Alright, I did some simulations and…
The Neutral Canada Option should probably be the default. There’s just no way the UK can hold Quebec more than 1 turn, even if they throw everything they can to defending it. The US can easily outspend the UK in North America, and win.
I’ll post more I do further playtesting.
Well, Henry Ford was known to have antisemitic views…
A little bit off topic here, but:
In early 1940, Britain and France had rough military parity with Germany. The combined Anglo-French forces (in combination with their Belgian and Dutch allies) were more numerous than the Germans. They had about the same number of tanks as Germany. They had fewer military aircraft, but more military production capacity. A war against Germany was a credible proposition for Britain and France; and it was only superior generalship which allowed Germany to conquer France.
This is something I’ve always felt is not well modeled in A&A 1940. The Fall of France is inevitable (unless you get really awful dice rolls), but only because Germany has so many units to throw at France. France doesn’t stand a chance against Germany’s superior numbers on the 1940 board! Germany’s brilliant sweep through Belgium around the Maginot line unfortunately cannot be modeled on the Europe 1940 board.
But it can be modeled on the A&A 1914 board! Germany can sweep through Belgium and into Picardy, ignoring a superior French force in Lorraine as it captures Paris! I should very much like to see a future A%A game featuring a global WW2, and a European map as detailed as the 1914 map.
I am alarmed that you apparently justify Hitler’s mass murders by saying it was due to food shortages! Hitler made it pretty clear that his actions were racially based. Even if Germany was suffering from food shortages, Hitler still chose to use those shortages to justify genocide. Famine should never be a justification for genocide.
Remember that Hitler also starved thousands of Russians (especially in Leningrad) as part of his policy of wiping out the Russians. And this article (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007183 ) seems to indicate the starving of Soviet POWs was intentional!
Furthermore, I would like you to provide a source for your claim that 30 million Germans could have died to hunger. This seems rather inflated, as my research indicates Germany only had about 80 million people in 1940. I do not believe that 37.5% of the German population was at risk of starvation! The highest figure I have found is that 3 million Poles were at risk of starvation, and 3 million Soviet POWs starved.
It kind of sounds like you really hate communism.
I mean, just as soon as either of the communist countries pops their little commie head up, suddenly Nazi Germany and Militaristic Japan actually join forces with the Imperialistic British and Liberal, Democratic Americans?
I like how you say the global war will continue until the complete extermination of the commies “or the plutocrats”. Like there would really be a chance of the Commies winning in this scenario? With both the Axis and Allied powers against them? I mean, Russia might be pretty strong, but China will be just a bunch of infantry, perhaps a few artillery and 1 fighter. Plus they would not get the Burma Road NO anymore so would they be able to buy anymore artillery?
You could change it upon the Communist Declaration to the Stalingrad Road. We had a game with different alliances and one was China/Russia so China was given the Stalingrad Road NO. They had to control Szechwan, Sikang, Kazakhstan and Volgograd. Then China would get an extra $6 and they could buy Artillery.
Well, by the time Russia has control of all its original territories again, Germany is beaten and on the run. So the Axis powers would be practically finished by then. And if China has all its territories (and the Stalingrad Road), they can oppose a late game, practically crushed Japan while the USSR takes Europe by storm. And if they team up to take down India, the UK is pretty much gone. It’d be the US versus Russia at that point.
So, this is probably the least historical set up for Europe 1940 that’s ever been made. The idea was to make a set up where every nation on the Europe 40 board was roughly equal in military and economic might combined, without changing the starting territories! It kind of sprung out of my idea here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35472.0
…But quickly became it’s own thing. So, most rules for 1940 stay the same. The major difference is that there’s no Axis, and no Allies. Every nation is by itself. The national objectives have been completely thrown out, because they don’t really work with these rules. Victory conditions have been changed to 5 Victory cities for Russia and the UK; 4 Victory cities for Germany; and 3 Victory cities for Italy, America, and France. Neutral rules are pretty much the same as OOB, except for Strict Neutrals. Instead of affecting other Strict Neutrals, attacking a Strict Neutral makes all Pro Neutrals considered Strict Neutral to your nation (Example: Germany moves into Bulgaria, gains 4 Infantry and Bulgaria becomes a German territory. Russia attacks Turkey. Russia now cannot move into Persia without attacking it.)
Turn Order: France, Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States
Set Up:
Soviet Union (28 IPCS):
Russia: 1 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA, Major Factory, Airbase
Novgorod: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA, Minor Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Volgograd: 1 Tank, Minor Factory
Karelia: 1 Infantry
Baltic States: 2 Infantry
Eastern Poland: 2 Infantry
Western Ukraine: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Ukraine: 3 Infantry
Caucasus: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 115: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 127: 1 Submarine
United States (35 IPCS):
Eastern United States: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, 2 AAA, Major Factory, Airbase, Naval base
Central United States: 1 Infantry, 3 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Strategic Bomber, Major Factory
Sea Zone 89: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 101: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser
Germany (30 IPCS):
Germany: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, Major Factory
Western Germany: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Mechanized Infantry, 2 Fighters, 1 AAA, Major Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Greater Southern Germany: 6 Infantry, 1 Tank
Poland: 3 Infantry
Slovakia Hungary: 1 Infantry
Romania: 1 Infantry
Holland Belgium: 2 Infantry
Norway: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 108: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 118: 1 Submarine
United Kingdom (29 IPCs):
United Kingdom: 2 Infantry, 2 Fighters, 1 AAA
Major Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Scotland: 1 Infantry
Quebec: 1 Infantry, Minor Factory
Gibraltar: 1 Fighter
Malta: 1 Fighter
Egypt: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Fighter
Alexandria: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Anglo Egyptian Sudan: 1 Infantry
Union of South Africa: 2 Infantry, Minor Factory
West India: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 109: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Italy (10 IPCS):
Southern Italy: 6 Infantry, 2 Fighters, 1 AAA, Minor Factory, Airbase, Seabase
Northern Italy: 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Strategic Bomber, 1 AAA, Major Factory
Albania: 2 Infantry
Libya: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Tobruk: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Tank
Sea Zone 95: 1 Transport, 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 96: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
France (17 IPCS):
France: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 AAA, 2 Fighters, Air Base, Major Factory
Normandy Bordeaux: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Naval Base, Minor Industrial Complex
Southern France: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Naval Base, Minor Industrial Complex
Morocco: 1 Infantry
Algeria: 1 Infantry
Tunisia: 1 Infantry
French West Africa: 1 Infantry
Syria: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 72: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 93: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 105: 1 Cruiser
Neutral Canada Option: Remove 1 Infantry and the Minor IC from Quebec, Remove 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery from Ontario, Set UK IPCs at 23, Add 1 Mechanized Infantry to the United Kingdom, Add 1 Infantry each to Gibraltar, Malta, and Union of South Africa, Add 1 Naval base to Egypt. All Canadian Territories are considered Strict Neutrals with 3 Infantry each. UK Victory condition is changed to 4 Victory cities.
Alternate UK Option: Remove 1 Fighter each from Gibraltar and Malta. Add 1 Destroyer and 1 Cruiser to Sea Zone 98.
Both Options can be used together or separately.
Need your thoughts on how balanced it is. I expect that this set up and rules will be particularly brutal on Germany, since it is surrounded by enemies and Russia will probably only attack Germany. Russia and the US will probably do well, having large incomes and few enemies. Britain will probably have a hard time keeping its empire. Italy and France will probably be okay.
Reminds me of my set up based on the E40 rulebook:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35472.0
KurtGodel7…
I do not think it is disputed that Communism was a serious threat to the Western world, and that it was ignored by the Western democracies.
But the topic and the issue at hand is whether it would have been wiser for the Allies to have conceded to Hitler or to have fought Hitler.
On the last page, I brought up several points that I do not believe you acknowledged. Namely, the very real threat to democracy, the strong possibility of Axis victory against the USSR if things had gone according to plan and Britain had made peace after the fall of France, and the development of the Atomic Bomb, directly due to US involvement in the war in Europe, and which was the primary deterrent for Soviet aggression in the Post War period.
You have made a strong case for why the Soviets were a threat, but you have not made a strong case for why the Allies ignoring Hitler would have been a better idea than what they did.
@Private:
Not sure about the USSR vs France as Hitler’s no. 1 target. Could go to one of my books, but am sure others have the facts.
Am confident that G had no designs on the UK and its empire. There was an underlying belief/hope that the UK would accept G domination of Europe, as some in the British government were to advocate.
So the UK could have avoided the war. But I can think of a number of reasons why to do so would have been wrong.
1. Europe was dominated by dictatorships - Franco, Mussolini, Stalin & Hitler. Democracy was at bay. It is hard to imagine the democracy under siege feel of the time. Somewhere a line needed to be drawn. It was not a question of which monster had killed the most, nor of accepting collateral damage in the hope that “we” would escape whilst those we might have called friends were targeted one by one.
2. The UK’s constant policy since Marlborough was to defend a balance of power on the continent. G were the immediate threat to that balance, not R.
3. It is far from certain that the UK & USA could have beaten a victorious G (or R) + J.
I nearly started an analogy to Europe today, but history is safer!
1. Europe was dominated by dictatorships - Franco, Mussolini, Stalin & Hitler. Democracy was at bay.
A good point. But how much did democracy really gain as a result of its decision to go to war?
In August of 1939, France, Britain, Greece, and Scandinavia were under democratic rule. Germany and Italy were fascist, and Poland was a military dictatorship. By 1948 (as the dust from the war cleared), the democracies controlled everything they had in August 1939, plus Italy and western Germany. Almost every European nation east of that line had fallen under Soviet dominion. So it’s not like the democracies gained very much–especially not when compared with the sheer scale of Soviet gains.
2. The UK’s constant policy since Marlborough was to defend a balance of
power on the continent. G were the immediate threat to that balance, not R.I agree that defending a balance of power is typically a sensible policy for democracies to employ. However, I feel the Soviet Union was the true threat to that balance of power.
Germany’s prewar population was 69 million, as opposed to 169 million for the Soviet Union. The Soviets had about 2.5x as many people as the Germans.
In Marx’s writings, he described a one world communist government. The stated long-term goal of Soviet foreign policy was world conquest; and that goal was reiterated in publications such as Pravda. Every nation on the Soviet Union’s western border in August of 1939 had been partially or fully annexed by May of 1941. Soviet expansionism predated the Nazi-Soviet War.
In June of 1941, Germany had 3,000 tanks on its eastern front, as opposed to 23,000 tanks for the Soviet Union on its western front. The Soviets also had a commanding advantage in terms of artillery, infantry, and planes; albeit not to the same extent as their advantage in tanks. The reason Stalin did not expect a German invasion was because he knew Germany could not defeat the Soviets in a quick war, and was not well-positioned for a long war. On the other hand, the Soviet Union was superior to Germany in terms of industrial strength, access to oil, farmland, and raw materials. Its supply of manpower (available for infantry) was much, much greater than Germany’s.
Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was in many ways a desperation move, taken after he’d correctly determined that Stalin was planning an invasion of Germany. Hitler struck a month before the Soviets’ invasion preparations would have been complete. Every Soviet officer had a packet of information, to be opened in the event of Nazi-Soviet hostilities breaking out. Every Soviet officer opened his packet, and found plenty of information on what to do if the Soviet Union invaded Germany, and nothing at all on how to respond to a German attack against the Soviets. The Soviets were thrown into confusion. Adding to that confusion was the fact that in many cases, tank crews and artillery crews were hundreds of miles from the machines they were supposed to be operating. That was one of the problems the Soviets intended to solve during the month they thought they had before beginning their invasion of Germany. Due to the Soviet Union’s lack of preparedness for any sort of defensive struggle, it was possible for Germany to make excellent initial gains; while achieving an astonishing 10:1 exchange ratio in combat against Soviet soldiers.
Later in the war that ratio declined to 3:1. Due to the fact that the Western democracies pulled German attention away from its eastern front; and given the Soviets’ massive advantage in manpower, that 3:1 ratio was not sufficient for Germany to achieve victory. Also, the Soviets came very close to achieving a 1:1 exchange ratio at Stalingrad. German losses were close to a million men in that battle–over 1% of its entire prewar population.
In 1941, Germany’s army had 150 divisions–slightly larger than the French Army had been in 1940. By the end of 1941, the Red Army consisted of a staggering 600 divisions. Not only that, it added 500,000 new men every month for most of the rest of the war. That was a replacement rate far beyond anything Germany could possibly hope to match.
In preparing for its invasion of Germany, the Soviet military had developed light tanks capable of traveling across rivers. These tanks had even traveled across Lake Ladoga. The next generation of that particular tank was planned to have the capacity to cross the English Channel. Stalin had hoped Hitler would conquer England in 1940, so that the Red Army could later “liberate” it from Nazi occupation. He would then have established a communist dictatorship.
3. It is far from certain that the UK & USA could have beaten a victorious G (or R) + J.
During the Cold War, Truman recognized that if the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe, American and German forces would be no match for their Soviet counterparts. Had the Soviets attacked, the main defense would have been to use nuclear weapons against advancing Soviet troops. Stalin intended to counter the American nuclear threat by using MiG jets to shoot down American bombers before they could deliver their nuclear payloads. Stalin had a lot of MiG jets. However, he died before he could put into effect his plans to launch WWIII.
It’s hard to imagine that a German or Japanese victory in WWII would have resulted in a weaker American postwar position than the one described above. Germany and Japan had very limited populations. During the war Japan expended a great many of its soldiers in its war against China, just as Germany lost many men against the Soviet Union. These losses, in combination with their relatively small population sizes–would have prevented them from overwhelming the Western democracies with sheer numbers. (As the Soviet Union could easily have done.)
True, democracy didn’t gain. But that wasn’t because they went to war.
Denmark, Holland, and Belgium were not at war with Germany. Yet they were invaded. Democracy lost even without war.
Prior to that, Poland and Czechoslovakia had fallen, and I believe both were democracies.
Britain and France believed Hitler was taking over Europe’s democratic nations one by one, and went to war to stop it. The war was an attempt to save democracy, that mostly ended up failing in the first few years of the war.
It is true that the Soviets had more manpower and industrial might than Germany. But did you include Italy and France in Germany’s military? After France fell, and if Britain had surrendered like Germany anticipated, the full might of the Axis would have come down on Russia. With no second front, Germany would have used those 10:1 and 3:1 kill ratios to slowly deplete the Russian population to nothing. The Soviet Union lost far more men than any other power in WW2… now imagine if they had been fighting alone against the Axis. Would they have won?
As for a weaker US position post war if they had ignored Germany…
Of course it would have been weaker! They would have lost the military buildup, the increase in military production that came with going to war against Germany, the experience of troops gained in the fighting, and most importantly: The Atomic Bomb! The Atom Bomb was specifically designed and made to counter Germany’s own atomic weapon research, and wasn’t used against Germany only because Germany abandoned it’s project and then lost the war before the Atomic Bomb could be used against them. If nuking the Russians was really Truman’s plan… what would he have done if he had stayed out of Europe, and had no nukes? The US became stronger because of going to war with the European Axis, and was able to successfully prevent Soviet domination.
@Arthur:
Amanntai,
Please try out a game playing the Allies against a good German Dark Skies player. If you don’t build up a huge navy, he will destroy your invasion fleet with minimal bomber losses. If you do build up a huge navy, he will ignore it and wait till your troops are ashore. Germany has the choice of when and where to attack. The massive flexibility of the bombers allows it many more options than you normally have in a game. That makes up for the lack of damage/PU compared to other units. I truly wish that I had other valid options besides spending heavily on a massive Atlantic fleet since that is severely delaying my ability to assist Russia.
Well… AACalc is a little unhelpful because it doesn’t do two-hit carriers, but from estimation using 1-hit carriers and subbing 2 destroyers for carriers leaves me with this result: The Allies would have to spend at least 1 IPC for every bomber to have a fleet with a decent chance of survival and a measly invasion force that wouldn’t survive a Bomber counterattack.
Of course, I haven’t played a game to see if the bomber losses (which usually amounted to at least 12/24 even if the Allies spent much less) would cripple Germany, but that relies on Germany actually attacking the fleet, and they would only do that if the Allied landing force was more than enough to resist a bomber counterattack, in which case the fleet would likely be weak enough that the Bombers could destroy it with few losses.
Basically, a single allied fleet is either f***ed, or useless.
I’ll have to look into alternative strategies.
PS: The solution is still Classic transports.
Classic transports are a bad idea because they just make sure you build loads of transports and only a few warships. Transports are not ment to defend the warships but the other way around.
Why are we even calculating 30 bombers vs 30 inf, it would be 30 bombers vs 120 inf.
Germany can only use the bombers at 1 location, sure that location gets hammered and then most of the strength will be spend.
Every combat that involves bombers only is a verry bad trade for the player with the bombers, even if they win they will lose a lot more money wise then the defender and most of the time the left over bombers are exposed to counter attack (and they are not brilliant defenders )
In regards to transports:
This isn’t the thread for that discussion, but as I pointed out in the Defenseless Transport thread, transports wouldn’t defend warships. If you choose the transports as casualties, you lose your invasion force. And then the Germans win because you spent hundreds of IPCs on useless warships and lost your whole invasion force anyways.
Unless the transports are empty, in which case they are worse than destroyers, and therefore a really bad defense.
As for Bombers versus infantry, it isn’t 30 Bombers versus 120 infantry. How are you going to get those infantry anywhere? You need 60 transports to use them against Germany. And then you need a fleet to defend those 60 transports, and by then Germany has way more than 30 Bombers and probably already stomped Russia. Think inside the game.
Same problem arises with Baron’s calcs… 108 IPCs in carriers for every 10 Bombers doesn’t give the US enough for an invasion force. 12 IPCs for every 10 Bombers? That leaves 1 Transport and only 5 IPCs for a land unit. Against 10 Bombers. At that point, Germany completely ignores the fleet and simply kills the 4 Land units that landed in Normandy.
The problem is that the Allies have to build two separate forces capable of defeating the Bombers, which is just not economically viable.
@Baron:
I dont sure whit the -1 combat move…In the Ardenne german and Us infantry is not stuck in place… in the soviet counterattack at Moscow soviet infantry is not stuck in place. For me only mechcanized unit and air unit have a possibility of stuck in place.
Are yous suggesting that only Tank and Mechanized Infantry should be reduced to 1 move during winter?
As I said, winter did not effect the fighting, but winter made it harder to supply the troops. An A&A territory is huge as a country, and an A&A turn is 3 or 4 months. So in this operational scale, winter don’t effect combat much. Also both infantry and tanks used train to travel long distances, and winter don’t effect the railway too much. Actually both inf and tanks should move 2 in non-combat since they are supposed to be on train.
About infantry, this are men walking on feet, nothing can stop them, not mountains, not forest, not snow. French infantry walked from Poland to Moscow and back to Poland again during winter in the 1812 Napoleon campaign. I say that nothing can stop infantry.
Tanks is different, they got stuck in mud and snow. I figure that winter and some types of terrain may deny the tanks abilities, such as blitzing.
Thinking out loud, A&A is supposed to be a simple game, not complex like World in Flames or Gary Grigsbys war. A&A is grand strategy and it would be wrong to introduce too much of tactics at divisional level. To keep it simple I suggest that in winter all land units defend at 3, since winter slightly favors the defender, but most important, it is only one round of land combat in the winter turn, since winter have a bad impact on the supply line.
So end of line, naval and air goes as usual.
Land combat is restricted to one round only, and all land units defend on 3 or less.
No blitzing
“About infantry, this are men walking on feet, nothing can stop them, not mountains, not forest, not snow. French infantry walked from Poland to Moscow and back to Poland again during winter in the 1812 Napoleon campaign. I say that nothing can stop infantry.”
They also died in droves because of it. Death certainly stops infantry. I believe Napoleon lost over 90% of his men due to winter in that campaign. Maybe make so if you move infantry, roll a d6 for each one, on a 6 they survive. Remove all other infantry.
I’m a bit confused… you say winter doesn’t effect combat that much, but then make drastic changes to combat. I think combat should be left alone, and only effect movement (which relates to supply lines. Can’t advance if you have no fuel).
As others pointed out, Hitler hated France. He also isn’t known for making rational decisions.
But it still would have been rational to attack France. France added to Germany’s economy, its production, and even its military. More French fought for the Axis than for the Allies.
Furthermore, Hitler may have had no designs on Britain, but as you pointed out, Hitler expected Britain to surrender when France fell.
Hitler’s plan appeared to be:
If he expected Britain to surrender, of course preparations to invade Britain never entered his mind. But the invasion of France did, as evidenced by his moving troops into the Rhineland.
With France out and Britain at peace, Hitler would have nearly all the Continent to bring against Russia, and a one-front war. Not a bad plan.
Even if Poland was considered expendable, the alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union demanded a response from the UK and France. They could not afford to simply stand by and watch Germany and the USSR divide eastern Europe between them.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose the Western democracies had simply chosen to ignore the fact that Eastern Europe was being carved up between the Nazis and the communists. What would have been different?
Humanitarian concerns. A lot of people would have been killed, especially by the Soviet government. But that would have (and did) happen anyway, due to the Soviet victory in WWII. Western democratic intervention in WWII did not improve the wartime or postwar humanitarian situation in Eastern Europe.
Balance of power. Prior to the start of hostilities, there had been a cold war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The Soviets had the edge in that cold war, as measured by population size, industrial potential, access to raw materials, access to oil, and geographic position. In siding with the stronger party (the Soviet Union) against the weaker party (Nazi Germany), the Western democracies further unbalanced Europe.
In the postwar era, the Soviet Union was so strong that the nations of Western Europe would have been completely helpless to resist Soviet intervention. Only American military strength posed a realistic deterrent to Soviet aggression. However, prior to 1948, nearly all major American political figures had either been isolationist or pro-Soviet. Back in the late '30s, there was no reason for any European politician to believe the United States would ever help resist Soviet expansionism.
During the Cold War, Truman recognized that American conventional forces would not have been the equal of their Soviet counterparts. In the event the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe, the American plan was to drop nuclear weapons on the Soviet armies pushing westward through Germany. Large numbers of West German citizens would have died as the result of collateral damage–a fact which did not please the West German government. Stalin’s plan to counter the American nuclear threat was to use MiG jets to shoot down American bombers before they could deliver their nuclear payloads. While he recognized that some nuclear weapons would get through his MiG screen to attack his ground forces, he saw that as the price of doing business. Fortunately, Stalin died before he could launch his invasion of Western Europe.
The point here being that in the postwar era, Western Europe was saved from Soviet invasion by the combination of anti-Soviet American intervention (which the Western democratic politicians of the '30s could not have expected) and America’s possession of nuclear weapons (which those '30s politicians could also not have reasonably anticipated). Western Europe’s democracies were saved from Soviet invasion entirely by good luck. Europe’s Western democratic politicians of the '30s and early '40s did not have a viable long-term plan to escape Soviet invasion; and their entire diplomatic and military strategy merely served to increase the certainty of that invasion.
If Europe’s Western democratic politicians did the wrong thing, what would the right thing have been?
As long as the cold war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union seemed reasonably well-balanced, they could have sat back and done nothing. If it seemed to be becoming unbalanced, they could have taken the side of the weaker party to balance it out again. In 1942, the Soviet Union outproduced Germany by a factor of 3x or 4x in every major ground weapons category; and by a factor of nearly 2x for military aircraft. Its prewar population was about two-and-a-half times larger than Germany’s. In the event of war between the Soviet Union and Germany, the Western democracies would probably have needed to send aid to Germany–at least if their goal was to prevent outright Soviet hegemony over all of Europe.
But if the Western democracies’ main objective was self-preservation, an active war between Germany and the U.S.S.R. would not have been desirable. There was too much potential for either side in such a war to gain a commanding advantage over the other. The hoped-for outcome would have been a long-term, three way cold war between the Nazis, the communists, and the democracies.
I Agree that only America protected Europe from Soviet aggression.
However, I do not believe that sitting back and doing nothing in 1940 would have been in Western Europe’s best interest. Hitler’s Germany would have attacked France (if not Britain) first, before the Soviet Union. France and Britain thought they could make a stand in Poland (defeating the immediate Nazi threat, to concern themselves with the later with the non-imminent Soviet threat), but underestimated the speed at which Germany could conquer the Poles.
I could probably do research and back up the idea that Hitler would have invaded France first with hard history, but let’s make a simple A&A comparison:
As Germany at the start of G40 (Let’s assume France and Britain are not at war), which is it easier to do: Kill France first, and then attack the Soviet Union, or attack the Soviet Union first?
@Private:
Just to add that played a game with one of my two groups last night and asked them. Universal answer:
Knights & Cities more interesting than Seafarers.
But combining both of the above with Settlers is the only way to keep this game interesting.
In which case Seafarers first makes more sense.
I have both, and both together is certainly better than just Knights & Cities.
But If I had to choose between the two, I’d still say Knights & Cities is better.
Funny, no one seems to have mentioned Traders & Barbarians or Explorers & Pirates… Nobody has them, or nobody likes them?
@The:
Hi Guys,
has anyone tried the “Going Nuclear: A Global War 2nd Edition Expansion” so far?
I’m curious to read of your impressions.Greetings,
Lars
Welcome Lars!
I haven’t bought “Going Nuclear”, so I can’t say anything about it, but I wanted to say Hi.
I dont sure whit the -1 combat move…In the Ardenne german and Us infantry is not stuck in place… in the soviet counterattack at Moscow soviet infantry is not stuck in place. For me only mechcanized unit and air unit have a possibility of stuck in place.
It doesn’t mean the infantry are literally stuck. For example, Moscow is one territory. The Soviet infantry weren’t stuck, but they didn’t leave the area that is in A&A “Russia”. The Ardennes would be “Belgium” on the A&A board. I’m pretty sure the Battle of the Bulge never went outside that rough area (Maybe parts of France, but not all the way to Paris).
So the infantry could still move, but they certainly weren’t blitzing around Europe during the winter. This is reflected by Infantry not moving to other territories (though they can still “move” inside their territory).
@Arthur:
Amanntai,
Please try out a game playing the Allies against a good German Dark Skies player. If you don’t build up a huge navy, he will destroy your invasion fleet with minimal bomber losses. If you do build up a huge navy, he will ignore it and wait till your troops are ashore. Germany has the choice of when and where to attack. The massive flexibility of the bombers allows it many more options than you normally have in a game. That makes up for the lack of damage/PU compared to other units. I truly wish that I had other valid options besides spending heavily on a massive Atlantic fleet since that is severely delaying my ability to assist Russia.
Well… AACalc is a little unhelpful because it doesn’t do two-hit carriers, but from estimation using 1-hit carriers and subbing 2 destroyers for carriers leaves me with this result: The Allies would have to spend at least 1 IPC for every bomber to have a fleet with a decent chance of survival and a measly invasion force that wouldn’t survive a Bomber counterattack.
Of course, I haven’t played a game to see if the bomber losses (which usually amounted to at least 12/24 even if the Allies spent much less) would cripple Germany, but that relies on Germany actually attacking the fleet, and they would only do that if the Allied landing force was more than enough to resist a bomber counterattack, in which case the fleet would likely be weak enough that the Bombers could destroy it with few losses.
Basically, a single allied fleet is either f***ed, or useless.
I’ll have to look into alternative strategies.
PS: The solution is still Classic transports.
@Arthur:
Amanntai, I am currently playing the Allies against a Dark Skies German. His bombers are severely hindering my American build in the Atlantic. On G3, he will have 11 bombers. I will need at least 3 loaded aircraft carriers to escort transports to Africa or Western Europe. By the time I get those carriers, he will have even more bombers. I probably will need 6 carriers in the Atlantic before I start ferrying troops over. That is 216 PUs or three full turns of production. Just having the threat of the bombers is delaying an Allied invasion by a couple of turns. I decided to play KJF strategy so I won’t be able to start building in the Atlantic until tun 3 or 4. That means an expected landing on turn ~7. It is quite frustrating as the Allied player.
When I do bring my fleet across the pond, I fully expect that he will ignore my carriers and simply plan to counterattack the troops that I drop on his shores. He will not be trading bombers for carriers. I don’t think that he will be very concerned about amphibious landings until turn 9 or so. That is quite late compared to other German strats where the Allies have a good invasion force on turn 6-7.
The huge bonus for him is the potential threat of many bombers forcing me to spend heavily on defense instead of transports + troops. Every round of the building fleets in the Atlantic is another round where he is beating up Russia, sending his troops to the oil fields, and further expansion of his bomber fleet.
If Germany isn’t going to attack your fleet, why do you need 6 carriers? That’s a waste of IPCs, if you ask me. You don’t need enough fleet defense to win, only enough to kill a sizeable number of Bombers. If Germany loses most of it’s bombers, then it loses the power projection it had. If Germany doesn’t attack, then you saved the IPCs. On one hand, it’s a loss, but a Pyrrhic Victory for the Germans, and on the other, a win.
On a side note, you know what HR would really fix this? Bringing back Classic transports. Or any of the other transport with defense rules.
a. All Axis aligned nations play simultaneously: Italy may not attack US/UK/France/Russia on R1. They may attack neutral, allied neutral, or incorporate Axis aligned nations.
b. All Allied aligned nations play simultaneouslyI think the way to approach this is for all players to resolve their moves in secret (independently of the enemy side) and then all reveal their moves at once. Step one is to resolve border clashes, when two forces of opposing sides try to cross the same border. These are the first battles rolled. All units in a border clash roll as if “attacking” for the purposes of determining hits.
Then any army which gets across the border, rolls to resolve whatever combat results in the territory which they were attacking. Here normal combat ensues (with the defender rolling at their defense value.)
Basically you have a situation where every player has to think about where they want to mtove, without first knowing where the enemy players’ units will be (or be moving themselves). You would therefore have to elect whether to commit all units to a cross border engagement, or leave some behind… In case you get beat at the border, or get invaded across a different border than the one you just attacked across. This would have the advantage of making territories with several borders, more strategically useful for attack, while simultaneously being more vulnerable on defense. This idea for a collapsed turn order, could be used in conjunction with new rules for armor on the blitz, to provide a can opening effect. There would also be an interesting dilemma for the attacker, whether to send units across borders into attacks, or to hold some forces in reserve, in case their borders are penetrated.
For enforcing alignment, you might restrict movement across borders in the known sphere of influence by side, For Japan/Axis and Russia/W. Allies for example. Though you would have to come up with a system to resolve which power is awarded control of a territory in the case of joint attacks against the enemy. Still it could probably be made to work in a 4 block, rather than a 2 block. We’d just have to put some thought into what co-location restrictions would be in place.
In order for such a game to work on a board like G40, I think you would have to dramatically increase the amount of money in play. This is because more units would necessarily be destroyed in the course of the game, on account of the unpredictability of simultaneous attacks, so you’d really want more unit replacement per round to keep it fun.
I can only see one problem with this. Mobilizing units.
Does France get to mobilize units then (since they take their turn with everyone else)? How will capturing capitals ever get you any IPCs, if your opponent spent them all the turn you capture their capital?
@Arthur:
Sure, 8 loaded carriers would be sufficient to prevent the Germans from launching a bomber raid against the Allied navy. Keep in mind that such a build requires 4 full turns of US spending in the Atlantic plus a turn or two for moving the fleet into position. Time is on the German side in Dark Skies. Once the Germans reach the oilfields, their income will start matching that of the US. Also consider that Germany has quite a bit of flexibility. The bombers can be used to destroy Russia, navies, London, and supporting raids on territories with medium-sized stacks of troops.
In my last game, the US tried a KGF strategy with a very large navy off the coast of Gibraltar on round 3. The Germans mostly ignored it. From the base in Paris, the bombers could limit the options of the Allied navy and also force Russia to retreat back towards Moscow. Meanwhile, Japan was about to capture India and it seemed inevitable for a total victory on J7-J8.
ABH, thank you. you speak a lot of sense. i’m sorry, but when people focus on things like “loaded carrier vs bomber–bring it on!”, they’re not really understanding the difficulty. i guess they have to just experience it for themselves. to think that US can build 8 fully loaded carriers in the atlantic is, imo, showing inexperience and lack of really understanding just what kind of punishment will be delivered by the foe on the other side of the map.
I don’t think you should call people inexperienced if you aren’t even going to read their posts. As I clearly pointed out:
2. The US doesn’t need 8 carriers. That provides only a 7% survival for 24 bombers, obviously this is overkill. I haven’t done the math, but I’m pretty sure the US could get by with a smaller fleet.
I wasn’t suggesting the US build 8 carriers. I was showing that bombers can’t possibly deter Allied fleets if Germany loses all their bombers trying to kill the Allied fleet. I’m not the only one, and I’m certainly the least experienced, to point out that if Germany commits its bombers to stop an Allied invasion, Germany loses its bombers, its threat projection, and the IPCs it spent.
Furthermore, you called Zhukov’s point “totally right”, even though I pointed out that DizzKneeLand pointed out that fixing SBR doesn’t fix Dark Skies (at least how DizzKneeLand does Dark Skies) because SBR isn’t part of the strategy. How can Zhukov be totally right when his (her?) solution doesn’t even work?
I believe you spent more time looking at users’ post counts rather than their posts.
