Posts made by creeping-deth87

God damn, if air bases could scramble 3 spaces away… jesus, I would never, ever want to play Allies. You could do horrendous things as the Germans with the bases in Paris and West Germany.

@Zooey72:

You put this kind of an advancement into the hands of the German military in 41, the Russian war wouldn’t have lasted to 42.

I’m sorry but this is patently untrue. Germany’s inability to defeat the Soviet Union had much less to do with the efficacy of her small arms and much more to do with the quality of her machines, the manner in which the war in the East was fought, and the appallingly large gap in manpower and the production of war materiel between the two countries. Having the MP44 available to the Germans in 1941 would have made very little difference, if a difference at all.

Just going to touch on a few things here as this discussion has moved towards Eastern Front fighting and most of my research has been in this particular theater of the war. Firstly, to consider the Soviet invasion of Finland a success is, frankly, ridiculous. The Red Army was orders of magnitude larger and better equipped than the Finnish army, there is no level of preparedness that could have come even close to bridging the gap between those two armies. That the Red Army stumbled so badly against Finland demonstrates the sheer ineptitude of Soviet military leadership and it was rightly seen by the rest of the world, and Stalin himself no doubt, as a failure. Furthermore, the assertion that this blunder was intentionally made known to the rest of the world by Soviet propagandists is erroneous. There was no covering that up, that’s how badly that campaign went.

I must also take issue with the assertion that Stalin attempted to downplay the accomplishments of the Red Army prior to Barbarossa for two reasons:

1. Germany and the Soviet Union were very interested in exchanging military research, and experts were sent and received by both countries to evaluate the capabilities of the other during the 1930s

2. There was nothing to cover up, the Red Army’s only notable campaign before Barbarossa was against the Japanese and the Finns and neither of those were secrets

Additionally, Stalin had no reason to downplay the quality of the Red Army prior to Barbarossa. Indeed, one of the (many) reasons Barbarossa was such a surprise for Stalin was his belief that Hitler would not deliberately open a second front without completely dealing with the first. In fact, Stalin held this belief so ardently that he refused to believe intelligence given to him not only by the British but also his own staff, and even believed Hitler when he informed Stalin that Axis troops being redeployed to the Eastern frontier were simply training for the invasion of the United Kingdom.

On top of THAT is the fact that the Red Army was being completely reorganized and reequipped at the time that Barbarossa occurred, and Stalin knew that that was going to be a dangerous time for any major confrontation with his neighbours. It literally makes zero sense that he would try to downplay the quality of his troops and their accomplishments given these facts. If anything, they’re reasons that he would have been much more overt about the strength of the Red Army.

Apologies to KurtGodel7 if any of this sounds abrasive, but a lot of your assertions fly in the face with my research on the Eastern Front and interwar politics. I am only interested in scholarly discussion and have no wish to hurt anyone’s feelings.

@simon33:

@Baron:

Follow this link to Mr Roboto post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37418.msg1507982#msg1507982

YG idea is to weakened StB dogfight capacity.

I understand the idea, but I haven’t played with or against it. I just don’t see it becoming as devastating as what people are saying.

BTW, to threaten Gibraltar you have to start closer than WGermany don’t you?

No you don’t. From West Germany you can hit 91 and land in either Normandy or Southern France.

@Nippon-koku:

@creeping-deth87:

No that’s not how it works. If an Axis power hasn’t declared war on the US before US3, then the US can declare war during the collect income phase, not the non-combat phase. I’m pretty sure the collect income phase is the final phase of your turn, so you would still have to abide by the production limit of the minor complexes on that turn.

What you’re saying makes sense, but I feel like any time I’ve played Triple A I have been able to place more than 3 per factory in this situation.   I’m curious about this one

That is strictly against the rules as they are written. The collect income phase comes after the mobilize units phase, so there is no way you are permitted to mobilize more than 3 units per complex in that situation. Triple A used to come with a disclaimer (maybe it still does, it’s been a while since I’ve downloaded it) that using the software did not mean you didn’t need the rulebook. I believe this is one of those occasions where just because the program says you can doesn’t mean it’s legal.

@Narvik:

@creeping-deth87:

You will collect from all your NOs, yes

….and that explain why so many People claim that Axis is favored in this game …

What? I don’t understand the correlation between US NOs and game balance

‘Tax base’? That’s not how resource distribution is handled in Axis & Allies. There’s no real rhyme or reason to it, why certain territories are worth more than others so you really shouldn’t be thinking of it that way. I also have to seriously disagree with the assertion that it would be a hassle for the UK to take over the French African territories, a good chunk of them are very easily accessible with nothing the Axis can do about it.

I also don’t think it makes any sense from a political perspective. They’re your allies, you’re not invading their territory so why on earth would you be putting your control markers down when you move units into them? The game has always worked this way, there’s no reason for it to change this particular rule.

There’s no oversight there at all, it would be pretty ridiculous if it worked the way you think it did. Britain would gobble up plenty of French IPCs in Africa and Madagascar without risking any units if it were that simple.

You will collect from all your NOs, yes

No that’s not how it works. If an Axis power hasn’t declared war on the US before US3, then the US can declare war during the collect income phase, not the non-combat phase. I’m pretty sure the collect income phase is the final phase of your turn, so you would still have to abide by the production limit of the minor complexes on that turn.

A naval combat would be initiated. The player owning the subs would then have to decide if they wanted to submerge or not. If they don’t, the cruiser would have to fight the subs first.

Yes you can

@Young:

I played the “pending units” way a couple of years ago before I understood the correct way, I hope it wasn’t me that messed you up.

It definitely wasn’t you YG, I think it’s just an old holdover from Anniversary or something.

If you have units that you didn’t place from a previous turn that are waiting in your mobilization zone, and someone takes your capital, are you permitted to place these units during the place units step of your next turn at complexes still under your control?

EDIT: Huh, just consulted the rulebook and it says units purchased in excess of production capacity MUST be returned to the box and their cost is refunded to you. I guess ‘pending units’ is no longer a thing, I thought you were able to keep purchased units in reserve for future turns if you didn’t want to place them just yet. I must be thinking of an older edition.

Nations can never attack together so the US transports would not be valid targets for the Japanese fighters. The combat will end when you would either kill all of the ANZAC units or the ANZAC player retreats.

I stand corrected. I could have sworn there was a stipulation that destroyers couldn’t ignore subs. In any case, I was wrong and apologize for the misinformation. I still think subs out of 93 is a good idea though.

How do they not block destroyer movement? Destroyers can’t move past subs without initiating a combat. That’s blocking.

K, maybe I should rephrase. They don’t block in the conventional sense of stopping you from going somewhere, but if you’re putting 3 subs a turn into 93 and you’re worried about losing them all to an attack, a sub in 92 saves them because the other player will have to clear the blocking sub with their destroyers. It’s true that everything that ISN’T a destroyer can sail right past 92 into 93, but then you can just submerge and there’s no threat of attack anyway. And finally, the destroyers in this case would not be able to non-combat move into 93 either because they fought in 92 to kill the blocker and because you can’t non-combat move into a territory with enemy ships, which the subs would be.

So no, not a ‘true’ blocker in the conventional sense of the word, but adequate enough to ensure your subs can get the pounce on something.

@SubmersedElk:

subs don’t block, a sub in SZ92 does nothing to prevent Allied access to SZ93

They absolutely block. A sub in 92 means destroyers can’t go all the way to 93, and if they go to 93 without the destroyers you can just submerge and hit them back on your turn with air support.

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that Germany cannot afford to spend IPCs in the Mediterranean, and for this reason I heavily favour Germany taking Southern France. 2 to 3 subs will not break the bank and it goes a very long way to assisting the Italians in their primary theater. Yes, there is no air base to provide cover, but you are, at most, only losing subs. Additionally, leaving a sub in SZ 92 will at least require a 1-2 from the Western Allies to get to SZ 93, and that alone can be enough to dissuade them depending on the board situation.

There are a few other reasons I like taking Southern France as the Germans. If you take it on G1, you can start producing units as early as G2 - this is not possible with a minor complex in Yugoslavia. Secondly, the naval base in that territory gives you a very impressive range of movement. You can make it all the way to 98 in the Eastern Mediterranean, and on the Western end you can sneak through into 91 with your subs even if Gibraltar is under Allied control. With a few aircraft stationed in Southern Italy, you should have at least one good opportunity throughout the course of the game to create serious havoc for the Allies.