Posts made by Endeer

Lol my friend just placed his order for pacific and saved me 100 bucks. I’ve played quite a few europe games and am looking forward to the Global game.

Well, by this I mean exactly that. you only fall back when its profitable which means you grudgingly lose territory. By this strategy you are able to hold you economy for as long as possible and defend the vital VCs. Thats why I didn’t like the initial plan of complete retreat. this gives the germans way too much money. So in a way you make it cost the german war-machine for every advance seeing as if you play well you will have mostly infantry which are maximum profit unit v. tanks and mech. infantry which can cost a person.

Yet another good way to buy time… OP means Over Powered

The whole axis victory plan should be based around 6-7 turns because of the american war machine. That being said a turn is worth every it entails as long as the axis can secure 8 VCs. The axis are on an excruciatingly tight time table because of this which is why most think that (which i would agree with) the allies are OP in OOB.

It seems like a viable plan if the need would arise. The only big problem with this plan is the fact that you will loose your income very fast making it extremely hard to protect your cities. What I tend to do is protect the german boarder, than pull my forces back evenly with one force towards Leningrad, the other Stalingrad. I do this till i am backed up to both cities. The reason I don’t fall back to moscow is the fact that its IC is a 10 which allows a large defensive force to be built faster, and the fact that it is much farther away from germany than the other two.

I once played a game where Germany attacked with a good force, France rolled 7 hits of its 9 two combat factor units. France lasted till turn two. However germany took france and Britan on turn 2 which turned the tables for an axis victory.

In that case it would be entirely worth it for england if they can get the man power to the battle. If they could bring a tank or two infantry, and drop them. Than they can bombard with the cruiser that is off the Brazilian coast.

Whats the garrison for brazil?

I normally cringe at the word “Sea-Lion” but that does sound like a great way to repel the American invasion for a good amount of turns. Only problem is, Italy has to build a bomber which is a two turn ordeal with their economy.

Does USA need any extra income? 65 IPC should suffice I’d say.

That statement has great merit to it. In a Global campaign, the bomber would be able to traverse the fronts easily allowing russia to be able to get quick offensive power in the far east.

I was talking about OOB too. I also agree that a fake sea-lion is great, what i’m saying is that the attack on england is not worth it. The extra turns it takes to achieve victory over the British Isles the Russians will have a great enough force to repel the germans for a very long string of rounds. This allows even a half competent America player to become and overwhelming force. The loot gained from England would also be useless. Say you take england on a completely optimal third turn. And have forces that are waiting to invade russia turn 4. This gives America 3 turns at the least (moscow being two blitzes away from The german boarder. In three turns the Americans can have cairo, and have forces in Stalingrad. Now this situation may be an even show of force, But these assumptions are based on the fact that russia is completely empty. on a normal turn of events the Americans and Russians can completely control russian territory and begin to move into german occupied territory around turn 6-7. The fake sea-lion however ruins the English offensive power, as well as giving an amphibious assault on leningrad. Such an assault would cripple the russians forces and give the Germans a great opportunity to attack russia’s jugular: Moscow. This also splits their forces in two.

I would agree with you on those points. But I would advise buying a Tac. Bomber for every fighter the russians start out with before purchasing bombers. This will make the fighters worth more, and enable the Tac. Bombers to have a much higher value. Essentially a Bomber that defends as a 3 combat factor. This all depends on wether or not one wants to pair his fighters and Tac bombers together. In my opinion, the only reason to buy a bomber is: strategic bombing and if you have no fighters and need a good offensive unit on a front. This limits their usefulness. One last reason to rip on the Bomber is the fact they cant be on a carrier. So in the end I would change my previous statement, Strategic Bombers are of limited use.

The game is too lopsided, in my opinion it is nearly impossible too win with a sea-lion attack. Sea-Lion will not give you the Victory-Cities that you need to win without a good America player being able to take a VC. And once America gets its foothold, its unstoppable. The uniqueness in the game comes with the strategies the Axis powers use to capture the Russian VC’s on the 5-6 turn time table that is in use. This makes the Axis player a high planning, skill, and luck position on both parts, Italy and Germany.

As germany don’t get pulled into the grand illusion of SeaLion. An english attack, almost always leads to defeat. ONLY if you can take England turn 2 with little casualties (or if england built no land units on the isle) than i would suggest it. My strategy would be: Turn one: take france, move men to the eastern front. Turn two: Attack russia heading for Leningrad/ and Stalingrad. Stalingrad needs to be a smaller force, because of the vastly smaller force/garrison. This is my proposed philosophy on germany’s best option for victory. Input is appreciated.

I would have to agree, there should be no reason the russians should ever buy a bomber, let alone two bombers. Even if the gain the upper hand, they should still buy tanks/fighters just incase they loose it, than they will have additional forces to defend a counter offensive.

Transports are very vital to the germans in almost ever aspect, but even if the germans have one transport they can just amphibious assault the beaches of norway and bring their entire air-force in to the fight. I have played America 1940 europe and the force they amass and can move across the atlantic is daunting, but is not quite a match for a well strengthened Luftwaffe (this being comparable to the starting air craft). Also the american force that I built (which i’m using as a comparison) also had the cover of naval and carrier-born air craft.

I have been pending on weather i should buy a pacific 1940. My strategy is to get one of my friends to purchase it, than we can play a&a 1940 global with all of my axis and allies playing buddies(not having to leave any of them out) and i wont have to spend 70-100 dollars.

Well my Italian strategy might have changed with the logic you bring. I would probably focus on controlling egypt and eventually the Mediterranean. But if things go your way on turn one for the Italians, this plan may be worth trying. Also from the English point of view I would probably attack first turn with the Mediterranean fleet this seems like a fruitful way to take the Mediterranean with the limited supplied Fleet the english and french pull together that I have overlooked. looking forward to trying this attack on italy next time I play English.

Yea, i made the assumption that the germans used the navy to knock out the cruisers than air-force to kill destroyer/battleship in the adjacent sea-zone.