Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Ozone27
    3. Posts
    O
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 12
    • Posts 412
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by Ozone27

    • RE: Italy

      Horten’s right: the Italians marched into Egypt w/ a HUGE superiority in numbers, but were so thoroughly defeated that Libya was threatened with invasion in the ensuing rout: prompting Hitler to send Rommel’s Afrika Korps to bail them out–more or less by permission of the Italians.

      I don’t know much about Italian planes, but I do know that Italy had a very good, modern (though small) surface fleet consisting lergely of fast cruisers with a few state-of-the art fast BBs to boot. Many surface ships in the British navy of the time were old, and the fleet in general much slower than the Italians–so a straight head-to-head battle over Gibraltar (which was expected) might’ve been interesting. As it was the British took advantage of the Italians lack of AA mountings on their ships–a common problem early in the war–and sunk many of them in an air raid at Taranto.

      I too think having a 3rd Axis player would be cool, but give him more than 13 IPC’s, man…c’mon…

      Ozone27

      [ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-25 08:19 ]

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Just a few simply questions

      I agree w/ btown: I personally prefer the Finland Attack over the others, but TG Moses was specific about Ukraine/Eastern Europe.

      The reason I like Finland/Norway is that the Germans cannot attack it (unless you left their fleet–but you probably didn’t). This way, whatever ARM you have left in there may be used for another attack next turn (which means T2 you might not hafta buy so much ARM). Plus, it provides a ready landing force for Western Allied relief troops T1. But they are all good attacks, w/ different strengths and weaknesses…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy

      Zeros strategy is a good idea. This is an example of where the USA might regret having moved their whole fleet to (and built most of their units in) Eastern USA. In my experience, USA players often do freak out when Axis troops land on North America, and the attack from Western Canada to North Sea SZ would come as a shock to many players. Even if it only happened once, a combined Axis airstrike on UK SZ with the remaining airforces combining in Western Europe, could set the Western Allies back just long enough for you to pinch USSR–or possibly even invade UK… :grin: ?

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Version 1

      I think that’d way unbalance the game too, because German and Japanese forces could only use the rules late in the game when they’d basically already won–they link up only very late…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Italy

      Maybe he’s changing the IPC income value of Southern Europe along with his other tweaks–he’s probably changing the board setup A LOT to accomodate an additional player.

      mini phreek I’d be interested to see your ideas: the way I see it Italy would only have like 3 territories (Southern Europe, Libya, and Italian East Africa (which is in British hands anyway!) and their main military asset would be a navy that is often destroyed the 1st few rounds in…how are you changing this? Please post your results…

      Ozone27

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Just a few simply questions

      I think its pretty much a toss-up. If you attack Ukraine the drawback is that German forces there are slightly stronger (by 1 ARM), but you can put in more forces there, and when you win, its harder for Germany to counterattack next round–plus you take out an extra tank…

      If you take Eastern Europe, you can’t put in as many forces, but the Germans there are slightly weaker. One bonus to this move is that you block the Germans from putting 4 ARM into Karelia next round (in Germany, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe)! However it leaves your ARM in a highly exposed position where the Germans will be HIGHLY motivated to take you out…

      On second thought, maybe Ukraine IS the way to go after all…up to you…

      Just my thoughts…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Transports

      Worse, you cannot even make the attack! Since TRs have NO attack capability, they can’t be the only units involved in an attack against an enemy unit–if you were to do this anyway, your TR would eventually be destroyed since it cannot attack…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: A good Japanese Strategy

      I personally think the Allies are best off when they designate either USA or UK to fight Japan, and the other one helps USSR against Germany. In this case, UK (if they’re the one against Japan), they can spend some money on ARM and ICs while USA uses her money to put ships in the Atlantic to help USSR and threaten Germany. If USA wants to go after Japan, UK should stick to a fleet…

      If UK can protect Africa, they will usually have enough money to put 3 ARM in India each turn AND a couple TRs in UK, provided USA lends them some protection…

      Just my thoughts…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy

      I think the idea of landing Japanese planes on Western Canada to make an attack on UK is GREAT if you can pull it off! I never thought of that. Also moving the Japanese fleet through Panama is a good idea, but I would be afraid of too much exposure to Allied airstrikes along the way–I’d prefer going thru Suez to link up because of this.

      Any ships the UK or USA place in the Atlantic should be destroyed if at all possible before the invasion begins. To a certain extent, the more of UKs dwindling resources she spends on ships is actually the better for the Axis–after T3, UKs IPC income should be small enough that capital ships are difficult to impossible to purchase, and each TR represents 3 INF UK cannot build…Germany should be building as many FTRs as she can reasonably do so so as to build up for the major attack: don’t forget to hold off USSR, though!

      Japan could conceivably launch an attack on Hawaiian Islands SZ using only 3 FTRs a BMR and the SUB T1 with NO capital ships. Heavy losses in FTRs, but your fleet remains intact (and isn’t in a position to be countered next turn) and that is very important for the strategy. Just state your plan to move the CV in the Carolines to p/u surviving planes in a SZ adjacent to Hawaiian Islands SZ–if 2 FTRs are destroyed you aren’t even obligated to move it there on Non Combat at all!

      Or just try moving the entire Japanese fleet (instead of just 1/2) to the Med thru the Atlantic. This way you can crush the US fleet (since everyone is so married to this plan) and you are HEAVILY superior in the Atlantic now. I just don’t like risking the whole fleet this way–I think Japan should at least retain some kind of battle fleet in the Pacific, but I may be just too conservative…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy

      SUD: I don’t think your critique is overly harsh–just realistic. You make good points. Here are my answers to your questions:

      1.) I can’t.

      2.) UK and USA can do that, but the German and Japanese fleets could combine by T3, so their planes (and TRs) could be facing a combined fleet by G4. I would not build SUBs as Germany because the point is the invasion of UK, therefore I would have a couple of TRs to throw their measly “1” counterrattacks in at the planes. And as stated its not total loss if the German fleet IS destroyed–its just a major setback until the Japanese fleet can come in to protect a new build. If Germany thinks UK will attack his fleet, and sink it, he shouldn’t be building ships at all until the Japanese arrive.
      As for moving the fleet, the strategy depends on a main deployment of USA forces in the Pacific; pure and simple. The Japanese and Germans can deal with the UK in the Atlantic, but if the Americans shuttle their entire fleet East, that will be a problem…that is where swiftness of maneuver comes in. The attack on UK must come quickly enough that USA only sees it happening when its too late. The attack is a gamble because it can pretty much only happen once–the USA will probably come in to help their next move.

      3.) Of course I can do nothing. My large numbers of German TRs and INF can help, but basically if its Africa USA is determined to have, its theirs (at least until the Japs conquer Asia) But check this out:

      In your argument you have done a very good job of preventing an Axis invasion of UK from occurring. But you have utilized ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING force (transferred the entire USA fleet to the Atlantic, abandoned India and spent UK’s money on an CV and fleet, and amassed a HUGE assault force for Africa and /or Western Europe) to accomplish this. I can only surmise you deployed your forces thus because you KNEW the Japanese were going to transfer 1/2 their fleet to the Mediterranean. Look at the Axis deployment T1. Why would the USA player, facing a totally undamaged Japanese fleet in the Pacific, simply ignore them and transfer their whole fleet to face Germany–which as you have pointed out has virtually NO fleet at all!? Especially when the UK has already built a CV (and presumably TRs and FTRs) at the expense of an Indian IC.

      Also, I don’t see why its so impossible for Japan to make any headway against USSR in this strategy. The situation is basically the same as “normal” (that is per “Pearl Harbor T1”) for Japan except that the USA fleet remains intact and that Japan must build a CV to regain parity in Pacific fleet units. T3 Japan can slap down an IC in Manchuria or India and just start beating on USSR as “usual”. And one could argue that by moving the entire US fleet to the Atlantic (where I submit they are doing no good in a normal game), you have actually helped the Japanese by removing all threat against them in the Pacific and allowing them to concentrate fully on helping Germany (and picking on USSR).

      My point is simply this–this strategy is not one to be used on someone who sees it coming. You have fully illustrated this point in your reply. However, if USA (and UK) moved in the manner you described T1, I would recommend to the Axis to “bail out” of the maneuver and head straight for USSR little the worse for wear–its obvious the Allies have anticipated (wink, wink) the whole strategy…

      On a side note: No–my buddies and I do not yet play using bidding rules. Nor do we use Russia Restricted. And yet our games have not stagnated into endless repetition where the same tired strategies are used over and over again. Possibly this is because we are inexperienced newbies… I prefer to think we are just “imaginative”…

      :grin:

      Ozone27

      [ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-22 18:34 ]

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: What's up with the strategies posted on this site?

      All true. I am just emphasising the material strength and general numbers superiority USA typically displays. I do not underestimate the quality and fighting strength of US troops–others have in the past, and they usually lose!

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Operation Sealion

      Read my post. I figure 3 turns min…Best case scenario, the invasion can be ready next turn, but I doubt UK will be quite weak enough then for the Axis to launch an invasion (and Germany may need a couple more fighters)…

      Ozone27

      [ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-21 07:47 ]

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Pirate software from KaZaa or Morpheus will drive you crazy!

      Why don’t you just try Ebay? I get a lot of old games there and as long as you are careful what you purchase, should be pretty good. I’ve never had a problem with an EBay game purchase and I’ve never spent more than $15 bucks.

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy

      Do do do do tha bumpty bump

      Do do do tha bumpty bump…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: What's up with the strategies posted on this site?

      The French Army up till 1939 was considered by many to be the most powerful in the world. people were aghast when the Germans invaded the Rhineland and France did nothing. Even Hitler himself admitted that this move was a desperate gamble: the Germans did not at the time have the power or the political will to prevent the Franch from taking it back. Here is where (as previously stated) the political weakness of the French nation of the time came into play. No one was willing or able politically to stick his neck out and call for war. France was caught off guard both politically and in terms of her strategic and tactical thought. I stand by my statement that the French do not deserve to be blasted for their defeat in 1939–if everyone knew how horrendous the Nazi war machine was going to be then both England and the USA deserve a whole heap of blame as well for standing by and letting it happen. But virtually no one in high political office did…cest la vie!

      In response to Yanny, I basically agree in terms of USAs MAJOR wars (that is those on which the strength of the nation as-we-knew-it meant) if he is saying–as I think he is–we have won wars based on crushing strength of numbers and materiel, rather than (necessarily) quality of the above. I am speaking mainly of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and WWs 1 and 2. However USA has won (and lost) most of it’s smaller wars on the strength of subterfuge, political cunning, and precise use of military strength, rather than pure brute force. And one could argue that since the invention of the atomic bomb and the switch to an “all-volunteer” (that is a professional rather than citizen) armed forces, the situation today decidedly favors the latter…

      Just my opinion. Blast away…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: I dislike Tech roll´s

      Hmmm…never thought of it, but that actually makes a lot of sense. Hitler threatened to invade Spain if Francisco Franco didn’t sieze Gibraltar (which was eventually made moot when the Allies invaded Morocco before anything could be done). Japan of course had very little respect for neutrality. And Switzerland’s “neutrality”, was indeed strictly enforced–with German-built ME109 aircraft! This is an interesting “historical” house rule…

      Just my $0.02…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Winning strat for Germany

      It’s interesting to think about. But considering Hitler thought of Moscow as (and I quote) “…a geographical expression only…” it is clear that Germany had no intention of seizing Moscow quickly, whether the general staff wished to or not…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Operation Sealion

      I resurrected my post. It’s under “UK Invasion: a not-so-insane strategy”. Fire away.

      To TG Moses: That can be countered. If UK builds a TR fleet to “block” the Axis off Spain, Germany and Japan (who should have some fighters and a BMR in the area pretty quickly) should have a shot at it before it moves to Spain. More likely, USA will move to Spain w/ a fleet. But in this case, Japan will have an opportunity to destroy it before Germany moves which might help “clear the way” for the German assault on UK. Regardless, UK should have so little money by the time you are ready for invasion that a TR “fleet” should be pretty close to out of the question. I dunno…

      I agree that Germany should not be building CVs or BBs. That is why Japan must help out.

      I’d like to add that my strategy is far from a guaranteed gamewinner. I just think with a bit of surprise (and it’s sometimes easy to surprise “jaded” players with new strategies) that it is possible…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: Operation Sealion

      Oh yeah–exactly. In general though I would think UK would start to freak out when the combined fleet takes up position at South of France–by now it’s OBVIOUS what is happening but UK doesn’t have the resources to stop it…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • RE: A good Japanese Strategy

      Building an English IC in India is a bad idea if the Brits can’t hold it. However, if they can beef up India a little bit the turn they place (and get a lot of help from the USA in Asia and Africa), the IC CAN be held against the Japanese. Since the UK moves before Japan, this IC can easily become a major thorn in Japan’s side, distracting them from their moves against USSR. An IC in India is somewhat of a risk, but is hardly indefensible…

      Second, there is a very good reason to take Hawaiian Islands as well as the Sea Zone around it T1: it prevents 1 American FTR (in Eastern USA) from attacking your fleet when USA moves. Just a thought…

      Ozone27

      posted in Axis & Allies Classic
      O
      Ozone27
    • 1
    • 2
    • 15
    • 16
    • 17
    • 18
    • 19
    • 20
    • 21
    • 17 / 21