Posts made by Little_Boot

What about movement in the atlantic? What is the extent of the restriction? Can you not move at all on the Europe board, or is it allowed to move ships from the west coast through the Caribbean to get to the east?

Yep, that’s what I thought.

If you have NO’s that you are still achieving, or War Bonds, can you collect the income from that? I’m almost certain the answer is is no, but just to be sure.

@Alsch91:

Attack the Allies on J1.
Watch everyone not know what to do.

All of the allies. Russia, the Philippines, Pearl Harbor, and Hong Kong. Also French Indochina. I tried it in a game, and I did reasonably well as Japan. Germany won the game for me, because everyone was concentrated on kicking my ass.

Make sure to keep enough pressure on China to keep it back. Most importantly, hold Yunnan. China seems weak but it can become quite pesky if not subdued. Also, two of your victory cities are in China.

More or less. I have found that techs are rarely used in any of the games that I have with my friends. I will occasionally research a bit, but for the most part, very little is researched. If each nation had a specific advantage that they could play to, I think it would spice up gameplay.

Last time I checked, there isn’t a technology for that one.
I proposed Improved Mechanized Infantry.

So if super subs are a no, than what technology would you suggest for Germany?

That’s interesting. Although, you could abstract it a little bit to represent the 'Wolf Packs" that the German subs hunted in, making them much more effective.

So we’d have:
Germany-Super Subs, (Improved Mechanized Infantry)
USSR- Advanced Artillery
Japan- Improved Shipyards
US- Increased Factory Production, (Paratroopers)
China- None
UK- Radar
Italy- War Bonds
ANZAC- Long Range Aircraft
France- ??

I had an about giving each side an extra technology, for example, giving Germany Improved Mech Infantry, and the US Paratroopers, but I’m still on the fence about how it would balance. It would be historically accurate as well.
I’d still like a technology for France, as they were a developed nation. Maybe give them Radar as well.

Any historical reasons for those?

I was thinking that it might be cool and historical if you gave countries the technology that they had at the start of the war. I don’t know loads of the actual history, but these make sense to me, tell me if there is a better choice.

Germany- Super Subs
USSR- ???
Japan- Improved shipyards
US- Increased factory production
China- None, they were backwards
UK- Radar
Italy- ???
ANZAC- Long range aircraft?
France-???

I may try this in a game this weekend if I can find out techs for the rest, and if my friend is able to make it over. Hopefully it won’t unbalance things too much.

Wow, these are great. How do you recommend printing them? On thick card stock? Laminating them?
Nevermind, you answered that in the 1st post. Thanks again!

Thought it would be cool to do it for a leap day, so here you go:

Feb 29, 1940: Finland initiates peace negotiations in the Winter War

Feb 29, 1944: MacArthur invades the Admiralty Islands in Operation Brewer.

A better question would be weather it is supposed to, and weather people play it that way. I say it isn’t, in my games.

Can the Brits move troops into French Indochina if they are not yet at war with Japan?

The units don’t have nationality once they are on the board. If the territory taken (in your case, on the Europe board) is on either board, the income goes to that side. So no, income from Persia or Iraq goes to Europe.

Ronrye, you bring up some very valid points, and I believe that you are right in many respects. However, I can disagree with you on the effectiveness of a factory in Romania.

In most of my games, I build a Minor IC in Romania on the first or second turn (depending on weather I’m going all out Barbarossa, or feigning a Sealion first). After that, I immediately start churning out tanks and infantry there, to fight in the south.

My strategy consists of taking the Ukraine complex on the 2nd turn we are at war, or the first in the case of an amphibious action in the black sea. After the Ukraine complex falls, I push on towards Stalingrad, and then go northwards. Light to medium pressure in the north, and I have yet to test the effectiveness of a complex in Norway or Finland.

You say that the construction of a complex in Romania will take away too many funds from the ground force, resulting in lessened success. I have observed this to be false, where the money spent on the complex (minor, mind you, I don’t think a major would be a good idea.) is counterbalanced by the shortened supply line, and the ability to quickly get more tanks and infantry to the south.

Lastly, I think that both courses of action can result in a win, and there is no one right way to play Germany. Anybody is entitled to their beliefs and practices.

As a side question, Germany can take Southern France on turn one, with tanks from S. Germany, and Mechs from West Germany, as well as aircraft. Would this be advised? I find I can take all three territories of France easily on turn 1, but it could mean more losses in Paris, and if you use the Luftwaffe, it could jeopardize the certainty of destroying most of the Royal Navy on turn 1, allowing it to group up, and potentially making it much more potent.

So the general consensus is that the factory in Norway as well wouldn’t be efficient?
I’m still undecided as to how it would work, having not yet tried it in a game. I estimate the pressure on the Russians from both north in Archangel and south in Rostov and Caucasus could crack them.

Greetings, I’m going to make my first post on these forums something worthwhile, and discuss the possibilities of strange strategies. If people enjoy this post, I will update with more that I have found.

When I play games as Germany, I usually ignore Sealion altogether, and go for crushing Russia, which has seemed to work well in the games that I’ve played. As a strategy, I find that building an IC in Romania is a good idea, to shorten the supply lines for the southern front. After playing a game with one of my friends from school, we talked about unorthodox strategies, which got me thinking.

Normally, a war between Germany and Russia is very straightforward. Germany amasses troops in Poland, Slovakia, and Romania, sometimes with the addition of Finland with small numbers of troops. When Germany initially attacks, he has great local superiority, and advances quickly through the first couple of rounds (game rounds, not battle rounds). After Germany pushes further into Russia, his supply lines get longer, and Russia’s get shorter, which will begin to slow the German advance, and possibly even stop it (especially with the extra income from global, is Japan doesn’t attack Russia in the east, which doesn’t happen in my games). If the Allies land in France or Southern Europe, then Germany must divert some of its forces to assist Italy, which essentially spells the end of any possible victory on the Eastern front, which is exactly what happened in the actual war.

Now, after my friend and I talked about unorthodox strategies, began thinking about my typical placement of a Minor Complex in Romania, to alleviate supply issues in the south. I realized something that I believe is an effective way to crush the Russians quickly, and then turn my attention back to Britan, which has been isolated with subs at this point. (Now, I haven’t actually tried this in a game yet, and I won’t be able to for a while, so if more experienced players than myself could tell if it is indeed viable, or perhaps even try it in a game of their own.) The strategy would involve creation of the IC in Romania, and then building transports in the Black Sea (Zone 100), and ferrying troops into the Caucasus, or the neighboring territories, Rostov and Ukraine. This would open up a new front in the south, especially since Italy can’t come through the middle east that quickly, and won’t be there for a few more rounds. This will keep the Russians guessing which territory you will assault, which will force them to spread their forces in the south, weakening their defenses further. Also, the territories in the south are twice as valuable as the others, so the economy would be helped significantly more than a northern push.

Further thinking along these lines has led me to the conclusion that you could also build another IC in Norway, and conduct a similar maneuver in the north, Assaulting Leningrad, Archangel, or any other territory up there. it would also serve to protect Norway from potential Allied invasion. Norway is key, because of its value and the NO.

What do people think of this? Has it already been done, and would it work in practice, not just in theory? What are possible improvements to this strategy to make it more effective?
Thanks for reading, it was a lot.