Posts made by AxisAndAllies1940

@Caesar:

I am trying to figure out what exactly to do if Paris remains. I don’t know if it is wise to pull the French out of Paris (if any survive) or to try to get the allies to reinforce it as best as possible and try to hold on to it.

Also USSR fighter can’t legally land on Paris unless Germany declared war.

I’ve only seen 1 game where Paris survived. Since the Allies still controlled Normandy/Bordeaux and Southern France, the British ferried the Normandy troops to England, and the French built 2 transports in Normandy. This enabled 2 infantry, 1 artillery, and 1 tank from Paris to escape. 2 French infantry stayed back in Paris to fight a delaying action.  Also, the British managed to land the Southern France units in Algeria. On G2, the Germans got Paris and the French treasury. Things went poorly for the Axis. The Germans had to spend G2 and G3 building units to hold the west, and an arms race with Russia started in the east (except the Russians had a headstart). On R4, the Russians took Romania, Finland, Poland, and Hungary. Eventually, an Italo-German force pushed Russia back, but by that time Japan was dead, and the US could land a huge army in France every three turns, so the game ended with Germany and Italy getting killed from the west, and being equal to the Russians in the east.

@KGrimB:

Russia cannot defend itself alone against a deliberate coordinated attack from all 3 axis powers. Having around 30 income facing over 100 combined you�ll lose the war. You need to get the other allied forces involved. British fighter planes can help defend Moscow and pick off stray units. America can make landings in Europe or the Med.

What Russia can do is make the war costly for the Axis. The isolated tanks and aircraft are worth attacking because they cost more to replace than your infantry.

Considering your opponent has 5 strat bombers it�s a safe bet they will use them against Moscow given the opportunity. Therefore you should consider getting fighter planes in Moscow to protect your factory and maybe even 1 aa gun which will defend better against than only infantry.

Yep. Americans took Normandy and did Torch. The British player very nicely flew 4 fighters (saved up over several turns), to Kazakstan from Burma, so they’ll be in Moscow next turn. The British are also in the long process of non-combatting their AAA in India to Moscow, but they won’t get there in time to do anything. I will send the AAA I evacuated from Leningrad to Moscow as well.

@MeinHerr:

Pray that there are no Italian can openers that can kill and open Bryansk.

Thankfully, there aren’t. Britain moved the Malta troops to activate Greece (killing the destroyer with the Malta fighter), and so cost Italy Albania. This forced Italy to quickly kill Yugoslavia to prevent a 10 infantry stack, so they didn’t have the time/resources to have a can-opener in place by turn 3. Plus, the Allies had VERY good die-rolls in Africa, taking Tobruk and holding the Sudan. Then, the Americans did Torch, and that cost Italy control over Africa. Now, Italy has to buy land units to hold Northern and Southern Italy, plus Southern France and Yugoslavia. They did scrape together three mechs, which they moved to East Poland, but that’s it.

@simon33:

Hit Finland! Two undefended planes are there.

Evacuate Leningrad. Those troops are in danger of being cut off. It may be too late already.

Done. Cost me plenty of infantry, but took it. Withdrew my Leningrad troops to Archangel, and my China troops are now in Sikang and Kazakhstan. Built 9 infantry in Moscow. I’ve lost the whole Pacific map, so I’m now down to 28 per turn (excluding +5 for Finland), but am holding Novosibirsk in the east, Archangel in the west, and Tambov in the south (I abandoned Stalingrad). Japan seems to be disinterested in going to Moscow, so the heat seems to be coming off a bit now. However, I’m still pretty weak (only 1 inf in Finland), the Japanese can easily take Kazakhstan if they so choose (having killed China), and same goes for Novrosibirsik and Urals. Germany has taken Leningrad and Stalingrad, and has large forces in both. However, the Americans have done D-Day and Torch, so there are a lot less forces on my front than before.

Start again.

I’m in the middle of playing G40 as Russia, and I’m in a bad situation. It’s turn 3, and things are falling apart. Germany has:

5 infantry, 1 artillery in Karelia
1 tac bomber, 1 fighter in Finland
1 infantry, 1 mech in Bessarabia
4 mechs, 6 tanks in Ukraine
8 tanks in Baltic States
22 infantry, 3 tanks in Eastern Poland
4 artillery, 2 fighters in Poland
4 infantry, 1 fighter in Romania
5 strat bombers, 5 artillery in Berlin

Japan declared war on me turn 1, and now has

1 tank and 1 mech in Yakut SSR
1 infantry in Soviet Far East
1 artillery in Siberia
1 artillery in Ulanbaatar
1 infantry and 1 artillery in Central Mongolia
1 tac. bomber in Amur
They also control Buyant-Uhaa and Buryatia

As for me, I have:

3 infantry in Vyborg
2 infantry, 4 artillery, 1 fighter, and 2 AAA in Leningrad. My IC there also has 4 points of damage.
6 infantry and 1 AAA (en route to Leningrad when the Germans attacked) in Belarus
1 AAA in Bryansk (en route to Ukraine when the Germans attacked)
6 infantry, 1 artillery in W.Ukraine
3 artillery in Stalingrad
7 infantry in Samara
4 Mongolian infantry in Dzhvan
I also have 2 infantry, 2 mechs, 2 tanks, and an artillery in Szechwan, which I sent in R1 to help the Chinese.

I’ve got 29 IPCs to spend, what should I do/buy? I know that I should recall my units in China, and think I should buy infantry. Am I close? I’d love your help!

@Caesar:

@AxisAndAllies1940:

Either a German feint into South Africa or a Japanese attempt to move the ENTIRE IJN into the Med to conquer Turkey and from there, Ukraine.

Okay, I have to ask why….

I don’t know what the Japanese player was thinking, either. He was very experienced with Spring 42, and had somehow done an India Crush, but being new to G40, he tried to pull off one of his Spring 42 tactics (moving the IJN into the Med to attack the Middle East), and tried to take it one step further. End result:Ukraine is occupied by the Germans, while the Americans take advantage of the IJN being nowhere near Tokyo, and captures it. They then take over literally EVERY SINGLE Pacific island, including the DEI, since the islands were totally exposed without the IJN, and most of the IJA was sitting unused in Calcutta without transports.

Unlikely Warrior, by Georg Rauch. The memoirs of an Austrian soldier who fought in the Ukraine and Romania in 1943-44, and was captured by the Russians in summer of 44. Highly recommended!

Doubtful. The only two ways I see the war ending without the US are:

1940. Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and Poland, of course, have been conquered. Britain and France (Chamberlain is the PM at this point), sue for peace. Britain and France have to pay reparations (especially heavy reparations for France), and hand over various colonies. Plus, they have to recognize Hitler’s conquests in Europe. Possibly, the French would have to hand back Alsace- Lorraine as well. Hitler would most likely consider this to be avenging the Versailles Treaty. This results in Britain and France becoming second to Germany, but still powers to be reckoned with. Chamberlain wanted peace, so he may have grudgingly accepted Nazi occupied Norway and Holland (unlikely), and the French were desperate to save their homeland. Neither would fight alone, so they’d accept peace. Hitler would then attack the USSR, possibly with Anglo-French support.

Mid-late 1940s.

Sealion has not taken place, and the Germans have attacked the USSR. They wear each other out, but the USSR has a nearly limitless supply of men and resources. It would have been much bloodier, but eventually, the Russians would’ve gotten the upper hand, and the war would play out as it did- except that since the US never got involved in D-Day, the British were too weak to open up a second front, so most of Europe would’ve been liberated by the Russians, and therefore fallen into the Soviet bloc after the war. In fact, NATO and the Western bloc may not have existed at all, since Britain’s voice would have counted for far less in the post-war world, and Stalin would control Europe, effectively.

@Caesar:

@AxisAndAllies1940:

Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.

All sources ( I can’t site any off the top of my head ) has stated that Germany had no plans to drive into the Asian part of USSR, they only wanted the west side of it and was going to hold on it.

I did not know that. One learns something new every day, thanks for that bit of info!

Isn’t it possible that mass partisan activity could have simply made the German holdings in Russia untenable over time? I mean, the destruction of ALL towns and farms and cities (as was Hitler’s plan), would have made occupation difficult at best, as there would be zero supplies for an army of over a million men (3000000 started 0n June 22), and it would be fairly easy to cut a supply line stretching from Berlin to Moscow. Plus, the USSR’s roads were dreadful, making supplying this army trickier.

That’s what I meant. Play up the ‘we’ve come to liberate you from the communists’ theme, and things could have gone a lot better.

Either a German feint into South Africa or a Japanese attempt to move the ENTIRE IJN into the Med to conquer Turkey and from there, Ukraine.

You’ve little hope, I’m afraid. Unless you can build and protect an IC in Korea (unlikely), you have little chance of victory in Asia. On the plus side, the DEI gives you +20, so you can at least hold off Korea for a little while. Chinese troops can’t attack Korea, so you’ll be safe. Abandon Hong Kong, but try if possible to hold Malaya and Shan State. Protect the DEI at all costs, it’ll be your major source of income for the rest of the game.

41 is WAY too stripped down- A territory encompassing Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria? Italy, Yugoslavia, and Greece as one territory controlled by the Germans and worth 1 IPC?

Buy 1942 at least. The only reason to get 1941 is the special piece molds.

On the plus side, it’s the cheapest Axis and Allies game available.

I frankly agree. Sail into sz92 I1, take Gibraltar I2, sail off I3. You can be off the coast of Queensland by I7. (If anyone actually does this, Larry Harris will likely award them a medal for Most Original Global 40 Game)

#1: Send panzers against Dunkirk. This destroys 300,000 hard-to-replace Allied troops. The panzers, with infantry support, could have crushed this pocket.

#2: Don’t terror-bomb England. The RAF was the only force protecting England against Sealion, and Goering almost destroyed it. Had he kept up the pressure a little while longer, it would have cracked, and Sealion would have been a real possibility.

#3: Make Moscow the #1 focus of Barbarossa. Specifically, the Nazis should not have diverted panzers to other fronts.

Some other things Germany should have done are:

Don’t follow a ‘no quarters’ policy in Russia. The Communists were hated by many of their subjects- the Nazis missed a chance to be seen as liberators (although, had they won, they may have faced rebellion as they tried to implement their racial policies in occupied Russia)

Prioritize Murmansk and Archangel over Leningrad. This may seem strange, but the capture of three of four of Russia’s main European ports (Leningrad, Odessa, Murmansk, and Archangel) would have fatally crippled Russia’s ability to receive Lend Lease. The Finns should also have played a larger part in operations in Karelia.

Allow retreats. The Wehrmacht would have done far better in Russia (and in 1944-5 in the West) had they been given flexibility. Stalingrad could’ve been just a small reversal had the Germans withdrawn from the pocket and established a defensive line.

Don’t let Hitler direct everything. Hitler was inept militarily, and many of the decisions he made are listed here (terror-bombing England, diverting tanks away from Moscow, the no quarters policy,  besieging Leningrad, and banning tactical withdrawals), were all ideas of his.

Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.

They can walk into Brazil first turn as well.

The Axis often have to start from scratch in North Africa, especially if Operation Torch is used. Supporting Italy and capturing Cairo often go hand in hand.

Well, with a bit of luck, the Russians can take Korea and perhaps build an IC there. It’s unlikely, but possible. With US and Indian aid, they can build a Pacific Fleet over time and eventually build some transports. It’s tricky, but I’ve seen it happen.