Posts made by Razor

@Cmdr:

Question:

Why are you giving the United States even more money?  +8 IPC a round for S. America + 11 infantry, and trust me, those infantry are going into Africa pretty darn quick!Â

Lets do the math.

If Germany and Italy do the classic Russia first strategy, they will get a combined income of 40 IPC from home, 7 IPC from pro neutrals, 10 from France and 10 from two NOs, for a combined total of 66 IPC on the average game, before attacking Russia turn 2. Of course there will be trading of territories so this is just a estimate. But the point being that 66 IPC is not much to brag about.

Now if Germany and Italy do the daring and futuristic True Neutral strategy, take Spain, Sweden and Turkey, they will theoretically  be able to collect 40 from home, 21 from all neutrals, 16 taken from the allies, and 36 from a full house of NOs, for a combined total of 113 IPC before they attack Russia in turn 4. UK will in this case lose the 5 IPC NO. But the main benefit from this strategy is that Germany can attack Russia from Middle East, and Italy can move the fleet into Black Sea, and from there Russian territories worth a lot and NOs worth 15 IPC is in reach.

So I know what strategy I will go for in my next game as the Axis

@General:

Also more of a historical question. The Russians have always (and still do) wanted to make the black sea their lake: would they have been open to splitting up turkey with Germany a la poland if the opportunity arose?

Yes I believe they would actually. After all only the western part of Turkey, the Anatolia area, come with ethnic muslim turkians. The north east part used to belong to Armenia, who is a Christian people, and the south east was part of Kurdistan. The last year of WWI Turkey did ethnical cleanse one million Armenians, because they did support Tsar Russia. So yes, Armenians and Russians are friends, and Sovjet Union policy before WWII was that the Armenian people should be free to govern themselves and not be suppressed by the capitalist Turks. But then, Hitler never did understand the fact that his tanks needed oil to move. And since it was no jews in Turkey that he could purge, he ignored that area, and focused on Russia.

BTW I again added my map where Turkey is divided more historical correct, into Anatolia, Armenia and Kurdistan.

@General:

Moscow first and then deal with the rest of world.

Yes, a firm goal is good but timing is important too. Is Germany best off attacking turn 1, turn 2 or turn 4 etc…. Is it wise to attack early before the enemy is prepared, or should you wait and build up your forces to be overwhelming before you start the war… Germany is weak in turn 1 but gain more and more power when it grabs France and all the pro neutrals. Besides Germany lose the 5 IPC trade NO when he attack Russia, so its a lot of math involved in this calculation, its not enough with pure fighting spirit and go for it go go go

Likewise in the real world, Germany was weak in 1938, but stole the Tzchecoslovakian tanks and got strong enough to take France, then stole the French tanks and artillery and build up strong enough to take Russia etc etc …but no… that failed, they had enough firing power yes, but lacked oil and gas to move the panzers. So what if Germany grabbed the Middle East oil fields before the attack on Russia…what then …uh …

A successful attack on Russia should be launched in may, at the start of the campaign season, and not one week before it start to snow, like Hitler did. But that year it was so bad weather it had been raining all spring and summer, so Poland did not get hard surface until august, and then it was too late for a rational attack. And that is the reason that Hitler let one of his panzer divisions drive trough Jugoslavia and Greece, they could not be used in Russia before august anyway, so why not put them to good use in the Balkans meantime…
But after taking Greece and Crete, the rational way would be to continue through Turkey and grab the oil fields in the Middle East, as Rommel suggested. Then North Africa and Middle East would be Axis held, and we know what that means gamewise.

But then the attack on Russia had to be next year, and Hitler was not a very prudent man, so there we go. But if Germany had a rational leader in 1941, they would not have attacked Russia before 1942. Russia had been spending 60 % of the GDP on military burden since 1935 and had flattened the line, but Germany was building up successfully, and went from noting in 1933 to a peak of 40 % of GDP on military burden just before the attack on Russia in 1941. If Germany had patience to attack in 1942 or 43 then they had peaked with 60 % and total war mobilization, and get unlimited oil supply from the Middle East, and a start line close to the Russian oilfields in Caucasus, then they had a better chance to win.

Now take this to the game. Germany take Turkey and the Middle East  turn 3 and 4 and get a nice IPC NO, and every turn keep the 5 IPC trade NO too, and 4 turns to build up the army and factories close to Russia. Is that enough to kill Russia or is it a losing strategy …uh…

But would a German attack on Turkey in 39 or 40 have been successful or a disaster , uh…

The UK and French attack at the straits of Gallipoli in 1915 was a disaster, but that was because of too much arrogance, first they sailed battleships right into the minefield, and then they made a frontal attack with 5 light divisions wading ashore against 6 strong Turkish divisions that was dug in the mountains, fortified with big naval guns and had a german commander. Anybody would fail against that.

But in the Greco Turkish war 1919 to 1922, little Greece attacked at the unprotected Smyrna coast with 200 000 men, and they hold half Turkey for 3 years.

A German land attack from Bulgaria were most likely to be successful. In 1939 Turkey had a population of 17 million, but they were poor, and had only half the GDP as Sweden with 6 million population. Sweden could mobilize 300 000 men, equipped with heavy artillery, tanks and planes, giving them strong fighting power. Turkey only mobilized 400 000 infantry, poorly equipped and always out of supply. The high alpine mountains in Armenia would favor the defender, but not the flat hills in Anatolia. The German panzer division that blitzed through the mountains of Jugoslavia and Greece, would have not problems continuing into the low hills at Turkey, and then grab oil rich Iraq one week later. But how to model this in game

@Young:

Why are we talking about the “War with the True Neutrals” as an axis strategy?

Just for fun I guess. To turn the rest of the neutral world against you is not a rational strategy if you are Germany, but it is fun. You don’t win tournaments but you do enjoy.

I try to post two pics here. The one is the original AA map and the other is a self made improvement with terrain and Bulgaria border Turkey, so the German panzer don’t have to take a detour through Greece, but can go straight for the main object. Do mind I have cut Turkey in 3 zones, the flat hills in Anatolia, and the natural flank protection mountains in Armenia and Kurdistan. The Berlin Baghdad railroad is the red line that goes from Bulgaria to Iraq, and that railroad is what would make this a good strategy in the real world. But the lack of terrain and railroads in the game, make it a bad move in the game

@ItIsILeClerc:

• The turkish army is not so big, but the country is very, very mountainous. A dreamland for defensive campaigns, guerilla-tactics like cutting supplylines etc. And the mountains alone will slow any army down like Russian mud could be jealous of.

• Once ploughed through Turkey, the army must wade through hundreds of miles of desert, a nightmare for supplylines.

The germans build the Berlin Baghdad railroad before WWI, and as you see from the pic this railroad run in the lowlands and not in the high mountains that lie up north and east at the Caucasus area. The germans just had to guard the railroad, and would be supplied by it. And the mountain area in north east would give them natural flank protection against the Russians.

The hills in southern and western Turkey, where the railroad run, would not make problems for the supply line. This is mediterian temperate zone and don’t have snow or mud, just sun and hard surface. As you probably know, a truck with supply use ten time more gas and use ten time more time to drive in snow and mud. And that is what bugged down the german supply line in Russia during winter, and the Russian supply line in finland during the winterwar. As for the guerrilla and sabotage threat, the germans dealed with that in Jugoslavia and Greece, and that mountains were high with snow. So in real world, the Turkey Middle East oil was a viable option.

But back to this game. Bulgaria don’t have border to Turkey on the AA map, even if they have in real world, so I believe Larry don’t wanted me to attack Turkey in turn 2

Really, don’t you think this belong in the house rule forum , ehh…

I agree that Austria must attack someone in turn 1, just to get the game going. But after that, I don’t think Germany must attack Belgium, just imagine a kaizer that don’t want to involve Britain in the war, so he just go straight for the French border and skip Belgium.

@cyanight:

  On round 3 have Italy declare war on Russia and move that Navy into the Baltic sea and take Caucasus if it is not empty.

Perhaps you would rather move that fleet into the Black Sea, ehh…

Apart from that, I love your idea. Historian John Keegan claimed that the Axis best bet to win was to grab Turkey and get access to the Middle East oil. Unfortunate this game is balanced in a way to avoid unhistorical cases like that. In real world Turkey had only 16 millions population in 1939, and half of them not even ethnical Turks. In 1920 Greece went to war against Turkey and almost won. Imagine a German panzer division smashing through the 400 000 Turkish troops, even less than Finland mobilized, and into pro German oil rich Iraq. I don’t think the designers loved that idea, since they gave Turkey an unhistorical huge 8 infantry army, even bigger than Spain with a 35 million population. And as you mentioned, easy for UK to counter. Too bad Hitler was so focused on Lebensraum in Russia, or else this game would seen a more active Turkey.

That is correct, Wild Bill, the game need to be balanced. What I want is the right feeling, both Germany and Russia should feel they benefit from this treaty

@captain:

I  do think the NO’s you’ve suggested are more realistic than the current ones for Russia. The NO’s for Russia having control of Italian territories in Africa aren’t even remotely close to being historically accurate.

Thank you sir, I love your opinion. I do believe the game can be fair balanced with NOs that is based on reality and not fantasy. And Russia getting 3 IPC for every African colony it liberated, and turned into a workers socialist paradise, is one NO we could be without. And I bet the game would still be balanced. I want Russia to get more Lend Lease NOs for Alpha 2.4 edition. I love the 5 IPC they got by controlling sz 125 and Archangelsk, but they should also get Lend Lease through Persia and Sovjet Far East. I am also a fan of the Patriotic War No they had in the AA Europa 1999 edition, where UK and USA could land a fighter on Sovjet territory with a factory, and that fighter would turn into a Russian fighter next turn. That mechanic was close to being historically accurate, and did not act as a free lunch, as most NOs do.

I believe in trade. Germany give one artillery to Russia and get 5 IPC in return as long as they are friends. USA land a fighter on Russian territory, and later it turn into a Russian fighter, and that benefits both Russia and USA. Russia get more fighting power, and USA get dollars into action faster. And the Axis cant complain that NO is a free lunch

@ItIsILeClerc:

A&A is a game of thr… balance  :roll:

The NOs and the military positions cannot reflect history, because the balance of the game would be ruined.

.

…and that is because the Axis and Allies community invented thr… bidding.  :-D A one time disbursement of extra cash or units so you can balance the game after your liking

@wittmann:

Morning Axis Tiger. I believe the Germans’ only hope in 43 was to keep things on a small scale.

On the contrary. Germanys only hope in 43 was to dug in a defensive line in Russia that was easy to hold. Then they should scramble all available forces and punch through Turkey and grab the oil fields in Iraq and Persia. This would work in real world for sure, but not as good in a game of Axis and Allies, because there you need luck with the dice, man

@rjpeters70:

Yeah, that’s part of the reason why Churchill (asides from being a staunch anti-bolshevik) had no patience for the Soviet argument that they were the ones bearing the brunt of the fighting against Hitler, and that they therefore should receive some extra compensation:  Because they were supplying the raw materials necessary for the Germans to conquer France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway, and that the Soviets would have been more than happy to see the British Empire destroyed…

Basically I startet this thread to analyze how the games rules models WWII history. But your off topic statement is so far fetched it cant be ignored.

First, the workers of Sovjet Union were not the only that would be happy to see the British Empire destroyed. Also president F.D.Roosevelt and the capitalist businessmen of USA wanted the protectionist colonial powers Britain and France to be destroyed so they could open a free world marked, with free trade. And correct me if I am wrong, but after the war all great suppressing racist colonial powers did get destroyed, but you cant blame the commies in Russia for that. You must blame the capitalist Yankees.

So both socialist workers and capitalist Yankees wanted the British Empire to die. To that you can add all the native population in the colonies, yes even Canadians and Aussies wanted to govern themselves, so did the Indies, the Africans and so on. Add to that 12 million African slaves, and a lot of minor nations that was bullied by the Brits.

As to who helped build up the German military, it was not the Russians. That trade agreement was made after the war had begun, and had no effect on the fighting in 1939 and 40. The Russians was forced to agree to it because they feared Britain and France would make a new Munich treaty against Russia the same way they did to Tchecoslovakia in 1938. After all both vice president Truman and Churchill did say in public before the war, that it would be nice if commies and nazies killed each other. Not just talk, since they gave a lot of resources to Germany in order to keep Russians out of Europe. But the main contributor to Nazi Germany was neutral Sweden. Hitler got 40 % of his steel from Sweden, starting just after WWI and not ending before Germany lost in 1945. It was so much steel that Hitler could build a Tirpitz battleship every day. And that steel was paid for with US dollars, delivered by Prescott Bush, on behalf of a US bank. So shout up.

And about who was bearing the brunt, I belive 85 % of the germans was killed in the Eastern front. USA only lost 250 000 men, so the main burden was not there. Actually USA become the richest country in the world after WWII, making good profit on the war, so again, just shout up.

I am just reading the book Sovjet union foreign policy 1917 to 1991, and have been enlightened. Germany and Sovjet had a trade agreement from 1940 to 1941, where Sovjet sent oil, grain and metals worth 597,9 million DM to Germany, and Germany sent weapons worth 437,1 million DM to Sovjet. But in this game only Germany get 5 IPC when at peace with Russia. I think both should get a NO, Germany get 5 IPC and Russia get one artillery unit. This will model the treaty more historical correct.

Also Sovjet sent ten times more equipement to China than the Western Allies, including more than 200 fighters and 200 tanks. But China only got one NO, and that is the Burma Road. I suggest China get one artillery unit when the Burma road is open, modelling the western aid, and 2 IPC as long Moscow is alive, modelling the commies aid. Maybe even get a new plane if the Flying Tigers are shot down, or a tank when China only got 3 territories left.

@knp7765:

How does that work with Amphibious Assaults? Do you allow them to happen even with an enemy fleet still in that sea zone?

That is a good question.

During Dday I think Germany had 9 subs in the English Channel, but they did not stall the landing. During the UK landing in Narvik 1940, the Germans had 4 subs in the same sezone but they did not stall that landing. At the US landing in Leyte oct 1944 the Japanese navy was in the adjacent seazone at the start, but attacked the landing ships with aircrafts, kamikazes and ships the day after, and before all troops had time to finish debarking the ships. If the Japanese attack had been successful, then the US infantry would have died when the trannies sunk. So how to model this in a game. Also people tell me that Adolf did not dare landing in UK in 1940, even if the British army was scattered in France, just because he was afraid that the UK navy, who at that time was two seazones away, would visit the landing site and sink all the german trannies, putting the germans in UK out of supply.

So you tell me

Well, in the classic edition it was not allowed to share seazones, so if UK put a sub in the Med and another one in the North Sea, then Germany was denied building ships for the rest of that game. Not a fun rule. Ships must be allowed to share seazones in some way. Maybe a search roll like they have in other games. A seazone is always neutral, its not contestet, hostile nor friendly, just neutral. And if you want to attack other ships in that specific seazone, you will have to roll a search dice. Of course the other guy can roll a dice too, and if he win the search then he can sail away and escape battle.

As for defenders retreat, yes. The retreat is a battle tactic that armies and fleets use to get out of harms way so they can fight another day. In Russia they even scorch the earth when retreating, so the attacking Huns will not find food there. And for the naval battle, that is true maneuver warfare, ships don’t really retreat they just sail to a better position, in order to make the big T. In game terms, that is another seazone.

Kaizer Wilhelm II with his lame arm.

@WILD:

So I was thinking, instead of mandating naval battles only go one round, why not just give both parties a retreat option (TBD). In many cases this would self restrict naval battles to one round.

Yes, but when you retreat, the other is not allowed to chase you. In real naval battles it is common to chase each other, but in a game that kind of behavior violates the turn order.

I think time is an issue. A game turn is considered to be like 6 months, while a real life naval battle usually took less than a day. On top of that, our ships seems to be stuck in their little seazone. In the real world a ship could easily sail around the world in 6 months, as is the length of a game turn. Now imagine that in a game, a ship with unlimited movement.

I think in order to make a game that behave as close to the real world as possible, we must analyze every naval battles from 1904 to 1945, and then we will see that WiF is the game that come close, and that Axis and Allies has a long way to go.

@Flashman:

If months long land battles last only one turn, then on what basis do one or two day naval shootouts last several?

The scale.

A naval battle is like ten ships firing a broadside at each other in a limited space during a few houers, where each broadside count as a round of combat.

A land battle is a million men army fighting over a country during months. One campaign count as a round of combat.

No, I think naval battle need unlimited rounds. A naval battle is one day, while land combat is months.

In the battle of Jutland 1916, the Huns combat moved into the North Sea, sunk some British ships and then retreat after one round of combat. But not because of some law, but because the commander decided so. In theory the battle of Jutland could have continued until all ships hit bottom.