Posts made by MrMalachiCrunch

Before I read too much in this thread I just wanted to mention something I had read recently.  Dang, wish I could remember it to cite it, hmmmm google to the rescue.  Ah, finally found it, it was a book review.  The premise was that the blitzkrieg concept actually was created AFTER the deed.  That it was myth that the Germans had planned a ‘blitzkrieg’ but that it was only because of the superior leadership of Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel based on their leading from the front and taking the initiative that created the myth of a planned blitzkrieg.

9 out of 10 german combat deaths in World War II were caused by Russians.  So who won the war for the allies again?

http://community.history.com/topic/8608/t/The-Blitzkrieg-Myth.html?page=-1

Technically, Holland was fully liberated by the end of the war by a few days.  The full unconditional surrender of all German forces was May 7, 1945 and V-E day falls on May 8th.

By May 5th, the remaining German forces were in western Holland and hostilities ceased May 5th when the German forces negotiated a surrender.

So yes, complete liberation mainly attributed to the Canadians (arguably rightly or wrongly but I’ll take it!) by a whole 2 days.  I tell ya, they sure do make Canadians feel pretty dang cozy there when we visit.  Amsterdam really is everything they say it is!  Pricey too, luckily our looney has soared!  I really need to get back there one day and go ‘window shopping’ again……

Equipment wise western allied tanks in WWII sucked compared to soviet or german.  Training wise, I doubt anything can beat a modern volunteer army like that of desert storm, combine that with the best equipment by far at it’s a slam dunk me thinks.

I am not sure how close this infringes on the quite right NO POLITICS rule.  But how many of you have been following this issue.  It’s only the third time since WWII a ship has been sunk in anger by a submarine.  S. Korea on Thursday made public their findings.  Somewhat scary when you think of a nuclear armed country sinking other military ships.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10121530.stm

A tresure trove of military information can be found here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

What do you think should be done considering the North can rain down something like 1/4 million artillary shells per hour on the capital of the south never mind nukes….

The new rules of 1942 prevent transports from being used as blockers.  A fleet may pass through a group of defenseless transports leaving a combat unit behind to dispatch them while the remainder move on to a second sea zone.  Since this is part of the combat movement phase it’s perfectly fine.

When these same transports are present in a seazone where an amphibious assault will be launched from the attacker has to decide if the entire fleet must engage the transport(s) or perform offshore bombardment.

Technically only one battle can occur from the seazone either attack the ships or the shore.  I am curious to see what people would think about 2 versions of a rule modification to allow both attacks to occur.

Rev 1) In a situation where only defenseless transports are present a single attacking piece can be used to destroy them allowing the rest to perfrom offshore bombardment.

Rev 2) This is much more radical.  In a situation where there is a defending fleet, some of the attacking fleet is held in reserve.  Combat occurs in the sea zone and if the attacker wins, then the the reserve fleet performs offshore bombardment.

The other half of my issue would require a rule modification,  I thought I made that clear in my recent example.  I guess this may be a good time for me to figure out how to initiate a poll on the topic.

Do you think in the special situation of amphibious assault whereby only defenseless transports are present in the SZ that a single combat piece could be designated to destroy the transports and allow the remaining units to perform offshore bombardment?

I suspect the poll would show most are not in favour of this.  I wonder if comments can be supplied as well as the poll answer?  I guess I will find out.

LOL, that reminds me of a T-shirt my friend was wearing the other day.  It said something like “I have multiple-personalities, and NONE of them like you!”

As to SAS’s point, I initially wondered why you would put transports on the battlestrip (has anyone actually used it?).  Had I thought more about it I probably would have answered my own earlier question.  You put them on because they could be lost in an offensive battle if the defender does more hits in a round then you have combat pieces.

You do an amphibious assault with 3 loaded transports, 2 DD and 4 bombers against 3 defending subs.  If the defender gets that 1 in 216 roll and gets 3 ones you would have to take off the 2 destroyers and 1 transport then retreat the other 2 unless you cleared the SZ.  I forget where I read a similiar example I’m basically just paraphrasing it.

If it was a combat and ship and not a defenseless transport then in Case #1 the fleet that could move through the SZ now would not be able to and would obviously have to stay in it’s entirety for THAT sea battle.  So yeah, I think changing my defenseless transport into a combat chip unneccesarily changes my scenario into something entirely different.   A defenseless transport and a combat ship really are two different things in this case.  Yoper’s explanation worked fine without having to change my scenario and add red herrings.  Breaking it down into combat movements, then actual combat seems obvious in retrospect.  You know a great idea (or explanation in this case) when you think “I should have thought of that!”.  Thanks again Yoper for pointing out what should have been obvious to me.

Still, that being said, I would like to see a rule modification whereby defenseless transports do not prevent offshore bombardment by requiring the entire fleet to fight.  Put even a single defending sub which could then just submerge would negate this even if you came in with 100 battleships.

Luckily this is a fairly rare situation I would think.

Yeah right, that’s how the values increased.  Very rarely did we finish games, it’s tough to hold somebody back who gets ahead unless everyone piles on!

I still have my game from the early 80s!  There were 9 nations that could be played in the mediterranean area.  Usually 5-7 people playing was perfect.  You would get trading cards for each city (up to a max of 9), each city would give you a trading card for 1 ordinal position, ie, 3 cities, 1 card each from the first 3 piles, 5 cities, 1 each from the first 5 piles.  Each pile and an ever increasingly valuable commodity.  Getting more of 1 commodity would increase your hand in multiples.  Ie 1 grain is worth 4, 2 grain cards is worth 16, 3 might be 48 (it was never an even multiple every increase).  You would then purchase ‘civilization’ tiles which were required for your nation to move up on a chart.  No dice, combat was symple attrition.

Yeah, pretty tough to do backstabbing in a 2 player game, unless one of you as multiple-personalities!

Yeah I’ll buy that one Yoper, nice distinction between combat movement and combat phase, it does alleviate about half my issue :-).  It’s a better angle on explanation of why the rule is the way it is than we’ve come up with locally on that I have heard on here so far.  It still bothers me somewhat that the bottom line explanation however is, “Because that is the rule” rather than a more reality based one.  I mean I played dungeons and dragons, if you say there are fireballs in your world then I will run with it.  But I would have a problem if there was a rule that said fireballs don’t ignite paper because THAT is the rule.  I still think that in the make believe world of AAA, if a transport can kill an unlimited amount of transports by itself in one scenario, then it should in the other scenario but like you said KISS.

Of all the rules I think are questionable, ummm actually I think this is the only one.  That is pretty damn awesome me thinks.  I would like to see a change of rule on this one personally.

Again, why do you keep changing an undefended transport to a defending combat ship, I mean why stop there, why not change it into a tank or a conversation about strategic bombing….

OK, let me make it a bit more absurd.

Case #1 A fleet moves from SZ 10 to 11 finds an enemy transport (no friggin DD OK), one sub stays in SZ 11 to dispatch it, the rest of the fleet moves to SZ 12 and performs an amphibious assault and the battleships can bombard as they didn’t have to fight the transport in SZ 11

Case #2 The same fleet starts out in SZ 12 fully loaded with an enemy transport present.  Now to dispatch this same undefended transport it requires all the capital ships?

Again, the only difference is, case #1 the fleet was moving through then doing an amphibious assault .  Case #2 the fleet doesn’t even have to move.  Even if you forget the movement issue, which in theory should favour the stationary fleet (more time to perform search and destroy if you don’t have to move into the territory to do it…just saying…).  Why in case #1 can a single ship accomplish the task and in case #2 it cannot.  Just keep it simple and don’t add in enemy combat ships…

I used to play Diplomacy at a friday night games club in the mid 80s.  It’s a fun game but it can go on for too long if the ‘diplomacy’ sessions go on for too long.  To have a good game requires a fair number of players and some rooms for privacy.  The games club was awesome as there were lots of people playing other games, it was easy to get lost for a bit and talk some backstabbing with an ally?

It’s been a long time but from what I recall, you only had 3-5 pieces to start, either land or navy.  lots of territories but only some had ‘power points’ or whatever the official term was.  Seasons would go by (turns) and at certain times of year you counted the power points you had and that was how many units you would then have.

Winning required having more units supporting a battle then the other side, units rarely got destroyed in battle unlessthey could not retreat, and only 1 unit per territory.

So, you have 1 Brit unit in territory #1 (T1) that wants to move in against a german unit in territory #2 (T2) but you have no other units.  You ask your buddy the Russian to support you as he has a unit in T3.  He does, you write your orders on a paper, so does he, you both put them in the hat and move off.  You write T1 to T2 basically and he writes T3 supports T1 into T2 on his paper.  You both go on your merry way to another room, you lose track of your ‘buddy’ the russian who is now talking to the Germany about your attack.  So, you now rewrite your orders…, you grab a new paper and write down "These orders supercede the orders of T3 supports T1 into T2, the new orders are T3 supports T2 into T1!!  You backstab the brit and help the German, and then you go on your merry way back to the brit!!!  And you tell him you are setting up the german by pretending to backstab the brit, you write up new orders and so on and so on, thus the time limit per turn.

Well I understand that about a combat ship, after all, you often have to sacrafice a destroyer to block an enemy fleet from attacking a vulnerable fleet.  I wouldn’t want to get into the complexities of figuring out what proportion of fleet is required to trackdown a given target.  But introducing a combat ship on defense into my scenario is changing everything.  My point was.  Case #1, 1 combat ship can move 1 space with a fleet, kill 1 million undefended transports while the rest of the fleet moves on.  Case #2 1 combat ship while not even having to move in theory, cannot seem to track down a single transport and thus requires possibly dozens of surface ships to manage this task thus preventing 1 single battlship from being able to forgo the pursuit of said single transport and provide bombardment to support a landing.

What is it about the nature of offshore bombardment that all of a sudden makes this transport require all the ships to kill it rather than just one?

Obviously, I will play by the rules as stated.  I’m just saying……it doesn’t quite seem to make sense to me, but rest assured, I will get over it…:-)

Perhaps not a contradiction in the written rule but as to the rationale for the differences in rules. I guess the contradiction for me is WHY in 1 case 1 single unit can clear transports while in the other it requires the entire navy.  In the first case a single unit can move 1 seazone and by itself clear out an infinate number of transports.  In the second case, in theory, a navy could find itself in the same sea zone as a single enemy transport, and just because 1 or more units assault an enemy coast, it now requires the entire navy to hunt down a single enemy transport even though no ships even have to move to a different seazone, easier me things then having to move across an ocean to do the same thing as in the first case.

So, I am in sync with how everyone else plays the rules, that is good.  I just question in this case the logic behind the different rules in these similiar situations.

I think Germany is screwed!  OK, my first 6 games of 1942 we used the optional rule to close off the Black Sea as it really was during WWII apparently.  No russian sub builds for the Mediterranean.  I’m not sure how many of you folks use the optional rule and our group figured we best learn to play without the rule.

In a previous post I outlined how Germany with that optional rule in place builds a mediterranean carrier + another transport and on G1 used the battleship to knock out the brit destroyer, 2 fighters for the cruiser, sub for lone transport and fighter and bomber for the brit battleship.  2 lost german fighters on G1 is typical after losing 1 on R1 leaving only 3.  The baltic subs move up and its a bit scarey for Britain to build navy just yet.

So now without using that optional rule, I as the allies build 2 russian subs on R1 and ensure both fighters can hit the German navy.  Germany doesn’t want to split their navy so doesn’t attack Egypt.  Now on G1 the 2 fighters not previously used against the brit navy are used against the destroyer in the mediterranean and then land on the carrier.  With the 2 russian subs a german destroyer is required at some point and won’t be able to be built on G2 as the navy probably moves to SZ 15 leaving a newly built destroyer to face 2 russian subs and perhaps a plane or two.  If you are brave perhaps even a sub, a heck of an investment in german navy but economically it seems to pay for itself in africa, but at what cost of momentum against the russians?

Even with my buddy getting a bit lucky as Germany, taking out the entire british navy in the mediterranean and atlantic losing only 1 plane the axis still seems doomed.

As the Allies I go KGF hard with the exception of the British Indian fleet which hangs around S. Africa to keep the Japs honest in that area.

R1 builds are 2 subs 4 INF, 2 attacks Ukraine and west russia, slowly pull back from Japanese forces but don’t run.

Britain can’t defend a newly built navy against 3 subs and 3 fighters and a bomber that can hit in all sea zones except 2 and 3.  I like to take out the Baltic transport and destroyer in the first round as the brit air assests on england can’t attack anything else, there is always that 1/3 chance of losing a plane.  If you build a sub and wait until the second turn Germany just attacks the sub with the destoryer as he loses it anyways, might as well take out the sub and maybe a plange to kill it next turn!  Building in 2 and 3 means you cannot link the US and Brit navies in one move so I build NOTHING save maybe 1 sub.  Britain moves the Indian ocean fleet to sea zone 33 taking the infantry from Persian and TransJorden to Rhodesia,  The sub from SZ 40 goes to 30, the transport from 40 to 42 to entice the Jap to use the sub there rather than against Pearl Harbour.  Evacuate Egypt as Germany has 10 land units that can hit it,  Pull south to ensure 2 german tanks won’t blitz, make Germany move south 1 territory per turn to buy time.

USA builds 2 Carriers, 1 sub, 1 destroyer in the atlantic.  Pearl harbour has left the Pacific with 1 BB and it can be threatened by the jap fighters from the carrier, a BB and transport against 2 fighters is an economic win by Japan by 5 IPC on average so I pair the BB with the destoyer in zone 20, hence the build of a destroyer.  I’d leave the Pacific sub to harasses and keep the Japs honest with transports, make 'em buy at least 1 DD.

Round 2:
Russia: 
Builds are all Infantry, maybe 1 art.  The russian subs have to move to SZ 34 to get out of danger from the german fleet.  The rest are moves of opportunity.

Germany:
Builds:  All infantry save for maybe 1 Art.  Germany moves more forces to africa taking Egypt and probably Transjorden by moving the fleet and does what it can in Europe and for now there is NO allied threat to west europe.  All 4 subs to SZ 13

Britain: 
Instant navy time.  Even with 2 US carriers and the entire US fleet including the BB, the allied navy is barely strong enough to move to SZ 12 on turn 3 which is the first goal….Africa.  Germany will keep her fleet in SZ 14.  That means germany can attack SZ 12 with 4 subs, 1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 Bomber and 3 fighters assuming no more navy or airforce is built on G2 and typical losses against 2 CVs, 4 Ftr, 1 Cruiser, 1 BB, 2 DD and 1 sub.  A slight allied advantage according the simulator.  Add just 1 more german sub or an extra fighter now its an axis advantage.  Add in the fact half a dozen transports sink and the allies are set back 2 turns and Germany HAS to attack.  Britain needs a few combat ships and already has 2 fighters, a CV seems natural.  The US could build just 1 CV as it only has 3 fighters at this point, but even with 1 fighter, 14 IPC gets you 2 units, the fighter you already own plus the CV, defense of 6, better than 2 destroyers…So, builds…1 CV, 1 DD, 1 Sub (always nice to pair with a DD when hunting other subs), 3 transports, 1 tank and 2 INF.  Navy builds in SZ 8
Moves: Since Japan probably did pearl harbour the navy in 33 and sub 30 all move to 34 with the russian subs, two strong for the German navy to attack since only 2 planes should be able to hit and with 3 subs, a cruiser and fully loaded carrier, me thinks neither germany nor Japan can attack at this point.  If Germany can attack, you better make sure you take one side of the suez canal or else don’t move up!

Japan even while left alone really can’t do too much too quickly yet, The British Indian ocean navy keeps them honest in that area for now.

The US of A
Builds, 1 transport the rest mostly infantry, a few tanks and artillary.  Hold off building the 5th transport, each transport you build requires 2 loads of equipment that turn as well, one to go and one to move towards E. Canada for pick up from the fleet in SZ 12.  Also, I like to flow some units from W. USA to W. Canada then to E. Canada just so the Japs don’t pull a prick shot and land in alaska.  Always build tanks in W. USA unless you also build a transport to move it, that way it moves to E. Canada in 1 turn or counter attacks in Alaska, with a few infantry steadily marching up the west coast, Japan with think twice about playing games!

The US now moves its navy from SZ 10 to 8 SZ 20 to 8.  Now you set up the shuck from E. Canada to Algeria.

Turn 3

Russia, nothing unique, targets of opportunity, slowly pull away from unfavourable combat with the Japs, pressure Germany.  Builds, mostly infantry, always 1 art maybe 2-3, maybe a tank.  Russia always needs a few tanks.

Germany…
Builds have to be infantry.  With the allied navy now a threat against europe it has to be defended.  The only hope in Africa is to lump as much as you can into Libya to counter strike the allied landing in Algeria or try to defend Algeria from landings in the first place, tough to do if you want income around egypt…  Even if you are too strong in Algeria for them to land, the allies just land a smaller force into French West Africa.  Smaller as the US navy from SZ 8 won’t reach, but could go to 18 to be ready to assault into south Africa the next turn or Shuck to England.

England: 
Builds mostly infantry then more tanks to catch up to the waves of infantry moving across africa.
Shuck into Africa then into Norway as opportunities present (ie, german navy and airpower not able to threaten a split navy).  England should concentrate on Norway as its a single move shuck where for the US its not.

The US:
Builds all land forces 6 INF and 4 tanks is the 38 or so IPCs the US will on average get.  5 Transports is all you need for shucking to Algeria.  A few extras are nice to move a few units to Norway, having just a few US units up that ways helps for especially when combined with some airpower, what the US fails to get the USSR usually can finish up and collect the IPCs.

So at this point the allies are on auto-pilot.  They retake africa, don’t need to attack the german navy as once the german army is destroyed or pushed out of Africa and allied forces flow across north africa there is nothing 2 transports and 4 land units can do to affect africa, at best, the german navy defends against prick shot landings in S. Europe at worst it ties up 2 german fighters on defense.  The economic advantage is with the allies and they also seem to be dictating the terms of engagement.  Japan while strong can’t grow much past 45 IPC/turn and is always just 1-2 turns away from putting away the USSR then once the allied forces move across Africa and into south asia its pretty much over, the writing on the wall for the Axis.

So, should Germany just forget about africa and not build a navy? The invesment in German navy does force the allies to build more navy then they would have to otherwise.  The income from Africa does seem to repay the investment in navy and forces moved to Africa.  But at what lost opportunities?

I would like to take a moment to thank Imperious Leader for the fine work on the map!  I took the image to a local printer who printed it out on a rigid plastic foam underlay with lamenation.  A beautiful job!  I’m a bit worried about the edges so I might frame it and perhaps cover it in plexiglass.  Don’t ask me how much it cost, probably way way too much but well worth it at even twice the price!  Again, job extremely well done!

Ah yes, pretty black and white, missed it.  Thanks!