Posts made by 88 Millimeter

Of Germany’s starting forces, they lose 6 INF, 2 ART, 2 ARM and a FIG before they ever get to use them (standard West Russia/Ukraine R1).

Excuse me Switch, but I’ve noticed you think of this as standard now…

We had a few jousts a while ago, when I was one of the few on this site who advocated this Russian opener. You argued and argued that W Russia/ Belo was better…  :-D

Just hassling you man. I couldn’t help myself.

Back on topic, I tried Jen’s opener of an IC in France recently. My opponent forgot to adequately cover Britain and I knocked him out on turn 2. Probably the last time I ever try it but it did get me a win. Thanks, Jen…

Here’s one option- build a carrier on G1. Build a transport on both G2 and G3. Stack in E Europe as much as possible. When you are able to gain numerical superiority, move your E Europe stack to Karelia along with 6 infantry from Germany/ W Europe. You can now hold the north of the board, and you control and/ or threaten Norway/ Karelia/ Archangel and threaten the Red Army in W Russia. Until the US or Britain brings a credible threat to your Baltic fleet, you can continually reclaim Norway if the Allies are landing there. If Norway becomes an Allied meat grinder then Russia is being asked to deal with Japan by itself, which is a tall order when an Allied KGF strat and logistically competent Japanese play are combined.

This is just one of many paths; it has been employed against me with success and I have used it with success.

The key to this move is that it dictates the pace of the game to the Allies until they are able to overcome the Baltic fleet. By that point the Japanese are seriously eating into the backside of Russia, and reinforcements from the UK and US have been chewed up perpetually in the German northern meat grinder. The idea isn’t for Germany to become a massive force, but for it to take the brunt of the war and chew up units while Japan builds the forces necessary to topple Moscow.

Expect to eventually lose the Kriegsmarine and go into full turtle mode with Germany. If you’ve been playing Japan well you’ll have a legitimate shot at killing the Russian Bear.

Sweet! Nice job, Jen. My friend and I have been working on a d20 variant of A&A, so this is nice to know. %dice is obviously the best choice, but it gets a bit clunky in FTF games to roll so many dice…

And yes, luck is a part of the game, but I’ve had a beautiful 20 turn game go south in a hurry on one turn of bad luck. It was a game that had been picked up and written down multiple times- the kind you spend ALOT of time thinking about. Bad dice killed it. It sucked the fun out of the best game I’ve ever been a part of for both winner and loser.

When you win on crazy dice do you ever truly feel like you outplayed your opponent?

When you lose on bad dice do you truly feel like you were out-strategized?

No, and no. So as Jen alluded to, sometimes it feels like you might as well play yahtzee.

Amen.

There are an infinite number of holes to poke in this game when it comes to realism. But no other game covers the scope of A&A and remains as playable. A suspension of disbelief is needed, and we’re all playing by the same rules after all.

One suggestion would be to switch to a d20 and try to make the numbers more realistic- i.e. make infantry hit 20% of the time, or make transports hit only 10-15% of the time etc. At the least the effect of bad dice would be diminished.

Those are all good points, Jen, but the Allies landing in the north on a consistent basis is a shot in the arm to Russia, and allows Russian troops to have more versatility.

Once the UK and US start eating into Belo and E Europe on a regular basis, and sliding some troops into West Russia and beyond, Russia can concentrate on defending against Japan.

As an Axis player you don’t want to see British and American infantry/ artillery/ armor/ fighters pooling in the middle of the game board. If they die in Noway, or Karelia, or Africa you are isolating Russia to do all the heavy lifting by themselves. By the time the Allies start arriving in force it may be too late if Japan has done its job.

I’m not saying your idea doesn’t have validity, but that’s just my experience.

if you’re going to buy anything beyond a G1 carrier, a transport on G2 and G3 is a nice purchase, and it still allows you to build 10+ infantry per round on those two turns. The idea is that you add to your ability to hold/ counter Karelia, and counter landings in Norway. With your 6-7 unit Luftwaffe (depending on whether Russia killed the Ukraine on R1), any landing in Norway can be countered by 6 land units and multiple aircraft. If Norway is not being traded, those German units end up in Karelia instead, causing a headache for the Russians.

The idea of continually contesting Norway/ Karelia is to destroy Allied forces as they hit the ground. The Allied player feels good because German pieces are being killed in Norway rather than against Russia alone- but in actuality Russia is slowly being isolated to fight a 1 on 1 battle against a menacing Japan.

I don’t do this, because I personally can’t pull the trigger on that much German navy- but it is an effective strategy when coupled with an unhindered and well played Japan.Â

By the way, an intriguing antidote to a G1 naval build is 5 US subs. On US4 you can say goodbye to the Baltic fleet unless a substantial contribution was made to it. It also makes the German fleet link up feel a little less secure. Again- I’d go with a carrier, 2 transports and boots personally, but I know a player who does this and wins with it.

The transports in the Med idea is interesting, but it sacrifices the entire north of Europe to the Allies. IMO Germany contesting the north is hugely important. Once Karelia is firmly in the hands of the Allies, things had better be going REALLY well for Japan.

You’re right, Zooey- Hitler was absolutely the driving force behind Germany being in position to bring Europe to its knees in the first place.

But the question was- How could Germany have won the war? My take on the question is that it’s once the war had already begun.

Hitler brought Germany to the edge of astounding success, but through a series of horrible decisions led them instead to ruin.

The response for that Shadow is for Japan to not sweat. Calm, rational, deliberate action.

You don’t have to counter every single move as Japan. You don’t have to, for example, worry about killing the destroyer off Kwangtung. What threat does it really pose if your navies are defendable? Zero. Kill Pearl and China, bring your E Indies fleet to clean out the carrier and transport, and an inf/ arm to F Indo- most likely the Brits lost 2 infantry taking it (at least). Bring 5 infantry and 2 fighters to China. Sure it’ll cost more than normal but you’ll win. Send an extra fighter to wherever the British fighter landed (either China or off French Indo). Allow Russia to step into Manchuria. With a 3 transport (placed in SZ 61)/ 2 infantry build you’ll crush all 6 if they brought them. If less it’ll be even easier. Hey, they’re dead Russians, which is good. Do the normal Pearl strike. Expand as usual on J2 and beyond.

Yes these moves slow down Japan, but they make Germany’s life easier. With the moves you described German armor is racing south in Africa, and once Japan has taken out the Brits in the pacific theater on J1, India is ripe for the plucking for either Japan or Germany (G3 med fleet escape). Personally I’d rather conserve the British carrier, transport, and fighter. On UK4 they lock down SZ12 while the combined fleets are hemming in Germany in the north.

The first time someone sees an aggressive Britain in the pacific it might freak them out, and they might do something silly, but if you’ve been around the block a few times…

I’m not saying by any stretch of the imagination that these are bad moves Mr. Hawk. I’m pointing out how I would counter them and the game-wide ramifications, in my opinion.

A second Med transport to start the game would be cruel on the Allies–- Africa would be grey quickly, and then the Ukraine would be pounded mercilessly on counters. If Russia wasn’t careful the Caucasus would be vulnerable as well, which would mean that West Russia couldn’t be stacked quite as efficiently.

Forgive this for being simplistic.

The successful assassination of Hitler early in the war would have done wonders for the Reich.

Less economy/ trains tied up in the ‘final solution’.

Liberation of eastern Europe/ White Russia/ Ukraine rather than war of extermination against the ‘inferior’ slavic peoples. This would have lead to much less partisan activity behind the lines, and would have provided easier access to food/ shelter/ conscripts etc.- rather than a population that quickly learned it had to resist or be killed.

Sober choices regarding Stalingrad/ Kursk/ Battle of the Bulge etc. These battles cost the Wehrmacht hundreds of thousands of lives and thousands of armored vehicles/ artillery/ aircraft. Each loss was another broken vertabrae in Germany’s back. All of them were the result of Hitler’s personal hubris. Stalingrad could have been bypassed- instead the entire 6th Army was consumed and marked the official turning point on the East Front and the war in general. Kursk was pure stubbornness- the Red Army had over 10,000 pieces of artillery prepared, massive anti-tank earthworks, and outnumbered the German armor by over 2 -1, and knowing this Hitler still ordered Operation Citadel to continue. What a dufus.

Less resources spent on ‘wonder’ weapons and V1 &2 (Vengeance) rockets. Negligible effect on the war, large amount of brain power and resources wasted. Again, this was personal and not rational.

As said earlier in this thread, winter clothing for the start of Barbarossa.

Implementation of total war economy. Hitler insisted on having life in the Reich stay as normal as possible. Oops. In the meantime Russian women were flying Yaks and driving T-34s, American women were working their asses off on assembly lines producing Shermans, and all the while German women were getting busy trying to push out as many aryan babies as possible. Another mistake.

Allowing Goering to lose focus on the prize during the Battle of Britain. The RAF was exhausted and all but defeated. A few stray bombs fell on London by mistake, and the next thing you know the Luftwaffe is going after cities rather than the battered British air force. This break allowed them to recoup, and Britain remained alive and eventually became the staging ground for D-Day.

There are a bunch more.

If Hitler had been offed, and his generals had taken control of the state, Germany would have avoided myriad disasters and most likely would have kicked in Russia’s door.

Thank god all the assassination attempts failed.

I do the same, switch- but I play against a skilled player who buys a carrier G1 , then a transport the next two rounds. When the end is closing in, he often will buy a second carrier. The trick is the extra transports provide a lot more ability to counter in force in Karelia, using just purchased infantry from Germany. It’s quite effective if the Allied player isn’t used to seeing it.

The counter to it is to build two British transports on UK1, so that 8 ground units can start hitting the ground immediately on UK2. The US buys a carrier and two transports. On turn 3 the Allied fleet can move into SZ 6 and is unafraid of the mostly defensive German fleet, and a UK3 carrier purchase and simultaneous placement in SZ6 seals the deal. Eventually the US can build up enough force to kill the kreigsmarine.

In all two loads of UK and US troops cleanse Africa, and the Allies are firmly entrenched in Norway shortly thereafter. At the least Germans have to start bleeding  against beige and green pieces, which allows Russia some breathing room.

All the while Russia entrenches itself firmly in West Russia.

I can’t pull the trigger on that much German navy personally, but until I got a handle on what he was doing his purchases caused alot of misery.

The 6 Russians and Brit fighter have moved by J2.

It’s a good move- saves a destroyer and keeps Japan from going banzai on those 6 infantry (some people do, after all).

However, if 2 German units are holding Egypt, I feel the best move with the fighter is to take Egypt back along with 3 infantry and slow Germany’s advances in Africa to a crawl.

To me the final use is coupling with the sub to take out the Japanese sub, then landing on the US carrier at Pearl. No jap sub + extra fighter means some risk for the Japanese fleet-  too much attrition and it makes a US counter more feasible.

I really dislike the idea of parking the British fighter in China. Talk about no chance of survival.

I’ll flip this one on its head.

You said Aretaku that you’re tired of trading units with Russia and waiting for Japan. Instead of trying to figure out a way to go after Britain and the U.S., how about coming up with a better way to kill Russia? I know this is a generality, but try not to trade endlessly. A much better position is to target a territory on the front and take it in force and hold it. Karelia is a nice example. It commands Archangel and W Russia- both only a step away from the prize of Moscow. It can be effectively reinforced with fresh infantry armies if the Baltic fleet is maintained. So you’ve solved the boredom problem if you can manage to do it- you’re setting the pace on the front and dictating terms to Russia- not too boring at all.

Belorussia and the Ukraine have their charms as well.

It’s not easy to do, but it would solve the problem of setting up a stack in Poland and running the same battles over and over again on the East Front.

Couldn’t have said it better.

Man would I love to get my hands on Germany in a game where the U.S. goes all out with navy and airforce vs. Japan. Things would get uncomfortable for Russia really, really fast.

Germany would be lightly defending its flanks with no U.S. Atlantic presence. With a carrier build and 1-2 extra transports over the next several rounds, along with 6 fighters and a bomber, the British fleet would be easily held at bay, and the north would be in German hands. Or if it wasn’t then Africa would be covered in Iron Crosses… pick your poison. Then the fun part-- eating Russians and washing them down with Schnapps.

A growing threat in Karelia would eventually become a growing threat in W Russia would eventually become a Russian decision to give up the Caucasus. All the while the entire U.S. economy is poured into pieces that do not take and hold ground. Forgive me for being old fashioned but give me a flow of 8-10 U.S. infantry into Europe and Africa, combined with the occasional piece of hardware, and I’m a happy man. At the least I’m able to force Germany to make choices it doesn’t want to make, rather than letting them romp through the East Front with only sadsack Russians to hold them back, wondering why their supposed allies are adventuring in the Pacific while they bleed.

Look at it this way- every carrier is 2 inf/ 2 arm, every fighter is 2 inf/ art, every bomber is 5 inf. When the Wehrmacht is knocking on Russia’s door, 3 carriers couldn’t save it, but 6 inf/ 6 arm might.

The key is Germany’s battle in Egypt. If 2 units survive then it’s worth using 3 infantry and a fighter to take back Egypt and stall Germany’s advance into Africa. (If Germany isn’t positioned correctly with air power then it’s also the right time to land in Algeria with a combined U.K. and U.S. force). If 3 German units survive in Egypt then the Brit fighter and sub can kill Japan’s sub and the fighter can beef up the pearl fleet. In either case the destroyer needs to take out the Kwangtung transport. No matter what I choose to do offensively, in NCM I pick up the NZ infantry and bring it back to Australia, and my carrier and transport are in SZ 34.

During U.S.1, fly the U.S. Hawaiin fighter to Australia. There are now 4 infantry and a fighter on Australia, which pretty much assures that Japan will look elsewhere for IPCs on J 2. They probably would have anyways, but now it’s a done deal.

On U.K.2, move two British infantry from Australia west to SZ 30, and move carrier/ fighter from SZ 34 to SZ 30 if Japan has fighters parked on a carrier off F Indochina. If not no protection is needed.

On U.S. 2 move the fighter parked in Australia to the British carrier, wherever that might be (SZs 34, 30, or 28).

On U.K. 3 those two Australian infantry are now in position to limit Germany’s depredations in Africa. At the very least they’ll be able to help hold the 2 IPCs in S Africa. Furthermore, the U.S fighter from Hawaii is now positioned to be used throughout Africa on U.S.3, which otherwise wouldn’t be the case (it would be landing in Britain or Algeria normally, and therefore unusable for combat).

The Brit carrier and 1-2 transports can move around the Cape and be in SZ 12 by U.K. 5 at the latest, which will free up other Allied shipping for more efficient logistics.

So all told the British Pacific fleet will have either participated in re-taking Egypt or making Japan’s life more difficult in Pearl, will have taken out a valuable Jap transport, will have helped to bulk up Australia, will assist in holding Africa, will act as a landing strip for an important U.S. fighter, and the carrier will soon help greatly in the Atlantic. Assuming a long game against a tough opponent, every piece is valuable and shouldn’t be thrown into the fire for short term gain (i.e. Borneo/ New Guinea strikes).

OK, a poll then…

If you’re Germany, and you see a lone Russian infantry in Karelia, how do you attack it?

The answers will provide the evidence for my assertion that the blocker is a good thing for Russia. Germany has to use either 3+ infantry to kill it, or 2 infantry and a fighter. That compromises some of Germany’s other options.

Example- 3 infantry in Karelia means 2 less in E Europe, which means potentially 2 less in Belo or the Ukraine on G2 if Germany wishes to push forward. As we all know 2 infantry can often mean the difference mathematically whether a move is feasible or not .

And if a fighter is used, well… Germany’s air power is needed more in other places. Every battle is critical.

IMO, leave the blitzing tank out of the equation. The blocker forces German offensive action that otherwise would be a simple 1 infantry walk-in. As the German player, which one causes more potential problems-  stepping in to Karelia for free or being forced to assault it?

But there are other reasons to use the blitz blocker besides the IPC trade…
1.  Without it, Russia has to divert forces to Archangel to re-take it in R2, otherwise you are -4 IPC.  Unless you move the WRS to Archangel (a bad move) you invite a counter-attack against your minimal forces in Archangel, losign those forces, and then STILL having a problem with Germany on your doorstep for R3.  That even further changes the economics of the trade to favor Germany.
2.  It forces you to split your forces, even if only a small number of them, in order to counter the ARM in Archangel.  Those forces, if not sent to Archangel, can better be used trading Ukraine, or reinforcing the WRS
3.  It lets Germany re-position for a better Southern Strike on Russia.  They grab both Karelia and Archangel with the blitz, TRN from Norway to Eastern, and stage heavy in Eastern.  This forces Russia to keep trading Belo (or to take it with minimal forces if they did not already), and try to protect both Karelia and Ukraine/Caucuses.  And, while the WRS is a pretty powerful entity, if it get drwan into a head-to-head early on with what Germany can stage in Eastern on G1, it is toast with a large German force survivigthe battle…

Great points Switch. I’d like to add one thing-

4. The German player is required to bring either 3 infantry or 2 infantry/1 fighter when a single Russian infantry is present to assure a reasonable chance at taking Karelia. This accomplishes two things for the price of 1 infantry- prevents a larger stack in E Europe, and/or forces a fighter to be used, meaning one less fighter in one of these places- Egypt/Belo/SZ 15/SZ 13/or the Ukraine. A German walk in of Karelia allows 2 German infantry to board the transport and land safely in E Europe, meaning a larger presence on G2.

W Russia is Russia’s best friend or worst enemy… just like Kazahk it commands both Russia and the Caucasus. The Russian player should only back out of W Russia if imminent destruction is at hand — otherwise hold the line.

Armor, as said above, is valuable as both a deterrent and as tough mobile defense to shore up weak points quickly.

I believe that if your purchases are in the neighborhood of 5 inf/ art/ armor for every 24 IPCs spent you’ll be able to play both offense and defense efficiently. Of course that’s subject to change as the game evolves but it’s a pretty good standard mix.

If the UK fig is flown in for defense, then Bury is skipped.

Thanks, Tri- this is the crux of what I was trying to say. I even put it in bold in my last post to make it clear :-D

But I’ll do it again because it’s fun.

Russian and British choices dictate whether Japan can even think about Buryatia or not.

Buryatia is only possible if the right conditions exist. An extra British fighter in China means the right conditions do not exist. And if you do choose to do it, you build accordingly (3 transports), which deals with the U.S. threat.

To every question of “well what if _______ and what if________”,  I answer- don’t attack Buryatia.