Posts made by Jennifer

I’ve seen some other strats that have worked, but they’re really gimmicky.

Kill USA First (super gimmicky!  Relies on the US not seeing it, and essentially leaving Washington DC virtually defenseless)

Sea Lion (far less gimmicky).  Relies on the UK not defending well enough or over extending while Germany drops a transport fleet.  Not sure I like this one, the expenditure is so freaking huge that I have a hard time seeing how Russia doesn’t eventually take Berlin…

Just a couple ideas.  I didn’t say good ideas, just ideas.  As I said, both are gimmicky really, but if you can get away with it…why not?  (My Kill Japan First strategy in Anniversary Edition was gimmicky, but most of the players had never seen it and were pretty darn hard pressed to figure out how to counter it after they did see what was happening.  Likewise, my Power Russia strategy in 2nd Edition classic allowing the US to power on Japan…again, gimmicky, but rare enough people need time to figure out how to counter it.)

SS:

Yea, that’s partially the idea, you could save up for a tech.  However, if you wanted to try early, you could fire 4 dice for 20 IPCs (it’s either 4 dice, or 6 dice purchase price, no other options) and hope for a 6.  If you fail, you still only need to pay the extra 10 IPC and be assured of a successful breakthrough.

I always liked the LL version of tech:

• No tech attempted
• Buy 4 dice first round and try for cheap; can buy last 2 dice for success next round
• Buy 6 dice and guarantee a break through
  Then roll on which ever tree you want.

My alternative, which I have no idea how to roll out to be historically correct, just something I thought of:
Roll out specific technologies to specific nations on about the same time as they got that technology in history.

I think the theory is (just guessing here, not necessarily agreeing or anything mind you!) that if Japan doesn’t take Yunnan round 1 the allies can stack a concentrated defense there.

Not sure if that’s what they meant, not even saying that’s a good idea.  Just my theory on their statement.

If England lands everything there, I would almost prefer not taking Paris with Germany round 1!!  This only makes strafing it better, in my opinion, because now you have a completely neutered England who won’t be any kind of threat to Europe - and no pesky aircraft racing to Moscow to help defend there.

Or am I missing something?  (not that I am looking at the map right now.)

Anyone have numbers on what the likely result would be of a strafe?  Assuming Fighter, armor, artillery but I don’t remember exactly what was on Paris round 1.  Germany I would suspect would keep all armor and artillery that were used, maybe some of the infantry/maybe not.

At work, don’t have time to read the whole thread right now but I had a thought -

Not tested, not well thought out mind you, just a thought:  What if you strafe Paris with Germany and let Italy clean up on purpose?  Might be a good way to let the Italians rebuild some warships after a Taranto meanwhile, if you strafe decently, Germany should be able to save the 19 IPC worth of units, maybe.

Just thinking…as I said, I really didn’t think about it overly hard, I was just pondering the option, which occurred after the OP mentioned it was 100% necessary to win with Germany round 1.

Wasn’t aware we even asked to be repaid after the war, figured we forgave the loans.  Live and learn!

@Imperious:

How bout the Americans can LOAN 5 ipc to russia if SZ 125 is not occupied by axis. That way the game is not imbalanced by ability to just get free money.

^^==  This.

It isn’t a loan though. America can lend/lease to England (Atlantic side) if there are no Submarines in the North Atlantic (5 IPC max) or Russia (if there are no hostile warships in SZ 125, Leningrad is Russian controlled) (5 IPC Max)  Funds are deducted from the American economy and added to the recipient’s economy.  (America must be at war with Germany/Italy)

IMHO, one allied unit isn’t enough to trigger this NO.

At least three, non-Russian, allied units (non French) in Normandy, France, S. France or Holland

OR

Non-Russian, Allied control of S. Italy

AND

No allied units in Russian owned (originally painted red) territories including planes.

Planes are considered to be launched at the start of the Combat Movement phase from land and carriers regardless of if your assets are being attacked.  They don’t land until the end of the Non-Combat Move phase.

This also explains why you cannot move the planes from the end of the carrier’s movement to artificially extend their range as well.

Essentially what happens is that the transports may elect to leave the sea zone, but they cannot load the troops in Korea before they leave SZ 6.  (You cannot load troops from a hostile sea zone, Korea does not border any other sea zones, therefore, this is an old, but still effective anti-amphibious tactic spearheaded back in Classic 2nd edition around England when England would drop a submarine to protect itself from amphibs from W. Europe, etcetera)

You do not need to engage the defending destroyer - however, keep in mind, that destroyer is going to be in range of wherever you move those defenseless transports!

Believe he was saying if you build a carrier then you should also build a destroyer leaving Germany 6 IPC.

I agree.  However, I am not sure building fleet round 1 is the best solution.  Not saying it isn’t, just saying I am not sure it is.

IMHO - The limiting of one ship per landing ground unit is to prevent you from landing one infantry and firing 30 bombardment shots draining the enemy player’s defenses for minimal attacker losses.  (This was a big problem in 2nd edition classic).

So it is definitely ahistorical, but it’s definitely needed for game balance.  Again, IMHO.

@simon33:

@Cmdr:

I believe the loophole still exists that Germany doesn’t have to be at war to reinforce Italian held Russian territories too.  So there’s at least one round of that if you organize right.

It still exists in 2nd Ed but not in BM2.0.

Gotcha.  BM came out after I started my graduate degree, so I am far from well versed in it.

Anyway, it wasn’t a “huge” loophole, at best you got an extra round of IPC for the objective because a smart Russia would just declare on Germany on their next turn.

My experience with Barbarossa, limited as it is (I am a full time grad school student and full time employee, so I don’t have a lot of time to play anymore) is that it is better to have Italy grab territories and use the Germans to reinforce.

I believe the loophole still exists that Germany doesn’t have to be at war to reinforce Italian held Russian territories too.  So there’s at least one round of that if you organize right.

So if you want to limit chat:

Teams are allowed 20 minutes to kibitz between each other.

Then orders are written down for all countries for major engagements (as defined as not territory trading, ie attacking with 50 infantry, 20 artillery, 10 armor is a major engagement; liberating a territory with 2 inf + fig is not)  and major actions cannot be altered.

Adds a lot of fog of war too.

Amalec,

I’ve seen Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine - havnt seen Carrier 2 transports thought.

The destroyer makes a hit on the carrier super suicide and gives Germany a potential unit for blocking later.

I have been thinking about this off and on today.  It all comes down to, in my mind, that Stalin, Eisenhower and Churchill got together periodically for meetings.  How is that any different than Russia, England and the United States working together on a strategy?

Now, maybe kibitzing on specific battles is a bit much, but I don’t think it is out of line.  You’re a team and I could see myself saying “dude, you really want to throw all those troops at Crete?  It’s just Crete man!” So I wouldn’t really have a problem with chatting at the table.

Just my two IPC.  Take it, leave it, agree, disagree.  Not saying I am right! Don’t think I am wrong though.

I would be concerned in allowing the UK to can open like that for the Americans.

What if the turn order ended:  USA >> Italy >> Germany (Germany being first in the turn order)?

That at least permits Italy to blitz some tanks from N. Italy into Denmark to save Germany’s arse at the last minute.

@ProtesT:

I got a game coming up, it will be one on one and I will be playing the Allies. I’m contemplating going full 100% Pacific with my USA economy with the exception of perhaps 1 or 2 transports and maybe a destroyer in the Atlantic just to activate Brazil and get those troops over to Africa. Question is do you think the USSR and UK can contain Germany and. Italy enough until the Pacific allies can conquer Tokyo?

No.

You won’t ever capture Tokyo before Germany/Italy get enough victory cities to win.

What you can do - and I have a legacy of trying KJF (Kill Japan First) games - is cripple Japan and secure the Pacific before refocusing and saving Europe from the Fascists.

The goal here is to knock down the Japanese fleet so that ANZAC/India can keep pressure on and deny the Japanese NOs.  Eventually China will be secured.  Japan itself won’t ever be conquered, but that’s moot.

After the goal is achieved, it’s a matter of getting reinforcements into Russia.  England’s goal will be to get planes to Russia and secure Africa to prevent Italy from growing too large. It’s a race against the clock because if you wait too long, Germany will be unstoppable (they do make 2 to 3 times as much as Russia.)