Posts made by manstein39

@theROCmonster:

This is going off the assumption that Germany buys all navy first turn. Germany should buy 7 arty 12 infantry with her 66 dollars second turn and 10 arty 1 mech 1 tank turn 2. turn 3 you’ll have 52 so that is 13 mech. turn 4 will be 11 mech 1 tank. You are setting yourself up for a turn 7 take of Moscow, and a turn 4 DOW on Russia, so now you buy all planes on turn 5. you will have 50 so you can buy either 5 fighters, or 4 bombers. Turn 6 you will have Ukraine so you can buy 3 tanks there. Depending on what Russia did, you should have taken lenningrad turn 5 and now you should have 60 to spend. So after 3 tanks you will have 42 left. That is 3 bombers and 2 infantry. Moscow should now be a 100% chance to take. Try it out and see if it works for you.

BTW. my strategy is to have all my infantry and arty to be outside the gates of moscow on turn 6. Everything that was purchased from turn 2-6 (minus the 2 infantry) will be able to hit Moscow on turn 7. He literally has no way to defend against this. The Europe board, IMO, isn’t won taking Moscow, but taking Egypt. So GL there! :)

It looks like you won’t be able to hit Moscow until turn 8 with those builds.  The 10 arty  you build on turn 3 will not reach Bryanks until turn 7, as well as part of your turn 1 build which has to start in West Germany.

@Razor:

Austria cant afford to lose Albania, but can USA afford the extra trannies it takes to contest Albania rather than shucking units to France ?

It would take the same number of transports.  France and Albania are both two movements away from the US.  Shucking to Albania puts US troops within 2 moves of 2 different CP capitols.

@Kreuzfeld:

horsemeat is really boring imo, in norway we have horsemeat sausages in every groceries store.  Also pretty sure the main issue isn’t that it is horse in the food, more that there is horse, when the packaging says otherwise, makes you wonder how many corners they cut, and what quality meat they put in there….

That’s the real issue IMHO.  I don’t understand what anyone’s aversion to eating horse meat is.  Its an animal, just like a cow is an animal.  What’s the difference?

@BJCard:

@manstein39:

I agree BJCard.  It’s a bit funny that the US can for example move units from Washington to Albania faster than Germany can over uncontested CP territory.

Starting on turn 4 the US can drop 4 Inf and 2 artillery in a location that is a direct threat to two Axis capitals on every turn until the game has finished.  Forcing the economically weaker Austria to have to deal with 3 different fronts simultaneously is going to kill them.

Fair enough.  I’m pretty sure that a trans-atlantic trip in the early 1900s took about a week (In game terms that’s 1.5 turns since its 3 spaces from the US to France).  Then again an army sent by rail from Berlin to Albania (if sufficient rail capacity existed) may have taken a couple weeks as well.

Maybe Austria needs to invest in a modest fleet?  Or the CPs need to take out Russia as soon as possible so all their attention can be on the West and South?

It may be the best strategy to go for a sort of reverse Schliefen plan by taking out Russia first.  Once the US is in Europe Austria and/or the Turks are doomed if they put their focus on defeating one of them.

I agree BJCard.  It’s a bit funny that the US can for example move units from Washington to Albania faster than Germany can over uncontested CP territory.

Starting on turn 4 the US can drop 4 Inf and 2 artillery in a location that is a direct threat to two Axis capitals on every turn until the game has finished.  Forcing the economically weaker Austria to have to deal with 3 different fronts simultaneously is going to kill them.

@Flashman:

Once the Brits get ashore, I cannot see how Germany can reach Paris when it takes so long for new units to reach France.

It seems too much like “Paris or Bust” in the first 3 turns at most.

The Stuttgart PC would give them a fighting chance, but also give France an attainable victory goal.

Look at the map, mark the capitals in Western/Central Europe, and you’ll see why I think Alsace (rather than, for example, Ruhr) would be the ideal site for another PC.

In the case of powers with more than one PC, the loss of one would not preclude production continuing at the other.

You could even allow France to produce at the captured Alsace factory, if you consider that France regarded the historical province as naturally part of France (though you’d have to call the city Strasbourg). But I wouldn’t. I’d never allow building in captured factories. Except, is Alsace different because its a French area held by Germany since 1871?

After all, Strasbourg is now the capital of Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg

Geographically the “Alsace” territory in this game is really Baden-Wuerttemburg plus Alsace.  It would be a major stretch to consider the “Alsace” territory in AA1914 a French territory.

@Flashman:

Once the Brits get ashore, I cannot see how Germany can reach Paris when it takes so long for new units to reach France.

It seems too much like “Paris or Bust” in the first 3 turns at most.

It’s amazing to me that Germany needs 5 turns to move units from Berlin to Paris using the shortest route.  To compare the US can move units from Washington to Constantinople or Vienna in only 4 turns!

@Flashman:

TURN THE THIRD (PART THE SECOND)

TURKEY

Along with the Bulgarians, marches a large force into Bucharest, the Russians having left to recapture Sevastopol. This last is reinforced by the Turks from Mesopotamia, effectively abandoning Baghdad to the large British army advancing across Persia. A large army in concentrated in the capital, the plan being to trade Smyrna and Ankara with the British while taking over the southern sector against Russia.

ITALY

The 2 units in Burgundy march to the French coast to rendezvous with the Italian fleet. In order to keep the Austrians at bay, it is decided to attack in Tuscany.

Italy has: 1 fighter, 6 infantry, 8 artillery

Austria has: 1 fighter, 2 infantry, 8 artillery

With large artillery forces in both sides, the air duel will be crucial. After three passes the Austrian Ace scores a victory, and the Hapsburg artillery home in on the enemy.

7 casualties each severely depletes the invaders, but reinforcements are due from Venice, and Italy now collects a paltry 9 IPCs.

USA

With Italy the most hard-pressed of the Allies, the “Appalachian Educational Faculty” sails into the Mediterranean, with the “Alaskan Environmental Federation” just a few leagues behind.

President Wilson is re-elected as the “he kept us out of the war” candidate.

Defeated “British Stooge” Charles Hughes is beaten to death by an anti-war mob.

You could put a world of hurt on the Austrians by shuttling units from the USA to Albania.  Its only 3 moves to Albania with a shuck of 9 transports (3 in SZ 17, 3 in SZ 14, and 3 in SZ 1).  You could land 4 inf and 2 art every turn in Albania with that shuck.  Even better is that it is a big threat to Vienna, since you are only 2 moves from their capitol.  This would force the Austrians to make the tough decision to either continue the attack on Italy or try and push the US out of Europe.

@zanetheinsane:

Once you’re getting that sweet Russia money, 20-30 mechs and like 5-10 planes sitting in West Germany can crush pretty much any landing party anywhere. Makes it really hard for the allies to land because if they get wiped out they have to spend at minimum 2-3 turns getting more units over.

Unless they land in Norway and build an IC and Airbase there.  Then they can liberate Leningrad from Germany (but wait until Moscow falls so that you can use that IC as well).

Taking Norway, Finland and Leningrad from Germany does some serious economic damage to them.  A loss of 17 IPCs is pretty significant.

@Chicochico:

That would mean a german transport that survives the mines could park next to britain and ferry units across the channel every turn without any worries, so long it doesn’t moves. Is this correct?

If my understanding of the rule is correct, then yes you could simply leave the ship there.  However every ship you move into the SZ to help defend the tt will be subject to mines when they enter the SZ.

Thinking about this a bit more; what if the US player moves ships including loaded transports into the SZ next to Kiel while still neutral during turn 4.  Then the next turn the US is at war and may amphibiously assault Kiel without having to worry about the mines, because they are not moving into, or through a SZ containing mines.

@Krieghund:

They don’t have to roll for any mines, as they are no one’s enemy.

So while neutral the US has maps of all minefields, but once they go to war these maps are “lost.”

If they US is neutral, can they attack another neutral such as Spain?

The manual only prohibits the following actions by the US:
“The United States begins the game neutral, but with Allied sympathies. While it remains
neutral, the United States may not move land or air units into Central Powers-controlled or
contested territories or attack Central Powers sea units. It will not enter the war unless either
its units are attacked by the Central Powers or it loses income to a German submarine attack
(see “Collect Income”, page 23). However, if it is not yet at war at the beginning of its fourth
turn, the United States will enter the war at that time.”

It does not expressly limit the US from moving troops into any non-contested, non-CP territory.

Transporting a stack of Tanks and Artillery wont work either.  AFAIK Larry mentioned in his first game turn walk-through that you you must always have an infantry in a territory where you have land units.

@wittmann:

I suppose it would have complicated things too much to say that it was the one Neutral that no power could enter and  attack, citing bad offensive terrain.
Does look like a highly useful back door entrance!

Instead of a rule change they could have just made it impassable like the Sahara if the intention was to prevent either side from attacking them.

@Panz3r:

German use the early war spiked helmet(pickelhaube) i suppose!!!
It was used for the first months of the war…

They actually didn’t start replacing the Pickelhaube with the Stahlhelm until 1916.  So I guess it would have been fine to use either since both were in use for roughly the same amount of time.  Plus it leaves room for those playing with house rules to use some units with the stahlhelm as “storm troopers” for example.  I’m sure someone like HBG will make unique sculpts for this game.

@Gargantua:

Yeah but all those “superior” components would break down more regularily…

and for every 1 German tank, there were 3 Russian tanks or more!

When one looks at the economic base of the Axis powers, it becomes fairly obvious that they were virtually doomed to fail from the start.

The break-down myth is an interesting area to study actually (of course new designs had teething issues, which was true for the Russians and the US as well).  The biggest reasons for breakdowns of German armor, especially on the eastern front, was not unreliability of parts, but the distances that tanks were required to cover.  In the west in 1940 for example armor was moved to rail heads, and then deployed to battle near by.  The situation in Russia was completely different during the 1941 and 1942 summer campaigns.  In both campaigns Germany was on the attack, and due to the need to convert Russian rail to the standard European gauge, German armor and transport had to drive to the front.  This resulted in armor covering thousands of kilometers of territory on unimproved roads.  By the time any replacements reached the front they would have traveled hundreds of kilometers from the nearest rail head before firing a single shot in anger.

During this relentless advance, and thanks to the lack of rail transport, armor was not only covering more ground than it was intended to do, but maintenance/service intervals were stretched far beyond their breaking point.  All of this adds up to a calamity waiting to happen when it comes to available armor.  If you look at the daily logs of a Panzer division’s tank strength, which normally list available, short term repair, and long term repair status as well as reasons for each status (ex. mechanical breakdown), you will find that on average German armor suffered mechanical failures during offensive campaigns on a similar rate to other armies on the western front.

@Kreuzfeld:

@suprise:

How about oil and gasoline….or the radio

many agree that the T34 is the best tank of th war, it was cheaper, easier to operate and stronger than most german tanks. (leaving out the panther and tiger)

then how did the germans manage to beat them with tanks that where inferior on paper? Better radios. The radio almost nullified the advantage of the T34, it gave better coordination inside the units and made it easier to call in close airsupport, and in tankbattles nothing is more important.

Radio was not the only advantage enjoyed by German tanks vis a vis the Russians.  The Germans used a 5 man crew in all of their tanks from the PzKw. III through the King Tiger.  All Russian tanks had 3 man crews.

What that means is that you have a 3 man turret in the German tank with a much more efficient separation of duties.  You have a gunner, loader, and commander.  This allowed the Germans to achieve a significantly higher rate of fire than the Russians could ever dream to achieve.  Combined with vastly superior optics, communications equipment, and command and control and it is obvious why the “inferior” tanks of the Germans were so successful.

@BJCard:

Again, forget that the territory named “Poland” is named “Poland.”  If it were given a generic name like “West Russia” it wouldn’t be as big of an issue that it has a baltic coastline.  Granted, its weird that Germany doesn’t have all of Prussia, but I’ll say it again, the map is distorted for playability reasons.

It’s possible to make the game playable and balanced without resorting to distortions like taking East Prussia off the map and including it in a region called ‘Poland’.

@Flashman:

Poland was a distinct political entity that the Tzar had promised independence to after the war, and it most definitely did not have a coastline. Certainly not including Konigsburg.

I’ve no great objection to the telescoping of some tts to make them practical, for example Belgium is twice the size it is geographically, but to place two tts between Paris and the German border is pushing it too far.

Its the number of tts, not the physical size of them, that determines the game. When it take Berlin based infantry 4 turns to cross the Lorriane border you know something has been fixed unfairly. The Americans can be in Paris before the Berliners can reach it!

Lorraine really should be a German territory at the start of this game anyways.  I would have preferred that the Lorraine and Burgundy territories were just merged on this map into one large territory called Burgundy.

@BJCard:

@manstein39:

I have to say I’m not a big fan of the geography on this map.

Paris is way to far to the west.

Munich is in Tyrol.

Poland has a coast line in 1914… that’s news to me.� Prussia should boarder the “Livonia” province and Poland should be land locked.

The Aegean sea, and Turkey in particular are completely placed incorrectly.

Well, ‘Poland’ wasn’t a country as it was part of Russia at the time, so I’m ok with the territory of ‘Poland’ having a coastline.� Clearly Paris is moved to the West to allow bigger territories on the West front- again, fine with me.

No Axis & Allies game has been true to geography exactly- who would want to play Global 1940 with a tiny Europe?

Sorry for any confusion, but I was referring to the territory of Poland.  The Prussian boarder should extend all the way to ‘Livonia’ in this map, because the territory of Poland was landlocked in reality.

I understand the need to shrink/enlarge continents for playability, but this is one of the most distorted maps since the original Axis and Allies.