Posts made by 221B Baker Street

I still do not see how it would have been possible for Germany to defeat either GB or Russia.

Stalin was prepared for a long, bloody fight and moved his armament production to factories on the other side of the Urals … about as far from Moscow as Berlin is from Moscow. Considering the difficulties that the Germans had in approaching Moscow, can you imagine any way it could have been possible to make it to beyond the Urals with losing vast quantities of manpower just to hold the territories from partisan uprising? Most of the German advance was gained by their catching Russia off guard. Yes, had Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad been taken the USSR would have been less able to fight but still that isn’t victory for Germany. The best Germany could have hoped for (once it became apparent that Russia was not going to collapse) would have been to pick a defensive line and stabilize the front. Difficult to do with a defensive line thousands of miles long. Ask the Japanese about their experience in China where they had hundreds of thousands of troops tied down in a similar situation against a country with no factories in the far distance to help build war supplies.

Likewise, Churchill was no less determined. The German Navy could have no hope of either invading or starving Britian as the British navy was too dominant. Only if the ME262 was available IN LARGE NUMBERS in 1940 could air superiority been maintained such that an invasion would have been possible (but I think still very unlikely to succeed), but this aircraft was never available is sufficient quantities. And then what to do if GB continues the fight from Canada?

I also don’t buy the idea of fortress Europe as not being possible to invade. We did it during the war in the amphibious invasion of Sicily and Italy. Africa and the Middle East is close enough to Europe for this type of operation against Greece and Vichy France as well. And had Germany won in Africa, it would have been possible to take Africa back from India, via the Middle East.

F_aulk wrote:

But i don’t have to be absoluety certain.

True. But that is a more optimal play by the Allies against this move by the axis. As the axis greatly lags the allies in material production, its important to make the allies play less efficiently with their materials. That’s the main purpose why I would consider taking a weakly defended Alaska with a small Japanese force. This decision is helped if you know your opponent and how they play.

If you have heavy bombers, I would base them in Hawaii instead of Alaska. You can still Strat bomb W. USA but its much harder for the US to do anything about it.

How about Borg vs. Deathstar? Even though I prefer Star Trek over Star Wars, I’d say Deathstar handsdown!

I’d only take it back moments later with minimal loss of units or time.

Ah, but the time is not necessarily minimal and the loss of units isn’t as important as where they are not (in Karelia).

Say I have two inf in Alaska and you have 12 inf in W. Canada. Now you decide to take it back, what do you attack with? Lets say you want to be absolutely certain you will take it so you send 6 inf plus a fighter that you have available. Ok, now one turn later, you only have 6 inf to ship to Russia instead of 12 as the other 6 (or however many survived is in Alaska).

If I have intended to hit Karelia HARD as Germany 3 turns from this, the Allies will be 6 inf. less than before. Meanwhile as Japan, I am only down 2 inf. in Novo so Russia has less discresionary force available for a counterattack at Karelia.

This may mean that Germany keeps Karelia for a turn as opposed to losing it right away (helpful for an economic victory). Or this may mean that the allies have less forces available to send to Moscow and therefore Japan can take it where otherwise these 6 inf could have kept Moscow in the hands of the allies. But the best outcome for the Axis is if this enables Germany to take Karelia when they wouldn’t have otherwise and therefore the US/UK can’t send any reinforcements to Moscow, enabling Japan to take Moscow four turns from taking Alaska. Depends on how things play out.

Not possible. 1000 years is a long time for any civilization to last, let alone one as ethnically diverse (with the resultant civil strife) as the 3rd Reich would have been. Also, without having the means to defeat Russia and Great Britian, Germany was doomed to defeat in WWII if by no other means than a war of attrition.

(With regards to Russia, its my opinion that even had Germany won every battle it fought there still would not have been enough troops to hold what was taken. With regards to Great Britian, its my opinion that Germany could never have had the capability to win a decisive enough Naval victory (ies) or strategic bombing capacity to force a surrender).

F_alk wrote

So, where is the betrayal, when did France and Germany say they would support the US?

221B Baker Street wrote:
Yes, the French could have at least been upfront with our diplomats from the beginning. I saw a TV article (PBS? Discovery channel? can’t remember) that Colin Powell and the other diplomats were shocked at the actual vote, because the very day before the French and German diplomats he was talking to said they would support the US resolution.

Which vote and when? There was not even an official try to get a new resolution after 1441 (by the US or the UK).
How can anyone be disappointed by a vore that never happened?

Well I did find the reference to the dissappointment Colin Powell, et al. had:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blair/etc/cron.html

You have to scroll down a bit to find it but apparently the following is the part I remember:

At a Jan. 20 press conference that Powell doesn’t know about, Dominique de Villepin goes on record saying France believes there is no reason for war: “Since we can disarm Iraq through peaceful means, we should not take the risk to endanger the life of innocent civilians or soldiers, to jeapordize the stability of the region, and further to widen the gap between our people and our cultures.”

Powell feels betrayed. “I happened to see Colin Powell pretty soon after the meeting on Jan. 20,” says Christopher Meyer, Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. at the time. “I think what I would say to you is that their remarks were bordering on the unprintable.”

Germany has just joined the Security Council as a new rotating member and it, too, voices opposition to war. German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer declares that his country “will not be part of military action as the Federal Republic of Germany. And we want to avoid military action by a successful implementation of Resolution 1441.”

F_alk, I will admit that my memory of this situation was not correct and France was more open about their opposition than I remembered.

To clear up why we hate the french, it is becuase they originally said they would back the Iraq war and would support the bill, but when the UN held the summit they completely changed their policy and vetoed our resolution. The Germans betrayed us as well, but France has veto, so thye did more damage. Since then, it has spiraled out of control, in both nations, due to the media.

Yes, the French could have at least been upfront with our diplomats from the beginning. I saw a TV article (PBS? Discovery channel? can’t remember) that Colin Powell and the other diplomats were shocked at the actual vote, because the very day before the French and German diplomats he was talking to said they would support the US resolution.

I don’t think that we need a larger Army, we do have sufficient forces to deal with any situation (or two situations that may come up). The problem that we have is that we never leave (Germany, S. Korea, …) afterwards.

The other problem is that the media isn’t being accurate about the entire Iraq situation either. They want the story to read a certain way so they spin it into half-truths (another name for a lie) to sell more papers and to fit their preconcieved notions. For example, their story about the 911 commision was (and still is :evil: !!) that there was no link between Saddam and al-Queda. But this has been publically disputed by 1) The 911 commission members, 2) President Bush, 3) Russian President Putin. Putin actually said that Saddam was connected to Al Queda and wanted to give Al Queda weapons of mass destruction. But this should be the subject of another post. :lol:

LOL

I don’t think you can do that in one turn. I’m pretty sure when you blitz a neutral you must stop there.

You might be right, I do seem to recall there being some rule like this :oops: . If so, then my idea wouldn’t work and would be a waste of 3 ipcs for no gain.

I can see Germany taking Spain. If the allies land a fighter in Gibraltar (perhaps after taking out the German Med. Fleet), I will consider blitzing a tank through Spain and attacking with one tank and all available fighters. I would be happy to trade a tank + 3 ipcs = 8 for a fighter = 12. I might even be able to retrieve the tank back from Gibraltar if the Allies don’t counter attack right away.

:D I get it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I believe turkey is, because if germany takes it, its an open path to africa from europe…
my second choice would be spain!

So you play as if there were a bridge over the Black Sea? I’ll need to check my rules again. I’ve always thought you couldn’t send troops across this as its the outlet of the Black Sea.

So no-one here sees any problem in Britain abandoning India and using everything they have to secure Africa fast?

Well GB basically has a choice as to which one they want to keep. I don’t believe GB will be able to keep both, so which to choose? I generally pick Africa for the following reasons:

1. Africa will provide about 3X the ipcs each turn that India will.

2. Once secured after an early German romp, Africa can almost always be kept for the entire game, whereas India will always be threatened (until eventually taken by Japan :( ) This is because a good UK player will sink the German Navy and Germany cannot afford to rebuild it. Japan is too far away from Africa to sucessfully take it as the UK will be able to see Japan coming and can counter. Also this is not the best move by Japan as for the Axis to win, Japan must send almost all of its resources into Asia to help Germany with Russia.

3. By focusing on Africa, the UK player weakens Germany (rather than slowing Japan down with holding India). This will lead to Germanys collapse sooner and the UK will be able to capitalize with taking W. Europe and possibly Germany, S. Europe, and/or E. Europe as well. With this kind of cashflow, the UK player will then have the money to go after Japan, even though Japan is far away.

Of course if you want to play a different game, concentrating on India can be a viable strategy for UK. The US/UK should be able to kick Germany out of Africa eventually anyway and even when India falls to Japan, it does have the advantage of slowing Japan down.

Its just not the most efficient warplan for Britian.

I love to see Jap capital ships off Alaska instead of the RedSz/FICSz.

Generally, I will split up my Navy once the US is gone from the Pacific. I will leave a capital ship with the trannys off Japan in case one of the allies gets ideas about bombers from Novo. But if no bombers or fighters are in range then I can move it to Alaska with the one transport.

Again, the main reason to take Alaska as Japan is to disrupt the US supply lines. Sure, you are experienced enough to handle this situation, but most players will not take an optimal approach when they retake Alaska. If I am playing the UK, I will send the W. Canada infantry there so that perhaps the US player won’t have to retake it.

I do believe that unless you are playing with a bid, the axis must do everything they can to disrupt the play of the Allies or they will lose because the Allies have to much money and will win perhaps 90% of the games. Against Allied players who understand this, the Axis players can’t simply build Karelia and push into Asia with Japan if they want any chance to win.

Agent Smith, you are correct, Alaska is only 2ipc :oops:

Secondly, I said I would send a couple of infantry. I guess I should have made it clear that I would be certain to send two. Two infantry requires the US to commit more to retake Alaska. The main purpose of this is to slow down the US help to Europe/Africa; or have the Alaska ipcs. Of course, everyone is correct in saying that Japan needs every inf. it can get in Asia, I agree with this. A strong push by Japan into N. America is doomed to failure.

Regarding the use of a bomber as a deterent, will you still attack if I send a capital ship or two with the transport?

I will reinforce Alaska as UK to make it more difficult for the Japanese to take it, let them send a significant force there and disrupt their flow to Asia. As the UK player I don’t want the US supplies to be disrupted in a counter attack, even with a few infantry for one turn while the US deals with Alaska. As long as the US infantry keeps flowing to Europe or Africa, the Axis is unlikely to win, but if the US infantry go elsewhere the Axis stand a better chance of victory.

In reinforcing Alaska as the UK, I am trying to help my allies.

I’ll even give it to’em free, but I won’t waste a single infantry on something so menial and tiny.

I would say never give your opponent something for free, make Japan at least fight the original troops there to take it.

Here is why I think this is a bad idea: Say Japan sends one transport to Alaska with 2 infantry on any given turn. Japan then gains 3 ipcs, USA loses 3 ipcs = 6 total IPC difference. This already pays for the 2 infantry. These 2 infantry will be missed in Asia, but not greatly. Now you say USA will build tanks then blitz to Alaska (next turn) to take it back. This means for 2 turns it will belong to Japan for a total IPC difference of 12. Assuming no loss of US tanks, the Axis has already gained 6 ipcs on the Allies. But this would be more if US loses a tank or two.

So this gives the Axis at least 6 ipcs plus forces the US to do things other than send troops to Europe or Africa (tanks to Alaska). Maybe Germany can hold parts of Africa a turn or two longer because of this (= more Axis ipcs)?

Yeah, don’t worry too much about it, but don’t just give it away either.

Usually, I will attach pearl harbor since there is so much value in the US Navy. However, I will usually go what some call pearl light, leaving a BB with my transports in Japan, particularly when there are more than the usual allied aircraft in range. If the allies pull all their aircraft away before J1, I might consider other alternatives with the BB. The reason for this is to prevent the allies from sinking my transports. Japans first priority should be to get troops on the mainland.

One alternative I have tried a few times also is to not sink the US Navy and go to Australia with the bulk of my fleet (leaving at least one capital ship with the transports at Japan). If the US player decides to chase either 1/2 Navy, or try to capture islands in the South Pacific, this really can’t hurt Japan much as long as the transports remain but it can distract the US player from what should be its top priority which is to provide assistance in Europe. If the US player sends its Navy to the atlantic, so what? By the time the Navy gets there, usually the allied have acheived control over the atlantic anyway.

No, I do not believe they should be called the greatest generation at all. I’m not trying to take any of their accomplishments away from them, I think they did an incredible job of fighting and winning a two front war after growing up in the great depression.

However, I think this accomplishment pales in comparison to the American founding fathers who fought off Great Britian for independence, then built this country. Our founding fathers deserve to be called the greatest generation.

Well, I think its possible for the USA to concentrate on Japan as Russia and Great Britian together can hold off Germany and any Japanese push in Asia that the USA can’t address. Also, I think a Kill Japan First stategy is also feasible. But this isn’t the easiest way for an Allied victory.

One thing that no one has yet mentioned is the invasion of Peru by Japan. This enables a Jap inf to take Brazil one turn earlier and brings the transport back to Japan quicker.

I’ve never tried this as I think there are better things to do with the Japanese transports and infantry than to pick up Brazil for 1 turn just to have it retaken by the USA the next. I’d much rather have the troops in Asia.