Posts made by GuamSolo

Young Grasshopper has a detailed account of a G1 Barbarossa in a thread on page 2.  Interesting: he moved his Japan fleet into the Med after taking India and causing havoc in southern Africa.  It is a good read.

Thanks IL, you saved me some money.  Just have to wait until HBG gets their Russian, German set out.

No one has posted here in some time, but I’ll throw out a question anyways:  Has anybody ever purchased WW2 pieces from Table Tactics for a game called Engage?  There are a few pieces that I haven’t seen before such as a Russian tank destroyer, and an Italian either tank destroyer or mechanized artillery unit.  The infantry pieces don’t work for a&a. If I could buy individual units like the two listed above I would, but you have to get them in a set.  HBG doesn’t sell them.  Has anyone else seen/purchased them?

http://www.tabletactics.com/gallery2.htm

@ Rhey - I will have to try the Finland variant sometime.  My remarks about imbalance stem from a perception only, but you have played it out so you should know better.  I didn’t think the imbalance came from the extra units placed on both sides but from the strategic advantage the axis might gain from their units being concentrated above Lenningrad - and especially from the Finnish minor IC.  I would be curious to know how many times the allies have won with this set up?

Thanks to those who replied.  I actually have never played a game with a house rule but have always been intrigued to - even going back the old 80’s “enhanced realism rules book.”  I tend to think about not altering original rules too much because of all the play testing that went into them.  So it is great to see how many players use house rules - a larger sampling would be even better!

knp - I like the sub house rule.  It makes sense to me why you play it that way.  It would make them more effective at harassing enemy ships and force opponents to allocate, and then reallocate, units to destroy them.  The rule also has some historical context. When I read your rule I thought perhaps two rounds of combat should have to be endured, but then the kill ratio of the subs would most likely go up a lot.  Have you always allowed escape after one round?  I also like the heavier payload carried by your heavy bombers.

Rhey - I read through your Finland house rule and it is too much change for me - particularly the 70+ IPC’s worth of units added to Russia to give balance.  But that is just me - looks like your group enjoys it.  I think that Germany needs to work more to create a northern flank and pressure on Russia by shuttling troops north of Lenningrad through Norway.  Wondering if the extra Russian troops deter Germany from an earlier Barbarossa?

Crusaders1 - Transport planes is a cool idea.  I always thought transport planes were associated with paratroopers.  But as I read you it appears you use them more like naval transports?  We were thinking of trying the railhead idea where land units get a plus one movement, but the transport planes would take some edge off of that especially if railheads would cost more than $10 (we were thinking $12 or $15).  We are going to try Special Forces next game along with a mechanized artillery piece, possibly the research facility.

Anyone else?

I have been reading through the house rules people have listed and there are a lot of great ideas but wondered how many players actually use house rules with consistency.  I figured there may be some who have tweaked a rule or two, but figured there are others who create different game experiences by employing a number of house rules.  It would be fun to see how often people play with them.

I am with Gargantua here trying to understand 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 etc.  I get that you can only achieve #'s 1-4 on your first roll, and 1-6 on the tech tree on your second roll.  After that though do you plan on using 8 sided dice, 10 sided dice and so forth?  Otherwise I don’t get how you achieve the higher numbers.  If you roll a 5 or 6 (after achieving tech the first time) you just re-roll since you can only get #'s 1-4?

The progression of tech looks good to me, just need some help understanding the shorthand you are using.

UK and the US had a large fleet off Gibraltar, Italy sneaked in and took Morocco giving 12 German aircraft stationed in France a place to land. Germany lost 8 planes which were replaced in future purchases, and the UK spent much of the second half re building their losses.

Thanks again YG.  Are you saying that the German fighters clashed with the UK fleet and that is why UK spent the second half rebuilding?  Did you ever have the Japanese fleet clash with UK (or US) fleet?

Curious how your opponent will counter next time you play.  He can’t do much about your G1 strikes, but the Japanese Navy slipping into Med won’t be a surprise.

Knowing your Japan builds the first several turns would be helpful as well.  For example, did you build more transports initially to take with you on the war path to India/Africa?  I imagine you took the DEI on your way, but did the U.S. attempt to retake it with any success?  The DEI is such a cash cow for Japan.  Thank you for your game report - very interesting read and strategy.

allworkandnoclay, I wont to know how much his pieces are……

Adding some more thoughts to the Italy discussion:

1. Control of the Med for Africa operations:  I don’t see how Italy can make a move for Africa if it doesn’t control the Med or have a Med fleet at all?  I like hearing that as a UK player you would take out the Italian BB/fleet in sz 97, as well as the Cruiser and transport in sz 96.  This is a totally different scenario than the game I recently played.  Moving the fighters from London makes a big difference.  However it is possible that if scrambled On G1 to help defend against attacks in sz 110/111 they may be lost.  I would certainly hope for that as it would make the chances of surviving the UK attack in sz 97 better.  On the other hand, is it worth it to lose the German fighters if you don’t gain control of the Med?  Have you seen games where Italy gets into Africa despite losing most of the Med fleet round one?

2. Spendo’s Med strategy:  As the allies I would love to preserve all the starting fleet and come in with force at once.  As an Axis player I would love the UK to retreat out of the Med on round one because even if I can get into Africa for 4-5 rounds of play I will accumulate a lot of IPC’s, especially blitzing some tanks mid-south africa.  I will also make it difficult to retake Africa and will buy time for Europe.  If you dart out of the Med round one then Italy will achieve NO’s easier as well - all money to go into defending Europe and enlarging the Med fleet for the Allies to deal with.  I would love to see the strategy played out.  One question: If you move the Pacific UK BB onto the Atlantic map does it then move with the Atlantic turn phase and not the Pacific?  UK is the only country faced with this as it has two economies with two phases.

3. Stalingradski Plan more realized: If UK is aggressive and the Italians lose their Med fleet, along with the ability to get into Africa, then I think the value in supplementing Barbarossa with Italians makes more sense.  Otherwise the Italians are only turtling in southern Europe, waiting, and watching their IPC growth peak early with the capture of the Greek peninsula.  The bigger question: If there isn’t a chance for Africa, does Germany initiate Barbarossa earlier?  I would like to know on what turn does Stalingradski attack Russia?

Sadly, I don’t think I am helping much with insight as to attacks of opportunity for Italy.  At this point it is reactive towards UK and how aggressive they are.

I did not think allies could benefit from collecting IPC value from a territory that is originally allied, for example U.S. collecting for French Indo-China.  The posts above imply that if their capitol is in axis control then an ally could gain IPC value until the capital is liberated.  So if the U.S. takes French Indo-China they can gain IPC value for it until Paris is liberated?

Empireman, are you saying there is a difference between land units and armor units?  You are wanting two different classifications? Naval units are on sea, Air units are in the air, land units are on land, and armor units are on ___?

Well, it does depend on game situations and I suppose there are some thresh holds that have to be defended at the risk of losing others.  You could not go after Africa to the extent of losing Normandy, or Barbarossa for that matter.  I think the value of the Stalingradski Plan is the isolation of Russia, so don’t waist it fighting too hard for Africa if the allies go all in for it.  Here are some specifics of my game that might help.

1. German fighter from eastern front lands in Italy at the end of G1 since it can’t participate in sinking of English channel ships on G1 combat.  This way it can be scrambled with the Italian fighters to defend ships in sz 97 if UK chooses to fight there.  I read about this in another thread and pretty sure it “flies” with the scrambling rules (would like to know otherwise).  This is a deterrent to not go after the Italian battleship.

2. UK chose to attack Italian ships in sz 96 and land all planes on AC after battle.  As I stated before I pounced and destroyed the UK Med fleet.  French ships being outmatched bugged out. But UK did advance troops out of Cairo towards the taking of Tobruk.  In non combat phase I moved transports down to pick up troops in Tobruk.

3.  Uk2 repurchased fleet and placed them in sz 110 only to be destroyed by Germans.  G1 purchased transport and UK player did suspect Sea Lion and purchased accordingly over first several rounds.  This didn’t leave the UK player a lot of ability to help in Africa.  I think the control of Med sea by Italy gives you North Africa until U.S. enters and you can expand Italy’s income by a lot by that time.

4.  You can take Egypt on I2, but I did it I3.  If the UK player bought an IC there then they had less to spend defending London, or purchasing navy.  But bringing aircraft, shore bombardments, and units on transports, and more importantly your units from South of Egypt was enough to win Cairo.  I staged units in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and they attacked in unison - very helpful fodder for taking Cairo.

5. After Italy takes the Greek peninsula some of these troops may shuttle towards the eastern front to help there.  In my game that would not have detracted too much from the taking of Africa, but the following turns the purchases were strategic to aid an African campaign.  If most of your IPC production flows towards Barbarossa too early you may prolong or weaken efforts by the Afrikacorps.  I can see Italy’s income expanding enough to begin a purchasing pattern similar to Germany’s with some infantry purchases going towards Barbarossa, slowly building up home guard, and then the rest going into the Med. Wall, as opposed to the Atlantic Wall.

6. If need be Germany can take Southern Europe and then be able to drop some subs into the Med to help take or hold it.

Have to go now but these are some initial thoughts to get Italy discussion going.

Here is a report on how my game went this week and can be a bit of a field test for different strategic approaches.  I decided to follow the “Stalingradski Plan” which he himself details here:

In my games, a German purchase of 54 IPCs will be eight infantry, an artillery, a mech, an armor, a fighter, and a sub, for example. A heavy dose of infantry, a small sprinkling of mechanized units, an air unit, and a naval unit. G1 gives the foundation with a Carrier… G2 gives an opportunity to add a couple destroyers and a fighter with help from French cash… then after that it becomes a regular commitment… the point being that you try for as long as possible to stay just ahead of the US/Britain, and keep the initiative. Dictate terms to them instead of being dictated to.

The only difference for me was what I did with the Italians.  As Stalingradski has detailed earlier in this thread he will use the Italians on the eastern front to help with Barbarossa.  I did not.  I tried to let the Italians pressure the allies by focusing on Africa.  I bought the aircraft carrier G1 and followed the subsequent rounds with supplemental naval builds and one or two fighters.  The combination of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were impressively formidable.  Germany attacked allied fleets every single turn and by G4 there wasn’t a single allied warship on the Atlantic map except for a small U.S. force making its way over.  On one turn I sent most of the Luftwaffe on a SBR of London and scored a hit of 18 on the their IC!  UK was in dire need of help by then, but the mental note is that Germany did buy itself a lot of time.  Time to slowly build an army in Paris to meet any future invasion and time to deal with Russia.

I did feel like my infantry stacks were thinner on the eastern front due to the naval builds and keeping Italy focused on a Med. strategy.  Fortunately, the Russian player evenly distributed his forces along the front.   I concentrated mine in two areas and with the flexibility of the Luftwaffe I had the option of punching through in areas of my choosing.  Shuttling troops G1-G4 via transports through Norway and into Finland gave me a small northern force that drew a lot of the Red army North of Lenningrad and spread him out all the way down to Stalingrad.

However, Italy was the bell cow.  UK1 attacked the smaller force of Italian ships off Malta and landed aircraft on the carrier.  On I1 all the remaining Italian fleet plus two fighters and the bomber pounced destroying the UK fleet.  The French ships bugged out only to eventually die in the English channel at the hands of the Luftwaffe.  Italy owned the Med, took the Greek peninsula I2 and began staging the capture of Egypt for I3.  I used my transports to pull my troops out of Tobruk on I1 so that they could live to fight another day.  I think the loss of the UK Med fleet and the serious pounding in London by Germany caused the UK to give up Africa.

There are other variables too.  Japan was owning the allies in the Pacific which made the U.S. dump a lot of IPC production into the war effort there.  Japan had taken the Philippine islands and all of the DEI and Malaya by J4.  The impact this had on the Atlantic side was that the U.S. hadn’t really prepared itself to jump in and aid Britain once it was allowed to enter the war.  Another variable might have been if the UK had chosen to take out the larger Italian fleet on UK1 then control of the Med might have been more of an uphill climb.

Post Game Evaluation:  I like the Stalingradski Plan and will use a variation of it going forward.  The combined power of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine is truly a nasty problem for the allies.  I did not initiate Barbarossa until I had to on G4.  But that gave me a lot of time to take out UK and go for Africa.  I think Africa is valuable enough to be part of your strategic goals.  Use some of the Luftwaffe in the Med if you have to and drive the allies out of the Med sea.  Italy can then have free range to shuttle troops over, combine with aircraft and shore bombardments and take control in Africa.  Japan played its part to though drawing the U.S. to overextend in the Pacific.  There has to be some flexibility in your plan as it won’t always play out the same way.

Stalingradski - I am familiar with the details of the Battle of Britain, including the accidental bombing by the Luftwaffe and the impact it had on choosing future targets.  My favorite reads have been The Second World War by John Keegan and The Panzer Leader, an autobiography by Guderian.

As far as Italy goes I am trying to figure out how the classic strategies I used for so long fit into AAG40.  Only a couple games thus far and playing this week.  However, I have thought about your Atlantic Wall approach which invests in a higher volume of German naval units than I have ever done.  I have always went straight Barbarossa and continually marched infantry stacks towards Moscow.  The more you invest in Naval units the less you have to invest in units for the eastern front.

From my point of view you make up for this on the eastern front by supplementing with Italian forces.  By supplementing with Italy you have to give up North Africa.  So it is give and take.  I have always let Germany take as many countries as possible to build their IPC income high.  My Atlantic Wall is usually the slow build up of a large force in Paris that has always been capable of knocking the invasion force right back into the ocean.  The one trick is shifting all the aircraft to Russia just prior to the Moscow battle.  With no Italians on the eastern front they have more freedom to have a go at it in North Africa, and that gives you more Italian units to defend the Axis underbelly.

If the Italians win one or two decisive battles in North Africa then it will take the allies that much longer to get to Europe.  (I have read where you consider North Africa a side show.) I think one difference between us is that I am buying time for the Axis in North Africa whereas you are buying time with the addition of Naval units into your Atlantic wall.

I haven’t played alpha rules though - only OOB, so I am sure the next game will be different.  Unsure about how the larger UK Med fleet will affect Italy’s chances in North Africa.  I like parts to your strategy, specifically the naval builds by Germany as part of the Atlantic Wall.  So, there’s lots to discover here on my part and I am certainly not holding my “classic” approach as superior to yours or others.

One thought though - maybe you have become too predictable against an opponent that is familiar with your game play.  I used to regularly win against the best opponent I ever played.  Then one game he seemed to figure out the allies and how to play against me and it took a long time to beat him again.  It was hard to veer away from a familiar and confident strategy.  Is there more than one way to win as the axis when playing a solid opponent?

@Young:

you will thank yourself later (not the enemy you, the other you).

Very funny Grasshopper!  Only Smeagol could pull off an honest game against himself.

How experienced was your opponent?  The consensual wisdom from most of the experienced players posting in this forum (different threads as well) is to never have U.S. pool all its IPC production in one theater.  This is what the Axis wants to get the Allies to do - which you did, so congrats on that.  Knowing your opponent is also part of the game which you seem to do well with.  Would be interesting to see your strategy played once more against a more balanced allied response.

Personally, I have only played global a few times and won for the same reason - the U.S. went all in on the Pacific side and I was able to take out Russia with no U.S. help there.  Playing again this week.

I have always thought of the game as “a reenactment to be played better than the actual war was waged.”  If you are posturing for Sealion then that seems to mirror history somewhat.  I think if Hitler could have invaded England he would have.  Finding the method to take out UK is historical - Hitler just couldn’t do it, or thought the Luftwaffe had done more damage to England’s capacity to continue than it actually had.

In that sense Sealion is both a viable option as “winning a board game” and as better “historical reenactment.”  If you are emphasizing the “guarantee” of taking the UK out by discovering/developing a full-proof method then I agree.  I haven’t played the global game enough to know.  From reading different posts though it appears that prior to alpha 3 the success of Sealion was statistically very high (guaranteed), but the latest rules change that. Correct me if I am wrong here.

So then, in alpha 3+, against an experienced UK player who knows how to defend against an invasion Sealion has some risk to it.  A gamble?  One that could ruin Germany and be difficult to recover from if failed.  Your Atlantic Wall theory and unit production for Barbarossa, pushing infantry toward the East, is low risk and seems like the safest road travelled for the Axis that gives them a chance to win.

Now, I have read where you suggest possibly moving your Baltic fleet into the Med to cause problems for the Allies helping the Italians.  Is this a regular option for you or just a circumstantial one depending on the position of the Allies in a particular game?

Appreciate the thoughts - I enjoy reading how people play the game as much as I enjoy reading the history of it.

@ Stalingradski - Do you not ever consider a Sealion approach then?  I like your builds recommendations and agree with the steady flow of boots towards Russia.  Earlier we had exchanged thoughts regarding a major IC on the eastern front.  I had only played OOB rules then and see that in alpha the Berlin IC has been converted to a major which really negates the need for the Major IC on the eastern front.  Been tossing around the Sealion option and it seems like it isn’t part of your strategy at all?