Posts made by 8thGuards

@Tjoek said in Tjoek's Global 1940 setup charts: Updated Dec 23rd:

@8thGuards Did you by any chance also verify the 1942 setup? Or just the 1940 setup?

Just the 1940, sorry.

I have an idea for something else. What about another chart about 2/3rds of the size of one of these setup charts, divided in two sectors. One sector with a unit price list, another with a mobilization zone for the purchase face. I think would be a lot better than the “fixed” price list/mobilization zone that used to be on the map (before you removed it, which I approve of). Then you could basically put it down wherever you want, depending on what power and which side of the map you’re at.

@Tjoek said in Tjoek's Global 1940 setup charts: Updated Dec 23rd:

I’ve finished creating all the setup charts for both Global 1940 and 1942. See the first message for the ZIP file containing all files. This does include setup charts for the Neutral powers as well.

Let me know if there are any errors.

They look great!

A few errors:

ANZAC
NSW minor factory (not major)

Neutrals
Persia 2 inf (not 3)

Germany
Poland tac (not ftr)

Italy
sz95 missing sub

UK Europe
France art (not inf)
Scotland airbase (not naval base)

UK Pacific
India art (not mech)

USA
Midway/Wake/Guam each have airbase (not naval base)

ANZAC attacks the Philippines

Moves a CV, TAC, FTR, 2 DD and 2 SS into the Philippines seazone along with 3 fully loaded TRN

Japan has 2 SS in the sea zone, decides to use its kamikazes against the ANZAC surface fleet and scrambles the FTR and TAC that are on the Philippines to force a sea combat (otherwise it would have been an amphibious assault without sea combat).

1 the kamikazes eliminate 2 DD and damage the CV
2 both sides submarines decide to stay and fight, JAP scores one hit which ANZAC absorbs against the CV that is now sunk
3 as a result of no destroyers left, there are essentially 2 separate battles (2 SS vs 2 SS, and FTR+TAC vs FTR+TAC)
4 at the end, JAP has 1 SS left (kept the SS fighting to hopefully prevent amphibious assault, is that the right assumption?), ANZAC has one FTR left

What happens? Must ANZAC retreat its 3 loaded TRN since it has no attacking sea battle combat units left that could hit the remaining JAP SS or does it get to land on Philippines? And the ANZAC FTR has one movement point left and is thus basically lost. Japan kept its subs on the surface to prevent the landing and eliminate the ANZAC subs.

Question regarding submarines.

If a lone submarine attacks another lone submarine, both obviously have the option to either surprise strike or submerge.

Suppose both decide to surprise strike, if the attacker hits, does the defending submarine still get its surprise strike? And can submarines eliminate each other that way? Or does the surprise strike only count against surface warships?

Last weekend G40 game

Battle of Moscow G7

Germany scored maybe 25% hits, won’t have been much more
Russia scored just over 50% hits (exactly 50% on 2s, and all but one of 3s and 4s including UK FTRs)

Russia was thus safe for the foreseeable future, buying time for US/UK to build their invasion fleet. To think that Russian AAAs only downed one plane. Axis conceded when a Japanese attack on the US Pacific fleet also went badly.

I’m looking forward to next saturday.

I also add a vote for option 3. Love the new Gibraltar (but I already told you that off-site) :-D

Also I like the special surprise.

@Tjoek:

@Wedge:

Good idea TJoeK - that makes since and a lot more cost effective.Â

I learned this trick when I was invited to play in a different group where they used regular but different colors dice. They would throw them all and depending the color you had to look for the right number of pips.

Not as quick as real hit dice, but it does the job.

I might know which group  :-D

I think it looks amazing.

Since you’ve been updating territory names. One or two things have been bothering me since the release of the OOB maps.

Volgograd. I’ve been thinking what it should be named instead. Maybe Don-Volga or Don Valley or something like that.
Samara. Whilst not as egregious as Volgograd, this territory and its capital city were called Kuybyshev and Kuybyshev Oblast from 1936 to 1991.

Also, maybe Gibraltar and sz 110 (English channel) could be slighly larger?

@Caesar:

As for Spain, history is basically in agreement that Franco wouldn’t join the Axis unless he got everything he wanted which was former French colonies in Africa and Gibraltar.

Didn’t Hitler send admiral Canaris to Madrid to get Franco to fully commit, with Canaris then doing the exact opposite telling Franco to stay out at all cost?

@Midnight_Reaper:

Well, I think that one of the major consequences of the US staying out of the war would have been all of Germany being run by Soviets, as opposed to just their chunk in the east.

-Midnight_Reaper

Had operation Overlord failed all of Western Europe would have been in the Soviet sphere. Had Churchill protested Stalin would simply ask him “where is your army”.

Likely that Franco would have been overthrown in Spain by the Red Army.

@Zooey72:

Something that I think people forget about the Soviet Union under Stalin is that it was as bad, if not worse than Hitler. I can not remember his name, but there was an admiral in the British navy who said (after he found out that Germany invaded the U.S.S.R.) “It is a pity they both can’t lose”.

Many more people died in gulags than in concentration camps; but the winners write the history books.

Germany’s war caused at least 17 million civilian casualties in the east alone (Poland, Balkans, Soviet Union), which is more than for all of Stalin’s rule (12-15 million). The big difference between the gulags (where about 2 million people died) and the concentration/extermination camps was that the Soviets used prisoners mostly for labor, whereas a large part of the German effort was aimed at extermination.

Hitler was far, far worse. Churchill recognized this the very day Hitler attacked Stalin, by promising unlimited support for the Soviet Union as far as Britain was capable of.

The Cold War has caused a severe distortion in the history writing of World War II. Germany was allowed to downplay and deny many of its crimes (apart from the ‘holocaust’) and the Soviet citizens killed by Hitler’s deployment squads, SS and Wehrmacht were casually added to Stalin’s death count for propaganda purposes. The clean Wehrmacht myth is a Cold War propaganda fabrication.

You might have heard of Red Army behavior towards civilians once they crossed into German territory. What they did was bad, sure, but it was nothing compared to the mass murder and genocide Hitler’s troops practised nearly everywhere they went. The biggest difference, once German soldiers were done raping Polish or Russian women, they usually killed them right after. In the BBC documentary “War of the Century: when Hitler fought Stalin” this is addressed, this documentary clearly mentions that most Wehrmacht units are heavily implicated in the war crimes, including rapes, murders, and mass shootings.

Had the Red Army done in Germany what the Wehrmacht and SS did in Poland and the Soviet Union, Germany would have suffered at least 7 million casualties more.

It’s unlikely that Germany could have succesfully invaded and occupied Britain in the period shortly after they effectively allowed the British army to escape from Dunkirk. Had they managed to capture most or all of the British army, things might have been a little different.

But as others say, Germany didn’t really have an invasion fleet ready for such a purpose. They would have required complete control of the skies, and somehow been able to clear most or all of the British fleet from the channel for a period of at least a week or so.

Another big question, how does the relationship with the Soviet Union develop if peace prevails in the East? The exchange of food and materials. Would Germany have been able to convince Stalin to swing his army south to the Middle East or even India to threaten British interests there?

The best Germany could hope for in a war that doesn’t include an eastern front is a prolonged stalemate where the political situation in Britain/USA changes to governments more willing to compromise. There is a good chance Churchill might have been toppled had operation Dynamo failed. But an all out axis victory was always out of the question, imho. They needed either to quickly knock the Soviet Union out and grab all its resources, or have a prolonged stalemate where the west tires of war.

Wow! Looks really good. But… Saigon is now in Siam???

@NotEvenJail:

A competent Russia will just straight up steam roll Germany. Case closed.

RUS would be expected to have much of its army in East Poland by turn 2/3 ready to strike for lightly defended Romania/Hungary and having sent a strikeforce towards Finland.

@sjlr1:

This map looks great! Looking forward to completion :-)

Looking at the 1st edition pacific board, I’ve also noticed that Sydney and Calcutta have the round victory city symbols rather than the square capitals symbols… at least that is what the first edition board looks like, maybe it’s rectified in the 2nd ed. Calcutta mightn’t need one since it’s part of the UK, but it is essentially a capital. I corrected this myself on YG’s board but you might want to do it on your own board.

Checked my 2nd edition OOB boards, and indeed they still have the round VC symbols. Great spot!

Looks really great.

@TripleA:

September 23rd there will be a game of 1940 global at my place! If you’re interrested, let me know! There is still place for more players!
Location: Lelystad the Netherlands!

Zeker geïnteresseerd!

Got space for more?

It was either Beevor’s Stalingrad or Shirer’s Rise and fall of the Third Reich.

Interesting to see how the German/Axis deployment in the southern sector looks sparse, at first glance. Maybe key to why Army Group South struggled more than the other two did in the early stages? That and the Soviet commander of the Southwest Front (Kirponos) being more competent than the other four?