Posts made by calvinhobbesliker

@LincolnsTopHat:

So it’s obvious that Sea Lion is suppose to be a possibility in game. I mean, if we’re going for historical accuracy, then the Germany’s occupation of Russia should not be as easy as it is either. Besides, Sea Lion makes the game much more interesting than the regular rush to Moscow. And if it’s clearly off the table, then there’s no reason why England can’t go 100% into Africa and crush Italy, which is also historically inaccurate (the primary reason Sea Lion wasn’t going to happen was because the British focused so much on defending the Island, while in game they can basically strip the Island and rely on Russia/US aid to keep Germany away).

Yes, it’s totally horrible that the UK can ahistorically crush Italy by spending everything in Africa. The ahistorical ability of the Axis to conquer London, Cairo, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, and China are fine though. After all, we can’t give the historical victors a chance to win the game.

@LincolnsTopHat:

Just played my first Sea Lion as Germany the other day. Basically went the same as yours did, caught the British napping and took London T2. Definitely not as easy as going all in with Russia. The UK went heavy into Africa Turn 1 (hence the sea lion), and between the residual British and French, Taranto, and the US coming in a turn early, Rome was taken by the time I reached Moscow (with better Russian play, it wouldn’t have been nearly as fast). I agree that Sea Lion bringing in Russia doesn’t make a lot of sense. Honestly, I wish there was a 10-15 ipc National Objective for Germany taking London, there’s no point in starting the game in 1940 if you’re basically punished for pulling off Sea Lion.

Germany already gets 5 IPC’s for London, and Britain’s treasury. Is that not enough reward for executing an operation that was historically impossible? If doing it in game is disadvantageous for seemingly silly reasons, perhaps it’s a good thing that a historically impossible invasion, if it can’t be made impossible in-game, can at least be made unwise.

@FastHeinz:

I’m sure this has been posted, but I am right in the middle of a game and I would like to hear some players thoughts. So I was able to capture London on round 2, which was great, I’ve never attempted Sealion, but it brought Russia and the US into the war, the game is at about round 8 now and it’s been tough going for Germany especially in Russia. Having tried Sealion I don’t think it’s worth it. Not when you bring the Russians into the war, (which I think is a ridiculous rule, for the sake of the game balance I understand America joining the war, but Russia makes no sense, especially when you have a political situation that has a non aggression pact with Germany. The rule book basically gives the British player insurance that they won’t be attacked early which seems a little silly and counter to the history the game is based on)

What’s really counter to history is the fact that Germany annihilates the entire British Home Fleet every time and the fact that Sealion is at all possible, let alone likely to succeed if you go all out.

@Caesar:

The only way I can see an early Italy knockout is to destroy the Italian fleet and park submarines in SZ 97 and choke out Italy that way. Italy is a strange nation, I am not sure why the creators made SZ 97 such a weakness for Italy but its the only nation in the game where you can straight up starve the country and destroy it without actually destroying it. I’d say bring a surface fleet on it too but then you have to understand that Germany will sink it with what air power it has left so you can argue trading the UK med fleet against the Germany air force is an outright victory or pyrrhic for the allies. However as far as ignoring Italian colonies, I can agree with ignoring Northern Africa but with Ethopia, no. You don’t want Italy winning that fight because it gives reason for Italy to go after Egypt or at the very least, go after Africa territories or if UK isn’t smart enough, Italy could try to march on South Africa.

Japan can also be convoyed to death, although it is much harder.

Would it be better to build 6 units in Paris to kill a few more German ground units, or to build some ships in whichever coastal zone is available, if any, expecting that the ships will be alive for multiple turns?

@ABWorsham:

Do any of you play with house rules concerning damaged capital ships? I believe the rules state upon next turn ships are repaired.

Do any of you have dry dock rules or IPC charges for repairing Carriers or Battleships?

Actually, the rule is that damage can only be repaired if the ship is next to a naval base at the beginning of the turn.

@Ichabod:

@weddingsinger:

I’m 100% on board with that idea. J3 and G4 means no Russia NO’s until round 4, and if not Sea Lion, at least strangle U.K. as much as possible… convoy them for $10 a turn (England/Scotland), bomb the factory in London until they stop using it…I think it also means if the U.S. puts an emphasis on Europe, Japan can take great advantage.

I have seen this approach lead to an economic victory in the game, not a VC win (at least not until like round 20). I’ve seen this done where the Axis were able to conquer practically ever single spot in Eurasia and the middle east but Moscow and Calcutta.
Germany had a sizeable fleet…took a very long time and $ by the US just to make it to sz 91. The US/ANZAC controlled the Pacific Ocean and the islands but Japan was still making a solidly secured 52 IPCs even though all convoy zones were convoyed. They had enough territories locked down with so much ground that it really could have taken at least 10 fully loaded transports with 10 tanks just to stick a landing in Asia somewhere.

When I see an opponent trying this approach, I just feel a great sigh, oh my, super long game.

How was Japan making 52 just from mainland Asia territories? Did they control Moscow and Calcutta?

Well, if you put 4 subs in 106 on G1, the US can decide to move the cruiser to 102 as well, 5 subs vs 1 DD, 1 CC, 2 CV, 4 fighters may very well result in 5 subs lost against the destroyer and cruiser, leaving the carriers.

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-WW2-Airbase-Small-Marker-Acrylic-x5_p_1523.html
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Naval-Port-Marker-Acrylic-x5_p_2779.html

HBG has some nice acrylic markers. They’re not vertical, but they are brightly colored and would stand out on the board.

@seancb:

If Germany strategic bombs UK on G2 and neuters them then how do you still build max units on London. This is easily accomplished by a 2 bomber sub purchase on G1.

The video in fact shows a strat bombing of London on G2.

There is no way UK should have had that many units in London….just being frank here
UK does Taranto…Scramble…inflict as much damage to the UK as possible. Italy will recover, UK will not.
Taranto is a waste of precious UK resources. To me Taranto is a gimmick.

I also attack the French Fleet in the Med by the Germans turn 1…I leave 110 alone but take out 111. In every game that fleet in 111 has been irrelevant and by the time it could become relevant it’s too late because of my secret Italian strategy.

Scrambling against Taranto is a good way to lose 3 Axis planes to kill ships that would die anyway on G2.

I assume you mean that you attack 110 and not 111?

Here’s my collection of Russian sculpts from both A&A and HBG:

Baltic Timper Ship (G40):

Srednyaya Class Submarine (G40):

Gnevny Class Destroyer (G40):

Kirov Class Cruiser (G40):

Kostromitinova Class Aircraft Carrier (AA41):

Gangut Class Battleship (G40):

Yak-3 (G40) and I-16 (HBG) Fighters:

Il-2 (G40) and Su-2 (HBG) Tactical Bombers:

Pe-8 Strategic Bomber (G40) and IL-4 Medium Bomber (HBG):

Yak-6 Transport Aircraft (HBG):

Russian Infantry (G40) and Early War Russian Infantry (HBG):

85 mm Antiaircraft Artillery (G40), 152 mm Artillery (G40), 122mm M-30 Artillery (HBG), Katyusha Self-Propelled Artillery (HBG):

Zis-42 Mechanized Infantry (G40), BA-6 Armored Car (HBG), Gaz AAA Truck (HBG), Gaz-60 Mechanized Infantry:

T-34 Tank (G40), JS-2 Tank (AA41), Su-76 Tank Destroyer (HBG), T-26 Light Tank (HBG), T-34/76 Medium Tank (HBG), KV-2 Heavy Tank (HBG):

A&A vs HBG T-34 Tanks:

And it’s another fighter that can be used in Taranto or to attack a lone damaged German battleship or defend London from Sealion or Fly to Africa or Russia.

@simon33:

Hmm, interesting analysis. Germany has to really stretch to pull in the 24 inf too.

If a G1 buy of 3mech 3arm where done, it seems to be negative.

What happens when the more usual move of a I2+G3 DOW is done? If the Germans don’t buy fast movers G1, that is what I expect anyway.

Interesting. I had no idea that 6 tanks could potentially make East Poland not stackable…and if Germany buys mechs/tanks G1 in anticipation to bolster it, that prevents them from buying more ships for Sealion.

Usually when I play Russia, I retreat my infantry in Vyborg and Karelia to Leningrad and then to Belarus, together with the troops that start on Leningrad. This gives me a larger stack in Belarus, but at the cost of allowing the Germans to walk into Leningrad. Is there a good way to perhaps delay the loss of Leningrad?

@taamvan:

“Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled (not captured)
territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.”

“If a Japanese industrial
complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is
later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied
power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.”

I think this means you can put also major on Manchuria and Kwangsi, right?  They are definitely “originally controlled” but also “Chinese territory” so they do burn down…but I think you can put them on those two.  Could be wrong, just don’t see another qualifier in the rules.

They’re considered originally Chinese buy occupied by Japan. If the game started in 1930 instead of 1940, China would own all of them, including Manchuria.

It’s because you need to stack units of different types all under one command stack.

You need transports to get factories. And all factories you conquer or build will be minors, so you still need transports.

@CWO:

@Dauvio:

What will the purpose be for a abacus in A&A games???

I think it’s used as an alternative to the conventional income-tracking chart.

I thought it was mainly used to count hits during battles?

@Bob77:

Id be interested if the price is right. Looking for anything else?

I sent you a PM.

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Pieces–Allies--Nevada-Class-Battleship-x5_p_1340.html

I was wondering whether to buy this sculpt in the British color. Does it resemble any British capital ship, perhaps the Renown-class battlecruisers?