Posts made by Ozone27

@dubya:

Yes it is 1HBB. I see the value in taking Gibraltor but then i cannot transport to libya to possibly take Egypt next round. Also I’ve attacked UKBB in Med with BB and Bmr. If UKBB hits a parting shot, I was thinking of losing the BB. The Bmr being used later against Allied transports. Don’t forget i now have a tran at Algeria. Do I still need to build a tran on G1? I know there are lots of ways to do this, but for experienced players what works best most often?

As stated above, moving an ARM to Algeria is the better bet, since in Algeria if it survives it can maybe do something, but in Norway it can do nothing but die. Plus leaves 1 extra INF on Norway to maybe score a hit when the Allies attack.

Of course, if the Allies are planning to land troops on Algeria T1, then 2 INF there would be a better bet, & screw Norway. Tough choice, but all things considered I’d go w/ the 1 ARM: IF–IF–you are planning to move something Norway->Algeria T1…

Don’t count on that TR to survive longer than UK/USAs T1, though. If you are going to build a TR, then build it & DON’T move the BB!

Basically if you leave the Gibraltar BB, or the Suez SUB alive T1, they & the UK BMR can be expected to hit Central Med. Since you are attacking the SUB in your scenario w/ only 1 FTR, you are taking a 50%/50% chance that you will miss; the SUB will submerge or withdraw. If you then leave an exposed TR in Central Med T1 it will be sunk by the British. Strength here is in numbers…

In other words, all your TRs should remain by the side of the BB for as long as all are afloat. Sink all the UK naval units in the Med T1. Exposed German TRs are easy meat for basically any Allied unit.

Incidentally, the reason why Gibraltar should be taken is to prevent the UK from attacking West Med w/ FTRs. Unless UK owns Algeria, West Europe or Spain–or owns a CV–then they can’t hit West Med from Britain w/ a FTR without landing at Gibraltar. If that is not a factor, then don’t bother w/ it.

Ozone27

So does Paratroopers just screw up the game, or does it add a fun new element? I wouldn’t use it as a general rule, but looks like it might be fun for a 1-shot…

Ozone27

Well, if North Korea got the jump on us, like in the Korean war, they might be able to break through into South Korea and maybe occupy it. Thats a big maybe, but it would make the war a lot harder. And, North Korea (China too perhaps) could possibly threaten Japan with Nukes if they let us use their air bases. That would be a scary situation.

True.

But the NKs would have to kill a LOT of Americans along the DMZ–a lot of dead heroes killed in a sneak attack. That’s happened before (twice, not counting the sinking of the USS Maine, which has recently been proven to have been an accident), and the results are–as they say–history. The NKs drove us right off the peninsula (except for a small enclave) & we fought our way back again all across their country to total victory (till MacArthur went ahead & forced the ChiComs to come in in force). Think that couldn’t happen again? The NKs are stupider than I think they are if they think so…

Would the Chinese intervene again? That is the big question. I, of course, can’t say, but it is a distinct possibility. The NK’s (if they are planning a conventional war–which I doubt. I doubt they are planning ANY war) are certainly banking on it…

You are absolutely right about the threat to Japan. That is a scary prospect we cannot allow to happen…

Ozone27

Aaahh, memories… :D …

1st-Edition rules had unlimited production for new ICs. Pretty soon, pleyers got wise & started putting a UK IC in Persia & cranking out units to Russia, UK & Africa. So they changed the rules…

My own story is pretty boring. Bought the game so my Dad & I could play when I was in HS (we were both WWII buffs). Kept it when my parents moved back to Maine, then nothing happened for a while. One day I suggested to my buddies that we play, as a fluke. Group’s been growing ever since… :)

Those early games were the most fun, tho…

Ozone27

Aahh, it’s all in good fun…

Omar Bradley

er…I mean,

Ozone27

@F_alk:

@Ozone27:

As a matter of fact I have been to Germany, twice. The consensus of the people I spoke to around the Hamburg area (including my close friends) was that they don’t want the US bases closed because they mean a great deal of money & jobs to German people & contractors. I’m not talking about nickel-and-dime stuff like souvenirs the individual soldiers buy etc, we’re talking building contracts, civilian labor & experts & so on. Maybe “mega-$$$” is a subjective term, but in any case if these US bases go, a lot of Germans will lose their jobs.

Ok, I am sure that the people in the Hamburg area do not know that much about american soldiers. Hamburg was UK occupied territory, plus the closest Uk base is in Lower Saxony. For the “nickel and dime” stuff: Usually, the US bases are more in the countryside, so for those living there, the bases are important: As well with the “every day retail” of, say clothes or whatever, as with the building contracts and civilian labor. Experts? What kind of experts? I don’t think that you talk about any high tech equipment …. what would you need these experts for, especially people who do not have an US passport?
So, yes: mega-$$$ is subjective, as is “a lot of Germans” losing their jobs. How many would that be? 50,000? 100,000? more or less? I would think it is more towards the 50,000s

As far as kids throwing rocks off overpasses–that’s pretty annoying, but kids get into trouble like that everywhere & the world goes on. I’m sure plenty of Germans would like the US troop presence curtailed or even eliminated, but certainly not over silly stuff like that…

ANNOYING? It is dangerous! Remember, there are cars going 130 km/h down there, and suddenly something crashes through the windscreen…. Had they been grown ups, that would have been an attempted murder!
Sure, it happens “everywhere”, but the only other doing this stuff in Germany have been mentally disturbed people, or radical anti-democrats…

I think the US troops are still welcome (as they bring money in), but: it would be nice if the US (administration mainly) would treat us with respect and not as if you would still be occupying us.

Niedersachsen is the area I’m talking about. We used to get peanut butter from a US base near Luneburg, so I know there is one :) . US military personnel: help me out! what am I talking about here?

As for your other comments, fair enough. Maybe German kids don’t do that kind of thing (Germans ARE more polite). But here in the US, thats pretty common…

I can’t argue w/ opinion, & you are a pretty reasonable person. Since neither of us know the exact economic impact, I guess we’ll have to leave it at that. But I fail to see what the qualitative difference is between the feelings of “the people in the countryside” and others…they are still people, whose opinions matter…

As for your last statement, I think that’s only fair. Total agreement.

Ozone27

P.S.–it’s a tad insulting that you would say people from Hamburg don’t know much about American soldiers. A.) It implies American soldiers are somehow not as good as UK soldiers. B.) It also rather denigrates the insight of people from Hamburg, many of whom I happen to like a great deal… :wink:

JMO

Cool concept–I question your initial choices tho:

1.) Bismarck was pretty fast, but NOT the most powerful BB afloat. As in WWI, in WWII Germany’s big ships were designed along the lines of “more speed, more armor, less firepower”. The most modern, heavy BBs of most fleets generally outgunned the “Bismarck”…

2.) Japan-only kamikazes is an intriguing idea. A & A “kamikazes” work a little different than the real-life ones though & are less scary…

3.) “US faster & cheaper tanks?” --& crappier! If US gets a tank advantage, Germany & USSR deserve the same treatment–only better!

4.) Describe “hidden submarines”…

5.) Describe “effective FTR planes”…

Interesting idea. Anything that increases the historical value is cool, unless it totally f**ks up game balance…

Ozone27

While buying another TR for use in supplying Africa G1 is very useful, I’ve been having extremely bad luck w/ it lately. Since the institution of bidding is becoming incrementally closer in our games, I’ve been thinking of what I’m gonna do with various bids. I still think INF are good purchases for Europe, OK for Africa, but ARM is the best choice for Africa–IF you can afford it. Think about it tho–you start w/ 2 more ARM that all the Allies COMBINED! Early in the game, I think you can afford it.

JMO

Ozone27

@Soon_U_Die:

Hehe…except when you play guys like me :)

I normally don’t build ICs for either side…so I don’t care :)

SUD

…good ol’ SUD…at it again… :wink:

Ozone27

Just what I’ve been saying for years–good players don’t NEED to build ICs…

I myself never bother till the very end as Japan when the extra ARM can really help! Also I’ll sometimes do it as UK…

But since I can’t convince my (very conservative) buddies to implement bids, 20-24 IPC-ICs could come in VERY handy! They’ll agree to that!

Ozone27

True, & a good point. I suppose since the fleet is dead in the Med anyways a move out is practical. Also, Syria/Iraq SZ is about the only relatively safe SZ in the Med as well!

Can the German fleet help more outside the Med for several turns than it can in the Med for only a few? One wonders… :o

Only problem is, I continue to fail in my attempts to convice my esteemed colleagues of the necessity for a bid… :cry:

Germany rules!

Ozone27

Xi, that’s a DA*N good idea! :D

I never thought of that but that’d be great! If anyone wants to build an industrial complex in some God-forsaken wilderness–let 'em spend a few IPCs!

I’d put it at 20-24 IPC’s to keep it in line, but considering the strategic value–you’re right on!

Ozone27

LOL! :D

IMO its very important to maintain that sense of fun & adventure even as the game gets more strategic and “serious” as the players get better. I have a lot of stories about “hero” units. One that springs to mind is a German BB piece that seemed to be “charmed”. We used it as the start BB in 2 games in a row and it was indestructible! I think it sank like 7 planes & who knows how many ships in both games! However, the 3rd game I lost the piece–that is, we couldn’t agree which of the 3 German BB’s it was! So the charmed BB is whatever one scores a good victory in a game. Of course, we call it the “Bismarck” even though that was a decidedly unlucky ship. & come to think of it the A & A German BB really represents the Italian fleet! Oh well…

When I’m losing badly I still try to liven up the game w/ wild final moves & especially “escapes” as Germany (SUBs are good for this). Doesn’t work as often anymore tho!

Ozone27

That happened to me! A very early game (when none of us had a clue & games were waaay less predictable) I was losing my shirt as Germany & the end was near so I spent all my ICs building a fleet & sent it through the Suez (which I still owned) w/ 2 INF & 2 FTRs. My Gerrys took Madagascar, Australia, New Zealand & BRAZIL before being caught & eliminated–by a RUSSIAN FLEET! Of course the game was already nearly lost, but the Allies had to use so much effort taking Japan (we didn’t know the importance of strat-bombing in a situation like this) that my little holdouts caused a lot of headaches. It would be sooo cool if that could happen again, but no–it NEVER will!

Ozone27

LOL! Now THAT’S what I call advice!

Ozone27

Yeah, that one’s wierd too. But that does sort of clear up the “common sense” objection. Of course, in game terms, it makes perfect sense–if your newly-launched units could attack on your enemy’s turn, they would essentially get an extra attack in a given round (since they could attack again on their own turn).

Maybe one could make a rule whereby in this situation, the new naval units CAN join the ally’s attack on their own SZ, but only by foregoing Combat Movement & Combat on their own turn. They are essentially stuck there after the battle and would still be limited to the usual 1 attack per turn…I dunno…might open the door for a whole bunch of claims to “inter-allied attacks” that would doom game balance (such as it is :wink: ). I guess its best the way you describe…

Thanks for the clear-up SUD…

Ozone27

@F_alk:

Mega-$$$? Well, the garrison cities are happy to have the soliders close, true, because they support the local economics. but for the “mega-$$$”…… ahem… ever been here? What are the mean wages of the soldiers over here, esp. compared to the local mean income?
Anyway, we would welcome the soldiers more if no such things would happen as kids of soldiers throwing rocks from bridges onto heavy traffic Autobahns. Very funny :evil:, just a single case, but that’s what you need to shift public opinion, if it is handled “properly” by the media.

As a matter of fact I have been to Germany, twice. The consensus of the people I spoke to around the Hamburg area (including my close friends) was that they don’t want the US bases closed because they mean a great deal of money & jobs to German people & contractors. I’m not talking about nickel-and-dime stuff like souvenirs the individual soldiers buy etc, we’re talking building contracts, civilian labor & experts & so on. Maybe “mega-$$$” is a subjective term, but in any case if these US bases go, a lot of Germans will lose their jobs.

As far as kids throwing rocks off overpasses–that’s pretty annoying, but kids get into trouble like that everywhere & the world goes on. I’m sure plenty of Germans would like the US troop presence curtailed or even eliminated, but certainly not over silly stuff like that…

JMO

Ozone27

If so, it must’ve been 1st-edition, 'cuz it that sure as h**l ain’t allowed in 2nd or 3rd…1st-edition I know was heavily skewed against the Axis…

Ozone27

As Ned Flanders would say, this one’s a “noodle-scratcher”…

Right on about normal attacking rules, but this is a wierd situation and while in game terms it is perfectly logical, to me it defies common sense that units in the exact same sea zone as the enemy in the middle of a battle do not even appear on the Battle Board. I mean, what are those ships doing? Are they putting the finishing touches on them before the start of their country’s turn? Why are they just sitting there oblivious while a full-scale battle erupts all around them. Couldn’t one crew man just one naval gun to help its allies? Seems pretty shady to me, which is why I fought against “No Naval Occupation” in our games until I could fight it no more…

Ozone27

Yeah, a FTR in Africa can be a big boost & consider ARM vs INF there. While using TRs, INF are generally more efficient than ARM, but in Africa, a little ARM goes a long way. This is just a personal idea of mine, but I think Africa is an ideal locale for the use of 2-3 ARM supported by the 2 INF you have on the board at the start. Using these forces + ideally a FTR for a turn or 2, you might be able to make a good showing in Africa & be a royal pain in the butt to the Allies for a few turns. The reason why I think ARM is a better choice in Africa over INF is twofold:

1.) Mobility: Throughout the game, Africa usually consists of a few concentrations of units separated by empty land territories. This is IDEAL ARM country, as you can use your ability to blitz as well as launch sudden strikes on weak points in the Allied concentrations.

2.) Attack Power: ARM is the best land unit choice for attack. Combine that w/ mobility & you have a good force for holding out vs. the Allies for a turn after the fleet is eliminated. Depending on their deployment, you might be able to blitz around & squeeze a few more IPCs out of Africa before you are destroyed.

So that’s my argument for putting armor into Africa as opposed to INF. It is true that INF will always be more efficient on TRs (w/ their 2-1 numbers), but if you can put just 2 additional ARM on Africa, augmented by a FTR for say 2 turns, I think you will see better results than if you put 4 INF instead. Use the INF in Europe–a few tanks are better in Africa…

IF you can get them there…

Ozone27