Posts made by Romulus

@Flashman:

In fact the Soviets already had huge industrial capability east of Moscow; in the Urals, Kuzbas and Kazakhstan.  The “evacuation” program of moving factories from Ukraine and Leningrad to the east is generally overestimated.  That’s why my map has a Trans-Urals territory with an industrial complex, and higher values for Soviet eastern territories.

@Romulus:

Had Moscow fallen before the autumnal rains, Russia had lost every capabilities to transfer industrial production from over the Urals to the Western Front, as Imperious Leader has said. Red Army should have to fight without supplies and replacements, not a good situation considering that winter was coming.

Moreover, if the German Capitol in the Capital (Berlin) was captured the big safe had contained the national gold reserve. However I do not know if German gold was in Berlin and nor I know where Russians held their gold, if they have it.

In fact I am giving the appropriate consideration to the TransUral industries. What I am stating is that Moscow was the central hub of railroad network. The fall of Moscow in German hand, with or without the “big safe”, had casused the impossibility for the industrial products coming from Kazak, Kuzbak, etc., to reach the front.
So the Red Army of Worker and Peasants should have really fought with hammers and sickles.

I think that while I am playing it is slightly difficult to take note of in progress information, like battles related info.

It is more easy to take note of information at beginning and in the end of the game.
Bid amount is an interesting thing to consider, for newbie as me, that are starting only now to consider bidding. It may be interesting to compare our results based on a certain amount of IPC bidden and results of other players more experts.

IMHO keeping the data to collect simpler allows to realize the idea more easily, because is less laborious to collect data.

Jennifer and Frood, according to me both of you are saying almost the same thing in a slightly different ways.
In regards to the stats of the AA gun, there is a properties that may be used: the theorem of total probability.

If we consider A the event that first dice hit and B the event that second dice hit, we all agree that each probability a priori is P(A) = P(B) = 1/6 = 0.166666 approximately 17%.
The probability of the two events, that are independent, is:
P(A AND B) = P(A)*P(B) = 1/36 = 0.027777 approximately 3%.

Given the fact that the two events are independent but not disjoint (or they are not mutually esclusive, that is the same) the probability of hitting at least one of the two aircraft is:

P(A OR B) = P(A)*P(B) - P(A AND B) = (1/6) * (1/6) - 1/36 = 11/36 = 0.305555 approximately 31%. (as Frood said)

There is another way to compute the  same probability, considering the complementary event A’ and B’, that are the events in which aircraft is not hit.

The a priori probability in this case is 5/6. So:

P(A OR B) = 1 - P(A’ AND B’) = 1 - (5/6) * (5/6) = 1 - 25/36 = 11/36 = 0.305555

What Jennifer calculated is the conditional probability of P(A) given that P(B) is not verified. Being the events independent we have that P(A AND B) = P(A)*P(B) and so, for the Bayes Law:
P(A|B) = P(A AND B)/P(B) = P(A)*P(B)/P(B) = P(A) = 0.166666

So you are looking different aspects of the problem but you have calculated the correct probabilities!

@AJ:

Switch Germany only starts with 6 Figs … so does Japan

I think Switch calculated also the bombers. German has 7 aircraft: 6 fighter and 1 Bomber.

@M36:

Do you honestly think there is one “big safe” with all the nations gold in the capital? :lol:

Ours is at Fort Knox, guarded by a whole Division.

Well… I am obviously joking!  :-D

I only would underline that capturing a Capital should not be evaluated only from a political and economics point of view. A Capital have also strategic, geograpic, and logistic values for his nations.
Moscow fall had hampered very much Red Army struggle to survive in 1941.

If the bid in Ukraine was only 1 AA I think that Russia should attack the same.

Losing a fighter with Russian in R1 is very bad, but the odds in the subsequent battle are the same and, moreover, if the strafing went to good and russian tanks are stucked in Ukraine there is the same problem for the German in using its fighters in counterattack.

It seems that the games do not simulate the airplanes of WWII in every detail.

I have played with Achtung Spitfire and Over The Reich for PC, tactic games with WWII airplanes. When you turn hard with your fighter you lose speed and altitude, and you lose more of them if your turn drag is high. If you make so for a long time you are meat on the table if your opponent is faster.
The plane that lose the less (because is aerodynamically more efficient and have a more powerful engine) get the tail of the other that is slower.

A P-51 Mustang or a Spitfire may outmaneuver a FW-190. In fact Mustang may turn faster and loses less speed and altitide than the FW-190 and Spitfire IX is event better at doing so.
Moreover Mustang and Spitfire have a powerful engine with a good accelleration, better than the Zero, so you may turn hard and then break off at high speed and diving, then return to dogfight, gradually your speed advantage will bring you on the tail of a slower Zero.

The experts German pilot (very few) know that, and uses the diametrical opposite tactic: hit and run. FW 190 keep high speed and make a slashing attack at the P-51 do not engaging in dogfight but running away to a safe distance, then turning back an making another pass, blazing with all the FW-190 firepower. Try to do little maneuvering and keep the speed high. You may turn back using an Immelman and run away making a power dive.

Had Moscow fallen before the autumnal rains, Russia had lost every capabilities to transfer industrial production from over the Urals to the Western Front, as Imperious Leader has said. Red Army should have to fight without supplies and replacements, not a good situation considering that winter was coming.

Moreover, if the German Capitol in the Capital (Berlin) was captured the big safe had contained the national gold reserve. However I do not know if German gold was in Berlin and nor I know where Russians held their gold, if they have it.

Really, for tie games I intend an unfinished games that is terminated with reciprocal agreement without deciding to assign victory to someone. In our games it happens sometime.

@ncscswitch:

Paint, I think you misunderstood Romulus.

He was not posting subsequent combat, but subsequent NCM’s.

Yes, I was speaking about english non combat move in first round, and the fleet I refer was the English fleet moving in SZ 30 (1 AC and 1 TRN).
But I did not write clearly this in my post, so it was ambiguous and it is not definitely easy to understand what I intended.  :oops:

So if British Fig (from India) sunk the sub the British sub goes to Solomone Island and then threaten sz 60.
Otherwise, Fig goes to Pearl Harbour and Sub goes with the TRN in Sz30.

Last game UK player avoided the attack to the sub and conentrated 1AC, 1 Fig, 2 TRN and 1 SUb in Sz 30. And they was a continuos nuisance for the remainign of the game.

But indication from Newpaintbrush was still useful. Tanks!  :-)

Really, as a new player, I am interested in knowing statistical information about games. But not to much numbers! To provide all that numbers it should require another person to take note of all the events in the game.

A reduced number of statistical information could still be useful and interesting.

Games Played, Axis Win, Axis Loss and Tie games.

Total number of turns played.

Turn in wich a Capital fall in enemy hands.

I think they may give an indication of how much our games are distant to games played on average.
I do not know if they may be useful for veteran player, however. :?

Only mi 2 cents.

timerover51, vey nice post!

If I am not disinformed, loss of Shinano, in Japan Internal Sea, was due more to the inexperience of the crew, and particularly the safety squad, than on the structure of the ship. “Sister” ship Musashi (completed as a battleship), in fact, was hit by more than 20 bombs and torpedo before sunk in Battle of Leyte.

By the way, Yamato class was planned on four or three ships? In case of four what happened to the fourth one?

Moscow was saved in 1941 also by intervention of the siberian troops. Had the Japanese attacked the Russia together with Germany in June 1941, those troops had to stay in the Far East, and Zukov haven’t had any reinforcement on Moscow, so Russian had lost one of the positive factor of the battle. There was no need for the Japan to defeat the Siberian troops (and they hardly had defeated Russian, they alredy was defeated in 1939 in Manchuria). It had been sufficient just to keep them occupied, avoiding going as reinforcement to Europe. Having signed a treaty on non aggresion alloved Stalin the freedom to strip all the troops from Far East and bring them in defense of Moscow. Had Moscow fallen, beside of the political and moral effects, Russia had lost their greater rail center, effectively separating north from south rail networks and severing their link with the East. Industry beyond Urals, in fact, used Moscow railway net to deliver their products to Red Army. Lost Moscow, Russian logistic have had very big problems, almost impossible to resolve in few time.

However there is also a German logistical problem to consider. In the plan of Hitler URSS have to fall in 6 weeks. So Hitler do not allow to plan for the winter campaign, because in his view war with Russia have to be finished before. Who touched this argumentation in the OKW was at the risk of being assailed by Hitler with accuse of defeatism. By the way, Winter of 1941 had been the most cold winter of the XX century. Even Siberian troops suffered the cold. Guderian was stoppend more by the frost than from the enemy at Tula, that is at few Km from Moscow. German soldier on the Moscow front entered in battle with the summer uniform. Rifle and MG have not lubricant oil adapt to the lower temperature. Even Panzer may stay always with engine on to avoid freezing problems.

Not to re-open a discussion, but there is a big difference between Waffen SS and SS. The former was essentially Wehrmacht crack soldiers. The latter are originally a private militia of Nazi Party, that first became an internal policy force and then was appointed to manage affairs in the occupied teritories of Europe. Their “management” was cause of a lot of atrocities, murdering, deportation and plundering. They were also involved in the genocide of Jews.

Waffen SS were wonderful soldiers, among the best in WWII. Maybe only veteran Marines and hardened Guard Red Army Soldier may compare with them. There are some episodes of they being involved in atrocities, this is true. Particularly where there was not the possibility for the ordinary SS to intervene. But also soldiers of other nations make the same thing.
For example, in a recent book I read I was orrified by the story of what Russian soldiers made in Germany and specifically in Berlin, in 1945.

Ok DarthMaximus! Thanks for the great post!

I do not know if all that you said is an obvious strategy, but for me it is very interesting and for sure will help me to improve my games as Axis.

Well, so my defensive approach has been wrong. I tried to defend strong also WE and SE other than Berlin.
So it is better to fall back from WE to Berlin and then counterattack each turn trading WE with US and UK.

Counterattack should be done only with inf and plane? In that case what to do with WE AA? Pull back to Berlin?

It seems sthat I am going  slightly out of topic, but this problem arisen if Russia is aggressive and attack two territories.

In my limited experience, as I already said, 1 territory (West Russia) is too few for creating problem to Germany, while three territories are too much, because Russian unit spreaded across the front are easy prey for Germany. (if they did not fall during the attacks)

Where to regroup?

When Russia attack only West Russia I usually strafe Western Russia forces, and then fall back in Ukraina, starting to put pressure on Caucasus and West Russia.

But if Ukraina is fallen, I have had problems, and chosen to regroup in Eastern Europe, but this not work because trading for Ukraina and Bielorussia give too much IPC to Russia.

Alternatively, in my last game I chose to advance to Ukraina with my main army, but several turn of attrition, with reciprocal strafing did not allow me to advance to Moscow fast.
Cucasus fell, but only on turn 5, when British reinforcement from Norway start to create serius problems in Eastern Europe and USA units have cleared Africa and began to stare to Rome and Paris.

Maybe I should stay in Eastern Europe trading territories with Russia and moving toward Caucasus when Japanese are at gate of Moscow?

@ncscswitch:

Nah.

I often overlook things in these thread discussions.

Also, I have been losing half of my games in the League, and I only have about a 66% win record overall.  There are folks who have better records than me, and who are better gamers than I am.

Switch, I have read many threads on this forum and, often your posts have clarified my mind more than other explanations, with all the due respect for any other person who write on this forum.
I am not trying to adulate you, I have only made a consideration.

Moreover a saying of my country say: “To be a good rider does not require to have been a horse” (I hope my translation is comprensible  :-D )

Returning on topic.

I have noted that aggressive move on R1 requires Germany to use a greater number of fighter on Russian front, leaving less fighter to be used in Mediterraneanb Sea and in Africa, and this is a great benefits for UK. Also, Germany is forced to commit a great number of infantry in the Eastern Front and have less unit to stack in France and Germany.

My question is: German opening moves in answer to aggressive Russia is regruoup and defend, attacking Africa, or trying to advance (in Ukraine and toward Caucasus) forfeiting Africa and using TRN to shuttle troops in Russia?

We all agree on the fact that West Russia is an attack Russia have to do on the first round.

Making three attack appears to be too risky.

So two attacks are the ideal R1 move. But where to do the second attack?

As Magister said simply strafing Ukraina is not easy, you may be unlucky and get the worst losses or you may be too lucky and conquer the territory (and I “experimented” this destroyng all the German army in Ukaraina first round, loosing all the inf, and then… my 3 tank was sitting duck and was wiped from the G2 counterattack… not a good situation)
So next time I will attack Ukraina to conquer it!

As Switch said trading for Ukraina and West Russia is a good objective for Russia.

P.S.

Switch, your posts should be gathered together in a book: "How to Play and Win at Axis and Allies " !!!

Ok, I understood. Russia place her Eastern forces on Novosibirsk and is able to counter the Japanese atvance from any attack lanes.
So we made an error with Russia in our games. We try to stop Japanese advance in Yakut, Sinkiang and Kazak.
Giving up some territories (Yakut and Sinkiang) allows for a more efficient Russian defense from Novosibirsk.

In our initial games Russian player attacked only West Russia, with minimal forces, supported by 1 tank and the aircrafts, and grouping all the other units in Caucasus. But we found that Germany may counterattack west Russia strafing the infantry stack there, and then withdraw to Ukraina. And this creates a lot of problem for Russian armies.
Now we usually attack another territory other than West Russia, usually Bielorussia, trying to conquer it or Ukraina. The better thing to do with Ukraina, IMHO is to strafe it, saving the precious russian tank, but in some games the strafe had gone too deep, causing the destruction of all German forces. I believe that conquering Ukraina it is a bad situation more for Russia that for Germany.