You should have asked him, “Where was all that French spirit in WWII?”
I think he was Canadian French.
Wasn’t it Ted Nugent who said, “The only thing worse than a frenchman is a French Canadian”
Not sure, his Canadian friend that was with him said, “Not only is he French, he’s angry French!” I just laughed because I think it was a moment of lost in translation, no offense was taken by me at least.
I wish I was like that, unfortunately when someone starts yelling at me, their life is in danger.
Well lets just say it might have been different if I actually understood what he was saying. But since I didn’t, so what do I care about what he calls me in another language?
Well in any case you definitely did the right thing.
well in any case you definitely got off topic
Okay about the topic of Germany invading England…… Where were we?
It would have worked if he wasnt fighting a two front war. IF russia isnt a problem I think you can take out england.
I think a Sea Lion attempt may still come down to who gets control of the French fleet. If it stays w/allies, if it is scuttled, or if Germany has a chance to take part of it over. If the axis (and thats a big if) gets naval superiority in the Atlantic (remember US isn’t there yet). If Italy can take out Gilb through Spain or by amphib allowing its fleet access to the Atlantic. Axis should be able to add to its fleet in the Atlantic via French IC on the coast. Germany should also have its own coast line to the North Sea if the map is to be accurate. Of coarse a full scale Sea Lion will leave Italy weaker in Africa and the Balkans. It will also allow Russia time to bulk up. Taking out the UK early would defiantly set the allies back. It would be some time before what was left of Britain & France could come together and make a liberation attempt if at all. They may have to wait until the US enters the war. I would think that a successful Sea Lion would bring the US into the war.
Taking out UK would also set the Allies back.
It ohh yeah it would make things a LOT easier for germany. then they could focus on russia
Yeah so back to seali…oh look a bird!
K, so…
Consensus is that taking capitals DOESN’T get you all the fallen side’s income, plus DOESN’T knock the opponent out of the war (i.e., we want the person playing France to do more than get drinks for everyone the next 90% of the game…) So, seeing this, it may NOT be in the Axis’ best interest to shoot for the capitals at game start with these rule changes/additions. Maybe Paris, but definitely not London. If the UK is getting 40+ IPCs at game start taking 8 IPCs for the capital will barely make a dent in their production, even with losing a turn’s worth of IPCs and needing to build factories elsewhere.
Operation Sealion is definitely not a possibility then. Only if there was some rule that allowed the Axis to change history by seizing the French fleet at Marseilles intact or allowing the Germans to invade/garrison Spain to strike Gibraltar would it even be barely viable economically. Otherwise the risk in building fleet and transports just isn’t worth the cost.
So, perhaps starvation, limitation of resources would be the only viable strategy; i.e., the traditional Axis and Allies game where the Axis gradually tip the world’s IPC balance in their favor over many many turns? With this mindset in place, the game will definitely end up being another dragged-out game of attrition that will play pretty much the same as all our old games…
BLEH.
idk about that. That axis are outnumbered Germany can and will crush france. but after that you have a huge dillema. Attack the USSR, who will be building up a force to crush you, or step in and stop the landing bad for the allies. Africa wont be the sterotypical “two fights determine who gets it dealeo” Italy is going to have its hands full. Remember Larry ditched the “vichy shit” That extra 8 IPC that is normally sooo easy to grab, wont be that way. Its going to be a race, a huge race. Not a buildup. If tha Axis stop pushing they start getting sqeezed. America makes a TON in this game. It shouldnt be a WWI knock down fight, Unless you plan to lose. AND not have fun. you can still build a minor IC in africa and torment the little italian guy.
Ok guys sorry about the last post, I was well….distracted lol.
But I think we should instead implement victory cities, just as cities are the lifeblood of economy and manufacturing so shall they be the lifeblood of a power. I think we use historical powerhouse economic centers for VC’s in the game, and every one has a IC of course. The territory that the VC is in has an IPC value and only that will be lost if the VC is taken. The country can still fight on regardless if Moscow or Stalingrad were taken, just as they would in real life. Also another bonus would be that we can shorten or lengthen games based on how many VC’s there are on each side. We could either do total war where the Allies fight until they are annihilated or the Axis as well. Then from there we could scale back the game to fit everyone’s time needs; some people have only a weekend with maybe an hour a day to play to be able to finish a game while some people play 12 hour sessions, finishing multiple games in that span. So with this we can all finally play a game that could fit anyone’s time requirements. Also we could still do the game in a traditional manner and if two allies fall Axis win and if the Axis all fall then allies win, regardless it all works out, everyone is a winner!!! :-D
you are still off topic
No Aldertag, this is on topic, they are debating the importance of taking over capital cities, which is what could happen if Operation Sea Lion is a success.
Actually idk about that. The UK is divided into two territories now. Idk if London is in the top or the bottom half.
