Topics created by poloplayer15

anyone have any good alternate set ups? looking to change things up a bit with the group soon

Thanks for the quick reply guys. :-) ill check him out

How to win it in late 41…  good one.

To begin with I would kill corp. Hitler.  That dumb ass got Germany in the predicament it was in in the first palce.

That being said you keep pushing on Moscow because the logistics of moving troops is what killed Germany.  Is the Caucus a better objective - yes.  But Corp. Hitler didn’t figure that out until it was too late.  Germany may not have gotten the same fruits of capturing the oilfields (which should have been their major objective in 41), but they would have taken Moscow which was the locomotive hub of the USSR (not to mention, the capital.

The logistics of transferring the troops was a stupid play at that point.  He should have kept the focus on Moscow and broke them there, than take his Moscow forces and move them where they needed to go.  At all 3 Russian fronts Corp. Hitler never won… because when he had overwhelming force he never finished the fight.

WW2 history is kind of funny in that you think “thank god Hitler was so crazy that he lost the war”, but at the same time it is also “how did this crazy person get in charge in the first place?”

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29005.0

I found this thread on the game. Looks really cool

this game is fun but when you get vehicles tanks and all infantry is useless almost besides taking points

attorney help

Tanks are useless in penny packets, devastating in large spearheads; just as the French found out in 1940.

One option is to build a phalanx of French tanks and then reinforce the breakthrough with British infantry before the enemy can counter-attack. Or use American infantry to shield a British tank army, as the UK can usually spend more on tanks than France.

Austria-Germany can do the same on the western front; Germany-Austria in the East.

But the main use of tanks is to convert an industrial advantage into victory by effecting a breakthrough into enemy tt, ending the stalemate. When the Allies start building a large tank army its usually the writing on the wall for the CPs.

Personally, I’d like to see tanks made available to buy a round earlier.

@Tavenier:

I see. I know transports can be handy for Germany. Forcing England to keep an eye on an invasion, invading Russia, invading Scandinavia and fast move your units. But still it seems like a too big of an investment that you just can’t spare.
I hope you can get the time to write about it!

Yeah, the cost is a big issue and taking the neutrals helps with that.

Star Trek, this game has no limits, it’s my family’s favorite game. My sons love this game, but have to yet whip the old man or mom.  :|

@Gargantua:

Or when the oil blob kills Tasha Yarr! Everyone’s seen that episode!

Yeah… that was the most lame death of a primary character I have ever seen.

I think if they had won they would have met with another Stalingrad like disaster later in the year. By 1943 Germany’s best East Front strategy was Manstein’s: elastic defence. Hitler would not hear of any retreats, but was the best way to keep ground in the long run. Not attacking in July, but counterattacking an over stretched Russian army later, was better. Everyone knew the Allies were landing in the West soon and much needed mobile units would have to leave the Eastern Front.

i appreciate the offer Shelly, but i was able to find an original copy. thanks anyways

Try out this variant on that map

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22563.0

u get the value for territories and for capturing the capital you recieve whatever cash they have on hand.

With the relative ease of taking London and Calcutta (in opposition to Sydney and Muskva) it seems better to go after England

But beyond that, if you take London, you negate all of England’s income, even if you cannot take the territories!  Worse yet, Calcutta can take stuff and can liberate stuff on the Atlantic map, but can never collect for it, so you’ve effectively, permanently ended England.

Just my current thoughts, I reserve the right to change my mind with little to no notice and for whatever reason I so choose. (Woman’s perogative.)

If Germany goes Sea Lion, Italy will thrive. If Germany goes Barbarossa, Italy will most likely slowly halt.

@Krieghund:

During your Collect Income phase, check for any convoy sea zones that are adjacent to territories that you control and that also contain warships (not transports) belonging to powers with which you are at war.  For each such sea zone, first add up the total IPC value of the adjacent territories that you control, giving you the maximum number of IPCs that you can lose in that zone.  Then, add up the total number of enemy warships (submarines count as two) to get your potential losses in that zone.  Finally, subtract whichever of those two numbers is lower from the income you collect.  Repeat this process for each eligible sea zone.

Example:  Italy controls Southern Italy, Northern Italy, Yugoslavia, and Albania, and there are two UK submarines in sea zone 97.  The total IPCs controlled by Italy adjacent to sea zone 97 is 10.  The two subs can destroy 4 IPCs.  Since 4 is less than 10 (the damage done is less than the maximum that the sea zone can sustain), Italy subtracts 4 IPCs from the income it collects.

but say, greece has 2 adjacent convoy zones, can greece lose 4 IPC?
i thought no, but not sure. wouldn’t be very logical
and what if german has greece and yugolavia, and US puts subs in adriatic sea. do they do convoy damage to germans and italians at same time?

Thanks for sharing, that was an interesting Article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110215/ap_on_re_us/us_bomber_vet this is a very cool article i found on yahoo. hope you enjoy  :-D

@poloplayer15:

is it just me in thinking that the us should have a stronger Atlantic fleet? in pre-WWII, the atlantic fleet had 3-4 AC, 9 BB, and numerous CA, CL, and DDs. it just seems so under powered. but it was probably reduced to its pathetic size due to balance issues

@calvinhobbesliker:

Good Luck with that; too many people are complaining that the US has too much money(52 ipcs) to build a giant fleet.

You got that right Calvin.

One of my favorites is the E-75 Standardpanzer. Germany’s Entwicklung series was intended to have been a replacement for its existing tank designs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series . The Entwicklung series tanks were intended to be simpler, easier-to-produce, more mechanically reliable versions of the tanks they replaced. The series ranged from the E-5 (5 - 10 ton light tanks and armored reconnaissance vehicles) to the E-100 (a 100 ton successor to the Maus).

The E-75 was the intended successor to the Tiger 2 (a.k.a. the King Tiger). The E-75 was significantly better armed and better armored than the Soviets’ IS-2. However, the E-series tanks were still in the prototype phase when the war ended.