Posts made by Raeder

Evacuating Italy from Africa? Is that really a viable strategy? Even if it helps the Germans a lot on the eastern front, doesn’t it allow the allies to roam free in North Africa? But then on the other hand, I guess that if it helps Germany take Moscow faster, it may be worth it.

So, how to pull off Operation Barbarossa… marching the German army into the Motherland.

It’s all speculation at this point, what with the map still being unknown and all. Any thoughts on strategy? What to build?

Looks fantastic!

@i:

@Raeder:

Germany should get 5 IPC per turn as long as it holds Norway, to simulate the iron ore from Sweden. It was transported through Narvik and then to Germany. This will give the germans a reason to hold on to Norway just like they did for real.

excilent idea raeder i always give up norway :evil: but if i got 5 ipcs from it i would keep it 8-)

Exactly. I mean, thats part of why they invaded it in the first place. Both them and the allies were about to invade at the same time, but the germans got there first. After that they kept large forces there for the duration of the war.

Perhaps the Jerries should also get 5 IPC:s per turn as long as they hold the Ploesti oil fields of Romania.

Germany should get 5 IPC per turn as long as it holds Norway, to simulate the iron ore from Sweden. It was transported through Narvik and then to Germany. This will give the germans a reason to hold on to Norway just like they did for real.

I just pre ordered the game from Field Marshal Games. It ended up costing around 86 USD with shipping to Europe. But now I received an email from FMG telling me to pay 42.77 USD to them via PayPal. I have already payed 86 USD via PayPal.

Not being used to ordering things online from the US, I dont get what the extra 42 USD are for. Can someone enlighten me?

@idk_iam_swiss:

aww its okay new guy. I cant chew you a new one for trying! Historically fighters and bombers dont cost the same. I like that you have planes that cost 10, 11, 12 IPC. Each with their own benefits too!

Well, I wasn’t talking about bombers, I was talking about Fighter-bombers or Tactical bombers if you will. You do know the difference between a bomber and a fighter-bomber, don’t you? I certainly hope so.

A squadron of Stukas costing more than a squadron of FW190s… I wouldn’t think so.

How about this:

Fighter-bombers and Fighters cost the same. Fighter-bombers are attack 4, defend 2 (I’m guessing 3 is a little high). Fighters are attack 3, defend 4. No restrictions on Fighter-bombers, like tanks or other fighters having to participate in the attack. Fighter-bombers can be used on Carriers just the same as Fighters.

I’m just throwing this out there, haven’t really thought it through… but you’re welcome to point out the flaws.  :wink:

When someone flips the board, we simply beat him with a stick. That does the trick.

@SgtBlitz:

Ok, so we NEVER get to see this in our regular Axis games…  It’s impossible for Germany to invade England round 2 with ANY build that the UK player can’t see coming a mile away.  Just too easy to counter with UK’s starting IPCs.  But this isn’t historically accurate.

In fact it is very historically accurate. In 1940 the Luftwaffe would at best have been able to gain air supremacy over parts of Britain and only for a certain period of time. About half of the RAF was out of Luftwaffes range, the British could produce aircraft and train pilots at a rate the Germans could not, the British had lots of pilots that could be retrained to fighter pilots, the British had superior air combat management with radar and by the time Luftwaffe switched to bombing London, Fighter Command was stronger than they had been in the beginning of the Battle of Britain (about 50% more fighters). Also, the Luftwaffe pilots suffered from battle fatigue (kanalenkrankheit), and the “breather” that RAF got from Luftwaffe switching to bombing London also gave the Luftwaffe a much needed “breather”, and also the autumn weather was coming.

The Germans had fighters with short range (external fuel tanks could have improved it, but not much) and this meant they needed more aircraft over Britain than the British, who hade longer operational range due to being “at home”. Also, Luftwaffe pilots who where shot down over Britain did not come back to fight again.

Moreover, it was not enough to gain air supremacy, the Germans also needed to defeat the Royal Navy. By the time the Luftwaffe switched to bombing London, the Germans had about one week to defeat the RAF, defeat the Royal Navy, gather an invasion fleet (wich would consist mostly of barges and the like), produce and test doctrines for amphibious invasion and conduct the landings, before the weather worsened.

A German invasion of Britain was a naive dream. The Luftwaffe’s inability to defeat the RAF (they were never even close), combined with the tremendous superiority of the Royal Navy over the sad Kriegsmarine, and the Heer’s non existing capacity to land troops in England and support them, meant that Unternehmen Seelöwe was never possible in reality. This was also the view of the OKW.

But that’s reality. A&A is a game, and it is supposed to be fun. Conducting Operation Seelöwe is fun, especially if you succed, therefore it should be possible (although difficult as hell) in the game.

@oztea:

And in 1940, the important lesson in France was “Static defenses arent worth their weight in cement”

Static defenses cant be moved, and can therfore be bombed, relentlessley. They cant be moved, so they can be bypassed, they cant advance with the rest of the army, or retreat.

The Maginot line tought us alot of those things, the bulk of the French army was cut off from retreating to Paris as the Germans bypassed it.

Not sure I agree with you completely here. The purpose of the Maginot Line was that the Germans would probably consider it too costly to go through it, and therefore they would go through BeNeLux instead. Knowing this, the French could meet the Jerries head on in the BeNeLux, with strong forces. The Ardennes was considered a defensive line in itself, being between the main French forces and the Maginot Line.

This was the French strategy. It proved useless in the end because the German forces outclassed the French. But the purpose of Maginot was not to stop a German invasion per se, but to funnel the German attack through Belgium instead.

So, lets say it is limited edition, how many copies are likely to be produced? If I live in Europe and want to be dead sure I get a copy, then pre-order now is the way to go right?

Joking about cowardly swedes can of course be very funny, if done right. Conan O’ Brien knows how to do it, Adlertag doesn’t.

Anyway, back to topic.

@Adlertag:

My pc frooze yesterday, try again now. The most combat effective forces was the germans, then the americans, then the brits, the french, the russians and the italians at bottom. Look at the TDI-reports at DUPUY INSTITUTE (IL please dont klick on “employment opportunities”, we need you here)

It is the “neutral” Swedish infantry sculpts that need to stick’em up and waving a white flag. Remember the Psilander incident in 40, when 4 swedish cruisers was sailing from Mediterranean home to Sweden, and outside UK they surrendered without a fight. The germans just grabbed all the iron ore they could carry from Sweden, and also used the swedish railroads to transport german troops. After the war, Stalin did the same. The swedes are what we call “push over’ss”, they never stand up and fight whatsoever. Last year Sweden arranged Davis Cup, but some muslims made a riot because of Israel and the swedish police was so afreid they didnt dare stop the riots, and the Davis Cup was closed. Thanks to swedish morale.

I think the swedish units should be yellow, with arms raised, and a white flag. Or just keep Sweden an open territory that anybody may use at will.

1. The Germans did not “grab” all the iron they could from Sweden, they bought it, fair and square. Sweden was neutral remember?

2. Yes, the Germans were allowed to use swedish railroads. This was wrong, the swedes should have refused. That might have led to Germany attacking Sweden, and the swedes would have lost. But not without putting up a fight.

3. No, Stalin did not do the same, what the hell are you talking about?

4. On what grounds do you call the swedes “pushovers”? When you say they “never” put up a fight, when exactly do you mean? During WW2? In that case, that was because no one attacked Sweden, and the military had been neglected since 1925, much like with the french. Had the Germans attacked, Sweden would have put up a fight, but with the army in its weakened state, Germany would have won.

Outside of WW2? In that case, take a look at the swedish armed forces in the 60:s through 90:s. Do you see many cowardly swedes with their armes raised waving white flags, or do you see a nation armed to their frickin’ teeth, with one of the largest air forces in Europe?

5. No, the swedish police was not too afraid to interfere with the riots, they just have some kind of “non confrontational” approach to that type of thing, dont ask me why. I think its stupid, but it has nothing to do with “morale”.

Now, My post is of course also off topic, sorry for that.

With your 4th post you should settle down a bit. You are off topic and making attacks on members here. Post edited as needed. You can probably make some jokes about anything except another member of this site or political.

I think he was just making his normal jokes which yes can be a bit over the top. If your offended, just hit the button on the bottom of the post to report.

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

Hi!

Instead of introducing airborne and mechanized infantry as specific units in the game, I’m thinking of using a special rule.

-Every nation gets one opportunity each turn to either use a paratrooper unit, or a mechanized infantry unit. This works as follows:

Any infantry unit on the board can be used as paratroopers or as mechanized infantry, but only one unit per turn can be used for one of these purposes.

A Paratrooper unit can land anywhere within two spaces, provided that there is a bomber unit stationed in the same territory as the paratrooper. The effect of landing in a territory is the same as if the unit had moved there over land, i.e. if an enemy territory is empty, it is captured, but if there are enemy troops there the unit goes into combat. The paratrooper has an attack value of 2 when in combat. When and if the territory is captured, the paratrooper unit becomes a regular infantry unit again. The paratrooper can land as a combat move or as a noncombat move.

A Mechanized infantry unit is a regular infantry unit that can move two spaces (blitz), provided that there is a tank stationed in the same territory as the mech. inf. The mech. inf. unit moves together with the tank and also fights together with the tank, with an attack value of 2. When combat or movement is over the mech. inf. unit becomes a regular infantry unit again. The mech. inf. unit can attack during the combat move phase or move during the noncombat move phase.

Still with me?

Ok, I have also introduced a system of country specific units in the game. These units are regular AAr units painted light gray. The build costs are based on the assumption that the out of the box-rules costs are used.

US:
B-29 Superfortress. Move 8 (not affected by long range aircraft tech), attack 5, defense 1, cost 18. (painted american bomber)

Germany:
SS Panzer. Move 2, attack 4, defense 4, cost 8. (painted german tank)

UK:
Cruiser. Move 2, attack 3, defense 3, cost 15. Can bombard like Battleship. (painted british destroyer)

Japan:
Super Carrier. Move 2, attack 1, defense 3, cost 20. Can carry 3 fighter units. (painted japanese carrier)

Russia:
Il-2 Shturmovik. Move 4, attack 4, defense 4, cost 14. (painted russian fighter)

So, any thoughts on this? Sorry if any of it is unclear, english is not my first language.