Posts made by ItIsILeClerc

@ShadowHAwk:

@ItIsILeClerc:

@Young:

(…)I don’t mean to make you jealous, but my custom table is ideal for beginners, you can watch a video tour here…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng_mXs37Cjg

Just the fact that you don’t mean to make us jealous doesn’t mean we won’t be ;-). I had to wash off my green jealousy-color allright � :lol:.

Btw, from your video, I am not one of those who think that the game is unbalanced in favor of the axis, but I do think the game is exponentially more difficult for the allies to win, mostly because of team effort required. I really like the extra Hurricane in Canada nonetheless.

Is you play the game 1 on 1 it changes around and it becomes verry hard for the axis to win. Financial difference between the axis and allies is huge in favor of the allies. They just need to hold out and do some stalling attacks. But that might be different if you are playing with a lot of players and you cant coordinate that well.

I agree with you, ShadowHAwk. 1v1 mostly sees the allies win in our group (>80%), whereas team versus team sees it the other way around (or even worse).

I hope the OP doesn’t mind me going a little more into strategy as I understand he already got what he wished  for :wink:.

There can be a lot of different thoughts, strategies on how the allies should do the trick so cooperation and prosecuting just 1 grand strategy is of the utmost importance.
I am on the same page about ‘holding out’. IMHO, the allies must trade their economic advantage in the first turns for preservation of their army. Retreat (to keep most of the existing troops alive) and give up territory while building up.

Some strategic points in the game should be recognized as bastions of resistance that should not be given up without a thought on how to turn loosing it into a victory nonetheless! By taking them back for example, or making it so very expensive to take that it cripples the axis if doing so.
I’d name those bastions: London, Gibraltar, Egypt, Middle East, South Africa, Moscow, Sydney, Hawai and last but not least, the USA ( :wink:).

In my book, India is a special case. The allies usually want to come back here after retreating but if the USA/ANZAC are in firm control of Hawai+ Sydney this is no high priority. Furthermore I believe that the allies should not try to defend India at all costs, as this weakens more important bastions, like Sydney for example. Just defend it as long as possible and then retreat. 1 exception: If a lot of japanese aicraft (>10) can be taken down with the Indian army as well, as this usually opens the doors for the USA to enter the Japanese perimeters and liberate the DEI, Philipines, etc…

@Gamerman01:

Turn off the security program and download it again.  It’s safe.

Or download it from a different computer and transfer the file to your precious one  :wink:

Yeeeessssss, my precioussssss ;-).

@Young:

(…)I don’t mean to make you jealous, but my custom table is ideal for beginners, you can watch a video tour here…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng_mXs37Cjg

Just the fact that you don’t mean to make us jealous doesn’t mean we won’t be ;-). I had to wash off my green jealousy-color allright  :lol:.

Btw, from your video, I am not one of those who think that the game is unbalanced in favor of the axis, but I do think the game is exponentially more difficult for the allies to win, mostly because of team effort required. I really like the extra Hurricane in Canada nonetheless.

Been trying to install TripleA but… nvm…

The installer automatically diappears/is removed from my desktop immediately after the download is completed without any form of inteaction. Repeatedly. Possibly a ‘feature’ of my security program but I don’t want to download anything with it turned off, so I guess too bad for AAA…

yeah I haven’t used AAA yet. I really prefer the board on the table with the plastic pieces and all. For filereading it might actually come in handy…

Wait, let me get this straight (I cannot read AAA-files)…

Germany WON both battles and still gave up (Axis resigned)?
And out of curiousity: why was it a necessity to attack Russia? Eastern Europe otherwise completely undefendable?

Just to get a complete picture:
According to some earlier ‘studies’ I came to the conclusion that it is possible if Russia moves forward RU2,
that GE3 can destroy them instead of doing Sea Lion (bad mistake, Stalin). Russia has to wait moving forward untill after GE3 went Sea Lion of course and it has to buy fast units for this RU2 (mostly MECH).
This is possible even if GE1 or GE2 produced only land untis and invested ~70 IPCs into ships. The only question left for me, was if GE would subsequently be able to take Moscow as well. Apparently it can be done after this overeager Russian forward ‘gambit’.

Buying ships worth 2 complete rounds of production (total 98 IPCs) will  turn into a disaster for the axis if they also invade London. Almost single-handedly by the Russians! I’ve seen that too many times already to think GE can stop that.
No info on the outcome if GE produces this quantity of ships and still forgegoes the attack on London, but it seems to me that Russia and the UK are only to blame for themselves if Moscow still falls after these course of events (too much ships for GE).

In my experience (and assuming Russia does not make the mentioned mistake), it is already impossible for GE to take Moscow after spending ~50 IPCs on ships. Heck, even if they spend 100% on land units dedicated to march onto Moscow (although Russia then requiring heavy aid from the western allies), but that should be in a different thread and let’s not forget the dice can still ruin both sides. Although Moscow has a huge advantage in the luck-table…

Wow, just wow…
Loosing that much of the luftwaffe and still be able to take Moscow. That’s what I call a damn good job!

Tbh, I always wanted to know if Moscow could be taken after a German (semi) Sea Lion set-up but turning east GE3, destroying an overeager Russian (moved to far forward RU2).
Because destroying the entire Red Army (or at least 80% of it) is one thing, taking Moscow is another. I guess your game gives good hope that it can be done against an overeager Russian.
1 such game is not enough to draw final conclusions I fear but still, nice to know. Thanks for sharing that experience  :-).

Totally agree, JDOW!
Lots of good points in this thread. Very interesting insights and things for further study  :-).
I like to add that I have the feeling that Barbarossa is the most deadly and the best available German strategy today. Sea Lion is also a valid strategy, however, against decent allied play ofc, always less deadly and even then only if the answer to your question is positive for Germany:
@JDOW:

The question whether to do sealion is NOT if it is possible but only if it is devastating enough to take London with minimal losses.
A close victory in London losing lots of air and tanks almost equals a certain demise of the Axis against well playing Allies.
And even if you take London with lots of survivors the game is far away from being over in case the Russians play well.

Oh, and about what any outcome depends on, I 'd like to add the dice as well  :|. Especially those of the first round of battles…

As far as my experience goes, if Germany can get 9ARM into London, USA trying to liberate it gets tricky. For both sides.
Having (and leaving) 9ARM in London can be pulled off IF the luftwaffe still exists to threaten Russia. This is the sort of German victory over London I am talking about when saying ‘sucessfull’. If the luftwaffe is (mostly) gone, Germany is done for by Russian pressure alone.

However, 9ARM is not going to stop USA from liberating London. That can be achieved by Japan’s actions PLUS leaving the Luftwaffe in london also.
Remember, the USA has elements of its pacific fleet to rush into London so if Japan goes down and heavy on India, the US can bring into London US4:
7TRS, 1BB, 3CA, 3CV, 5FTR, 1TAC, 3STR, 7INF, 2ART, 1ARM, 4MECH.
For a total expense of 91 IPCs. USA has 104 IPCs to spend in the 2 first turns so it can even bring more. Germany can ONLY defend against this with all its Luftwaffe in London + the Italian airforce as well. Which is interesting, because then Stalin should smile at the Germans trying to defend against him…

So the first choice rests with Japan; will it play standard OR will it focus on the USA to prevent London from being rescued? The latter gives very interesting allied options as well, as China, India and ANZAC will get rich and the USA can even forego liberating London and help focusing down Japan whilst Russia plays a ‘hold out’ game against Germany/Italy, at which it is VERY capable I might add. And don’t forget Russia no longer even requires its Siberian Hunters in Moscow, so those can stay in the pacific… Staring down Japanese ;-).

The second choice rests with the USA. Going after Japan in turn sequence, the USA has an easier job making this decision and it will be either KJF OR Liberating London. Depending on what Japan does, ofc! IF Japan plays the standard ‘India’ game, the USA can choose to bring down a mean hammer to London to force GE to choose to defend against either the hammer or the (Russian) anvil and it cannot do both. The USA must of course from US3 and on, spend all its income in the Pacific again to prepare for the possibility that Japan turns around and comes for Hawai and/or Sydney. Since Japan is bullying India, this will not be a real threat for at least untill J7 so plenty of time for the US.

Leaves me only 1 thing to say: UK should be perfectly able to make GE have only 1 to 9 survivors in total (including its Luftwaffe) or even win the battle outright! Which makes liberating actions by the US a lot easier OR Russian pressure a lot bigger! In any case, Russia can play an effective hold out game while the USA destroys either 1 axis partner.

@Razor:

(…) You could let a fighter hit on 3 or less in his own territory, and modify one less pip for every space it moves. So a fighter that start in Normandy, lose one pip over the Channel and one more pip in UK, giving it an attack value of A1, while the UK fighter in UK roll a D3. Same when scrambling. If the UK fighter need to scramble into an adjacent seazone, it lose one pip because of the movement, giving it a defend on a D2.

Interesting!
I like that. That would solve my personal problem with the ridiculous long range on TAC and FTR. Now those German planes cannot stay in West Germany anymore to raid/escort into the UK. They should rebase into Holland or Normandy for that.

In that case I would argue (for game balance reasons) that all aircraft loose 1 pip for each territory/SZ flown beyond half their range (loading more fuel and less ammo) but do not loose a pip if only flying half or less of their range to attack a territory/SZ. In the game I reckon it is already very bad for Germany if it needs to rebase its slower aircraft into Holand/Normandy. Also loosing pips then would kill every opportunity GE has westwards.
Also, the killing of the RN GE1 will be a tiny bit tougher. Most of the luftwaffe will remain within half their range except for 1 TAC starting in Berlin IIRC.

Yes, it seems logical to me. It would even be logical if planes from a territory with an airbase could scramble into all adjacent territories and SZ’s.

But I agree with Razor. Perhaps for other reasons, but still (mine would be balance, as Japan for example would have a mighty scramble force as well).

Depends.
Defensive builds: carriers for existing planes to land on, planes, carriers and finally, enough DDs for continuous blocking and ASW.
Offensive builds: carriers for existing planes, submarines, enough DDs for blocking and ASW.

Sometimes I build offensively to get rid of a fleet (during a counterattack) I cannot defend against. Especially during the early stages of the war in the pacific when Japan has much more air than they have carriers to land them on. This means their fleet is a LOT weaker when attacked but very hard to defend against (at places in range of heir aircraft)…

Indeed exactly my point!

This seems to be the axis paradigm.
Axis must choose a theatre where they want to win: Russia, London/Atlantic or the Mediterranean/Africa. I guess attacking the neutrals falls in all 3 theatres at the same time, so if the axis want to go for the neutrals they still must decide which 1 of the three above theatres they want to be winning in.

Axis should realize that against good allied opposition they can win in 1 area but expect to loose in the 2 other areas. Perhaps not immediately, but still inevitable.
For example: after a ‘successfull’ Sea Lion, Russia might not be able to immediately take Berlin, but Germany taking Moscow should be out of the question as well. Which is an allied win already if the USA can either liberate London or neutralise  Japan (isolate a must, no need to conquer Tokyo).

Same story in the Pacific.
In short: The axis can win anywhere, but not everywhere (at the same time)!

Seems like Wittmann has given that German aid to Italy. To some allied comfort ;-).

An AAA can’t convert a friendly neutral?
Sounds logical but I couldn’t find it in the rules  :-o. Not that I even dunnit, but still.

Well done sir Cyan  :-).
This is what I am advocating: take London by surprise if you see you can do it. Winning London with such a large garrison is the way to do it. Still I very strongly believe the UK can perfectly cause the axis to loose the game, no matter who plays GE with whatever plans. Only thing is, ofc, it does matter who plays the UK hehheeeh…

I know I should know the exact Russian/American/Pacific situation before saying so, but chances are that I would have given up as well if playing America in this situation.

@Whitshadw:

Going back to what ItIS said about all the other country’s “exploding”

Come on let’s face facts by the time SF falls you think Syd is gonna be a fortress if your building transports and men to capture islands your not reinforcing the island all I need is half the Japanese fleet to crush it.
It’s only 2 spaces away and the last city I need for victory but again
Like I said before it all depends on who dose what how and where right?

Again keep sharing ideas it’s what were all here for to catch something that other miss!

I am not sure what your point is, but I don’t think there are exploding countries ;-).
But, while we’re at it: yes, Russia can explode in Germany’s face if Germany is taking Sea Lion too serious while the UK plays a decent game. Now what is too serious, eh? Or, what is a decent game for the UK?
Since you said you are not interested in discussing what happens in turn 5 or 7 or 15, I won’t explain that. Best I can say is that the UK should pull every trick out of its magic hat to avoid London and Gibraltar from falling. And it is perfectly able to do so. Just read Wild Bill’s excellent post again. And mine, which is vastly less excellent, but still ;-). To avoid all the what if’s: given a reliable player on the UK (let’s say Wild Bill plays it  :-D), Sea Lion is not going to work for the axis. Unless… GE can trick UK, spring a trap like Cyanight did in his last game. Catch the UK by surprise with its pants down!

At first I was rather upset about A&AG40.2 for allowing Sea Lion to be even possible. After a while I just realised it is too expensive for the axis in terms of fighting capacity against the Russians so now I am ‘at peace’ with it. For the sake of gamebalance.

Discussing what Russia can do during or after a GE Sea Lion is moot?
Certainly it adds a lot of variables but if you want to win the game, not only take London and then loose, you will have to! What is the point if you can prove you can take London if the Russians then make GE loose the game?!

About SF falling.
I am again not certain what your point is but believe me, this is not going to work since Japan lets India + China + Anzac getting rich while the USA will be building enough troops in the rear to kick the Japanese out, combined with heavy air production. The aircraft also comes in handy when Japan inevitably has to back off; America can now switch to building CV (and land all their previously produced FTR on it) which will combine with returning elements from Europe maps -if needed- and the other remnants of the Pacific fleet(s) that have stayed alive ofc. No, taking SF in this stage of the war is not going to cut it. Threatening both Hawai and Sydney may cut it for Japan but again I doubt the Japanese will be able to hold both if they do. On top of a 100% US investment in the pacific from turn 3, India, China + ANZAC are just getting too rich to let this happen. Rest assured, this is my guess. Prediction if you will. I have not experienced it yet.

And please don’t forget USA might even forgo liberating the UK at all! IF UK even needs to be… KJF is a viable strategy and even more so after GE has bled taking London because for a long time, Russia is not in danger.

On a side note, I always use “Low Luck” to predict the course of the war. LL can really help telling you your strategy is foolproof, but no strategy is, of course diceproof!

Like Wild Bill stated so nicely, I am not trying to attack any strategy but I do like to discuss moves and countermoves and their (presumed) effects. Sea Lion is just an excellent one to do that.

@Noll:

I currently have only 3 UK fighters in the med (in Gibraltar, with airbase), defending a fleet made by the BB, CR and DD from the pacific (we are at round7 or so), plus 1 more UK BB, 1 russian SS and a single american carrier with 2 american fighters.

The fleet is so “small” (it’s small for a turn7 fleet) cause I have another fleet keeping nowray and denmark in allied control in the north.

The point is: turn#1 I didn’t attack Taranto. I killed malta and moved my UK fleet in 92.
He decided to sink that fleet with the german airforce, resulting in an almost total annihilation of the german air. (I had Algeria very well protected, so he resorted to buy a carrier in Southern France to land 2 more air to support that attack. He had 2 or 3 air in SITA + 2 fighters from Germany + 2 bombers on it). This did let me build small fleet cause there’s no more air danger in europe. So I bought few American navy in the atlantic in order to “unlock” UK’s coastal landings pretty early.
Italian were able to conserve and build more fleet, I even had to let them get Egypt for 1 turn, but I was in position to take it back and by that time, my new allied fleet was sitting in gibraltar.

Goodness gracious!
With the risk of going off-topic, but does this mean the Russians in your game are laughing at the Germans?? I mean, the luftwaffe almost totally annihilated… I would expect Russia to be safe (one of the reasons I tend to only curse the RN in the med with Germany but forego attacking it, unless I can expect just 1 or 2 air losses  :wink:)…

@Whitshadw (hope I spelled the name correctly ;-)):
With the ‘bring the boys home’ approach, the UK should even survive on its own, with 0-15 units surviving (depending on the number of GE TRS). So without the need of being liberated (according to LowLuck, that is). At best it  is a cripling victory for Germany if we forget about lucky dice rolls. Yes this leaves Egypt vulnerable but not a walkover (Italy still needs serious effort to take it).
UK1 kills the IT ‘fleet’ in SZ96 and blocks SZ94. Together with the French in SZ93, Gibraltar is blocked off. The rock cannot be taken round 1, so no Italian blockers in the atlantic round 2. UK can even bring into SZ92 a total of 1CV+2FTR+2CA+1DD. Probably minus 1CA/DD as cannon fodder for taking out German ships/subs still around Britain.

Furthermore, I guess you are correct about Japan threatening the US west coast. I said so myself that this might be the only thing stopping the US from liberating the UK (if it needs to be) with ease.
However, speaking about situational, for Japan this means India, China and ANZAC are getting rich and this is bad news for Tokyo.

The way I see it, the US has 2 valid options if Japan puts a priority on SF while GEIT are trying to get into London:
1. Prepare the liberation of London whether that is needed or not. Japan cannot be offensive the first 2 rounds because that will bring the US in the war too early and will ruin any SL attempt.
As long as the US realises it must return spending 100% (or a bit less, depending on how serious the threat on the west coast is) in the pacific from turn 3 and on. Russia can perfectly fight GEIT while London Recovers for the killing of GEIT. The US keeps on near 100% in the Pac and will be a perfect match for Japan together with ANZAC/China/India.

2. Forfeit liberating London and go straight into KJF with ANZAC/China/UK (Russia btw can keep its 18 Siberians in the east to close in on Japan as well). The USA can take its time in the PAC, overpowering Japan without the urge to return to Europe fast because Russia is in danger. Russia can fight GEIT almost indefinately in this situation. That is what SL does to Russia:Germany.

Wholehartedly agreed about the need for being on the same page!

US4 should see the liberation of London already. Remember the fall of London is a casus bellum for the USA so it can start making combat moves US3 regardless of what Japan does or does not. US4 can reach SZ109 with 3CV[5ftr, 1tac]+1BB+3CA+2DD+1sub+3STR+7TRS[7inf, 1arm, 2art, 4mech]. With blockers the axis can delay this force taking London for 1 turn to US5 at best.
Note that the GE1 buys should have alarmed the UK into blocking off and reinforcing the rock UK1 (only to jump into London OR Africa UK2, depending on the GE2 buys) so IT won’t be able to get their hand on Gibraltar on time.