Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Chris_Henry
    3. Posts
    C
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 47
    • Posts 577
    • Best 81
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 8

    Posts made by Chris_Henry

    • RE: Global War 1936 - German Invasion of USSR Using Lightning War

      Hmm, I think that’s mistaken re Poland. The UK reference sheet shows “Each time Germany (and/or Italy) initiate war with ANY OTHER nation” as a +2D12. Axis declares war on France is automatic full production for the UK though. Is this mentioned elsewhere that they go to war automatically once Poland is attacked?

      If you’re right on that, then this plan would definitely have to be reconsidered. It was a bit predicated on the hope that the UK and/or France would have some poor dice rolls once Poland was attacked and wouldn’t quite yet go to war.

      Also, are you sure that’s right regarding USSR’s money? Someone at the Global War site pointed out that even if Moscow falls, the USSR still keeps their money, given the special rule of moving the capital. Thoughts?

      Again, if you’re right on that though, then I’d feel even more prepared to take the shot against the USSR. If they lose all their money for one turn (granted, it wouldn’t be much, seeing as war was just declared same turn in this scenario), then that’s a big set back. They’d have to wait a whole turn to build anything, and would have to be sure to focus money on new factories as well.

      I definitely get your strategy with Russian troops. I was just asking in a sense of countering the Lighting War strike being discussed here. I agree, front line is not good. But to prevent losing Moscow first turn of war, do you just stack on Moscow then?

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Global War 1936 - German Invasion of USSR Using Lightning War

      Thanks Rank! Yea, I was just looking at the map and I was like, huh, this looks possible. Also, just looked again, and the same theory can be applied to moving from Warsaw>Lubelskie>Belorussia>Orel-Kursk>Moscow. So this even widens the area the USSR would need to cover to prevent this from happening.

      I read the rules the same way as you, so I believe this is legitimate as well!

      Again, it wouldn’t be without it’s faults. Going over peacetime IPP increases, the odds of the UK and/or France being able to declare war on Germany after they attack Poland is high. So this scenario plays out with them probably being at war in the west as well. Again, you’re obviously needing the initial two attacks each round to happen in three rounds or less, otherwise the blitz cannot happen, and then they cannot reach.

      It would have to be carefully thought out. You’d have to be able to hit the USSR essentially the next turn after taking Warsaw, or else you may risk letting the Allies get too strong too early.

      What you say below could also work as well. If you could slog it out with France early without using the Lightning War ability, this could work. I fear Germany would still be too weak in 1938 though to fight France, and anything the UK might throw their way too, and still conserve the resources that would be needed to hit the USSR to make it work. The best bet I would think would maybe be to make sure you could throw something at the French during the Lightning War as well, albeit just be infantry, artillery, and some other units that wouldn’t be able to help in the Moscow run. Put them on a back foot as well, even if you can’t take Paris right away.

      I know this is usually predicated on taking France out early, and the general thought is normally “you can’t let France survive, otherwise you lose”. But does that still hold weight if the alternative is severely cripple the USSR right away instead?

      It would definitely be a gamble, but I’d be very curious to see how it could play out. I do agree with you, it probably alters what the Soviets should do early in the game. But could also come with more risk. Do you stack lots of units on the border to hopefully make the first round of combat last more than three rounds? Maybe just back a bit so the whole brunt isn’t felt immediately? Do you just have more than enough sitting in Moscow to blunt the last attack definitively? Either way, it would put the Soviets on the back/defensive foot immediately. Which I guess is always the case, but this would feel different, as you might have to affect your defenses in other areas to make sure these corridors stay safe.

      I will say, this possibility makes it way more important that the USSR can declare a second capital after Moscow is defeated. If that wasn’t the case, I have to imagine this would be an Axis strategy all the time. You’d just knock out the Soviets right away and be able to focus everything west haha.

      Again, it’s not fool proof, and comes with risk. But with careful planning on buys, and movement, I just wonder if it could work. Let me know if you get a chance to try it, I’d be curious what you think!

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • Global War 1936 - German Invasion of USSR Using Lightning War

      I posted this to the Global War page as well, hoping to get some creator insights to the question/situation, but I’m curious as to anyone’s take here as well that maybe doesn’t frequent the Global War page as often.

      This is a question or two tied into general curiosity.

      Situation is Germany and USSR have signed Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, so German forces are as far east as Warsaw, USSR is in Lubelskie. The turn Germany Declares war on the USSR, let’s say they want to use the Lightning War ability.

      First, a question. If using the Lightning War ability the turn they invade the USSR, does the Soviet Surprise Attack take effect on both rounds of combat?

      Second, I’m curious as to if anyone has tried this, because it’s conceivable to just take Moscow the first turn Germany goes to war with the USSR. If my question above is affirmative, then it’s even easier for them to do so.

      Germany can stockpile medium armor and mechanized infantry at Warsaw. They attack Lubelskie, win in under 3 rounds of combat; because the armor and mechanized infantry only moved one space, they can blitz into Minsk; they attack Minsk, win; Lightning War comes into play, German medium armor and mechanized infantry from Minsk attack Western Russia, win in under three rounds of combat; because the armor and mechanized infantry only moved one space, they can blitz into Moscow; they attack Moscow, win.

      This obviously requires German forces to win two battles in three rounds of combat or less for the blitz to come into effect, but it’s possible.

      I know Germany has to wait until July 1938 to be able to build medium armor and mechanized infantry, but they could maybe just stockpile all their IPP’s until that time and build as many as they can before the July 1940 cutoff to use the Lighting War ability. USSR would only be getting a maximum of 13 IPP’s a turn (8 IPP Starting Income; 1 IPP for Viipuri, if taken; 1 IPP for East Poland; 3 IPP for Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact being signed), at times, with one or two Sleeping Bear rolls mixed in. But Germany would have more IPP’s to spend on this route than the USSR. USSR player would have to be keen to know that this was happening and turtle a lot of it’s troops from across the country at Moscow to try and prevent this.

      Also wanted to add for clarity that the Lightning War use would allow potential Light Tanks, Motorized Infantry, and potential towed artillery to also attack Western Russia in the scenario above, therefore leaving more medium armor and mechanized infantry (and or course any aircraft) to continue the final blitz to Moscow.

      Just saying, it’s possible.

      True, the west would quite possibly be ignored at first. But France has to wait an entire turn before attacking Germany anyways (assuming it’s peacetime bonus of 5 IPP’s for Germany attacking USSR even get it to wartime income levels), leaving Germany with a bit of time to turn some attention back that way. While this would leave France stronger and more difficult to take out, you’ve essentially destroyed the USSR already and can focus vast resources to the west again.

      Has this been considered? Curious of your take on this!

      Thanks!

      Chris

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: [1936] New player quick index project.

      All your guys’ stuff looks great! Appreciate you sharing with the group!

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: [1936] New player quick index project.

      Haha no problem at all! Didn’t want to sound petty, but thought if you went through all this awesome effort you may want to be notified!

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: GW36 Italian Strategy - Operazione Chiave (Operation Key).

      Wow, missed your response to me from before Jinx1527!

      That’s a very good point re winning the SCW before/after Germany is at war. That also plays a large part into the effectiveness of planning. My points towards having a Nationalist Spain so that Italian troops don’t have to amphibiously assault Gibraltar, can also be turned on it’s head: The Allies can then just invade Nationalist Spain, and then retake Gibraltar, also without having to amphibiously assault it! Though, they’d still need to amphibiously assault somewhere on the Spanish mainland as well, and you’re very much correct, Leon-Castille is a prime target. Nationalist Spain would definitely need to beef up defenses on the Atlantic coast.

      All very interesting, each part really plays into another part as well in this particular strategy you discuss. I guess you’d need to weigh out what’s more important/effective: 1) Having a Nationalist Spain enter the war, giving Italian troops overland access to Gibraltar, but thus opening up Spain to Allied invasion/widening the defensive window for the Axis or 2) Keep a Nationalist Spain neutral, thus closing easier access to Allied forces to invade mainland Europe, but in the process making an invasion of Gibraltar all the more unlikely again by amphibious assault.

      My initial gut response leans with option one: having an activated Nationalist Spain. I think this would, overall, greatly support the Italians more than it would detriment the Axis as a whole. While Spain is now open to assault without Allied penalty, there’s still going to be Spanish troops there to make amphibious landings costly. All the while you’ve stopped, at least for a time, the flow of Allied reinforcement of North Africa/Mediterranean by holding Gibraltar, and/or, depending on how well Italy is doing, opening up the Atlantic to possible Italian interference, if their fleets can comfortably leave the Med.

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: [1936] New player quick index project.

      Good job! Great idea to have this post.

      Unless I’m misunderstanding your post, you’re including rules/pieces/etc. from expansion sets as well here, right?

      If that’s accurate, then you might want to make an addendum to your “Retreating from Attacks” section, showing that there’s a special rule for defending Afrika Korps units, if using the DAK expansion. Defending DAK armored units may retreat from combat. This is an exception to the normal rule of defenders being unable to retreat.

      Also, for “Strategic/Carpet Bombing Raid”, you may want to clarify that the interception combat has smaller combat values than standard attack/defense rates.

      For Mountain Rules, you may want to specify that an entirely mountainous zone gives the -1 modifier to ALL rounds of combat.

      Besides that, not sure how picky you want to get with this, but I noticed a few spelling errors:

      defence - should be defense
      eath - should be each
      durring - should be during
      cassualites - should be casualties
      subgect - should be subject
      superriority - should be superiority
      fortafication - should be fortification
      Panama Chanal - should be Panama Canal

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: GW36 Italian Strategy - Somalian Pirate (Crouching Benito)

      Ouch! Sorry to hear it! Hope the healing process is moving along alright! Definitely will be curious on your response though when you can  :-)

      Take care!

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Monroe doctrine!

      Interesting HMS Serapis. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t necessarily disagreeing with you as much as maybe pointing out another possibility. I agree with you, if the Comintern and Allies have that kind of an agreement, then major issue.

      @HMS:

      First, why would the USSR attack Alaska and America in general when they can take Europe very fast and very easy and there are lot of  ipc and victory points for them. Along with this, they would have to build a big navy on the pacific to transport the army, which is completely useless, complicated and it take a lot of time (turns) to do that.
      Second, why would the US invade the East of the USSR? They can take maximum (8 IPP?) from USSR, and until the end of the game USA will hardly come to Moscow, until then USSR wipe the whole of Europe. In this situation, most important thing for Allies are  to defend France and not to allow USSR to conquer Europe and take victory points.

      I should clarify here. I was not insinuating that this would be a viable way to war for either the USSR or USA. I agree, the IPP’s available are not large, and would only draw resources away. What I mean here though is, if an agreement between the two is not reached, and they are actually “at war”, then the presence of defensive forces may still be needed. If I’m the USA and I see Kamchatka or Chukchia completely undefended with no hope of anyone coming to the rescue for a couple turns, you bet I’m going to land a single transport there to annoy them. Maybe be able to have a base to more easily fight the Japanese that way too, etc.

      Point being, without the presence of a defensive force to block this kind of move (and again, with the Comintern and Allies agreement NOT in place), I could easily see this happening, thus requiring even a kind of token force that may have otherwise been used elsewhere.

      But again, if they’ve agreed to be at war only in name, then major issue for the Axis. But, agreements can be broken, and I suppose you can never know if one of the two might do just that to the other and any point in the game  :evil:

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: GW36 Italian Strategy - Somalian Pirate (Crouching Benito)

      Sorry for such a delayed response here. Was just going through some posts in the Global War thread.

      Jinx1527, I really love the way you lay your topics out! You’ve definitely thought through them and convey each greatly!

      This is an extremely interesting idea. I’m not sure I would have really considered Italy just staying Neutral. I just have one question really.

      I definitely get your point on keeping less coastal territories to have to defend. You’re right, the Mediterranean/Southern Europe is essentially blocked by Neutrality at that point. This gives Germany an advantage of only needed to defend the Atlantic coast line and fight in the East. Though one victory objective is automatically forfeited in Lebensraum (by not taking Yugoslavia and Greece), this probably works very well to have Germany troops not have to garrison a whole theater.

      But, what’s to say that, generally speaking, the Allies can’t do the same thing and just (mostly) ignore the Mediterranean and focus all efforts in northern Europe, the Pacific, etc.? By this I mean, leave token forces in the event Italy tries something, but everything else diverted elsewhere.

      I totally get your point on Power Projection. I to like to employ this tactic in games. While I have not yet had the pleasure of playing my Global War 1936 game, I’ve played a lot of AA Global 1940, and placing the Japanese fleet at the Caroline islands is a great “triple threat”. From there, you threated Sydney, Hawaii, the Philippines, and the DEI. A lot of potentially ground that can be reached to force the Allies to defend all or give one up easily.

      So while I get your point, what says the Allies need to spend a lot of time/money/forces to counter this Italian Power Projection?

      Italy only makes 10 IPP’s a turn (that said, correct me if I’m wrong. Italy’s Wartime Income is 10 IPP’s, but their Starting Income level is 7 IPP’s. (I assume they still get 10 IPP’s a turn, after the first turn, because that’s the value of their territories, correct? Or do they only get that “Wartime Income” if actually at war?)

      That’s not a lot of money to spend that the Allies need to potentially counter. This would seem to namely affect the UK, since as you point out India, South Africa, Gibraltar, and Cairo are all the reasonable spots the Italians can threaten. But what’s to stop the Allies/UK from only spending an equal amount of IPP’s to Italy’s to counter this threat? Or maybe a few IPP’s more to cover all the ground to be potentially affected?

      My guess is you’ll tell me that that’s money and units being spent on a phantom enemy in Italy that could be spent elsewhere and now is not. Which is very true, and can certainly hurt the Allies. But the same can be mostly said for the Axis as well, can’t it? That those Italian IPP’s and units just sitting stagnant are all pieces that could be used elsewhere.

      Just a though of mine, and completely curious on your response to it. I just wonder aloud if this really is a detriment to the Allied cause, or if it just keeps an area of the world quite while the rest burns, with no significant affect on the other powers.

      Thanks!

      Chris

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Monroe doctrine!

      @HMS:

      Then that’s a major problem for Axis, and I do not see a way for them to deal with it.

      A little late to the game here on this thread, but thought I’d throw my two cents in.

      I’m just wondering out loud if this is really THAT big of a problem for the Axis? I only ask this because, while it’s true the US will be at full income very early, they are also now at war with the USSR, thus pitting two Allied powers against each other early. Plus, it’s not as though this means they can automatically declare war on the Axis powers right away. They still need to wait for an Axis power to declare war on another power first.

      My point is, while the US is getting a much larger income much earlier in the game, the US and USSR forces will now have to deal with each other as well as the Axis (eventually). This could be more USSR troops stationed in the far East/Pacific than they may normally do, and same with US forces stationed in Alaska maybe, out of fear of invasion from one another. Plus USSR won’t be getting any lend lease support from the Western powers moving forward.

      What do you think? Does that maybe change the thinking a bit?

      This is all moot, of course, if the USSR and US do this, but have agreed to not actually fight each other. That would definitely be an issue. Though, maybe that wouldn’t happen, given US victory objectives. That’s conceivably two victory objectives the US would be giving up if they didn’t fight the USSR in that scenario. That’s a big risk to just let slide.

      posted in Global War
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: US forces in Alaska

      I wouldn’t imagine building an mIC there ever worth it, but that’s just me.

      Crockett36, just an FYI this is a Pacific 1940 thread, NOT a Global 1940 thread. So keep in mind your parts about defeating Germany are invalid in this particular situation  :-)

      To sort of piggy back off of crockett36’s post though, for those that apply to a Pacific 1940 game, you’ll definitely need to look at how the whole game plays out. By that I mean, you’ll probably need to be prepared to be semi-aggressive with ANZAC and UK both with an Alaska strategy. As Crockett36 points out, you’ll be throwing most of your force that way presumably, so that leaves Japan to (also presumably) focus efforts north as well. If that happens, you’d want to be ready to pounce as ANZAC and UK, wouldn’t you? Attack the Caroline Islands, fortify the Philippines and DEI, etc.?

      That all said, the other tricky thing about this strategy is knowing you start out on the second foot to Japan. they get to go first, so will dictate play a lot. Also depends on when Japan attacks. They start out with an obviously significantly larger naval force than the US, and could potentially leave enough force to deal with Alaska, and also continue to strike south. If a J1 happens, I think an Alaska build up is rather difficult.

      But, if it’s delayed to J3, with a US entrance to war on US4, then you may reasonably be able to have built up a decent size force to do this. Again, assuming you coordinated with ANZAC and UK as well. This might all be pointless to do if ANZAC has only built defensive ground forces, or UK gone all ground force to help China, etc. You’d essentially have an empty theater in the south where Japan isn’t getting hit in that case. Or, by staying defensive, might allow Japan to still do what needs to be done in the south pacific without jeopardizing it’s Alaska force much.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Industrial complexes, airports and naval ports miniatures for Global version

      On top of everything above, EBard’s shop on Shapeways as great pieces for airfields and naval bases as well.

      https://www.shapeways.com/designer/ebard/creations?s=192

      He has a couple different sizes of naval bases, I went with the smaller of the two. He has two or three different airstrip pieces as well if you want variety or options. He also has shipyards and drydock pieces as well if that’s more up your alley. If you play Global War by HBG, they are perfect for that game.

      But, Shapeways is not exactly cheap. I wouldn’t say they aren’t worth it (I have a decent amount of his stuff, and it definitely adds great detail to our games), but if you’re looking for cheap, they may not be the way to go.

      posted in Marketplace
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Piece Count Weirdness

      I remember that having happened to us with the D-Day game as well when we got it. I think we were missing one or two German tanks, and like one British infantry. We just waited for casualties and put them back on the board, but I agree, frustrating.

      posted in Axis & Allies: Battle of the Bulge
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Breaking News - Shapeways.com

      I personally think the Pyramid looks great with the steps!

      I may be in the minority here, but I don’t see any major changes that need to be made. Having three pyramids on the piece, while it would look great if doable, is also going a bit far to the unnecessary in my opinion. I think we all need to remember that 1) EBard is being awesome in taking everyone’s suggestions here, but in the end these are his pieces! You don’t like them, don’t buy them. 2) This are just gaming aids, and not the focal point of the entire game. That’s my thought anyways. As long as they stand out, look cool, and give my pieces a visual objective to shoot for, I’m okay with everything!

      posted in Customizations
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: [Global 1940] Oil Derrick & Refineries

      I’d have to imagine considering making those territories have the ability to build major complexes would be a bit too steep and game altering. It’s an interesting rule though! I like the idea of just producing one more IPC, but not counting towards industrial complex strengths. You can make it so they can be bombed as well and have to be repaired, like any other facility as well. If it’s bombed, you don’t get the bonus income until repaired.

      posted in House Rules
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Breaking News - Shapeways.com

      You are right EBard, there is currently no VC rule in that sense for Global War, people just want for eye candy I believe. I like your layout above, good way to keep a focus on AA Global more!

      posted in Customizations
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Breaking News - Shapeways.com

      EBard, just so you’re aware, they are talking about a game from Historical Board Gaming called Global War 1936. It contains a lot of VC’s, so that’s why they are asking.

      That said, I’m sure I’d agree with you that some of those wouldn’t be worth your time. In terms of Axis and Allies, I think you could make an argument for Singapore being a cool one to add. I’m shocked that’s not a VC anyways. It was so important to the British Empire and completely shook them when it fell so easily (and from land to boot!). It’s also an NO for both UK Pacific and ANZAC, so it’s importance is still represented in the game as well.

      Just a thought!

      posted in Customizations
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: Breaking News - Shapeways.com

      EBard, that’s awesome! May not remember me, but you were awesome and initially created your Sydney Bridge, Taj Mahal, and Arc de Triumph/Eiffel Tower pieces because I and a couple others asked! I’d always wondered about bugging you for others. I greatly look forward to these, I’ve loved using your pieces, airfields, factories, and naval bases, in my games already so will be great to complete the victory city sets!

      posted in Customizations
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • RE: 2nd Edition Battle Report

      Hi all! Well, we finally finished our game this last weekend. The ever present long work days and real life make it so hard to play regularly! I’m a paralegal and had to head to LA for 12 days for a trial, so that really put a fork into things as well.

      I hate that I’m going to do this, but I’m going to shorten the report now that the game is over (and the turns start to blend together in memory now). In short though, the Allies pulled out the victory!

      Germany - The Germans waited an extra turn until turn 5 to invade the USSR, giving Stalin more time to consolidate his forces for the defense of Moscow. While the Germans did make the push all the way to the city gates, Feldmarshal von Bock rushed his attack. The Germans saw the USA closing in, and knowing they had limited time, decided to strike. While the Germans had around 35 tanks, the Soviet hordes had almost 100 infantry stacked in Moscow. Brian (my brother, Axis player) took too much stock in his tanks, and really discounted my having to roll 2’s to hit. The law of averages said that my superior numbers won the day (though I will say I did get lucky with some rolls, killing 40 Germans in the round of combat!)! It was the beginning of the end on the Eastern Front. General Rokossovsky was able to slowly start to push back, retake Stalingrad, and begin the push West. Germany, also irritated by English excursions to Norway, sent too many resources North to retake the precious factory there as well. Germany, in the end, tried too hard to keep naval forces in the West also, thus resulting in too few men in the East.

      USSR - Having played a defensive strategy from the beginning, Stalin knew that, despite the extra time given him by the delayed German assault, he was still waiting for that attack on Moscow. Too few offensive units having been built made brining the fight to German soil early out of the question. The massive amounts of infantry were enough to hold back the German attack, and, having 12 tanks and 3 aircraft still available, it was enough to start pushing back with the around 30 infantry that remained. All of the Southern USSR was retaken before Axis capitulation, while Leningrad would have soon fallen in the North. To flip the script, the Soviet infantry in the far East made a bold move and invaded Manchuria. While taking out the few tanks that were there, the Japanese did hit back, taking out 2 of the stacks of 6 infantry, but not being able to get passed the last stack on Buryatia. This was a calculated move by the USSR. The goal was to draw resources away from the Chinese and India in the south and give them time to take some territory back, and it worked!

      Japan - Brian was saying all game how much the Chinese were pissing him off. He just wasn’t able to keep them down. It was his eventual downfall in mainland Asia. With British support, the allies kept being able to open little pockets, which helped the Chinese to plant forces behind Japanese lines constantly. It was very frustrating for him! The biggest factor though (and one helped sway him to surrender in the end) was the large naval battles that occurred. The Japanese had two large fleets, one based at the home islands, and one based in the Philippines. It was one of those situations where, both his naval forces combined were larger than my American navy (though not by much, and I kept growing) individually, and larger than a combined British and ANZAC navy based at Dutch New Guinea, but split up they were vulnerable, and that’s what happened. Japan let the Dominion forces build up too strong a navy without punching at it first. The British navy (Pat, my dad) was able to attack the fleet at the Philippines in a heroic suicide mission, do some minor damage to the fleet there. But it was enough, as the ANZAC (also Pat) navy followed up and finished off all but 3 Japanese aircraft. This now left my large American navy of which had 4 carriers completely intact to head to Japan and fight. At this point, we knew the Axis would quit. I would not have made the attack normally, as I was still not QUITE in a position to take on the Japanese fleet, when scrambled fighters and kamikazes were added in, I attacked anyways just so we could see the carnage. In the end, while my fleet perished, all that remained was a wounded Japanese battleship or two. At this point in the game, even if we had still played on, the damage was done and he would not have been able to rebuild economically speaking. Brian said as much after, but he wished he’d gone for the DEI way earlier than he did, the extra money trading sides would have been big.

      USA - The sleeping giant was finally awoken and went right into action. I had prepared transports and invasion forces in the Atlantic, and naval combat forces in the Pacific. Morocco and Gibraltar had not yet fallen, so I had quick access points to land in North Africa. Italy, as we’ll see, was actually looking decent in the Mediterranean. He had enough forces to push back my slow movement across North Africa a bit. His navy was enough to make it where I couldn’t just waltz into the Mediterranean. But, as my transport fleet grew at Gibraltar, he didn’t know if I’d strike at Italy, Southern France, or Normandy. In the end, I invaded Normandy with 11 full transports. The absence of any Germany naval forces was the determining factor in that location. After the victory there, and the impending UK landings to reinforce or take Holland/Belgium, was the actually moment Brian said “I lost” and essentially capitulated. In the Pacific, the American fleet was cautious. Again, the two Japanese fleets combined would have taken me out, but the Dominion naval forces being there let us be able to work it in a way that led us to victory.

      China - Nationalist forces really were a thorn in Imperial Japan’s side. Japanese forces were strong in the South, but pockets would open in the North, or British tanks punched through on the coast, making the spawning ability of Chinese infantry very infuriating. The Soviet attack in the north helped stem Japanese reinforcements just long enough to allow the combined Allied forces the time needed to take out a sizable force in Szechwan, and then bottle up the remaining Southern forces at Hong Kong and the minor industrial complex there.

      UK - As stated earlier, the UK in Europe and Africa did two things mainly. 1) They kept up raids on Norway. I thought it was a waste of resources, when France should have been the focus, but it did keep drawing German forces North. Even though Cairo had fallen, UK forces pushed North from South Africa and West through the Middle East, to strangle the Italians there, in combination with my American push East across North Africa. In the Pacific, the Dominion naval battle earlier mentioned was big. And British ground troops did what was needed in Southern China to help turn the tide.

      Italy - Italy was looking strong for a while. Cairo had fallen, an industrial complex built there, and decent naval forces intact. A brutal spot was the Americans making a suicide attack of naval forces and taking out all three Italian transports and supporting vessels in the Mediterranean. Without the wave of reinforcements from the mainland, the minor complex in Cairo wasn’t enough. If they had survived, it might truly have been a bit of a different story.

      ANZAC - The lions share of ANZAC support came in the aforementioned Dominion naval battle. ANZAC was left alone for too long to build naval forces, and it was enough for the combined efforts with the UK to take out a good chunk of the Japanese navy at the Philippines.

      France - Even worth mentioning? Actually, the surviving two infantry in North Africa were just enough to hold off the Italians being able to easily take Morocco, which instead left a clear landing ground for my US forces.

      So that was our game. As I stated in the first post, my brother knows the game, but hasn’t played 1940 a whole lot. The biggest thing for him and my dad are remembering the NO’s. ANZAC was able to accrue 20 IPC’s a turn, when Japan just taking one ANZAC island in the Solomon’s would have cut that in half. Would have made a difference as it turned out with the ANZAC navy. Brian also wished he’d hit the DEI’s earlier. That swing of money also played a difference. He also lamented his attack on Moscow. He wished he instead had just bottled me up there, not attacked, and then put focus back in the West. Would have been smart. He had enough forces where me going on the offensive with so few strong attacking forces would have been foolish. If we’d waited another couple turns, he may have gotten enough troops built to get me, as well as shore himself up in the West more. The Italian’s also had multiple unlucky rolling turns for him, but so go the dice!

      Hope you enjoyed. After we finished that game, we started another. Me as the Axis this time. I may do a synopsis of that one as well, whenever it is we may finish!

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      C
      Chris_Henry
    • 1 / 1