Topics created by ABWorsham4

I generally favor a G2 attack as there are very little Russian units on the board, the more rounds you wait to attack the more infantry they can stack in Moscow, Ideally on a G2 attack you can be attacking Moscow or on the brink of attacking when the allies threaten to land. The longer you wait to attack the longer you will have to fight a 2 front war.

@Private:

Keep counting AB. There is no maximum. :-)

Thank you.

Malachi placed a IC in Philippines and started pouring units into the territory. Had to use a much larger force to take the islands.

@118karate:

Okay so quick question about tables I have both HBG games -939 and 1936 and I’m thinking of building a table that would fit them and fit 1940 global but I don’t know how any ideas appreciated send them my way thanks!

Several customized A&A tables can be seen in this thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20658.0
Axis and Allies.org Boards > General > Axis & Allies Customizations > Global Gaming Table Threads and Pictures

Can anyone with a ruler tell me how tall the infantry for this game stand? (Particularly the blue axe and shield infantry?).

Allies won in round 9. Russia took all of Europe, Manchuria and Kwangtung. England took the Pacific , from India to Tokyo.

It’s point 1 which matters.

Point 2 - well you still deny the Leningrad NO and potentially gain the Lend Lease NO. You have to lose the Lend Lease NO while giving up the Caucusus and Stalingrad NOs to be on a loser here.

Had a blast in our last game.

How’d it go? How often do y’all play? Are y’all in Austin or Houston?

@CWO:

@Narvik:

I spent some of my military service up there in the 80ties, and cant belive how Churchill in 1940 would think it was even remotely possible to walk 50 000 Brits over the mountain with no skies and no supply and no winter gear.

Churchill had a track record of cooking up grandiose flanking operations that looked impressive on maps but which were of dubious practical value, and a bad habit of giving a completely inadequate amount of thought to their operational and logistical details.  Gallipoli in WWI is the most notorious example, and the 1940 British invasion of Norway had many of the same problems: it was planned too quickly and too superficially, and like Gallipoli it was based on the premise that an amphibious invasion can be improvised by basically just loading a bunch of troops onto standard Royal Navy warships and throwing them at an enemy coastline.  As the Americans eventually learned in the Pacific, successful amphibious operations require months of careful planning and training, lots of specialized equipment, and close inter-service cooperation.  So it doesn’t surprise me that Churchill wouldn’t have bothered considering the practicality of marching several divisions of British troops through Norway’s mountains, in winter, with no special training or equipment.  Another place where he made this mistake was Italy, which was another of his pet flanking operation concepts.  His argument that Italy was the “soft underbelly of the crocodile” falls apart when you look at a topographical map of the Italian peninsula: it’s ideal country for a defender because it basically consists of narrow coastal plains (defilades in military parlance) flanking a rugged mountainous interior.  And to (literally) top it all off: where would the invading Allies have ended up if they had managed to fight all the way up to the top of the Italian boot?  In the Alps.

I think you make some very good points.

But the invasion of Africa was to secure Britains fuel links to the middle east.
Also I believe his intention was to invade Greece.

I do believe that in some ways the invasion of Greece would make some sense
as it could help with the Russians more readily once the fronts meet up.
Also a third of Germany’s oil comes from the Romanian town (or city) of Polesti

Another useful resource is:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6226.0
Topic: Missing Setup Charts? Look no more!

@RJL518:

The real question to be asked is how would a battle have gone if the Missouri and Iowa took on the Super-Battleships Yamato and Musashi.  
As Samuel Eliot Morison, author of the History of US Naval Operations in World War II, once said…“What a brawl that would have been!”
Even though the Yamato and Musashi had 18.1 inch guns compared to the 16 inch of the Iowa class, the Iowas were still faster and still had better range.  
But who knows.  
IMO it would have depended on the tactics and strategy of the captains in a great battle at that time.

And it was a match-up that nearly happened.  Yamato and two of the Iowa-class battleships, Iowa and New Jersey, missed each other by only a few hours in the area of the San Bernadino Straight during the closing stages of the Battle of Leyte Gulf.  And if Musashi hadn’d been sunk the previous day, there would have been the potential for a two-on-two fight.  I’d have given a lot to get tickets to watch a slugging match like that.

One interesting technical difference is that even though the belt armour of the Yamatos was thicker than that of the Iowas, its performance might not have been better by comparison.  Japanese industry wasn’t capable of producing 16-inch armour as a single block, so the Yamato belt armour was in two layers rather than monolithic, which reduced its effectiveness.  Also, the Class-A armour components of the Iowa’s defenses were more advanced than the grade of armour used on the Yamatos, and thickness-for-thickness had better resistance to penetration.  On the offensive side, the 16-inch AP shells fired by the Iowas were heavyweight designs, with a greater weight relative to their diameter than the 18.1-inch AP shells fired by the Yamatos (2,700 lb vs. 3,219 lbs), and they were fired at nearly the same muzzle velocity (2,500 ft/s vs. 2,600 ft/s) because the Iowa guns had longer barrels relative to their bore (50 calibers vs. 45 calibers).

@Herr:

It’s creative use of the language. Maybe ABWorsham was initially in a frame of mind to attack the Eastern U.S sea zone, but then “reframed” from doing that and into doing something else.
:-)

:lol:

Germany helping Italy in the Med all depends on if you are looking to knock Russia out with a quick punch or throttle them slowly to death. If you’re taking the long game approach, a German fleet in the Med is worth every IPC. It creates an incredible headache for the Allied player who expects to dominate the Med early. Then it becomes an arms race, and guess who is closer to their supply lines?

And once the Med becomes an arms race, the Allied player often stops buying as much with the US in the Pacific… and Japan can wear down Russia from the back.

Just general thoughts - game by game will obviously be variable.

YES! Liberate Scotland from the English jackboot.Re-enforce with Italian fighters,build MIC and march down the M1 to London town.

@teslas:

@Charles:

The poll shows that Europe is preferred.

My cat’s breath smells like cat food.

If everyone keeps on making off-topic comments like this, then the thread will go off-topic :D

@ABWorsham:

……would Hitler reframed from invading the USSR in 1941?

No, I am pretty sure Adolf would have attacked Russia at some point no matter what. Living space in the East was the main objective of Hitlers master plan. He wrote about it in his book Mein Kampf as far back as the 1920 ies.  There are no way Hitler would have reframed from attacking USSR as soon as possible, and the reason he had to wait until 1941 was because France and UK messed up his plans.

@wittmann:

Thanks for finding time for the write up. 1940 is a game you can play 100s of times and still not master it, so don’t worry if you feel you could improve on Germany. Will just have to play again!
It does sound,  however,  like next time you will have to hire the room until 6am and take turns sleeping under the table.

Lol are you on the level?

Good point. I originally did this to balance the fact that Germany gets an AA gun for every coastal territor making it tough for the Brits to invade. Only way to balance was to make it tough for Germany to invade. Also keep in mind that this is a part of a setup that adds tons more units. For instance:
North Africa: Germany: 3 infantry, 1 mech, 1 artillery, 1 tank Italy: 2 infantry 1 mech, 1 artillery, 1tank.
Egypt: UK 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mech, 1 AAA, 2 tanks, 1 T bomber ANZAC: 1 infantry,  1 artillery France: 1 infantry.
Allies get more in Middle East and Africa and Axis have three transports in Mediterranean. I really should post the whole setup.

Here’s a large post, from this very same page, discussing the very same thing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36942.0

edit-
And looking at it, you actually made the last post there. I’m confused, and I’ll shut up now.