screwed trying the same stunt. Can’t lose too much air, since that’ll stunt further defense and attack and Germany will eventually suffocate. I’m not completely sure though, since the main point of the sz111 attack is to strafe it, saving Bismarck. Hey, even wrote a few posts about it in the strategy book, although then focusing on vanilla since it was pre-BM3 for me.
I usually try to take out the Ethiopian force with the Brits, but it rarely goes well. Probably because the attack gets a little thin since I really like to grab Persia UK1. Maybe a stack is a good alternative? Waiting to take them out one round after consolidation. Then actually both Persia and Sumatra may be incorporated into the British Empire. I’ll contemplate that.
Being able to hold Egypt was a great advantage for Italy, which became rather strong. Think the Allies can’t allow it or atleast get some serious compensation. Like you say, UK should probably take Iraq and put up a mIC there for support while utilizing the S African mIC as well.
Maybe harrassing the MEI is more rational than going for Tokyo early? I’ve tried the latter, even getting a sweet US-outpost in Korea together with the ruskies, but still never with good results. At the same time Axis-Dominion wiped my butt doing the same stunt. It’s sad. ;)
In US5 you were all set for harrassment, but backed out shifting focus. I think that was a mistake. You should’ve continued building up pressure. As you said, you might have put too much effort in the Atlantic, becoming too thin in the Pacific. Japan can’t be allowed to get a free hand. They easily run out of control. And then it’s game over even if Germany is under heavy pressure.
-
@trulpen said in trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5:
In US5 you were all set for harrassment, but backed out shifting focus. I think that was a mistake. You should’ve continued building up pressure. As you said, you might have put too much effort in the Atlantic, becoming too thin in the Pacific. Japan can’t be allowed to get a free hand. They easily run out of control. And then it’s game over even if Germany is under heavy pressure.
I calculate that I didn’t have enough to remain in SZ54. Are you suggesting moving to New Zealand so I’m at least still within range of Java? Not sure I follow.
-
I guess the basic problem was that you had to back out since US lacked following up forces. Like you said.
-
Yeah, I think with your G1 buy I should really have gone after Japan a lot more. Although I find it a real challenge to weaken Japan early. Unless there’s a miscue by Japan, they seem to get really strong, really quickly in spite of allied actions.
-
@trulpen said in trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5:
I like the J1 buy a lot. I also like the second mIC in Kiangsu. Especially in BM3 Japan must have an abundance of land units in Asia. Of course it’s possible to achieve the same with a transport line, but being more flexible, it’s also a costlier (must include a naval base) and more sensitive for disruption. If Russia enters Manchuria, one mIC will easily be overwhelmed, while the two quickly can support a serious defense.
Ok, I see what you’re getting at here. Just having one in Shantung only has 2 turns of buys to prepare for a defence if 20 units come down through Manchuria. This is why I stopped putting it in Shantung. In Kiangsu it has an extra turn of buys. That represents only minor adjustments needed to defend the IC. If you only have one in Shantung, it’s a much more major scramble to defend it when/if USSR comes after it.
I didn’t follow your argument about needing a naval base though. The naval base on FIC is more to threaten India. Does also provide a few situational possibilities though.
-
I think I also stuffed up in not aiming to buy a UK IC for Iraq and never doing it. Would have really helped in pushing Italy off Egypt.
-
@simon33 said in trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5:
I didn’t follow your argument about needing a naval base though.
Well, the naval base is not a necessity, but if I’d get into a transport line from Tokyo, that’s were I’d want my tr’s to land and unload in preferably FIC. From there the tr’s threaten India, like you said, and also has a wider reaction range if need be.
I’d say that carrying the transport line with the Kwangtung naval base is very suboptimal, so building one in Hainan is worth every penny if going for it. Usually though Japan manages well without one.
I’ve had guys going after my factories on the Asian east coast, but they can never really touch them. For me, having two mICs there is awesome. I can even abstain from a mIC in FIC if that area is under potential pressure, and just pump out enough guys to support the land war from Shantung and Kiangsu.
-
Have to re-word. I meant the naval base is not a true must, but rather a practical necessity.
Suggested Topics
