Posts made by Coronel Cool

Are we only allowed to discuss WWII- topics?

Wooooow!!! Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!!

:-D :-D :-D :-D

saburo sakai argued:

You called this a very, very smart strategic move.  This is not an accurate statement because the raid was never conceived of in strategic terms.  It was simply intended as a limited attack in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

I believe it was a smart strategic move, regardless of what they might tell you. There was at least three very important strategic gains. These are obvious and consequently you can not persuade me into believing that the US commanders did not consider these gains at all. Please don’t tell me US commanders are that careless)  :|

1. Getting the Imperial Army out and away to China
2. Getting the Imperial Fleet back from the Bengal and up to Japan (instead of down towards Australia)
3. Getting the Fleet Air Force, and the Army Airforce back home to Tokyo (dezrtfish agreed with this one)

You suggest that the US’s intention with the raid was to make the Japanese focus on the Chinese and leave the US alone.  Not true.  As stated many times, the US raid was a morale booster, nothing more.  It was certainly not designed to push the Japanese in the direction of China.

First: There is one good reason why I don’t believe in the moral boosting story at all: Would you really think that US would risk 33% of there pacific carrier force, just for that? How would this boost to morale, be affected by the very possible loss of a rare indispensible carrier for a few useless bombs dropped on Yukosuka ….Nah…

Second: If the strategic gains was in fact the intention, logically they would of course never unveil it. They would state again and again that it was simply a booster.

You state that the USS Hornet beat a cowardly retreat and that the planes should have landed back on the carrier.  For one, it was hardly a retreat when it was part of the plan that the Hornet would return to Pearl Harbor after launching the planes. The reason for this was that the flight deck was not long enough for the planes to land on - so what you suggest was physically impossible, therefore historically misleading and inaccurate.

physically impossible? Nonsens!! Sorry my language, it’s not pointed at you, but i believe, that i’s a bad excuse. If they could make bellylanding in China they could just as well have made bellylanding close to CV-8. Therefore the length of the flightdeck was definitely NOT the reason for USS Hornet retreating. But yes of course - that’s what they would tell you, indeed.  :-D

You say that the US was “cheating on its Ally”.  This is false and is demonstrated by the reactions of the Chinese when the encountered the US airmen after they had landed their planes in China.  The Chinese did not feel cheated.  They assisted the airmen to escape the Japanese and most only returned to the US with Chinese help.

Well, The Chinese pretty much had to accept it since it was a done deal. All this just shows that the Chinese was sincerely faithful to their US allies. The reference to their reactions demonstrates nothing but that.

You state that the Chinese turned on the US after the war, suggesting that the Doolittle Raid was the reason for this.  Hogwash!!

Nahh, that’s not really what I said is it? I certainly wouldn’t give the Doolittle Raid that much credit.  :-D
Â

The Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai Shek were defeated by the communists in the Chinese Civil War.  They retreated to Formosa (now Taiwan) and remain a staunch ally of the US to this day.  The fact that the communists did not support or side with the US has everything to do with the fact that they were communists and nothing to do with the US war record in China.

….everything to do with the fact that they were communists? The communists of China was allied to USA just as the nationalist. So i don’t get your point. Well alright, perhaps you want to say that the fact that they were communists was the thin pretext for the Americans to turn against an allied? I don’t know.

And then dezrtfish with a reply:

The assertion that we didn’t tell the Chinese was treachery is ludicrous, there were very few people who new the objective of the raid prior to the crossing of the no return line.  This included most of the Pilots and sailors on the mission.

Yes maybe, but if your assertions are true, these premises should surely apply for actions in the European theater as well. How come The Americans did not conduct such secret missions over british territory, if secrecy was a necessity, as you postulate dezrtfish? The US did never behave like this to the British. So why the Chinese? This does not make much sense, so I guess I can still conclude that the reasons for this secrecy seems to be the ones that I suggested  8-)

I believe the Doolittle raid was a very smart strategic move, accomplished with great skill, no doubt. Initially very sad for the Chinese, but hey, that’s life (or war). But a “booster to morale” being the only reason for this mission, ….Doubt it! :|

It’s not a lot of work if you’re not lazy. What category should the history forum fall under?

Are you interested in writing history-related articles for the website? Something to read to start discussion?

I believe it would fit very well in “other forums”. Preferable right above or below “Political Discussion”, Don’ t you agree on that?

Yes I am interested in writing articles, and I have noticed the new forum for that purpose, But I’m going towards some university examinations soon, so I won’t have too much time just next month for a hard research on serious topics/articles . But I may find some time here and there and of course later during vacation. I will keep it in mind.

Thanx  :-D

Lol !!! :-D

Colonel Cool said:
“…Doolittles attack was indeed very very smart strategic move…”.
“…Doolittle did a really great job…”

Replies to this:
“Slanderous and inflammatory”, “retarded”,

Nah…I may not be obliged to reply to this, I think  :|

“historically inaccurate”,

:-D Now, That’s fine!  ……so what is exactly inaccurat? Can anyone educate me?

Here’ my assertions, Pick any assertion for free, you choose:

1. Is it inaccurate that Doolittles attack can be seen as a very very smart strategic move?
2. Is it inaccurate that the Japanese initially believed the planes came from China?
3. Is it inaccurate that the Japanese, because of the raid, turned towards china, with heavy chinese losses following?
4. Is it inaccurate that USS Hornet, retreated immidiately without the planes?
5. Is it inaccurate that the B-25’s made it for China, without permission from Chiang Kai-shek?
6. Is it inaccurate that the mission was kept a complete secret to the Chinese?
7. Is it inaccurate that the secrecy towards China can be considered as cheating an allied partner?
8. Is it inaccurate that China belongs to the US player in A&A?
9. Is it inaccurate that Doolittle did a really great job?

:evil: Now, show me what ya got!!!  :evil:

Jermofoot:

I checked the wiki, and supposedly the Japanese made an attack on China for helping the US, killing 250,000 civilians in reprisal.

Yes. Although Doolittles attack was indeed very very smart strategic move, it should not be considered a glorius act. It was much rather a shameful deed!  :x

The Americans REAL intention was of course to lead the Japanese to think that the planes came from China, so all the Japanese forces would leave the US alone to concentrate on China, which they surely did. The US planes returned, not back to USS Hornet who retreated cowardly, but to China without any permission from Chiang Kai-shek. The mission was kept in complete silence from the chinese allies. That’s what make this seem like a cowardly act, and that’s why that day should perhaps live in infamy.  :-(

Cheating on your allies, is that a US speciality? No surprise the Chinese (like others) turned against US after the war. Yet another reason why it’s weird that China belongs to the US in A&A, but that is maybe Mr. Harris way of saying that US just couldn’t do it alone. :-D

That’s just a viewpoint, guys. No hard feelings :-P

I of course admit that Doolittle did a really great job. This is not up for debate for my part (although i think he really should have returned the planes to USS hornet or at least notified the Chinese in advance).

That sounds like a good idea to me, I enjoy discussing history.

Great! yeah, who does not  :-)

At this moment history topics, has to be posted on “generel discussion”, which is a very very crowded and fastmoving forum, that could gain a more relaxed pace if a history forum was created.  Although history topics are one of the more popular topics on the generel forum, they tend to dissappear somewhat in a massive pile of everything and nothing.

I really think history deserves its own forum on a site like this.

Thanx for reply.

I think a history forum will be very popular. I’m just ready to make several very interesting topics, like fx. how to research the battlefields of history using satelite photos on google maps (I’ve done some genuine research on this field)  :-). I also got a thousand other ideas for topics on a history forum.

I think such a forum could attract different users (no matter what version of a&a they play) for lively discussions.

Is it a huge work? Couldn’t you just copy the code from say “political discussion”, then change the titel to “History”, then remove the posts and then put the code in below “political discussions”?

If it workd this way it should only take few seconds if I’m right? Or maybe it’s more complicated?

I scanned the posts to see if any similar suggestions has already been discussed, but I could not find any discussions on this topic.

I think a History Discussion forum for discussing order of battles, tactics and strategies of WWII and other conflicts in history, would be really great at this site. I think it’s strange there is no such forum.

I believe a “History Discussion Forum” would fit in well at “Other Forums” next to “Political Discussion” and “Generel Discussion”.

I’m looking forward for this. Thanx.

To Cyan

Cyan said:

I don’t think any “real” german would of fault for hitler. they shoudl of formed a rebellion agianst him. a person of the nation has the Responsibillity not the right to correct and help its government for the better. and the germnas of te 30’s and early 40s did not uphold thier responibilty but let hitler fo on his rampage leading to more deaths than any other man.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "- (i know this is american) declaration of independence

Exactly, and this is in my opinion the most interesting and difficult issue in the entire philosophy of morals and ethics ever since the birth of existentialism. In my view ethics and personal morals must rationally be understood as the personal intention to be loyal towards life and humanity, not just loyal to society. This will inevitably bring the individual moral responsibility in conflict with an immoral society.

The philosophical problem is to define exactly what constitues “loyal towards humanity” and from there deduce (develope) formalized criterias to conclude what actions are morally correct/incorrect. The theory of historism gives criticism to the idea of using such formalized criterias as measurement tolls regarding historical facts, and rejects any moral conclusive statements regarding history.

Morality however, is a social fact, - not merely a rational convention. This means that morals exist in our reality because moral thougts can be proven to have been a basic cause or reason for individual actions in many certain cases all through history. Not necessarely because these actions themself fulfills the criterias of any rational theories or “modern” moral conventions, but rather because no other rational reasons can be found concerning such “altruistic” actions (with loyalty to humanity in general rather than loyalty to any certain human beings in their environment).

In that sense it becomes an important question, not so much why so many Germans followed Hitler (or why so many jews helped killing there fellows), but rather why some people stood up in all the cases where you can find no individual and rational reasons for doing so (ie. altruistic actions with dire consequenses for yourself).

So while it is evident that moral intentions and ethics does indeed exist thereby disproving nihilism to a certain extent, - what is now left is the REAL philosophical problems of ethics: To define the human actions that are morally correct and those that are incorrect. (The American Declaration of Independence does not offer any definitive answer regarding this question).

Another big problem regarding this question seems to be, that even the right intentions, does not always lead to the actions with the best consequenses. So the “right intention” does not necessarely guarantee a “correct action”. Add to this the similar problem: The “correct action” (the action with the best consequenses) is not necessarely proof of a “right intention”.

This paradox leads to problems for the two main theoretical positions in philosophical ethics: Deontology (the correct action is always based on correct intentions) and Consequentialism (the correct action is the action with the best consequences)

                                              –------------------------

After this rather abstract discussion let’s take a new look on Admiral Canaris and his Abwehr staff:

Admiral Canaris and Abwehr DID in fact stand up against the nazis, they DID rebellion against Hitler (they threw a bomb), and their actions surely DID have dire consequenses for themself (they were all executed).

So now comes the tough questions to Colonel Cool: 1. Was the Abwehr “morally correct” concerning their actions?  and 2. was the abwehr “morally correct” concerning their intentions?

Regarding (1), we could more specifically ask: Should the staff at Abwehr have retired when (or soon after) Hitler came to power? Was it morally incorrect that they didn’t retire?

To be honest: I don’t know!

And thats exactly when the toughest paradox of all paradoxes hits me hard in the face: If i can not with certainty positively prove that there actions were truly altruistic or “morally correct”, how on earth can I then postulate with certainty that there intentions were “morally correct”?

To be honest: I can’t!

And now the sceptical moralist has caught me up in a trap with the question: How can I then with my full moral responsibility intact, declare my admiration for Canaris and even bring out a toast for him?

Surely I must now admit I have made a moral projection, and the only answer I can give is: I believe I did it for moral reasons.

It’s true, I don’t know if Canaris had moral intentions, I simply CHOOSE to believe so. I think that all human beings need to believe in moral ideals as facts, specially in times of cruelty. I don’t know what should keep us from barbarianism in a society of barbarians, if not our believes in morality and humanity.

So let me now clarify my statement: The “real” Germans were not the Germans who stayed loyal to Hitler, but the Germans who tried to stay loyal to the principals of humanity.

Morally we are all personally responsible for our conduct and no loyalty to authorities can ever change that. Were are humans, - not puppets!

Boy, that was a long song coming!  ;-)

Sorry I was still editing, I didn’t see you already answered. I removed a few perhaps harsh-sounding things like “whats your point?” etc, to emphasize a more informative based focus.

Movies about the war should be accurate whenever possible they dont have the liberty to twist the truth because people will consider it disengenious as i do

.

But again: NO fiction war movies have EVER been accurate in details, just like there is no Dedocanese island with the name of Navarone. You could even argue: If it is accurate it can’t be fiction. Furthermore: Accuracy in details does not guarantee to make a movie seem realistic, and yet “Come And See” seems to be one of the most realistic war movies made, in my opinion. And for that I don’t care that much about small emblems.

The whermacht was not in charge of this. That was the duty of the SS-Einsatzgruppen. Thats why im offended about this movie. They make common german soldiers to be totally inhuman rather than people who were fighting for their nation. The SS were the ones that should be represented in that manner.

Irrelevant minor details in my opinion, as most German soldiers on the eastern front (a much larger % than German people in general) was Nazi Party members. The extreme circumstances would form them to become “bloodthirsty” Nazis sooner or later. I think that’s exactly the message of the movie (just like the Russian boy surely must become more and more disillusioned and deranged).

This is not about “noble reasons” its about having some measure of historical accuracy and not defaming entire people (AKA “the Germans” as bloodhungry savages) Unless you feel thats what the Germans are in fact?

  Â

I do not accept this argument. No one (not the movie and not me) has defamed the German people as bloodhungry savages. And furthermore such argumention is normally seen as flawed among the researchers in the sciences of history and social science. There has been much controversy on that issue (conclusions about the Germans as people, based on studies on German soldiers or military files) - As I remember; this approach was finally proved absurd by sociologist historian Zygmunt Bauman. (a tough WWII Red Army fighter himself).

….rather than people who were fighting for their nation…

I know very well that many Germans did a good job in fighting for their country, and allow me then to bring a toast to the honorable Admiral Canaris and his brave guys at the Abwehr: These guys were as solid as a rock in times of chaos and cruelty, and such guys (real Germans) have my full admiration and respect!

What was really in the movie defamed as bloodhungry savages is simply the bloodhungry Nazi soldiers depicted. No one argues that all Germans are bloodhungry Nazi soldiers.

In any case; it’s seems very credible and realistic to me that from this young russian boy’s perspective….they are all just Germans! 
…And we know that history (the rules of war) would indeed repeat itself when The Red Army arrived at the gates of Berlin. It’s not that we really need another movie to keep us those atrocities in mind, and to try to imagine a young German girl’s horrible perspective.

Osvobozhdeniye ( meaning the liberation) Is a much better movie on this period than any other. I have them on dvd for many years and they are the best of any you will find. The english version ( with subtitiles) is no longer available, but the russian version can be understood w/o too much trouble. These movies had thousands of men, tanks, planes and was filmed in a similar manner as longest day with the panoramic battle views. Goto you tube for some clips.

The movie had no budject because the Soviets felt to accuratly do these movies that no expense be sparred. They employed actual Soviet army units and equipment. Hitler and Manstein and others are done very convincing. My favorite is Kursk because i have never seem so many extras in a movie. Pay the $125.00 and get it.

Thanx for the recommendations, I googled it. It looks very interesting.Â

This reminds me of when I was a young teenager; I constructed a model panorama of a 1943 WWII soviet airbase in scale 1/72 complete with fighter planes, ground facilities, nightwitches and everything. For this panorama I had build a YAK-fighter with the slogan “Osvobozhdeniya” (or something) written in russian letters on the fuselage. Another one had “To Berlin” in Russian letters. As I’d found these markings originally from tanks, I don’t know if that was really accurate, - but it sure looked realistic.      ;-)

Imperious Leader:

I have that movie. Its total propaganda.

Incorrect details does not constitute propaganda. If we had to follow that logic then The Guns Of Navarone (and any other war movie) should also be labelled propaganda. Since the movie is not a documentary, the specific incorrect details you mention seem irrelevant for that part.

It’s a Russian perspective, but the Russian soldiers are in no way depicted as heros, and the movie is surely much closer to reality than most US-produced war movies I’ve seen. But yes I would agree that the movie is a very effective piece of vaccination against any possible Nazi brainwashing.

In Fact the Reichenau order of 1941 was followed very sporadically

I strongly believe the Germans burned soviet villages more often than “you and i would eat bacon and eggs”. In Belarus alone more than 600 villages was burned to the ground with all inhabitants during WWII. Between 20-40 billion soviet citizens died. The NEW ORDER (stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior) was followed ever more strictly in response to the growing activity of the russian partisans like those in the southern swamp area of Belarus. Yes, atrocities happened on a daily basis and close to 25% of Belarus population did not survive the war.

I believe most people would say that the Nazis went to Russia for mainly two reasons: To kill and to rape (in German: “lebensraum”). Do you disagree, imperious? Will you tell me you believe there was a noble reason?

In my opinion, it’s seems odd to categorize this movie as propaganda. How about “excellent education against glorification of Nazis and assault wars”.

WW2 eastern front war movies?

Then you don’t want to waste time with ridiculous western Hollywood-style melodrama sh*t. Forget about the stupid movies from Spielberg and Coppola and go for the real thing:

Come And See" (Idi i smotri) 1985 - directed by Elem Klimov

This movie is so terrifying it will make you sh*t in your pants. It’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen and imho CERTAINLY THE MOST FRIGHTENING WAR MOVIE EVER MADE!!!

I was completely shocked by everything in this movie. I had never seen a war movie of that kind before, - It really made me sick, - So tragic, so cruel, so raw, so pure, it’s just unbelievable.

Don’t take my word for it- read what other people say about it (hit the links or google)

However, if you only want the Hollywood war-hero & family-entertainment type of war movies, then FORGET about this one, It’s evil.

“Could this be the best movie ever made?”

“perhaps the ultimate WWII film.”

“One of the greatest of all war films”

Cheers!

I should have emphasized that the specific strategy recommended above is indeed an individual FIVE-PLAYER GAME STRATEGY for Russia. It is a strategy for the 5-player no-bidding games where credits goes to the individual player rather than a team. I simply assumed that generalcampbell (“I hate playing Russia”) would ask for an individual five-player game strategy for Russia.

At his point we can always easily produce the reply: “Allied cooperation is the only way to save Russia” or even “there is only allied & axis strategy.” - this is the popular philosophy claiming there can be no such thing as a russian strategy. According to this philosophy, what generalcampbell really needs is rather a smash course for beggars or maybe some social advice or psychologic support - more than irrelevant strategic goofy discussions.

I don’t agree entirely to this “no national strategy”-axiom. I have constructivist views; I’m not saying Russia can do it without help, but I assume that Russia can be played individually with individual Russian strategy. That’s the sort of strategy that would be used in turnaments where every individual player has to play all five nations separately with better results playing each nation, than the other four players achieved - a useful concept also to avoid the bid, it would be almost equivalent to Bridge where every player (or team) plays the same hand of cards.

Furthermore a strong argument (in five-player games) against the strict “No winning Russian strategy”-philosophy, lies in the fact that the anglo-americans not necessarely have to save Karelia (or even the red flag) in order to win the game. It seems clear to me somehow that this fact makes the necessity for a national Russian strategy very evident for the Russia player. The individual Red Army player must rely on his own skills and tactics to survive and finally break out of encirclement.Â

Apart from that, I support the opinion that in normal two-player games or bid-games, another strategy would be prefared. So yes, it’s not a strategy for the normal bid-games, as rjclayton assumed:

Ahhh, my apologies, I was assuming you were playing with a bid…[ ]…Against no bid however, I cannot find fault with your strategy.

But thanks indeed for bringing attention to the tranny-bombing. All this focus cleared my mind and rationally I must now have second thoughts. If the proposed strategy should be ideal for the individual player playing Russia, it logically follows that the tranny bombing mission must be aborted. So there’s the new STAVKA decree: Mother Russia will NEVER work for western powers (exceptions to this rule is allowed only on emergency).

It is really the western powers who have to work for Russia.

The two inf that the tranny can bring up to Karelia, is not enough reason for Russia to even care about it. The rus fighter must survive, and it is much better used to secure a completely succesful  outcome in the important battle for Norway. So, right: tranny bombing missions are from now on completely banned!   8-)

In two-player or team-player bid game, I will also agree that the Allies taking Norway on rus1, isn’t the best move. Much will then, however, depend on the kind of bid, like restrictions on how the extra units has to be placed etc. - but for the individual Russia player in five player games, I believe it is essential for Russia to take Norway.

Bashir had a comment to this:

….strafing is a way better option than taking Norway! Norway is up for grasps, because they can’t go nowhere! Strafe Ukraine to 1 fig and the game is pretty much over… Hell you can even start buying some arms on R2 with Russia to make it even harder for the Germans! The beauty of this strafe is that you turn Ukraine into a deathzone, so the German player can’t reinforce it, so he needs to stack EEU already on Ger1… So you can trade ukr after R2 and sit back and wait till help arrives…

Strafing !

That is the word my memory suddenly couldn’t find, so I just named it “Attack, kill most - but retreat before winning” tactics. I suggested it against EE on rus3 & rus4.

I agree that strafing methods are important, and in the tactics of very good players they are a must. Only two objections: The first is that I see strafing-abillity as skills rather than tactics -  it is difficult and risky! - much so for newcomers.

I believe that strafing skills are essential for both Russia and the Axis, so this is not really an objection, it’s just very difficult (if not impossible) to draw safe tactics for newcomers based mainly on strafing. It would be a very detailed plan, with decisions on probability and consequenses in each specific situation.
   
Also the strategy recommended above, is an five-player-game-strategy for Russia (Sorry again for not being very clear on that point), and there’s my objection: Russia HAS to take Norway immediately from start, in all five-player games were credits goes to the individual player rather than a team. If Russia fails to take Norway as soon as possible (and UK takes it), then Russia will be further reduced to a puppet state in the hands of arrogant western powers for the whole game. Ain’t that terrible!

cheers y’all   :-D

I agree with Scarface!  3arm 3inf to Norway R1 is just asking Germany to attack your stack in Karelia G1.  1 fgt vs. 1 sub 1 trn in the baltic sea is asking for trouble.  And how on earth can Russia hold Yakut and Novisibirsk from Japan while “finishing off Germany in EE” on R5???

You must be playing against pretty incompetent axis players…

Okay, I like a good debate!  8-)

• Maybe you didn’t think it all through Clayton, or maybe you missed some details. Let’s try again:

after rus1 - the army in Karelia is:

2 rus fig
16 rus inf!!!

(8 placed, 4 from Cau, 4 from Rus)

Sorry guys, The germans wont have a chance if they attack in G1. Why? - they have no army in Norway and no tranny.
Pity for them :-)

They won’t have a chance G2 either, why?  2 uk fig, 1 rus fig, 4 rus inf has arrived.
Too bad too sad, That’s life. Ze great Russia will always win!

That’s was why they had to invent the bidding-thing. Horrorfied A&A players simply refused to face The Red Army unless heavily bribed.  :roll:

Well, - the extremely intelligent reason for taking 3inf to Norway (as pawns), is to save the 3 tanks for attack on Caucasus on rus2 (they obviously wont be counterattacked while in Norway, - and PLEASE NOTE: I didn’t purchase armour on rus1 & rus2, so they HAVE to survive)

And how on earth can Russia hold Yakut and Novisibirsk from Japan while “finishing off Germany in EE” on R5?

Precisely as the Colonel ordered.  Japan will try to take Novosib on Jap5 if not already on jap4 - but too little to late……
Please notice, that after rus4 there’s 1fig and 4-5 inf in Yakut, - adjacent to which Novosib could have (according to my plan, check again) received enforcements (not much probably). At this point Russia can gain some valuable extra time from trading off Yakut (a strategic retreat), to keep the  stronghold at NOVOSIB.

The Red Army will surely hold the line and all imperialist armies will eventually be forced back  :-D  IMHO: less than 16 rounds - before only Tokyo is left to deal with.

Well now, At that time in history Japan surrendered unconditionally. Not because of the nuclear bombs, as we would like to believe, but because The Red Army (in the very last round) suddenly invaded Manchuria with 10.000 tanks,  ;-)

…So I’m sorry guys, you missed the target, Try just a little harder next time, huh ?.. :evil:

I thought we were talking about Classic A&A, not Revised A&A?  Because if we are, then you are incorrect.  Subs cannot submerge.  Hence my above post about the subs not being able to withdraw because there is no friendly seazone to withdraw to.

No, technically I’m not incorrect, - but sorry, for not being explicit.

“Submerge” is a part of the 3rd edition (cd-r) rules playable on the classic board, and very popular. Not 2nd edit exactly, but still rules for the classic board. Basically a “2nd edition extended”, really.

I could have said explicitly that I was playing a 3rd edition CD-game, I just thought it was obvious, since I was referring to the CD-R game (The “classic” CDRvideo game, not a revised map).

The CD-R contains 2nd edit rules as well as the specific additional 3rd edition rules: (east-west canada/submerge/naval occupation/arial retreat)  + the very popular rule options: “two hit battleship”, “USSR restricted” etc.

Many people actually play with these rules on the classic board as well. On boardgames in my house-club/playnights (now 3 groups of people) we very rarely play “strictly 2nd” (we soon got bored!). Much more often we play 3rd edition with option: “two hit battleship”, - but yeah, soon we will catch a revised A&A - i believe)

Concerning the nasty Kriegsmarine-destroying monster bug: This awful bug apparently comes creepin’ both in the 2nd and 3rd rules on the CD-R.

:-(

I hate being Russia.I have learned to contain germany but I just can’t stop Japan comin from the west.Does anyone have a solid russian strategy that stops both germany and Japan. if so I would like to hear one.

Here’s a fine approved strategy for the Red Army, - excellent against the combined Axis.

It’s a so called “Germany first” strategy (with detailed focus on the asian front):

Rus1: Buy 8inf.
If not RusRestrict, take Norw/fin (with 3armour +fig+3inf), and bomb german tranny with 1fig (or let the UK do it if you’re scared)
Leave Asia open except for 6inf in Yakut, and 1inf + 1arm in Novosib.
Defence on Europe front should be centered in Karelia, except for 1inf in Caucasus.
move all other (8) inf to Karelia.
Place 8inf in Karelia

Japan1: Japan takes Sov Far East

Ger1: Takes Kaukasus

Rus2: Buy 1fig+4inf.
Take Sov Far East back with 6inf from Yakut.
Take Norway (if not already) + take Caucasus
Non com: Support maybe US in Sink with 1inf from Novosib.
Place 1fig+4inf in Karelia.

Japan2: Japan takes Yakut.

Ger2: Takes Caucasus

Rus3: Buy 1 arm + ? inf
Take Yakut back with all infantry (+fig from Kar but only if necessary) from Sov Far East
retake Caucasus (and use maybe the “strong  armoured (2 tanks) attack against EastEuro with everything available, but retreat to Kar before winning”-tactics) or maybe don’t.
non Combat: Move inf back from Sink to hold Novosib
place 1arm+1inf in moscow, the rest inf in Karelia

Japan3: takes Sov Far East & Sink
germany3: ?

Rus4: Buy 1fig+1arm+?inf
Take Ukraine (or use the “strong attack against german EE stronghold, kill most - but retreat before winning” tactics)
Non com: Move fig to Yakut if not desperately needed in Karelia.
enforce Novo & Yakut effectively, for a long trench battle.

Japan4: ?

Rus5: Finish off the Germans in East Euro.

That’s it!
:mrgreen:

So why come up with a strategy that rarely works against retards??

Please read the toppost again. I have from the first moment warned the readers against the use of the strategy in important games or tournaments.

All I did was in fact to  report a bug in the PC-game!

But yes, I like the Kriegsmarine-strategy because it’s fun, - that’s it. Just as i like other strategies which rarely succeeds but have the potential to change the board completely when they do.

I like to analyse different strategies to see their potentials, and think it’s fun when they succeeds against odds.

In this way, the pleasure with a&a, is to me more than just winning, - more than just statistics and dice.

In any case, don’t forget; STATISTICS IS ALL LIES. The statisticly most winning strategy will never win, since that strategy will be exactly the strategy that everyone will most desperately prepare himself against.

I need some SURPRISE - or I get bored!!  :evil:

OR, you could have some fun as Russia.

First turn - 3 tanks 3 infantry
Attack Ukraine with Everything in Cauc and Karelia. Land fighters in Karelia. Place units in Karelia.

Sounds like a losing strategy for the Red Army.

If Karelia is only defended with 2 fig, 3 arm, 3 inf + what is brougt up from moscow, then Germany will surely attack and take karelia during G1.

I have a question about this strategy.  If UK has any units at all in the London sz, then the German kreigsmarine cannot retreat from the Baltic Seazone when they are attacked in either UK1/US1/R2.  Even the subs cannot withdraw because they have nowhere friendly to withdraw to.  So how could the allies possibly let that navy survive to G2?

The technical answer is: The u-boots can submerge.

• but as I said, they will definitely take heavy losses, and the strategy is not recommended against good players. Even against moderate players you will rarely succeed with this plan.

Look at the odds:

At UK1 after germany have placed units 4 subs in baltic sea:

If russia did not attack the Kriegsmarine, and the german subs survived attack on the uk fleet, the german north fleet will now be as strong as 1 tranny and 6 subs (one sub probably in uk sea). how much of this will survive? probably not much if bombed decisively.

However, It’s easy to see, that with a little luck, (or if not attacked properly) several subs can have survived by submerging, giving the allies a serious headache on uk2. According to the rules, the german subs can retreat back to baltic sea after attacking uk fleet g2.

If germany finally manage to get the subs protected (by carrier or battleship) then the Kriegsmarine have won the day, and germany will probably win the war.

But again: The odds is rather bad against even moderate players. I would never use this strategy against a experienced player in a serious game.

But in theory….with some luck…and a little dreaming  :|