@Cow:
boasting is awesome
that’s what I’m sayin :-D pure awesome sauce!!! :mrgreen:
Would be interested in seeing how your game goes. Keep me posted. Oh and by the way I am an expert bro.
:lol:
re: soulfein - There are moderators, and they are active.
This whole thing is surreal. It’s like debating the use of a frying pan as a weapon on a modern battlefield.
Yes, if all your equipment got blown off you by an explosion, and you happen to find a frying pan, ok, better than nothing. Or if you got captured and managed to free yourself and there’s a frying pan, ok, again.
But now we’re talking about training people in the use of frying pans as weapons, of preparing to receive massed human waves armed with frying pans - and all so seriously, like this is about to happen any moment.
THE FRYING PAN MENACE!
If you’re a good soldier, you will be prepared to meet the frying pan menace. You will carry your own frying pan with you at all times. You will drill with your frying pan, train with your frying pan, sleep with your frying pan. If you are on a battlefield, and you have to choose between your rations, your medical supplies, your radio, your rifle, and your frying pan, you WILL choose your frying pan, and you WILL like it, because a soldier without a frying pan is nothing.
Enemy combatants armed with frying pans are the most serious threat you can face. If you have a choice between facing an enemy minefield, an enemy rifleman, an enemy tank, or an enemy frying pan, choose anything except the enemy frying pan, because those frying pans are deadly. Whole new schools of strategy, operations, and tactics need to be developed, and developed now, because we are frankly unprepared to meet with this incredible, unforeseen, and deadly frying pan threat.
We may be able to meet this threat by melting down 50% of our tanks, rifles, and aircraft to make our own frying pans, or maybe 80%, and hiring Martha Stewart IMMEDIATELY as our Commander in Chief of Armed Forces.
STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS ON THE FRYING PAN MENACE!
True, the scenario doesn’t appear on every game
It should never happen, and it would never influence general strategy on my part.
Either you are going hard early Eurasia press with Axis, in which case the Allies diverting south is a gift to Germany. Of course I know you’re not proposing that; you specified as much in your OP.
Or you are going economic route via Africa/Pacific income, developing Germany and Japan income early and aiming for late game mass Jap push, and Ger and Jap air in Europe to lock Allied fleet and combine defense, in which case Allies diverting south isn’t a “gift” if the Soviets don’t overcommit, but still usually serves little point. If you overcommit, Germans push early. If you don’t overcommit, the Soviets should hit an absolute dead end at French Indochina. In no event should a Jap IC be shut down early. Later, it can be allowed even at cost of Japan IC knockout for a turn, if the Axis can cut at Persia to neutralize Soviet ability to reunify its tanks with the mass of its forces.
In the second case in particular, Japan should be pressing on French Indochina Burma at any event, so it isn’t as if Japan has to go out of its way to stall out the Soviet advance. It just happens completely naturally; Japan should be working towards Persia anyways. Germany, of course, can take advantage of developing opportunities, so again nothing unnatural happens. The Axis develop their game as normal, and don’t have to do anything in particular different.
But look at all the good stuff the Soviets give up in Europe. If you commit to India, you slash your ability vs Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine, and even the key West Russia. India is far far out of line. Even Persia is usually not convenient due to Jap attack possibilities. (If you protect Soviet tanks with infantry at Persia, that definitely leaves Germany has more room in Europe. If you don’t protect Soviet tanks with infantry, you need a lot, which again gives Germany openings in Europe. If you just leave a few tanks, Japan trades them off with Jap infantry.
So I am not particularly concerned about a “Soviet India crush”. It should never be a problem regardless of stage of the game.
But what if? you say. What if the Allies have contained Germany with drops to Eastern Europe, followup blitzes to continually contest Southern Europe, and Moscow is not remotely threatened? In such a case, isn’t it a REAL threat that Soviets head south towards India? After they grab an IC there, UK can followup immediately with production.
Like I said, it’s not a problem regardless of stage of the game. At that point, the game’s already BEEN over. Similar situations generally with Germany stalling out and maybe Japan floating out to hit Alaska/Aus/Brazil late game (this should never be the case; either Axis should go late game press on Eurasia and grab those targets early/midgame - while MAINTAINING infantry feed through Buryatia and French Indochina, or they should go early game press on Eurasia and maintain pressure). But in any event - again, by the time the Allies can make such a move in real safety with real probable gains, the game is always over, and has been for a little while.
The only time Soviet tanks into India should really become a serious problem is with KJF variations. Even then, I always say “You can protect Calcutta if you don’t mind losing Moscow”.
–
A last comment regarding why I don’t think “Soviet India Crush” anything to be concerned with -
For a “Soviet India Crush”, you’re looking at a situation in which the Germans are effectively held back in Europe, and not by the bulk of Russian units, because those were just sent to the south. That is, the premise is that the Germans are already pretty much screwed. If it were otherwise, then the Soviets couldn’t afford to shift so much stuff away from the danger zone.
The Japs also aren’t pressing Moscow. Again, if they were, you certainly wouldn’t bleed out to India if Japan could slam with huge numbers into Novosibirsk from Sinkiang and/or Yakut.
There isn’t any other justification for bleeding off so much force to India, where it can’t return to the higher-value and higher-stakes European territories any time soon.
But it goes even beyond that. Since there isn’t much point in sending off to India if the Allies aren’t going to get some real concrete gains - you don’t send that sort of massive push somewhere just to gain a temporary 3 IPCs from India, when you could be using it to throttle Germany - it must ALSO be the case that Japan is weak in the south.
So add it all up - Germany isn’t threatening Moscow, Japan isn’t threatening Moscow, Japan is weak in the southern region, to the point that Russians have real threat pressure that Japan can’t easily counter. The Axis have nothing; that equals lost game.
Instead of worrying about how to win a game that is essentially already won, or losing a game that is essentially already lost, it is better to think about how to win or lose in the first place. To that, I have one word.
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
Re: Soviet tanks - Soviet tanks are valuable precisely for their mobility, combined with chunky and exciting attack and defense power. Infantry and artillery can’t sit and defend Caucasus and threaten Eastern Europe, Balkans, Karelia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Kazakh, Novosibirsk, Persia, Trans-Jordan, and India, all at the same time. Only tanks can do that. Players usually try to get some cheap artillery with Russia for trading, but there are real benefits to a long term strategy of building tanks. It doesn’t look at good at first, perhaps, but the advantages quickly become far more clear, especially when you have a fat stack of Soviet tanks. All of those territories are vital territories - either chunky income, or allow Soviets to combine with UK/US, or prevent Japanese IC function, or close Suez. Plus, tanks can reposition quickly, as for an Allied triple attack against Moscow, or to race to the east to defend against Japanese pressure, &c &c. “Soviet India Crush” is just one of the possible applications for tanks - unlikely, as I mentioned in a previous post, but it IS a possibility opened by using tanks instead of air/art/inf, and even when it isn’t used, it’s an option the Japs and Germans have to deal with.
A question - do you think you would allow the Soviets to press on India, even with tanks, in a KGF?
I say sure, because ofc you can’t really STOP them. But then, you don’t care if the Soviets do press. If you’re Axis, you either go with a short or a long term strategy, and either way, it’s normal that Soviet pressure vs India does not end well for the Allies. If the Axis went short, the Soviets shouldn’t be able to without paying an immediate and nasty price. If the Axis went long, Soviet pressure to the south stalls at the most by the time they hit French Indochina, but the Soviets should be paying in Europe anyways, and Jap slashes the Soviet pressure by J4ish at any rate.
Regardless, the equation should always balance the same. The Soviets can pressure the south, but they should pay, pay, pay! Even if the Soviets don’t pay an immediate and obvious cost, payment is only deferred. If you’re winning by a load with the Allies, sure, why not lash out at India. But then, again, that’s when the game is won. You can’t sustain Russian pressure against a steady Japanese feed of around 7 ground (French Indochina IC plus 2 transports from Japan) plus Jap air, unless you have Allied support, and you shouldn’t have that Allied support unless you’re already winning in Europe.
There’s three main scenarios that result in German capture of London. The first is KGF when the Allies are awful. The second is KJF when the Allies get careless (not necessarily awful, but it won’t happen twice). The first scenario happens in a bunch of different unlikely ways. The second scenario happens when Allies have near zero ability in Atlantic, Germany drops a load of transports and likely a carrier, then the Allies can’t blow the transport fleet or respond with enough defense in London. The third is when the Axis have already basically won, and just need to put their booted heels on the Allies’ necks.
Nevertheless, you don’t see people writing about Germany capturing London strategies, because it’s not normal. It is only really possible if the Allies mess up, or if the Axis have already basically won.
Likewise for KGF Soviets in India. It can happen, but it shouldn’t - and if it “should”, then it’s usually because the Allies already won.
1. Japan gets careless, say US clears Persia followed by Soviet tanks to India. This shouldn’t happen if Japan is remotely careful. US/Soviet movement is an old, old trick. For example, US attacks a territory with 1 Jap infantry on it with US infantry and US air. If the US infantry dies, Soviets just grab the territory anyways on its turn. Or, say Japan doesn’t see a major possible shift, in which case it’s a plain screw up.
2. The “normal” situation is, if the Soviets do press, they trade valuable Soviet tanks for cheap Japanese infantry, and even if they do press, stall against the Japanese advance. It is not normal for the Soviets to be able to press on the south, and typically only happens if the Allies are pretty much winning anyways.
3. Japan should not be popping industrial complexes down in India unless they are properly prepared. It will always be at least J2, usually J3, before the Japs can pop an India IC, and by that time, the German balance of power in Europe should be clear. If Germany looks pretty weak, and the Soviets have a lot of power, then French Indochina is far better, precisely because it is less vulnerable. (Anyways, a J2 IC usually has to go at French Indochina if the Japs want it, because every place else sucks - India too vulnerable, Manchuria and Kwangtung irrelevant.) At any rate, again - the Japs should not lose India IC control unless they weren’t prepared in the first place, OR unless the Allies were severely winning anyways.
@Der:
I think through your bizarre and longwinded illustration you are saying that a wiley player with less income can often gain local superiority over a dumber player who has more overall income and resources. With that I agree wholeheartedly!
Wow. Missed the point.
(shrug)
Well, believe whatever you want to believe. I think it’s wonderful to find a man of such simple faith in his beliefs. :wink:
Here’s a memorable example -
You and I are aliens fighting for domination of a distant world. But we do not fight each other directly. That would be barbaric - and impractical, because we both have no hands or feet, or even teeth. If you are curious about our appearance, we are each large soft furry balls of about one “foot” in diameter with large soft eyes. As we have no mouths, we absorb nutrients through osmosis.
However, we luckily have telepathic control of large furry beasts with limbs, teeth, and laser eyes. We will call these beasts “mutant cats”, or “kitties” for short. We start in control of ten mutant kitties each. Mine are slightly larger than yours, but not by much.
Now, our battle begins.
You and I each have a 10,000 gallon capacity paper cup, and fire hoses that pump “Weird” brand kitty chow. Your hose is bigger than my hose.
“Weird” brand kitty chow is what powers our mutant kitties, and it really is weird, because when you have lots of kitty chow, more mysteriously appears, and when you have little kitty chow, some of it mysteriously disappears. Anyways, regardless.
You hook your hose up to your cup, which spews out kitty chow. You put your kitties around the cup. Your kitties eat it, and grow very large.
I hook my hose up to my cup, and get less kitty chow. I send most of my kitties off somewhere; a couple show up now and then to transport loads of kitty chow somewhere.
Over time, your kitty chow pile grows larger and larger, and your cats get bigger and bigger. You can see that my kitties are not growing as quickly. Your cats are 300 lb monsters that look like a pro wrestler. My kitties are 180 lb weaklings. You feel very Manly with your cup full of kitten chow. So much Manlier than me, with my small kitty chow stockpile, and my puny kitties.
In time, though, you realize what I have been up to . . .
THE PUMPING STATION RAID
Our pumps are pumping kitty chow from a pumping station. Realizing the importance of the pumping station, you patrol that area with two cats at all times. But you kept most of your cats at home to get really big and strong.
I, though, decided not to try to match you with power, but with guile. I used two cats to bring supplies back and forth to my commando team, stationed at the pumping station.
Now, our cats fight! My eight cats against your two cats. Your cats are much smexier than my cats, so I lose four cats in the process of taking down your two cats. But I win, and now I control the pumping station.
So there you are. You have more cats, your cats are bigger, and you have more chow. By any measure, you have nothing to worry about.
. . . right?
@ABWorsham:
None of the above!
Then what is the worst Axis mistake of the War?
“Mistakes” is an ambiguous word that encompasses bad judgment and insufficient information. But in its primary sense, it is used to refer to bad judgment. When you make a “mistake” on a test, it is not because you could not have known the answer, it is because you should have studied more. When a server makes a “mistake” on your restaurant bill, it is not because the correct amount could not be known, it is because the server made a mistake. I, and likely some others in this thread, probably take your “mistake” to refer to an error in judgment based on faulty judgment. In other words, your question is “what is the stupidest thing the Axis did?”
If you think about things that way, almost none of the items on your list were particularly stupid, so they are inappropriate examples of “mistakes”.
If you wanted to ask “What was the single decision by the Axis that most negatively impacted their progress in the war”, the question of judgment is eliminated.
–
For example, Dunkirk. People look back and say “lol retard”. Or they say Hitler was stupid, or trying to make some retarded political decision &c. Actually, there is no citation of why the Germans did not press. Without such citation, and documentation, nothing is really known.
There are any number of excellent reasons why the command not to press the attack could have been passed.
Consider the political situation. Suppose Hitler believed that a decision not to press at Dunkirk would lead to diplomatic negotiations with UK that would lead to a UK/German alliance against Russia. Consider the huge gains to Germany, and to the UK. Now consider what would happen if Germany slaughtered the crap out of over 200,000 UK soldiers. (Of the 330,000, about 200,000 were UK).
If you know the political situation, you realize that a Ger/UK alliance was hardly out of the question. It did not come to pass, but it COULD have.
–
Probably the biggest “mistakes” were Germany’s misjudgment of the Soviet Union situation, and its failures in production.
Re: Soviet Union - insufficient intelligence regarding anticipated routes. Improper assessment of the Soviet Union’s mobilization capabilities. Failure to use anti-Stalin propaganda to recruit partisans.
Insufficient intelligence - they had maps. But maps are simply not enough when you are waging a war. You ideally want first hand reports from scouts. This could have been addressed by recruiting partisans, at the very least. Granted, gaining the level and detail of information that would have been “proper” would not have been easy. All in all, this is “understandable”.
Insufficient assessment of Soviet Union mobilization capabilities. In point of fact, the Germans beat the hell out of the Russians, man for man, achieving 13:1 casualty ratios in some battles, but regularly performing at . . . I forget, was it 8:1? Anyways, something stupidly massive. Plus the Red Army had gone through purges. Plus the Soviets didn’t have a particularly developed industrial sector (when comparing landmass to industrial development), although it did have a history leading up to WW2 of reversing that trend that Germany could have paid closer attention to. Again, Germany could be forgiven for its failures in this area.
Anti-Stalin propaganda - Soviet partisans did huge damage to the German war effort throughout the war, and if recruited to the German side, could have provided a massive boost in intelligence and power. In a way, this failure could also be forgiven, but the reasons are far less. Germany had initially purposed to obtain Lebensbraum quickly, with an anticipated effective collapse of Soviet resistance within one to two years. With the additional land, Germany purposed to feed the west. That is, Germany deliberately planned to kill off massive numbers in the east with starvation, to provide the food needed to feed the west. So there are reasons. But those are poor reasons. Recruiting Soviets would have benefited the Germans in any case (although they would of course have had to deal with sabotage, &c &c from within so integration would not have been possible . . . but still.) Killing civilians with starvation could and should have been planned for after the fact of conquest.
All in all, these are understandable errors in judgment, although the last is more along the lines of a true “f-up”. But COMBINED, they do not speak well for German preparedness against the Soviets. Granted, the Germans plowed through everyone to that point, granted the Germans actually plowed the heck out of the Russians. But they did not plow enough, or quickly enough, which was probably preventable if Germany had been appropriately prepared.
As far as Germany attacking Russia, there is decent evidence to support the position that Russia was going to attack Germany anyways. The idea was that Stalin planned to let Germany and UK screw with each other, kill off a bunch of imperialists, then sweep in and kick ass. Considering that view, the fact that Germany attacked Russia can’t really be considered a “mistake”. It was necessary. The “mistake” was the lack of proper preparation.
–
Re: failures in production - Germany didn’t use its women in industry. Fail. Germany didn’t standardize production. Fail. Again, there were reasons not to. Maybe Germany considered its victory to be swift and sure, so didn’t try to prepare for the long term. Maybe there were political reasons not to do so. (Actually that is certainly true for production.) But as with Germany’s overall underpreparedness against the Soviets, such arguments only go so far. The need to boost and standardize production was clear.
@Der:
Yeah you’re right BPW - trying to have more income than your opponent is just crazy talk! Sorry about that - I’m new and all… :roll:
(pat pat) it’s ok live and learn :lol:
Civilization has a need for violence. Logic and morality demand it.
This refers not to some abstract need for uncivilized violence, or a psychological need to return to roots, or any such thing, but a inevitable and absolute requirement for violence from first principles.
Take for example, this case -
A woman is late for work and is speeding in a car. She sees police car lights flash behind her and pulls over. She knows, based on previous violations, that her speeding violation will cost her $200. She decides to pull over and let the officer write her a ticket.
Maybe the woman pulled over out of civic duty. But my point is not that some will observe their civic duty. My point concerns those that will not observe their civic duty, those that, absence violence or the threat of violence, would not comply.
Imagine a world in which the absolute limit of authority of police, prosecutors, judges, and so forth, was to issue a stern reprimand. Imagine that not only they, but society at large adhered to a strict policy of “strict reprimand”.
In such a world, it would only take one madwoman to turn everyone’s life (except for hers) into a living hell.
I apply a similar argument to not only individuals, but societies, and even nations. The ability to deal violence (not simply deal WITH violence) is a necessary component of a well ordered society.
–
On the other hand, one might argue, what if everyone carried around guns and shot each other at the slightest provocation? Might order be self-regulated? Who would want to start hostilities were they to be shot in return? “A well armed society is a polite society”, so to speak? But that is only more idealistic jibber jabber.
In parts of the world, certain behaviors that are considered quite normal are considered incredibly insulting by others. So all you need in that case is a provincial mindset, which humans are more than willing to fall into. Besides that, there are actual conflicts of interest for vital resources, then there’s the human drive to get more more more. What if a thousand other children go hungry, if my children and my friends’ children are well fed and secure? And so forth.
The fact is, when you have a bunch of guns floating all over the place, you’re going to have problems.
–
So if the solution is not to remove guns from everyone, nor yet to give guns to everyone, what IS the proper solution? It must clearly be an institutionalized system of violence (even if torture &c not inherent, such a system would have to be able to deal violence. Imagine if police officers were made out of gingerbread and M&Ms, with guns that shot low velocity cotton candy.)
In fact, most states, societies, &c DO have this. But the institutionalization of violence has insulated some from reality, who insist that violence cannot be the answer to problems. Such people conveniently ignore the fact that every day of their lives they are protected and nurtured by institutionalized violence. As one so aptly put it, “Freedom isn’t free”.
If it’s about conquering, it has to come down to one of three things.
1. Amount of land conquered
2. Number of people conquered
3. Number of people beat up in battle.
–
All this talk about generalship or whatever . . . it’s not about best general, it’s best conqueror. If it’s best general, damn sure General George Washington should be on the list.
Where it’s going to get REAL interesting, is when the options for immorality points appear. lol.
For someone that likes youtube videos you d*mn sure have to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv6IWX1_XHQ
What is this immortality mortality business anyways . . .
@ABWorsham:
I’ve always thought the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire were awesome fighters. Who is your favorite Elite fightin force?
It’s the eternal question, yo.
NINJAS or PIRATES?
Ghenghis failed to conquer the fact that he’s Mongolian, and history doesn’t care about what happend over there.
Alexander > Khan.
Every month should be White History month!
WHITE POWER!
It’s like the end of “Scarface” only it never ends, it just gets better!
“Re: Most over-rated WWII Leader”
Stalin wins. Cult of personality much?
Like, you’re talking about over-rated. Until Kruschev pissed all over the parade, Stalin was supposed to fart flowers and s**t rainbows.
Apart from that, Churchhill got lucky. If you discount Stalin because he’s not over-rated any more on account of crash of personality cult, then gotta be him.
For military, uhm. IMO most that have decent reps that are actual reputations, decent. If I had to choose, probably General MacArthur or Yamamoto. The criteria isn’t “who was a schmoe”, it’s “who is most over-rated”.
I’m all for adding players. Support, petition, all that good stuff.
I’ll be moral if it pays $$$.
Sounds like hooker talk to me! What you doin later . . . let’s catch some drinks.
(note: “catching” drinks is the new rage in bar entertainment. It’s like a mosh pit / ultimate frisbee / wet t-shirt contest. That appeals to, like, every socioeconomic group that gets out of the house.)
TripleA newbie looking for an experienced partner (eww, sounds like a CL ad).
Touch me, u smexy beast. I’d hit that.
Personally, I’m a TripleA vet but a Global noob. That’s like the worst combination. Like, all teams need a TripleA noob, and since it’s a Global tournament, you obviously want experienced Global players. Oh well, it’s like when you gotta wear a Speedo at the nightclub, better just swing with what ya got.
Anyways, I’m picking up Global skills, but will definitely need a TripleA noob. So, Vold, let’s you and me get a really smexy Global vet and put off games until we are so pro everyone screams and kowtows when we enter the room eh. In Speedos.
We can call our team the “Voldemorts” (Harry Potter reference). Or maybe “The Iron Fist in the Velveteen Rabbit” (buncha odd references there) Or yeah, maybe the “Speedo Beasts”. Woha.
Don’t play the game as if it’s just about inome. You’ll win more.