Posts made by General Steiner

Thanks for nothing everyone :( No replies telling me if advanced was good or bad.

Well! I played my first game today. It was alot of fun, albeit we struggled with intrepreting some of the rules. The subs are ridiculously powerful in this version. The German and Soviet land war is insane, by round 4 Germany was only spaces deep into USSR, and still had another three to get to Moscow. The addition of Italy makes for alot of fun, as well as the industrial complexes being spread out. I have to say I do prefer revised, but once I play a bit more who knows advanced may be more well liked. The thing I like about advanced is it forces you to do stuff. The Africa war for instance, the atlantic wolf packs, spreading out your forces because of the nature of the industrial complexes. So all in all a good game :)

Well all I can say is, whoever works at Harris Design that made those particular instruction pages, deserves a butt wooping.

Only Kidding, haha. Your right as usual Krieghund, the rules are pretty clear.

Hmm don’t know if I’ll get around to playing Europe any time soon. I went to kinkos the other day and printed off Axis and Allies Europe Advanced, so ima give that a whirl and see how it goes. I can’t wait to play with Italy :) You can really unhinge the Russian front in Advanced. Germans attack the first line of the defense, and then Italian tanks can blitz into the next line of territory. So the Russian player has to think about defense in depth! Also I’d love the idea of, Germany goes all out against Russia and Italy spends all its money tieing down allied convoys, and the allied fleet in general. I was thinking along the lines of a bombers off the west coast off france attacking with subs. Anyways I will tell you all how the game goes when I play it next :)

Haha it wasn’t a house rule, the rules manual doesn’t say anywhere u can only use one naval or air port!!! It just uses one example where you can move three spaces. Ridiculous explanation in the manual i think. Thanks for the clarification Frimmel.

This might sound pretty funny, but can you use more than one naval base or air base? I played the game the other day, and we played that you could move say five spaces with a boat as long as it moved along naval bases. We did more or less the same thing with the fighters, as long as they flew over airbases theoretically they could fly anywhere on the board. Is this drastically wrong?

The game we played was so lopsided towards Japan as it could literally move its fighters and navy units from threat to threat until its navy was virtually wiped out within 3 turns, but during those 3 turns Japan was collecting 4 VPs a go!

Is it within the rules to build boats in a caucasus lake? Russia could build a battleship and a transport, which would be defended by the caucasus anti-air. Then when German takes Caucasus, Russia could counter-attack with an amphibious assault from the lake, unloading units off the transport.

Its clearly a strategic folly to undertake such a strategy, but it also sounds as if its within the rules. Also it’d be great fun to use such a tactic if Russia can afford to do so against an amateur opponent. What does everyone think?

This emoticon says it all:
:-D

I like your argument, it shows you have considered my side, and that you are well read. I am actually half Italian by the way, and I had family that fought for Italy in the war. I have always been taught, and have only ever read that the Italians were hopeless fighters in the war. Have you any reliable good books on Italy in the war that you could recommend to me?

As for you imperious leader, leave the historical debate to the experts.

A generalised factual statement, implies that on the main they did not retreat, and on the main when they came across Russian soldiers behind enemy lines they put them in the gulag. They even did it to Stalin’s own son! Yes he was thrown in the gulag after they found him in a prisoner of war camp.

I know what the problem is, you have read too many sources from the perspective of the allies. Why would the allies prop up the Italians? So that when they beat them they looked better. Remember history is written by the winners. So my suggestion to you is buy some books written by German veterans. I would suggest Hans Sajer’s ‘forgotten soldier’, Von Mellethin’s ‘panzer battles’, Von manstein’s memoirs, or even Heinz Guderian’s memoirs. If you want books written by Americans or British who tell it how it is, try Max Hastings or Antony Beevor. I will no longer argue with you, World War 2 is a sea of dis-information propagated by the allies after the war to make themselves look better.

As for the free French imperious leader, are you forgetting Monte Cassino!!!

Good point Rakeman!

Make it so that where ever a UN peace keeper is, in order to emphasise diplomatic negotiations, the attacking player can reconsider his attack after having rolled his dice, haha.

No, I disagree, every account I have read describes the Italians as hopeless fighters. You explain away all their military failures to leadership? They failed in Greece, they failed in France, they failed in Africa, and they failed in the med, and thats all atributable to poor leadership. Thats a bit coincidental I think.

Do yourselves a favour, go onto google, search Italians eastern front, and read articles on how they fought.

Am I saying the Russians never retreated? No! I used it as a historically correct generalised factual statement. Stalin had a policy of not one step back. It basically meant that if a Russian retreated, or if a Russian was found behind enemy lines, then they were either shot or sent to the gulag. A big enough incentive to not retreat, wouldn’t you say? And yes that incentive did work!

Yes they probably had poor equipment, and yes they probably had low fuel, and yes any chance they had they ran like hell for the hills! Italians weren’t and aren’t good fighters, and I am by no means saying this is a bad thing! They just are preferential towards fine wine and women, and who can blame them.

As for historically correct, the game is meant to be correct up to spring of 1942, or at least close to historical correctness. Then its up to you to decide the future. Making out that the Italians were good soldiers for the sake of the game, is a bit too far fetched.

Your giving the Italians too much credit. Maybe I don’t know enough. What you are saying is new to me, alot of it anyhow. However the Italians massively outnumbered the British in Africa only to retreat, and have the Germans save them. The Italians outnumbered the Greeks, only to have the Greeks beat them back in Albania. On the Eastern Front German troops were appalled by the lack of stamina of the Italians, who retreated in the face of the Russians.

I haven’t read enough, true enough, but I have always thought that the Italian navy was over exagerated so that the British could look better when they sunk their ships.

Its not for nothing that the Italians are considered to be a bunch of mummies boys.

The problem is historical accuracy mixed with gameplay, they have to gel nicely together :)

As for everyone collecting IPCs well I think that is the worst premise to attack the game on from a historical stand point. After World War II Stalin stripped Germany of its infrastructure, literally dismantling its factories and reassembling them in Russia. The german expansion involved ransacking conquered treasuries. The germans and russians both used forced slave labour.

Moving on, Axis and Allies Revised is not a repeat of World War II, its you playing out what world war II could have been like after 1942 Spring. Therefore you create the alternate future, and in doing so it is quite possible a territory is taken over by different countries in the same round, and they all derive income from it. How is this so? Well you could assume for instance that the Russians take all the infrastructure, Germany takes away some of the inhabitants to work in German factories in Germany, Britain ransacks the treasury. Just imagine that when they do it they all suck the territory dry of money any way they can!

Also to attack the game on the IPC premise is a low blow! Japan has 30 ipcs and America has 40 ipcs do you really think in the war Japan had three quarters of the industrial output of America? Try one tenth! Therefore clearly the ipcs is the part of the game that has to delineate itself from historical accuracy in order to facilitate an even game play.

I am with Crazy Ivan, if your not sugar coating our reality, then don’t say anything at all! Haha

Yes it is, Italians ran away, Russians didn’t, a definitive difference. The Italian navy was also notoriously hopeless, and ineffective.

I don’t know enough about the pacific theatre to know about those paratroop drops, but sounds interesting I’ll have to read into it. I also forgot all about the sicily air drops, and yes I think your right they were successful just not overly brilliant if I recall. Prolly the only time Monty did something right…

Paratroop drops, yes a matter of scale, but having said that they did air drop whole divisions. I think you would have to buy a special plane, and special men, and you could only buy one plane and two paratroop infantry, and if you lost any of them that was it… Also make them really expensive.

I don’t know how you tolerate playing without markers… Also it looks like a joke of a game haha, like you’ve just chucked alot of pieces on the board for aesthetic value. The scenarios verge on the unrealistic. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

How does the paratrooper rule work? You’d have to have an extra rule I reckon, like if paratroopers take an island the waters surrounding the islands cannot be in enemy control for a turn afterwards, otherwise the paratroopers die of starvation  :-P I mean you could even bring into effect the AA gun against paratroopers, a roll of one where an AA gun kills a paratrooper.

I think these rules are along the lines of, if a unit is cut off from its home territory then it should defend at minus one. So say for instance if Germany takes West Russia but the three spaces of land in a vertical line behind it (I think it would be ukraine, belorussia, and karelia) are not in German control. Then the German units if left there after a turn must defend at minus one. The rule definitely adds more realism to the game.

I think the reason why paratroopers are not in the game, and I think it was a wise decision by Larry Harris et al. is because in the war paratroopers were not effective period. Germany lost many crack troops in Crete for a small consolation, Market Garden was a hoot with German troopers feasting off Allied air drops, and the last largely unheard of paratroop drop across the rhine into Germany at by the allies was another disaster. I think the only successful but not even necessary paratroop drop was in D-day.

This map looks insane! I love it how they made Russia more deep, so the Germans are more likely to get bogged down!

Anyone played this yet? Can you fill me in on what its like, any details will do!

Am I missing something? Why do some people still say that its not balanced out for Germany? If anything its not balanced out for the allies, unless that sending fighters to USSR strategy really works? Frimmel, Krieghund or someone of reputable character, please come to the rescue! This query has been dogging me on these forums.

Ahhh right you are Krieghund, now I can feel better about the game :)

I agree adding Italy sounds like a great idea, just assimilate the entire med fleet - bb, destroyer, and trannies - into Italy… Also make everything that is Italian attack or defend at minus 1. So that means if an infantry unit attacks it like transport can only be used as a casualty. Why do I say this? Because you gotta keep at least some realism in the game, and more than any other army, Italians were absolutely useless! I think this will be a gripe that I will have against the anniversary edition, if Italian units defend and attack the same as every other nation’s units then the game has lost any stake to realism. As it is my major gripe against the revised edition is that America has a fricken carrier in pearl harbour when the very thing the Americans didn’t have in pearl harbour in WW2 when the Japanese attacked was a carrier! So go figure… Don’t get me wrong though I love these games :)