Posts made by KaLeu

Here’s some more info on this: http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/16223/james-moore-eternal-war-a-decade-of-civilization/

@AxisAndAllies1940:

…. (which the FEC has typically tried and failed to attack, so it’s a walk-in) …

Just for my information: who are the FEC?

@AAGamer:

my last game i put an air base on Persia so i could build fighters there to send to Russia and they could also attack with mech inf from persia as well.

You don’t need an air base to fly a fighter from Persia to Russia. It’s only 4 zones away.

I read this story before, and after it was first published, someone came up with a solution. But in response, it seemed like the player in question doesn’t really want the war to end. Here’s a link to news about that game somewhat later: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/10/civ-iis-eternal-war-continues-on-reddit-more-than-a-year-later/

But I can’t find anything recent and wonder whether he’s still playing in 2018.

@CWO:

I don’t have any information about those figures one way or the other, but I do have a question.  If I’m not mistaken, Russian railroads in WWII used a broad gauge which differed from the narrower gauge conventionally used by British and American railroads.  This would presumably mean that the British and Americans could not ship “off the shelf” locomotives and cars to the USSR.  Did the British and Americans therefore set up special manufacturing plants to build locomotives and trucks specifically designed for Soviet tracks?

The Wikipedia article on the Ye class locomotive mentions that such locomotives were initially produced as early as World War I, but could not be delivered after the Russian Revolution:

Due to the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, 200 locomotives were stranded in the United States; these were fitted with wider tires (locomotive driving wheels had iron tires which were heated to expand them, then driven over the wheels so that they shrank into place. By fitting wider tires with a deeper tread width, the effective wheel gauge could be decreased from the Russian standard of 5 ft (1,524 mm) to 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm), (the US standard) to fit the American gauge and were sent to various railroads. The locomotives were nicknamed “Russian Decapods.”

So apparently, they had indeed been originally produces according to Russian specifications. According to the same article, this line of locomotives was then revived for Lend Lease during World War II, with some improvements but mostly unchanged. So it seems like they were indeed built for the Russian gauge.

@weddingsinger:

Not automatic.

Both subs get to roll an attack.� If one hits, its over.� If they both miss (better than 50% chance they miss), the attacker has to decide whether they want to stay and keep attacking.� If they stay, cruiser gets to shoot back once before sub or subs get to attack again.

No, chances that they both miss are 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9, so there’s a better than 50% chance that they hit. Also, if they both miss, the cruiser always shoots back that round, before the subs can decide whether to stay for the next round.

Maybe……

:-D

@Chris_Henry:

For German help, I tend to immediately build a destroyer and transport off of Southern France. I’ll then increase that naval force slowly as the game dictates in other areas. Germany, in my mind, is perfectly set up to attack/hold/reinforce Gibraltar when/if the Axis take it. I usually have the Germans defend there, while the Italians build up a defensive force in Morocco. Again, this is assuming they reach that far before the US comes in. But that’s also why I build a German transport right away. They can assist in getting west in North Africa more quickly, while other Italian forces can marshal strength for an assault on Cairo.

Gibraltar in Axis hands, will force the US to respond even while still at peace. Axis transports in SZ91 and to some degree even in SZ92, pose a direct threat to America itself and/or to the lightly defended southern parts of Africa. So the US will build a fleet in SZ101 that will at least match whatever the Axis has around Gibraltar, simply because they have to. Once that fleet is there, the obvious thing to do is to add a few transports to it and aim for an amphibious assault. I really can’t see Germany and Italy defending Gibraltar and Morocco against the US.

@oysteilo:

@Herr:

Isn’t that a bit slow?

I1: take Bulgaria
I2: units move to Romania
I3: can-opening into Bessarabia and/or Eastern Poland

So in that scenario, the German followup will be as late as G4.

I think the important can-opening happens around (I4), I5, I6 in order to break through into volgograd and caucasus and later to threaten middle east by italy taking NW persia

The idea of can-opening is, to take the territory with Italy in order to allow Germany, and especially the German planes, to reinforce it against a Russian counterstrike. So I don’t think that any Italian drive to the south servers the purpose of can-opening because Russia is unlikely to have sufficient forces to strike back at either Volgograd or the Caucasus anyway in case the Germans would have taken it without Italian assistance. Which doesn’t imply that going that way is bad for Italy because there’s a lot of bonus to be had. But if you’re talking can-opening, then I’d say Bryansk on I5 would be the way to go.

@aequitas:

With Bulgaria, Yugo and Greece given to Italy, what punch will Germany have?
Any Allied player will be happy to harvest Italy…

Agreed. I’d much rather give Bulgaria to Germany to assimilate those troops and add some punch to the German drive into Russia.

Isn’t that a bit slow?

I1: take Bulgaria
I2: units move to Romania
I3: can-opening into Bessarabia and/or Eastern Poland

So in that scenario, the German followup will be as late as G4.

Yes, that’s the conventional point of view. But William III brought his fleet and army for a reason, and when they landed, it was by no means a foregone conclusion that it wouldn’t turn into an all-out war. It’s very unlikely of course that the whole enterprise would have been started without firm support in England itself, but there was definitely an element of military force on the invader’s side.

Anyway, I’d better leave it there…. sorry for bringing it up, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Oh, on a side note:

@Narvik:

UK is an island that has not been invaded since 1066.

British national pride typically ignores what happened in 1688. But maybe we’d better not derail the thread.

After searching the web a bit about any Sea Lion possibilities, I’ve mainly found two opinions, neither of which favors German chances. Some say it couldn’t have been pulled off in the first place, others that the Germans might have landed in Southern England but could not have supplied their landing force adequately and would have been defeated. And that’s a very crude summary of numerous articles that exist on the topic. It also seems rather obvious that allowing the BEF to escape from Dunkirk was a critical mistake if Sea Lion was really intended: after the invasion, the Germans would have had to fight the same troops they had failed to annihilate when they had the opportunity.

A much better option for Germany, and one that could also have worked in the real war, would have been to step up the battle of the Atlantic, notably the U-boat campaign. Britain was heavily dependent on American imports at the time, and cutting that life line could have forced them into negotiations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/19/hero-military-veteran-88-declares-fear-not-dictionary-saves/

I have the utmost respect for this man.

It’s “Kriegsmarine”, not “Kreigsmarine” (German “Krieg” = “war”).

That would be Pavlov’s House. And the statement about German losses was really about the capture of Paris, not the entire Battle of France. Still quite astonishing of course.

The game itself doesn’t actually provide for a formal “draw”, such as in chess. I also don’t thing anyone would really consider a house rule to arrive at a draw when, after a set number of rounds, nobody has fulfilled the winning criteria.

Of course, at some point in time the players could agree to call it a draw when it’s not clear which side is winning but the game has lasted quite long enough to everyone’s taste. I’ve been in that situation in several face to face games: it was just getting too late, and there was no obvious win for either side, and both were somewhat optimistic about their possibilities. But rather than formally agreeing to a draw, we just decided to call it quits and after pondering a bit on what might have been and agreeing that we all had a great day anyway, everybody went home while promising each other that we would play again “soon”.

@Afrikakorps:

I think Japan should wait with declaring war, so JDOW3 or JDOW4 and crush China + Russia in the meantime, preparing for an Indian Crush in J4 or J5.

That’s very late. UK Pacific will by then have taken some of the DEI islands and will have built a powerful infantry stack that will be hard for Japan to overcome. Anzac will also have some islands and will have every opportunity to harass Japan.

@Afrikakorps:

My first idea was build new fleet in G1, second idea was to build fleet in G2 Southern France but my current and I think best idea is to build German fleet in the Black Sea, so minor or major in Romania G1 (I will go major). If you are going to crush neutrality, why not optimize it?

German fleet builds in Black Sea allows fast access to Egypt, Middle East and Southern Russia, while far away from USA reach.

That would be a massive early investment, implying that you can’t really be threatening Sea Lion. The UK will notice that and spend its money in Africa and the Middle East, so you’ll encounter strong opposition there. And you can’t just build transports: the UK will have several planes available even after Taranto, and may fly in more from India. Also, the British Indian Ocean fleet may sail towards the Mediterranean, especially with the Japanese not having sunk the battleship.
Also, the neutral crush will provide the British with much-needed additional troops and income: Angola, Mozambique and Saudi Arabia will join the UK, Afghanistan may also, or join the Russians. And apart from what the British will do, you’ll need some units to actually take Turkey - and you’ll probably need to do something about Spain and Sweden too or you’ll be in trouble when the Allies land.

@Afrikakorps:

I hope to cancel this out by using diplomacy to my advantage against the Allies.

You may find that the Allies will continue that diplomacy “by other means”.  :-D

@simon33:

UK taking Norway if it doesn’t hold it for a turn doesn’t rob Germany of any income.

If Norway is empty and the British ships are safe and have nothing better to do, I’d still take it with 1 inf. It’s worth 3 which already pays for an inf that probably wasn’t doing much in the UK anyway and now has a 1 in 3 chance of killing an enemy unit when attacked. Also, Germany will want it back so they will send at least 2 ground units which won’t be going east, and they need to protect their transports in SZ 113 from UK-based Allied bombers, or maybe even tacs/fighters if the UK has a CV.
And once Germany has retaken it, why not try again and kill those units on the next UK turn and force them to invest again to keep Norway.

Geographically speaking, it’s indeed an oddity. The straits between Gibraltar and Morocco, between Sicily and Southern Italy, and between Denmark and Sweden, are all narrower than Scotland to Northern Ireland, but they do require a transport for troops to cross them. Nowadays, there’s even a bridge between Denmark and Sweden.
But I suppose that a separate “Northern Ireland” territory would clutter the A&A map too much in an already crowded region.