Posts made by Narvik

I agree that the National Objectives are too much. They should have made the map balanced without NO,s, and then let the NO,s be optional just like in Anniversary 50. If you skip the NO,s now, I figure both Germany and USA will be severely underpowered. Maybe just cut down the unnecessary ones. I never did understand how Germany could squeeze 7 IPC out of Leningrad after they bombed the city, killed all men and burned the land, while the original owner never got more than 2 IPC in peacetime. But that said, its hard to model the Swedish iron ore trade without a NO. And how about USA, should we print new values on the map, or just give USA a wartime bonus ?

You should add a poll

I totally agree with Black Elk, the new system with major and minor IC,s is just ridiculous. They should have stayed to the classic system and let the IPC value of the territory decide how many units you could mobilize there. Then you could place 8 units in a 8 IPC territory and one unit in a 1 IPC territory. Easy and simple to understand. And the SBR damage would be cut at the double value of the territory. Of course the cost of purchasing a new factory should depend on the IPC value of the territory. Maybe even Ports and Airbases capacity should be connected to the IPC value of the territory ?

IMHO the separate Europe and Pacific games is balanced as is. But it was way wrong, maybe even borderline derogatory, to clash two different games together and name it Global. They really should have made one specific Global game with its own unique set up and Rulebook. And in this Global game, UK should be one player with one economy and one Capital. Just like USA, Germany and USSR. You don’t see USSR split up with Ukraine, Buriatya and Irkutsk as separate economies, so why should the British Empire be split up with small colonies as separate economies ?

Of course the current Global set up will be unbalanced if you houserule UK as one economy. The Designer should have made Global a unique game from the start. So if you make UK one player, and I suggest to include Canada, India, ANZAC and every colony UK had before 1939, then you must change the starting set up too. As for the issue about UK mobilizing all units in UK, I figure the IC limit will stop that. And even more if we skip the major minor thing, and let the IPC value of the territory decide how many units to place.

Just out of curiosity what are the rational reason you made the distance Berlin-Paris equal with Berlin-Moscow ? In my map Moscow is twice as far away as Paris. On top of that, the Western Europe got a lot of railways and roads that make movement easy, while in Russia the lack of roads and difficult terrain make movement a pain. So if Berlin-Paris is 4 spaces, I would make Berlin-Moscow 8 spaces, at least on my map.

I agree with the Monster of course, and IMHO the only minor IC that pay off for Germany is in Jugoslavia so you can put a tranny there and sail a man over to Egypt and collect the 5 IPC NO.

@robbie358:

Personally, I’d have to say it’s Midway.�  If the US and not the Japanese carriers had been destroyed, if Midway had been occupied and another attack on Hawaii organized from there…

I think World War II would have gone very different.

Most historians say Midway changed the war because it proved that Japan was so weak that the US forces already present in the Pacific were strong enough to keep them at bay, so the main 80 % of US military production could be used against Germany. And come to think about it, Japan did build zero new warships during the war, US build 200 new Carriers. I figure a Japanese victory at Midway would have set back US one or two months. But what you say, is a totally new way of thinking, since now Japan would take Hawaii too, and from there walked ashore on the Western Coast and shoot down every Yankee one by one ? Just like in A&A when US is empty and you land one inf there, game over  :-D

@Gargantua:

Quick notes on a London subdued,

• Total control of the middle east would ensue
• Total control of the Mediterranean would be available for Italy, and potentially spain.

The theatres should really be separated for this question.

So you are sure that Churchill would never dare to establish a government in exile in Canada, so he could keep on commanding and supplying the Mediterean units from Canada, USA, South Africa, India, Australia and the other Commonwealth countries ? You take for granted that the real war is like the A&A war, take the capital and you win the war ?

@Gargantua:

Quick notes on a London subdued,

• NO lend lease would come to Russia

Only 10 % of the LendLease come through Murmansk. Most of it come through Persia and 25 % come through Vladivostok in the Sovjet Far East. So if London is subdued, then Russia lose the 10 % from Murmansk.

@Gargantua:

I agree the battle for Moscow was critical.  But I believe the battle for Britain was far more important.

Had the axis won over Britain, and either starved/surrendered her out, or subsequently conquered it.  The axis would have had total domination over all of Europe, with no need to keep anything in check, and the subsequent battle of Moscow would have been a decisive axis victory.

German air power would have been entirely thrown at the Reds, and I think it would have been enough…

Nahhh… I don’t agree

Lets imagine the Germans did conquer England too in the 1940 campaign, what would it change ? Would Germany suddenly get all the Middle East oil delivered on their doorstep ? Or would they be stuck with a worthless island with 50 million hungry Brits who did not grow their own food, but had to be fed by their Conquer ? It would for sure make for a fast and early US entry into the war.

How would this change the Barbarossa campaign ? Would they need less troops for occupation duty in France, Norway and the Balkans, or more, now that they had to occupy UK too? Would Germany still need to build an Atlantic Wall to keep the Yankees and Canadians out of Europe ?

but for the sake of discussion, lets say a possible peace treaty with UK and France would keep USA and Canada out, and give Germany 50 more divisions to use in Russia, how would that turn out ? In the historical Barbarossa they were not short of men, they were short of supply and oil. The railroads and dirtroads in Russia could barely supply the historical force, how could they succeed in supplying 50 more divisions ? The Germans did not loose the Battle of Moscow because they were short of men and tanks, they lost because Hitler made a U-turn and redirected all his combat forces into…Ukraine,…and not because the cornfields of Ukraine suddenly was identified as the ultimate decisive spot in the world, but because Hitler suddenly got fixed with the idea that Moscow was a trap. And even if Ukraine was a great victory, at this point the Germans were for sure short of supply and oil, since in the winter a truck use seven times more fuel to drive a set distance.

So what I don’t get, is why should Hitler not do the same mistake again, if UK was occupied or not ?

It was of course the battle of Moscow, since it told who would win in the main and decisive front, and making all other fronts irrelevant

The game is designed to be balanced, so if both buy the same stuff, it will be a stalemate for sure.

The best land combo IMHO is 4 inf, 1 art and 1 tank, now you got both punch and fodder to a fair cost.
But if the front moves away from you, you will need speed and range too, then buy 6 mech and 1 tank. After that you need planes

@ABWorsham:

Churchill proposed an invasion of Northern Norway and Sweden in 1939 to remove half of Germany iron ore. As a new leader he did not have credibility to get this invasion quickly planned before the Germans reacted.

How does the war progress if the Allied Expeditionary Force invades Norway and Sweden?

I was reading this over again. I don’t think it would be possible with an Allied invasion during 1939. Since the mountains are pretty much impassable during winter, which is from October to April, the invasion would have to be done from the start of the war in September and finished before October. This was not likely to happen. The first window of opportunity opened in November when Russia attacked Finland. But in the case of Finland, snow and ice was a necessity for a successful campaign, since that part of Finland is impassable swamps and marshes during summer. In Norway it is the other way around, since mountains are impassable during winter. And that give Britain a first possible D-day on April 8th 1940, the day before Germany did actually attack Norway.

The reason Britain did not attack on April 8th is IMHO that they got reports of a German breakout into the sea, so they ditched the infantry already onboard, and sailed to intercept the German fleet. But as w know, the Germans had then walked down the gangway in all major Norwegian ports. And they could do so because the ports were not defended. But here comes the twist. Next day Britain sailed in 25 000 troops bound for the Narvik area, but they was not able to kick out the 1900 Germans, because at that time Britain lacked landing ships and landing crafts. And you can not amphibious assault a defended coast without landing crafts, as proven in the Normandy landings 1944.

So basically the 25 000 Allied troops sat in the port of Harstad waiting for landing crafts to be build and this took 7 weeks, before they ware able to invade Narvik late in June , by then defended by 40 Germans. In the meantime 10 000 Norwegians equipped with winter gear and trained in mountain warfare, were pushing the bulk of the Germans towards the Swedish border.

I figure, if the Brits had landed in Narvik April 8th 1940 and walked down the gangway as friends, the Germans would for sure be cut of from the iron ore. But if the Norwegian socialist government had declared war, then I cant see how the Brits could have been able to break out from Narvik and cross the mountain range over to Sweden. None of the total 35 000 Brits, French and Polish soldiers in Norway 1940 had winter equipment nor training in mountain warfare. The last blizzard was in may, and they would be stuck in Narvik until then, surrounded by a Norwegian mountain division. And on the other side of the border, 320 000 Swedish soldiers, also trained in winter and mountain warfare, would wait for them, protecting the iron mines. So Churchills plan could only work if Norway and Sweden did cooperate volunterely

@toblerone77:

To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not like four-engined bombers because it basically cost 2-2.5 Heinkels for one Condor for example.

And that is good wisdom. If you want as much bang for your 60 IPC as possible, you buy 6 Fighters, not 5 Bombers. You only buy Bombers if you need the extra range. Fortunately to Germany, everything they needed to destroy were in their neighborhood, so no need for the extra range

Suggestions for Sweden, green, and Spain or Portugal brown

Just buy AA WWI 1914, and you get lots of pieces you can use for Turkey, Sweden, Spain etc

Attached a pic of the Turkey units,

@knp7765:

It’s any territory that has either a UK symbol or Canada symbol.
One thing I have seen happen a few times is Italy dropping an infantry on Cyprus just to deny UK that NO and really ruffle their feathers.

Good thinking out ot the Box, I’ll try that NeXT game :-)

@CWO:

A British invasion of Norway wouldn’t necessarily have made Norway jump into the Axis camp.  For example, when Britain occupied Iceland to preclude the possibility of Germany seizing it, Iceland didn’t react by becoming an ally of Germany.Â

I believe a Brit invasion of Norway would start a civil war. Half the Norwegian labor force were sailors, and depended on trade with USA and Britain, and the Norwegian king and Queen were in close family with the British royalty, so this part of Norway would for sure support Britain no matter what. On the other hand, we have major Qwizling, leader of the Nazi party, and he got support from half the Norwegian Army. They did not resist the German invasion, some places they even helped the Germans. And as soon the war ended, they joined SS and went to the Eastern Front to kill commies.

Sweden is another issue. the Swedish King was a true Nazi and even supported the German attack on Norway, making bad relation between us for many years after WWII. Sweden were also depended on trading iron ore, steel and weapons against food and oil, so if the convoy line to Germany was cut, Sweden would starve.

Depending on when Britain would invade Narvik, the mountains are impassable during winter, I figure they would be kicked out pretty fast.

@Imperious:

What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?

This is an Attached pic of a German 4 engine bomber, proving that Germany did build them from 1937 and onwards.

The question should be, why didn’t they build a million 4 engine bombers ?

And the answer on that should be, the Germans are thieves, they conquer and occupy other peoples territory, enslave the people and steal their resources. Now, if the Germans were Destroyers of the Worlds, then they would build a million 4 engine Bombers and ruin everything within range

Its a stupid rule. Not even in the real war could a single Destroyer deny a fleet of hundreds of ships to embark soldiers from a port. Its like a battalion of Marines would not dare to embark a Tranny in Los Angeles because a Japanese destroyer was spotted 200 miles off the West coast, and the Marines did not have faith in that the hundreds of Battleships, Cruisers, Fleet Carries with hundreds of planes, Destroyers etc were able to protect the Port of LA.

derogatory bedlam, fix with house rules

Of course the Germans could have build 4 engined Bombers if they wanted to. A chimp could do that.

But in this specific war, the German war objective and goal was to conquer and occupy territory, not to destroy it.

However they did build the Condor in case they needed to bomb USA. But this would not be necessary before they had actually conquered most of Europe and Asia. But at that time they got something better than bombers, namely rockets V2