Posts made by 88 Millimeter

Germany could have won the war only under the following conditions:

1. Hitler stays out of the military operations and allows the military to run the show.

Of course his insanity and hubris would never allow this, but to me it’s the only answer.

2. A corollary- Goering and other crackpots are not allowed to make military decisions.

The diversion of Luftwaffe resources from destroying planes, airfields and radar to bombing London (Goering’s decision) was widely acclaimed to be the breathing space which allowed the RAF to recover. This decision again was based on pure irrationality- the British could be subdued and would sue for peace if enough suffering was inflicted on the populace. The only way Britain would be subdued would be either imminent or actual invasion, to which the main precursor was the destuction of British airpower.

From this follows two of the most significant decisions on the Ost Front- the diversion of Army Group Center to the south because of Hitler’s stated goal of destroying the bulk of the Russian Army in the field, and secondly the disaster of Stalingrad- which was largely political in motivation. What the hell was he thinking not pulling out the bulk of the Sixth Army when he had a chance? Pure pride, which cometh before the fall. Turning point on the front and of the war.

Luckily for the world Hitler wasn’t a rational man, and wouldn’t allow those who had a measure of military sense to call the shots.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, but I think it’s important- who are you playing against?

If the Axis is winning nearly every game played, then there is a flaw in the players, not the game. Most likely a static strategy, or improper logistics, or just plain 'ol bad purchasing habits.

If two people who go head to head purchase wisely, take time to plan their moves, and can see the big picture then most games should be pretty even, with a very slight allied advantage.

And Octopus, stop teasing us with your master axis strategy… out with it!

Hey Tri- the only amendment I’d make to this- and I’ve learned it through alot of trial and error- is to take it easy on the armor. Lately I’ve been playing Japan with 2 ICs (usually FIC and India, FIC and Kwangtung if India’s not an option). With at the very least 4 Transports, you now have 14 units you can push into Asia every turn. The vast majority should be Infantry. An Art or Arm when you have an extra 1 or 2 IPCs is nice, but with the airforce you start with you’re all set with almost all Infantry. You’d be surprised how much bigger you get. With Armor you’re always a little worried about getting too close to Russian stacks, as they’ll happily trade their Infantry for Armor anyday. But trading Inf for Inf is another matter entirely, and entirely worth it for Japan.

As far as the navy goes- if the British sub takes out your sub, AND the Russians have stacked 6 Inf in Buryatia, why not club the Russians over the head with everything you’ve got? 6 Russian Infantry is a tough loss, and you can still attack China with 4 Inf and 2 Ftrs. Leave 1 Inf in FIC, and with 4 Transports and a combined in SZ 60 you can wallop or reinforce FIC in J2, take India on J3, and start pressuring the Caucasus soon thereafter. If I were going to add any navy beyond transports it would be subs, and then only if the U.S. were building in the Pacific. And if they are, then watch out for Germany because they should be able to expand into Africa more effectively.

A little more aggressive…

5 Inf/Art/Arm, or 4 Inf/3 Art, or 3 Inf/3 Arm

8 Inf/ Art/ 2 Arm to W Russia (should take with 5 Inf left), 3 Inf/ Art/ 2 Arm/ 2 Ftr to Ukraine (should take with 1 Arm).

6 Inf to Buryatia, 2 Inf to Russia, 2 Inf to Sinkiang, 2 Inf to Caucasus, land Ftrs in Caucasus, Russian AA to W Russia.

Collect 29 IPCs (pretty f’ing good purchase on R2), deny Germany access to the Caucasus, deny Germany a counterattack in W Russia, eliminate Ukrainian forces- and most importantly as the game lengthens- the Ftr parked there (also rubs out an 3 Inf, an Arm and Art). I don’t think it’s possible to argue that every German Ftr isn’t precious. Deny Japan an easy IPC in Buryatia, fortify Sinkiang as Switch said, and still manage to purchase some offense. Germany is also forced to take back the Ukraine, which thins their offense out a bit and means potentially one less Ftr in either SZ 15 or Egypt, making the dice a little more unpredictable.

You then proceed to stack in W Russia for as long as possible, and trade the Ukraine when lightly (1 or 2 Inf) defended, as it’s worth 3 IPCs.

The math of this opening move is also in favor of Russia- loss of 3 Inf/ Art/2 Arm=23 IPCs in equipment lost. Germany loses 28 IPCs worth. Russia gains 3 IPCs for taking the Ukraine, and the Armor will potentially take out an Inf on the way out (50/50 chance). That’s the potential for an 11 IPC swing in material. What you gain strategically is important to think about as well. How many IPCs is it worth to deny Germany the use of a Ftr for an entire game? Especially the longer the game goes. Anyone who’s lost a Bomber early on knows what I mean. It’s huge.

Every time I’ve posted this someone’s tried to shoot it down, but I don’t see the downside, provided you’re up to the task of reinforcing Russia quickly (the loss of Russian Armor can be painful, but necessary).

Whenever I’m Germany and my opposition leaves me the Ukraine, I feel like I already have an advantage. Can someone explain to me why this isn’t a solid opening move with Russia?

I just finished reading the abridged memoirs of Winston Churchill, covering WWII of course. It was new for me to get the British perspective, and very informative.

Also, A Feast for Crows by George R.R. Martin.

For those about to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich- excellent book- I’ve read it twice. You won’t be disappointed.

Back to Switch’s reply about the Ukraine…

Leave Belorussia, take 8 Inf, Art, 2 Arm into W Russia, 3 Inf, Art, 2 Arm, 2 Ftr into Ukraine. By the odds you then have 5 Inf and hardware left in W Russia, and you should take the Ukraine with an Arm left. The purchase is 3 Inf, 3 Arm. Net results- Russia collects 29 IPCs (not too shabby), Germany cannot realistically counter W Russia, Caucasus, or stack troops in the Ukraine. But in my opinion the biggest prize is the German Fighter. 5 Ftrs limits Germany’s versatility on G1. Plus the German hardware in the Ukraine can no longer be used elsewhere.

Non combat 2 Inf to Sinkiang, 2 Inf to Caucasus, 2 Inf to Russia, 6 Inf to Buryatia. Sub joins BB and Trans. Fighters to Caucasus (or Kazahk for retribution in China on R2, if Japan is thin). Place 3 Inf, Arm in Caucasus, 2 Arm in Russia. You now have the capability on R2 to also strafe Karelia or the Ukraine if Germany doesn’t place properly. The assertion that Russia doesn’t have enough Armor is not true with this purchase.

R2 purchase 8 Inf, Arm and enjoy. For several rounds you’ll produce more than 24 IPCs of Russian units- guaranteed if a Carrier was purchased. Prepare for the Russian Bear.

More importantly, in this particular conversation, Germany’s options are a bit less limited. One less Fighter is a big deal in the land and naval battles. If I see a German carrier on G1, I also realize that I now have the initiative on the front vs. Germany. 2 Transports on G1 is different, because it means on G2 6 Inf will show up on the scene in Karelia.

Oh, and I’ll continue to hold fast to in a non-bid situation the absolute necessity of taking out Egypt using the Battleship and Transport. Going into the Ukraine with them would make the British player very, very confident.

I’ve played more than a few games, and if as a German I still hold the Ukraine on G1 I’m a happy monkey. The same holds true with being British and holding Egypt and its Ftr on UK1.

Play test R1 just as I wrote it up and get back to me.

True, it was just the tone. It was almost as if no opposing arguement had been made at all. When someone replies to a thread, it’s good etiquette to say something like “I see your point, but…” or something to that effect. Switch seemed pretty dismissive of the whole idea. Maybe just a problem with the medium. If we were sitting face to face and saw him smile as he said it it’d probably be different.

Anyhow, Germany would have no Ukrainian Fighter vs. me, so Egypt’s looking pretty difficult without a bid (which I also don’t use). Without Egypt falling Britain’s feeling pretty good about itself. Using airforce to take out Destroyers is also pretty risky business- for the short term it’s fine, but for the long term losing Fighters is tough for Germany.

Ultimately, in my opinion, there’s a trade off for trying to unite Germany’s navy. In my experience, if I saw my opponent doing it, I’d feel pretty good about my chances, as the Allies will win the naval battle 99 out of 100 times.

I would counter it by uniting in SZ8, with no blockers. Just play defense until supremacy was gained. It wouldn’t be long. If Germany moved its united fleet back to the Baltic, it’s trapped, into the Med, it’s trapped as well. In the meantime Africa’s looking pretty beige, which means that the usual Allied effort to retake Africa was unnecessary, freeing up IPCs for shiphunting.

Anyhow- if you guys are using bids let me know, because I’ll take it all back. If an Infantry is placed in Libya, and an Armor in Algeria, then by all means consolidate your BB, Tranny, and sub. If you can unite your navy from there, it’s not a bad move. But without the bid I see it as a killer.

Hey Aretaku-

First of all, I don’t play with NAs so I can’t be specific, but I’ll give a couple of overall tips that might ( I emphasize MIGHT) be of help.

#1 The most fun you’ll have is by trial and error. There is no perfect strategy. Personally, my philosophies have come from when I screwed up, and lost games because of bonehead decisions.

#2 Never buy pieces because you think it would be nice to have them. I’ve seen alot of people do that. “Battleships… hmmm… 4 attack, 4 defense, 2 hits to kill… I’ll buy one per round!” Bad idea. Every piece you buy should have a purpose. A Battleship is the same as 8 infantry, and it’s hard to imagine a time in the game when you wouldn’t want 8 more Infantry on the board.

#3 There is no such thing (most of the time) as a bad Infantry purchase. Even though their numbers on attack and defense aren’t very potent, and they’re not too exciting, they’re cheap and protect your costlier offensive pieces. Try not to get to a point where you’re using artillery and armor as fodder. That means you have to purchase wisely, with EVERY country. Example- 27 IPCs for Russia, typically for me would be 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, and 1 Armor. If you’re purchasing like that, and your opponents aren’t, you’ll eventually see their Infantry dry up, and while you’re losing Infantry (at 3 IPCs), they’re losing Arty or Armor (4 and 5 IPCs). Since it’s an economic game, you’ll win over the long term.

#4 Familiarize yourself with the strafe attack. You attack for one or two rounds, and retreat. The idea is to knock your opponent down so that they won’t be able to counterattack you on their next turn. If you do it well, you could eat into someone’s Artillery, Armor, or better stuff, without exposing your forces to destruction after the fight. It’s also a sneaky way to enhance movement. For example- you’ve got 4 American Infantry & 2 American Armor in Transjordan, and 2 Infantry & 2 Fighters in the Caucasus. There are 6 Japanese infantry in Persia. The Japanese have a large force in India. Instead of bringing all of the forces into Persia and killing the Japanese (therefore leaving your forces exposed to certain destruction), you can attack for one round- killing 3 Japanese Infantry, and losing 2 (by the odds). You then retreat everything back to the Caucasus. You’ve just reduced the Japanese garrison in Persia, and inflicted more damage than you took, while also strategically placing more of your forces in the Caucasus (assuming you needed them there).

#5 Do everything in your power to make your opponent react to you. Gaining the initiative is a HUGE part of this game. Try to dictate the terms. I know that’s a sweeping statement but as you get better at logistics, and understand the ebb and flow of the game more you’ll see what I mean.

#6 To figure out battles, and how they’ll potentially go, add up all the pips on offense and divide by six. You’ll get an approximate number of hits. Do the same on defense. If you don’t figure out the odds before you fight a battle it’s like going in blind. You can’t control the actual roll of the dice but you can control staying out of a battle that by the odds you should lose.

I hope some of this stuff helps, and good luck to you.

OK, it’s clear that even after my philosophical ramblings and Thamor’s lucid arguement that you’re unstoppable. More power to you, man.

Think about 2 Transports on G1, and the Carrier on G2. Before the allies take it out it has transported at least 3 loads of Inf/Art to Karelia, so that Germany continuously has the initiative vs. Russia.

Trading countries sucks. Holding them counts. With two more Transports you rule the north for a time, and hold Karelia, while continuing to do the usual expand and contract in Africa.

If you can purchase expanded mobility, and therefore versatility, it doesn’t matter as much that you spent 32 IPCs on navy, as your Inf can move to the front much faster.

IMO, initiative matters much more in this game than the pieces that you buy, or having the perfect strategy. Finding ways to take and hold territories, of forcing your opponent to not go where they want to go and react to you, is much more important.

Purchasing navy, when done correctly for Germany, allows them (for a time) to gain the initiative, and forces the allies to react to them, which is ALWAYS preferable. Holding Karelia does the same, as Germany is now swapping spots in Archangel and W Russia rather than in Karelia, Belorussia, and the Ukraine. Advantage Germany.

The AC on G1 doesn’t give the Axis the initiative, although it does allow for a limited amount of versatility, as it keeps the Baltic navy alive for the time being. Assuming no bid, leaving Egypt alone on the first turn is a sin. The British WILL haunt you, if the allied player is worth his (or her) salt. So to me the idea of combining the Kriegsmarine, while intoxicating, will open up a can of worms.

Both sides have merit- as always there’s no one true path.

If you want to be solid, and hold off the allies for a long time, assuming KGF, lots of manpower is necessary. In that scenario Infantry and Armor builds make alot of sense (with the emphasis heavily on Infantry).

If you want to maintain versatility (most likely for a limited time), two transports on G1 (followed as necessary by naval puchases which keep the threat of British naval annhilation alive) is a great purchase. As Trihero said, it forces Britain to keep an eye on their own island, and threatens the British navy. Â

The game is all about initiative- who can take and hold a territory first. For example, if Russia takes and holds W Russia, advantage Russia. If Germany takes and holds Karelia, advantage Germany. This only applies as long as the edge can be maintained and the position continually resupplied , and you are not forced to retreat and get into a trading war.

The naval purchase gives Germany the initiative vs. the allied navies, and the ground purchase (once the Infantry has advanced) gives the initiative vs. Russia. Pick your poison. You can’t have it all vs. experienced players.

Personally I’m a fan of bulking up on land and saying to hell with the Kriegsmarine. Germany becomes the anvil and is very tough to crack, as Japan grows in power. But the more I play the more I see the benefits of the Baltic fleet surviving, at least long enough to force allied naval purchases to counter it, and long enough to send several waves of Infantry via land bridge to Karelia. The north is worth nearly as much as Africa, and allowing the U.S. and Britain to get rooted in in Norway and Karelia can be fatal to Germany. The German naval purchase can stall this from happening, potentially giving the initiative to Germany.

Wow, spirited debate, and too much to comment on piece by piece, but the short answer is this, and forgive me for oversimplifying…

Many, many experienced players have messed with this game since it came out. The general consensus is that the Axis needs a small bid to maintain game balance. It’s hard to argue with thousands of playtesters who have spent hundreds of hours playing coming to the same conclusion.

Yes Japan can become beastly. But in this version the result is an emasculated Germany, if two seasoned players are going head to head.

My advice is to play decent opponents for 10 games or so and see what happens. If you’re kicking everyone’s a** with Japan everytime then maybe you know something the rest of us don’t. And in that case you can come back and fill us all in.

Try this one, as a follow up to the British Fighter in the Pacific–

Use your sub and fighter to hit the Japanese sub, then land the fighter on the U.S. carrier. It forces Japan to bring an extra fighter to Hawaii, and to probably lose one. It nearly guarantees that the Japanese sub will be gone. Watch the Japanese player squirm and curse. Of course, you couple this with a destroyer on the Japanese transport. If you’re feeling particularly adventurous, hit both Borneo and New Guinea with two infantry each. Place the carrier in a blocking position, or pull it back to Africa.

Zooey- I agree with your assessment of the value of a strong Luftwaffe- to an extent.

To me it depends on how you philosophically approach the interplay between Germany and Japan. If the allies are using a KGF strategy, then you find that trading territories, playing defense on your flanks, and harrassing allied shipping are all critical. A fighter a turn, with mostly infantry (sprinkle in an artillery, armor, or both each turn) will provide you with the ability to cash out a little over 40 deep into the game, while simultaneously providing defense for your flanks with fighters that return from the front (landing in France, Italy). If, however, the allies are distracted in any way from KGF, then a heavier purchase of armor is necessary to take and hold land on the Ost Front, to maneuver in such a way as to either knock out Russia or deal them a crippling blow.

The question is, as Germany, are you the hammer or the anvil? The hammer needs armor, the anvil fighters.Â

Russia can absolutely survive as long as the threat of allied landings (or actual landings, of course) can keep the German player from launching an all-out offensive. If no pressure is applied to Germany at all I fear for Russia’s survival.

As to the purchase, you will very quickly find yourself to be short of infantry on the front. The only way it works is vs. a very inexperienced German player. Occasionally, vs. someone who is learning the ropes, I’ll purchase one fighter to give myself more flexibility on all fronts. Land forces are the only way to take and hold land, which is key to winning the economic battle- it’s not enough for Russia to simply trade territories, which is the probable outcome of a commitment to buying two fighters. As a German player, I’d feel like I had already won if I saw two Russian fighters purchased on the first turn.

I agree with almost every comment made in this thread.

However, when I do get a chance to play the games are amazingly long as is. I believe that Larry Harris/ MB/ AH had to balance out the fact that the true strategy games were appealing only to the hardcore war gamers, while games like risk were a bit too simple.

I have a ton of house rules, as most of us do, but the out of the box game does need to stay relatively uncomplicated to keep a broader appeal. And if it doesn’t have that appeal, places like this where we can talk about it probably don’t exist. A fifteen year old kid probably isn’t that interested in alot of the historically accurate details, and might not play much if one turn took two hours or they constantly had to return to the rule book for clarification.

I assume that alot of the things that we feel are missing are subsumed by the IPC cost. For example- supplies, logistics, intelligence. For 3 IPCs you get an Infantry unit along with the rail supply, reinforcements, and other support needed to keep it going in the field.

That having been said- sub warfare (including commerce raiding), AA rules, air combat, and National Advantages all need, IMO, alot of tweaking (or inclusion) for those of us who are interested in expanding the game.

Carrier and a transport for 24 IPCs. It depends on the country, but that gives you the best potential for defense plus the ability to get more boots on the ground, which is the ultimate objective.

I’m not quite sure what sucks about being able to mow down your enemy every round and fall back to safety, ready to do it again next turn. A few infantry to absorb hits and you’re in business. It kicks a** from an economic perspective, as you don’t have to leave armor on the front to die. I played one game with it and every round I consistently killed 2-3 more infantry than I lost, and then coiled up for the next attack. That’s like industrial bombing for 6-9 IPCs per round, not bad. If your aim is to go kill Russia I understand why it’s not so important, but if Germany is playing the anvil and Japan the hammer it’s perfect. Your tanks become like half-price fighters.

Germany to me requires the most skill, as every purchase and every move is vital. It’s the one nation that can have three other powers hammering on it every turn. Balancing offense and defense, placement of pieces to put pressure on Russia, grabbing economy in Africa and knowing when to pull out, and using your navy and airforce to maximum efficiency is a skill- one which most of us are still trying to figure out.

The other thing about Germany is that it seems to have no margin for error at all- you have to be on top of every move and not make one stupid mistake.

So if you play Germany go slow on the beer and offer alot to your opponent.

The U.S. seems the easiest- no pressure at all on the capital, so it becomes a game of logistics to get the maximum firepower into the war as soon as possible. Japan may be simple with regard to what to buy, but maximizing Japan’s potential is a skill. When and how to expand with Japan is vital. And I agree that Russia would not be the best nation to entrust to a newbie, so that’s a good test for ease of play.