Posts made by Narvik

Lets look at the Russian attack at Manchuria 1945. Russia attacked with 1.600 000 men and took 9000 casualties. Japan defended with 1.200 000 men and took 90 000 casualties. How can anybody, with this numbers in mind, believe that fighting in Japan mainland will cost millions of American lives ? In Europe the American soldier was 1 to 1 with the German soldier, while the German soldier was superior on 1 to 7 against the Russian soldier. Also during the Korean war, the American soldier was superior to the Chinese and Russians. And we know the Russian soldier was superior to the Japanese.
Look at the TDI reports at http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/

The numbers talk

I figure the Allies would lose 200 000 men, and Japan lose 8 million.

If we compare to the Korean war, the western allies USA, UK, Canada and ANZAC lost 180 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers. The Commie allies North Korea, Sovjet Union and China lost 600 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers, plus 3 million civilians. The Commies had short supply lines and were defending their homes, but the western weapons, training and tactic were superior.

Japan was depending on ships for 90 % of their consume, and in 1945 they were strangled by the blockade, and USAF had bombed all industry. There were no way Japan could supply any fighting force with guns and ammo in 1945. Even if they had high morale and would fight to the dead, they would be using sticks and knives, against tanks, artillery and aircrafts. It would look like the Roarkes Drift were 5000 Zulu warriors was defeated by 137 Brits with rifles.

Yes, its easy to agree with Manstein and Rendulic. But AH,s grand mistake IMHO was too many fronts. If its true that Sovjet Union was the main threat to the security of Germany, then the Eastern Front would be decisive, and it would be rational to allocate all resources to that decisive front. But only 60 % of Germanys military force was used there, and this was unnecessary, because Germany had good flank protection both to north and south. It was no need to use half a million men in Norway and Finland, because Sweden was pro-Germany and would protect the iron ore mines against the Allies. And there were no need to use a million men in Balkans neither, because Greece would never allow UK to bomb the Ploesti oil fields from Greek territory, but AH did not trust the Swedes nor the Greeks. After the Vichy government was installed, it was no need to have a million men in France either. And to declare war against neutral USA and use so many resources in the Atlantic was plain stupid, and would only serve to strengthen an obvious defeat. On top of that, AH even made a domestic front, against the Jews.

To wrap it up, Germanys best bet to win would be to ignore Norway, the Balkans, North Africa, the Atlantic and the Jews, and commit all 5 million men of the Army and Airforce, together with the one million allied soldiers, and go straight for Moscow. That would be a cut-throat victory, making everything else irrelevant. But then, AH would not be AH.

@Spirou:

@coachofmany:

UK Set, U.S. Set, Axis Minor Set, Facilities, French WW2, then French WW1

I’m really looking forward to the facilities set, what you got online looks great!

I second that, and this set should be next IMHO, I don’t need any more Japanese infantry, I need plastic factories

OK, but do you have a comment to my allworldwars link ?

I post a terrain map of Europe, so you see the mountain ranges I am talking bout

I love it, much better than the OOB.

I am your old buddy Eagle, so I would like to see territories that have high mountains and swamps cut in a way that they affect the play.

France and Northern Italy should not be adjacent, even if it is for playability. If you look at a real map, you see the high impassable Alps stand as a stone wall and stop all movement. I like the A&A Europe 1999 ed map, where Vichy France, Switzerland, Austria and Jugoslavia would make natural flank protection to Northern Italy. The Brenner Pass is a bottleneck, you know.

I would also like to see a territory between Southern France and mainland Spain, modeling the Pyrenees mountain range, Norway should be cut in two or three, Turkey too, and Caucasus should get cut in two, modeling the mountain range.

I attached two pics, but must run, come back to you tomorrow

@wittmann:

Captain Mitchell: can I ask which country’s flag you have used on your avatar?
Mine is a German Panzer Ace.

People,s Liberation Army Navy

Its the flag used by the Chinese navy from 1950 to present

@KurtGodel7:

Von Manstein was a brilliant man frustrated by the less-than-stellar decisions made by his intellectual inferiors (just about everyone else).

I guess he talks about AH as the less intellectual ?

Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic blame AH too, for his less-than-stellar decisions.

see link

http://www.allworldwars.com/A-reflection-on-the-Causes-of-the-German-Defeat-by-Rendulic.html

@KurtGodel7:

To address some of the specific issues which had been raised: victory for Germany would have meant security against foreign invasion. This security could not have been achieved by simply waiting on events. To the east, the long-term goal of Soviet foreign policy was world conquest. The FDR administration was strongly pro-Soviet; as was the government of France. There were many influential people in Britain who wanted that nation to adopt a pro-Soviet foreign policy; and by 1939 they’d become much more effective in influencing British policy than they’d been in '38.

In such an environment, it would have been highly risky for Germany to rely on the good intentions of its neighbors for its own security. The diplomatic situation was unstable; and all that was needed was some spark to give the pro-war/pro-Soviet faction in the West an excuse to intervene.

If this is what AH wrote in Mein Kampf he could have fooled me. So you tell me it was necessary to kill and ethnical clean all German Jews to achieve domestic security, and to invade Russia, kill and ethnical clean 30 million Slaves and make Lebensraum to achieve security against communism, then kill and ethical clean all people in the rest of the world that was not Arian, just to achieve security to the German nation ? It sounds to me AH was building an empire, not securing a country, but as I said, he could have fooled me.

Lets look at your other facts. It is true that Lenin wanted world domination, but you tell me Stalin wanted it too ? Stalin is not the man who said - Lets build socialism in Russia, and let the other people manage themselves, after the failure in the Spanish civil war ? And you tell me that the capitalist nations USA & UK did not help Germany build up its military forces as a buffer to the communist Sovjet Union ? The only time USA & UK did help Sovjet Union was after AH had start a world war and attacked both UK, Russia and USA, and forced them to be allies. You sir, read the wrong books.

IMHO I figure the best way for Germany to achieve security would have been to build a strong defensive military force, that would deterrent any attack because of the high cost, and then make trade agreements with as many nations as possible, maybe even join alliances with democratic nations like UK and France, and most important of all, quit racist hate speeches against Jews and non-Arians. But as I said, my intellect is less compared to Manstein, so I may be wrong, man

I am not sure what I am reading here, Kurt, you say Hitler had no choice than to start a world war and kill 6 million Jews because that was the only way to make Germany a safe place ?

I love it

@mattsk:

Hi,

1. what game do you suppose to play with this rule ?

2. IMHO mines should be operational even after the NB was damadged, since damadge to a NB doesnt affect mines at all.

1. Any A&A games with Naval Bases in play

2. Playability. The 1914 minefield rule is too time consuming, you have to roll a die against each ship, and only the rare 1 is a hit. Its not even historical accurate, since in real war you would clear the minefield with a sweeper, or if your first ship blow the mine, the mine is used. A mine can not re-load and blow another ship, like you can with a gun. So its better to say a minefield is one roll. If it miss, then we imagine the field got sweeped. If it hit, it sink one ship, and are used.

Because they survive one turn.

When that is said, IMHO I figure we would be better off if the resources spent on 7 different nation specific AA-guns was used on the French units, and that the old AA-gun mold was used but in nation specific colors, like they did in AA Guadalcanal. Or that the Russian battleship was given a French look and not the floating gas station look. Or the whole Russian navy was looking French. etc etc The giant Aussie look weird too.

"How many rounds to finish a game ? "

Including the new topic of cheating ?

I figure you must add half an hour for every time someone cheat.

In case you want my humble opinion, (otherwise just ignore it) I agree with CWO Marc, too much is too much. Very few people want a game in the game. No nation should get more than 3 NO,s each, or else it will be what we in Norway call putting fat on a pork. Yes, it sounds better in my language. I really dislike when an attacker receive more money out of a bombed, burned and plundered territory, than the owner can do in peacetime. Its just not that way it work in real wars. Its oil and steel that keep an army floating, not the vigor and morale booster the population get from watching propaganda movies of killed enemy children. So I love the idea of supply line NO,s

Germany should get iron ore NO from Sweden, oil NO from Romania and while at peace the Trade NO with Russia. They don’t need a carrot NO for Moscow or any other victory city, since they will attack it anyway if they want to win the game.

Russia should get 3 Lend Lease NO,s when at war. A pipeline from UK to Archangelsk, another from Persia to Stalingrad, and possible one from Alaska to Sovjet Far East, since this is the historical correct Lend Lease routes from the real war. Its just silly that Russia can get NO,s from poor Eastern Europe states, and even twice as much as the original owner. And the 10 IPC one time NO for Berlin is just derogatory bedlam.

UK should get convoy route NO. Its two ways, one for keeping the Atlantic free of subs, and another for the Med. The other way is to give UK a NO for holding a pipeline from Canada to UK, and identify a set number of seazones that have to be free of subs. I like the pipeline model better than the all Atlantic model. Then a pipeline from India to Gibraltar, or from Africa. Need some thinking. Anyway the OOB maintenance of the empire NO is silly and must go.

etc etc you get my point.

You never quit, now do you ?

But I see your point, Ge add 5 more Mechs for a possible one more hit, and UK fly in 5 more Fighters for a possible 4 more hits, and this will unbalance the 200 + units battle so much we will have to run the numbers again, from scratch. Got that.

All facilities from A&A 40 have inherent Anti-Air fire. So if you want to SBR a port, that port defend against your planes.

If you want to attack a territory with Port in the A&A 1914, your ships must cross a naval minefield.

Both A&A D-day and 1914 have Coastal Guns that fire preemptive against your landing party.

The minefield rule is too time consuming, having to roll a die to each and every attacking ship, but what if a Port had 2 naval rolls and 3 AA rolls, and not operational after 3 SBR hits ?

My suggestion
When your fleet amphibious assault a territory with a Naval Base, or attack an enemy fleet in a seazone protected by a Naval Base, the NB will roll 2 preemptive rolls, each 2 or less a hit. One roll is the minefield, the other roll is a coastal gun. If the NB got more than 3 hits from SBR, the mines and guns are no longer in function.

Now the attacker will need to add one or two extra destroyers to the fleet, to clear the minefield and the coastal gun.
But will it add to the game ?

The A&A Classic from the 80,s had a great house rule named Bridging. It had in my basement, for sure.

Lets say you have a tranny in sz 110 that was not used in combat nor has it moved. Then it can bridge 4 land units from UK to Normandy during non-combat.

The rationale is that a tranny have 4 action points. 1 embark +1 move +1 move + 1 debark = 4 points.
Now if that tranny is used for non-combat  bridging in sz 110, it will be 1 embark +1 debark + 1 embark + 1 debark = 4 points.
So far so fair.

With OOB rules, a tranny can 1>embark in EUS 2>sz 102 3>sz 103 4> sz 91 and 5>debark in Morocco = 5 action points
With OOB rules, a tranny in sz 110 is only allowed to 1>embark in UK and 2> debark in Normandy = 2 action points.

This is not fair. It takes 14 days and a lot of fuel to cross the Atlantic, but only 4 hours to cross the Channel.

My question is, should non-combat bridging need a Port ?
Both UK and Normandy have ports, and Germany bridging from WG to Norway is ok, but what about bridging units from Norway to WG, should it be allowed ?

@Alfalfa29:

What if the Germans waged a war only against the Soviet Union, perhaps by baiting the aggressive Russians into initiating the combat to avoid British/French intervention? If victorious, they would solidly establish themselves as the dominant power in all of the Eurasian continent, and in an exceptional position for a later war.

That is exactly what Hitler tried to do, he even wrote about it in Mein Kampf, and had Lebensraum in the East as political goal when he was elected. Too bad Poland ruined his great plans. Yes, if Poland had voluntarily just submitted to the Great Reich, then the Brits would have no reason to start another world war. But to put Sovjet union into submission is another thing. King Winter is a formidable opponent, he stopped the Swedes in 1700, Napoleon in 1812, Britain, France and Turkey in 1850, the Germans in WWI and the coalition of USA, Britain, France and the Whites in the Civil war 1919, and the Germans again in 1940. And USA did not dare to even try during the Cold War.