Posts made by Ozone27

Sorry, I was quoting other peoples’ quotes of quotes. I’ll work on it…

:o

Ozone27

Wait a minute–land units get a counter vs. a BB bombardment? That’s not how we’ve ever played! At first we played that the bombardment casualties are normal casualties that get a counter, but only vs. the land units in the attack. Then when I got the computer game it was obvious that we were wrong & BB bombard casualties got NO counter. Now you’re telling me the original was right all along??? If that’s true then I’m really p***ed at the computer game, which I thought was more-or-less official, at least barring bugs & it’s ignorance of the Suez Canal rule!

:evil: :evil: :evil:

Ozone27

Inxduk, you are nothing if not imaginative :wink: !

Ozone27

@lnxduk:

@Soon_U_Die:

Ahhh…another World at War room quickie strategy… :)

On UK 1, they send their BB, sub, and maybe bomber to kill Ger Navy.

bomber doesn’t reach

UK->North Sea SZ->Baltic SZ->Eastern Europe->Black Sea SZ=4 moves. BMR can land in Egypt (which you did not attack) or Syria/ Iraq.

2 Ftrs sink Ger tranny in Baltic, land in Russia.

tranny is in the north sea, and you killed all the uk trannys can’t land anything anywhere

Obviously in this case, it makes no difference whether the TR is in North Sea SZ or Baltic SZ. SUD’s 2 FTRs were very specifically ordered to land in Russia–a land territory which is open.

Also, and more importantly, even if you never use this, i think it’s good to know about it just so you can figure out the best thing to do now, so you don’t screw up when the heat is on, and you only have 2 mins to make a move

can you at least agree with me on that last statement?

If you mean that it is good to know about a move in order to be ready in case an opponent uses it–yes I wholeheartedly agree :D !

Inxduk keep coming up with the interesting strategies–just because people disagree w/ them here doesn’t mean they won’t work in your games!

Ozone27

This is a great topic. I myself have yet to really figure this out, but it’s still fun to speculate!

I guess it really comes down to what you plan to do in Africa: that is more or less commitment. What I mean is, do you attempt to build another TR T1, or just go w/ what you’ve got on the board & hope for the best?

If you build a TR T1, IMO it is too valuable to risk its useless destruction. Therefore your options are limited. You ought to hole up your fleet in Central Med SZ to protect the new build & thenceforth start funneling troops to Africa as long as you can keep the fleet alive. Trading Caucases is a good way to do this but it’s not always possible, and of course you don’t own Gibraltar either! That’s the problem–building any new fleet units for Germany–EVER–is a big risk 'cuz its a lot of IPCs for maybe NO EFFECT! This I believe is a flaw in the original game, since therefore Germany hardly ever has a SUB fleet to speak of…

So what if you go w/ what’s on the board? Well the TR is still very important because it will be the only one you get. To use it as cannon-fodder would be folly, but there is the advantage that you don’t have to guard the Central Med SZ to protect a new TR build on G1. One tactic I’ve tried is hit Gibraltar w/ 1 SUB, 1 FTR & 1 BB, w/ the TR loading an ARM in reserve. Hit the beaches w/ the ARM when the BB is destroyed & take Gibraltar. Here’s the kicker–lose the FTR to the BB counterattack! I know Germany should never lose FTRs, but without CVs, FTRs can’t dfend SZs & the idea is to keep a small fleet alive for later use. Without Gibraltar, the only air units that can hit your fleet is the BMR from UK (+1 BMR from USA too if you failed to take & keep French West Africa, Central Africa, or to keep Libya). Provided you destroyed the SUB at Suez Canal, the UK may–MAY–think twice about hitting your little fleet T1, giving you a chance to escape. The disadvantage of this is the loss of 1 precious FTR, the weakening of your North Sea attack , & the risk to your fleet. The advantages are a slightly larger fleet (add one SUB you would’ve lost), & Gibraltar–a strategic territory. Keep in mind that should you lose the battle vs the UK SUB, or if the UK BMR attacks anyway, you also risk losing an ARM stuck in Gibraltar w/ no hope of escape exept thru Spain!

You could also launch an attack on the UK SUB w/ an amphibious engagement in Egypt. This is too great a risk IMO unless you play w/ 2-hit-BBs in which case it becomes an attractive option. Don’t build a new TR T1 in this case.

There are I’m sure more options but these are the ones that occur to me. I intend to post a topic directed at experts concerning just this particular area. Interested to see the results.

That is all. Return to your posts.

Ozone27

SUD, all good points as usual, but do you have to be so mean :cry: ???

Germany is my favorite country in the game, and when I see them abandon Africa so quickly, I take it as a bad sign. It’s not flashy, but really your best strategy is go attrition in the East while trying to take Africa w/ minimum commitment & a lot of fancy footwork. Don’t abandon Africa–at the very least it’ll keep some of the Allies off your home territory for a few turns. At best it’ll be a quick PCP-jolt to your economy for several turns which may make the all the difference!

Also, don’t neglect Western Europe! Experts can get away with this, but for most players there is no “trading” to be done here. Add an INF every turn & station the Luftwaffe here.

Ozone27

No! F_alk is F_alk & I is…oh nevermind!

Ozone27

Delete*

Xi’s correct, sorry about the obtuse wording! To clarify, the ships of the ‘Scharnhorst’-class were built to be conventional BCs–in theory at least, capable of outrunning BBs & outgunning all others, and were considered well-adapted for commerce-raiding. The ‘Deutschland’-class (so-called “pocket battleships”) were a style all their own with BC guns on a CA hull–supposedly perfect for the commerce-raiding role, since it could outgun even most CA escorts & still escape after the battle using their (again, theoretically)superior CA speed…

Of course, I never meant to suggest that ‘Bismarck’ & the ‘Scharnhorst’-class were the same ships either. Again, two separate trains of thought in one paragraph!

Sorry about the confusion…

Ozone27

Congrats, K-Ration!

Often its hard for the Allied player(s) to know when its time to go over to the all-out offensive. It just takes a lot of practice…

Hopefully this guy will have learned not to be so mouthy next time!

Ozone27

@lnxduk:

As it turns out, this strat crushes japan. You mentioned i was throwing infantry away in east russia. Not really if india is open and japan wants to take china. I have a tank and 3 infantry on novo, even with a standard west russia strat it’s common to put one on yakut and one on sfe. Russia is going to lose these eastern territores anyway. As you get farther from you industry, it’s harder to attack/defend stuff. Let japan get closer to you, and it’s hard for them to attack easy for you to defend. Also i almost always take finland with russia so this makes up for loseing sfe.

Inxdux–I luv ya, but I’m forced to disagree…

How can you describe this strategy as “crushing” Japan when by all the moves you’ve alluded to, the Allies are rushing pell-mell away from her? If India is “open” (by that I assume you mean ‘empty’ or ‘near-empty’) then I as Japan would launch a strike out of French-IndoChina/Burma & Kwangtung Province vs. US-supported Chinese Forces in China. Leave a small covering force in F I-C/Burma . An attack out of Manchuria easily takes Yakut while an amphibious assault takes SFE. US fleet in Hawaii? There are a couple of options. I think the best in this situation is an attack by mainly airforce + the SUB. Asia is just too juicy a target to pass up–killing the CV is the main priority in Hawaii anyway. Land a few INF & all available planes on Manchuria. By the end of T1 Japan now controls China, Yakut & SFE for a total of 31 IPCs. India is indefensible. USSR may stage a counterstroke in Yakut, but unless backed up by additional forces from Russia, it is pointless–Japan will eventually win. If USSR does commit signifigant forces to Asia in Yakut, Ssinkiang or in India (thru Persia) he/she gives an opportunity to Germany to take advantage & attack from a position of strength.

Basically you’ve quickened the pace of the game by giving Japan an opportunity to grab large portions of USSR on T1, rather than T3 or later. This can only play to your disadvantage. Just simply taking Norway will not help.

Be very, very careful w/ this strategy!

Ozone27

HAHA We’re online at the same time…

Can’t see Al’Qaeda working w/ Iran since the latter is Shi’ite (for the moment) while bin’Laden is hardcore Sunni.

A good example of what you are saying is the corner Hussein painted himself into in the 1st war…

In order to win, he had to invade Saudi Arabia. But he also had to gather a coalition of Arabian Muslim states around him in a “counter Coalition”. If he DID invade Saudi Arabia, it would reveal him to be nothing but the self-serving egotist that he is–that equals no allies. SCUD attacks on Israel didn’t fire up the Arabs, so he had no friends…he was screwed…

bin’Laden knows Saddam’s in it for nothing but himself–no higher purpose. But would he hold his nose & work with him in order to get the weapons he needs? I think, yes…

JMO

Ozone27

Yanny, I agree w/ YOU except for 1 point: :wink: :

This is what Osama wants, not Saddam. Saddam wants all of us to buy his oil, and live peacefully while he gets rich and fat.

…true. Except he also hates the US & would love nothing better than to see us humiliated. Case in point: his quotes just after 09.11.02 celebrating the attacks…

I agree with what you seem to be saying–that there was no connection between Al’Qaeda & Iraq before the 09.11.02 attacks. I’m sure that Osama bin’Laden doesn’t even LIKE Hussein (who WOULD!). But given the opportunity to get a hold of biological/chemical weapons for use vs. the USA/Israel, I believe he’d work w/ Hussein in a second. Given the opportunity to use his chemical/biological weapons vs. the USA I believe Saddam would work w/ Osama in a second. So what do you do? I think the answer is obvious; eliminate the weapons. Eliminate the threat…

Ozone27

I gotta come in on TM Moses’ side on this one: Germany’s big-ship strategy in WWII was bad bad bad & I’ll tell you why. WARNING: This post will be very long…

Inspired by the stories of WWI ships like SMS Konigsberg and SMS Emden, Admiral Raeder was convinced that (failing Plan “Z”, the German buildup to take on the Royal Navy directly in line-of-battle, which wasn’t ready in time for the war) surface raiders operating singly & in small groups, supported by supply ships hidden in the vastnesses of the world’s oceans, could inflict tremendous damage to British shipping & tie down large numbers of British ships as a “force-in’being”. U-boats were the OBVIOUS choice for this task, but Raeder was stuck on his surface raiders. The ‘Scharnhorst’, ‘Gneisenau’ & all the “Deutschland”-class ships were purpose-built for surface-raiding, the Deutschland class (including ‘Graf Spee’) in particular w/ BC (battlecruiser) guns on a CA (heavy cruiser) hull. But he didn’t take into account that:

A.) All the WWI efforts w/ the possible exception of Emden (which was eventually sunk) were essentially failures…

B.) Detection technology such as aircraft recon & radar/radio spotting had VASTLY improved since that war…

C.) That SUBMARINES were immeasureably superior to big ships in the commerce-raiding role the same as always…

German gunnery & optics were–just as in WWI–superior to the British, but with a poorly-balanced (no CVs, not enough Detroyers, bad torpedoes) & poorly-supported fleet (Goering hated the Kriegsmarine & only rarely & then grudgingly allocated planes to them), such a bad strategy was doomed to failure. As an example–everyone keeps talking about ‘Bismarck’s failure to refuel before leaving Norway, Admiral Lutjen’s poor (that is to say, almost suicidal) decisions during the battle, etc. No one has mentioned what is, to me, the most crucial fact: through Norwegian patriots working w/ the British, and through aerial recon, the UK knew exactly when the ‘Bismarck’ had left harbor & roughly where they were headed. Not to mention that all German surface commanders (except torpedo-boats’) were given impossible instructions to engage at all costs, but also avoid damage at all costs! The mission was doomed to failure from the very start, ultimately because the strategy itself–that is, the surface-raider strategy–was flawed. U-BOATS COULD’VE & SHOULD’VE BEEN BUILT INSTEAD.

Thankfully for all of us, they weren’t!

Getting back to the main topic–‘Bismarck’ was a cool ship. I also am partial to the ‘Scharnhorst’-class because of their speed, relatively good armor for BCs & the fact that the ‘Scharnhorst’ & ‘Gneisenau’ were as far as I know the only ships IN HISTORY to defeat & sink a CV (I believe the HMS Glorious) w/ surface gunfire.

The ‘Graf Zeppelin’–Germany’s CV–would’ve been a cool ship had it ever been completed. Imagine “Sea-Stukas”! You get my drift…

As for British I think the HMS ‘Warspite’ is coolest. An oldie but a goodie–took hits at Jutland, killed MANY German DDs at Narvik, faught Italy at Cape Matapan, bombarded Normany on D-Day & faught kamikazes in the Pacific. Then it was broken up for scrap. Go figure…

For Japan, the CA ‘Kumano’. Just look it up…

For USA: the CA USS ‘San Francisco’. Charged a Japanese BC’s 14" guns at Guadalcanal & won (with help)! Oh, & also my Granddad’s friend (that is my Mom’s uncle) was serving on it at the time–might affect my judgement :D !

Funny–no one ever names U-boats as their faves. Raeder’s syndrome, I guess… :wink:

That is all. Return to your posts.

Ozone27

@Yanny:

Ozone, its far worse. People are accusing France and Germany of being enemies of the United States.

France and Germany were traditionally rivals. France (Gaul at the time) was controlled by Rome. It was Romanized. Germany however, they beat back the Romans, and never was Romanized. This created a rift in Europe which lasted to this day. The East and the West.

Gaul was one of the most Romanized provinces of the Empire, but for hundreds of years after was ruled by large Germanic tribes (Franks) who, having originated in what is today western Germany, had strong ties to there. Charlemagne’s grandson was known as Louis the German & spoke German as his main language. It was only after he and his brothers divided the Western Empire that there was a separate “France” & “Germany”–the rule of the latter of which carried with it (in theory) the Holy Roman Emperorship.

But all that is, as they say, “ancient history”… :D

As far as your first statement, yeah–I’ve heard the rumors. There’s talks of boycotts, resigning from the UN etc… This has particularly affected me because 2 of my best friends are Germans & we have felt the need to avoid conversation on the subject, as much as possible. To people who throw up the example of our aid to France in WWII I can only point out that what I thought the US fought for was the freedom of people to seek their own way in the world without fear some vicious dictator would come along & massacre and oppress them for their beliefs. What we weren’t fighting for (in spirit at least :wink: ) was for everybody to obey our will & back us up till the end of time in gratitude for our magnanimity. So, while IMO taking out Saddam has become a burning necessity for the good of all people threatened by his misuse & hiding of weapons, it’s OK for the French to disagree if that’s their position. We must not forget that, jeez these guys are our ALLIES for pete’s sake! We may disagree, but that’s no cause for petty infighting!

…that’s exactly what Saddam wants to see–US vs. France & Germany rather than US, France, Germany et al. vs little old him! So he’ll try to keep it going as long as possible. Both sides should try harder to cooperate. This back-&-forth is a joke…

Another point: not to defend the European opinion, but they could also argue that the current situation is our fault for not finishing Saddam off when we had the chance 12 YEARS AGO!!! The US government pussed out at the zero hour when our troops on the ground wanted to finish the job. They were right, the government was wrong, and now it’s hard to build another Grand Coalition 'cuz:

A.) The Europeans are in deeper with Iraq economically than ever before…

B.) Iraq no longer appears to be as great a threat because we kicked their asses so hard the 1st time…

Xi: France was in recession when the 1st Gulf War happened so I don’t think that has a lot to do with it. More importantly, recent events–most notably the World Court diplomatic fiasco–have soured the EU members (led by surprise France & Germany) on US policy. I don’t know about France, but in Germany, Chancellor Schroeder won an important victory over the challenger, conservative candidate Stoiber in the recent elections, partly because of his strong stance against kowtowing to the US over Iraq policy. As I said before, the EU is just itching for a chance to demonstrate their growing power & influence by defying the US–maybe (just maybe) this is a big case in point…

Whoa this was hella long, sorry got carried away. I usually don’t post on the Gen!

That is all. Return to your posts…

Ozone27

“Franks” was the name applied to a very diverse group of Germanic (and later Germanic/Romanic) people who migrated into Gaul in large numbers between the 5th & 6th centuries. They actually conquered North Italy and much of modern-day Germany & won important victories against the Moors in Spain. When Charlemagne died he left his empire to his surviving son, whose sons in turn divided it up among themselves. This began the traditional division of “Germany” & “France” as separate political units (& often rivals)…

Vikings conquered large tracts of land on the Northern coast of France and settled there (hence the name “Normandy” originally from “Norsemen” or “Northmen”) They mixed with the old Germanic/Romanic Frankish population & became a more-or-less separate “Norman” people who travelled about conquering and adventuring in various areas of Europe (including Italy, England & the Middle East). They were eventually reassimilated into “mainstream” French culture.

I think referring to the French or Germans as wimps for being “afraid” to attack Iraq is shortsighted. Both countries have powerful interests in Iraq & don’t want a war unless they have to. Also both countries are itching to display their independence from US policy–which is a big reason they have been working so hard for a European Union. I think we need to go take out Saddam as well, but don’t accuse a nation of being “wimps” just 'cuz they don’t agree with us. If it’s worth doing it’s worth doing it without them, if not–well, it’s not.

Ozone27

8. .

Ozone27

The scariest part in my eyes is the inadequate defense of your Eastern Provinces. Leaving 1 INF in SFE & Yakut is merely throwing them away, because Japan can then take both of them in a single turn w/ no little or no loss. You might as well evacuate the whole Far East & make a little shell for yourself around Russia–the Japanese will be banging on your doors there in no time anyway. Even if your plan in the West works ok, while you are counterattacking Germany in Karelia, Japan will be assaulting your home provinces & doing an end run around the Chinese.

I agree that in the event of your opening move in Karelia, Germany’s best option is to hit-and-run. A lot of these spoiling attacks will occur on both sides thereafter, but you will take the worst of it because you lost the most INF the fastest, & have the least income (even less when Japan starts to roll you up in the Far East–that is, like the end of T1 :o ).

I’d be very, very careful with this one…

That is all. Return to your posts…

Ozone27

@Xi:

Techs don’t usually help.

You often get the wrong one for your country…
Examples are rocets for Japan and subs for USSR!

What’s so bad about Rockets for Japan? Move an AA to Manchuria & you can attack USSR. If UK has an IC in India you could hit it from there as well. Put one on Hawaii & you can attack the US. You are 1 turn away from your choice of any of these targets…

Super Subs for USSR is pretty crapola, but what’s USSR rolling for tech for anyway?

Ozone27

…it’s spelled “Annoucements”.

That is all. Return to your posts…

Ozone27