Posts made by Ruanek

@Omega1759:

@Ruanek:

@Omega1759:

@Ruanek:

With all the new incentives for Germany to not attempt Sea Lion (the AA guns, the possible lost planes in France, and Russia being able to jump in in the aftermath), it seems like Germany should go after Russia once again.  So are there benefits to doing it early (G1 or G2 mainly)?  There’s no longer as much of a need for Germany to go the naval rout G1, so it can either get a head start building units for Russia or it can get a few subs to do some convoy raiding, or maybe a bit of both.  Either way it’s far less commitment to a navy, meaning Germany can commit more to Russia.

Successful naval campaign against England is still needed… Without hitting them hard at the beginning, you’ll be harassed constantly and with force.

Well, all you can hit with a naval campaign is their ships, and you can take out most of that G1 with the Luftwaffe.  And a strong air force is better at reacting to whatever the Allies do than a strong navy, which could be destroyed by a concentrated American attack anyway.

Subs are almost always cost effective and they work well at weakening the UK without having to invest in a navy of larger, costlier ships.

Question is whether you’ll be able to maintain the interdiction and weaken the UK enough while attacking on G2 (I assume G1 is out of question if you wish to attack the UK fleet)

I see your point.  I just don’t think there’s a reason to spend a large amount of IPCs on a German fleet (excluding subs for interdiction) unless Germany’s planning a major amphibious attack (Sea Lion, attacking America or Canada, etc.).  There just isn’t anything to do with it.

@Vance:

UK spends so much rebuilding after repeated bombing that they never get to build enough infantry for D-day, or much else.  USA provides most of those troops.  Notice that this scenario is more like how the actual war proceeded.

That could also make it easier for a late (possibly surprise) Sea Lion, if necessary.

@Omega1759:

@Ruanek:

With all the new incentives for Germany to not attempt Sea Lion (the AA guns, the possible lost planes in France, and Russia being able to jump in in the aftermath), it seems like Germany should go after Russia once again.  So are there benefits to doing it early (G1 or G2 mainly)?  There’s no longer as much of a need for Germany to go the naval rout G1, so it can either get a head start building units for Russia or it can get a few subs to do some convoy raiding, or maybe a bit of both.  Either way it’s far less commitment to a navy, meaning Germany can commit more to Russia.

Successful naval campaign against England is still needed… Without hitting them hard at the beginning, you’ll be harassed constantly and with force.

Well, all you can hit with a naval campaign is their ships, and you can take out most of that G1 with the Luftwaffe.  And a strong air force is better at reacting to whatever the Allies do than a strong navy, which could be destroyed by a concentrated American attack anyway.

Subs are almost always cost effective and they work well at weakening the UK without having to invest in a navy of larger, costlier ships.

With all the new incentives for Germany to not attempt Sea Lion (the AA guns, the possible lost planes in France, and Russia being able to jump in in the aftermath), it seems like Germany should go after Russia once again.  So are there benefits to doing it early (G1 or G2 mainly)?  There’s no longer as much of a need for Germany to go the naval rout G1, so it can either get a head start building units for Russia or it can get a few subs to do some convoy raiding, or maybe a bit of both.  Either way it’s far less commitment to a navy, meaning Germany can commit more to Russia.

@Young:

@Alsch91:

@JimmyHat:

Why not have Mongolia join the side that doesn’t attack.  Perhaps its too simple?

You’re right, it’s simple and easy.  But it just doesn’t make much sense.  Mongolia really never would have aligned itself with Japan, given their recent history.

And Stalin would never have cared enough about England, to attack Germany when London falls.

Well, according to one speech Stalin gave to the politburo, the reason he agreed to the NAP with Germany was to let the two sides fight it out and then dominate in the aftermath.  In the event of an early Sea Lion Germany probably is in a relatively bad position against Russia so it could make sense historically for it to attack then.

Mongolia is different, though.  It would never have sided with Japan then.

@taschuler:

I think the US NO for the Europe map would be better served in Africa.

I see it as more of an incentive to go after liberating Paris.  But  perhaps one in Africa could work better to get the US to want to be involved in Europe.

I really don’t like all the rule changes in AAG40.  I mean changing a setup to balance things is one thing.  But to completely rework the rules is something that is better done in another game (maybe scrambling was ok, because that was needed, but the new AA thing shouldn’t change within a game.

Right, the USA cannot do any aggressive acts until its fourth turn (unless attacked or Germany succeeds with Sea Lion).  Note that the USA’s movement restrictions still apply as well.  This is using the Alpha + .2 rules.

The Soviet Union can, I believe, declare war during the combat phase of its third turn, meaning it can do aggressive acts that turn.

@i:

When a sub is convoy raiding a zone does it do ipc damage to all powers with eritories touches the sea zone. Ie zone 82 Italy has gold coast and fwa German has fea do both of them lose ipcs?

Yes.

Even if London falls and America is convinced to help in Europe, it can still afford to split its attention (and it may need to) to keep Japan in check.  You’re talking about going after the USA after taking London?  Honestly, I don’t think there’s too much a chance of that being successful.  They’d see you coming, though you might be able to do a surprise landing in Canada (it being a bit closer).  But really if they know you’re coming you don’t have too much of a chance, though it could work with a Kill America First strategy and help from Japan (and probably some from Italy too).

@shadowguidex:

@JimmyHat:

To follow on Knp’s post.   I’ve seen games where Japan left China, moved heavy into Russia from 2 angles,(the north and just south of Mongolia) and helped in a 1-2-3 on Moscow and won the game!

Again, Axis win by either VC’s on the Europe board or Pacific board.  If you plan on winnning in the pacific, then you should NOT retreat from China.  If you plan on winning in Europe then by all means evacuate the Pacific and drive hard on Moscow.  Your fleet can move to the Indian ocean to drop their ipcs.

Yes, based upon your chosen strategy you can employ a full Russian headlong charge, and drive through China without really bothering to deal with the Chinese units, this is certainly a viable tactic and it’s worked for me a few times.

My biggest problem is the overreaching comments that makes one strategy “THE” strategy that MUST be employed, which is what too many people on here keep trying to do.  This game is too vast to create a one-size-fits-all strategy that will work for you most of the time - that’s foolish.  The best players will change their tactics each game and keep the enemy guessing.  If they’ve seen you do strategy X five times in a row, then they should learn and adapt and crush you next time.  There is NO strategy that works better than 50% of the time, in my opinion, so achieving success more than 50% of the time requires creative and varied strategies.

You will not be good at this game if you continually do the same thing every time you play the game - that worked and worked well with other versions of A&A, but not this one.  I recommend developing 3-5 different strategies that are viable, and changing up your approach each time.  Keep your enemy guessing, it’ll be your best advantage.  Nothing more fun than a G6/G7 Sealion that went totally unnoticed in planning until you plop down the transports with money you’ve saved for a round and a half.

Be flexible, watch the board, and don’t try to SEVERELY over-analyze things.  When I see comments like “You need at least 144 IPCs worth of units to successfully accomplish X” I laugh out loud.

Good hunting.

Yeah, that’s one of the things I love about Global.  My brother doesn’t like it because it has an element of luck (the dice), but I think that’s what helps to define a good player.  With no luck involved a player can just pick a strategy at the beginning and follow through with little or no deviation.  With the dice that A&A adds, a player can demonstrate true strategy by reacting to those unexpected losses and seizing the opportunity in those unexpected victories.  And with the complexity and distance Global adds there isn’t a surefire great strategy that should be at least attempted every game.

Sometimes, Germany will already have the transports from an attempted Sea Lion.  They probably wouldn’t be caught totally unprepared, though, because they’d see you build those transports.  It’s a bit of a gamble, in my opinion.  And I’d rather spend the money on something I can use more than once or twice (such as tanks, artillery, infantry, etc.).  It does allow slightly faster movement to Novgorod, and could make capturing it (and its minor IC) somewhat easier, though.

The blitz block Gargantua is probably referring to is the strategy for a nation to withdraw most of its forces from a territory soon to be captured except for one infantry to stop the enemy from blitzing through it.  Russia can do it to slow down Germany.

@Gargantua:

It’s also important to note that at this time, the US was also sending supplies to GERMANY.  But that doesn’t get represented in the game, or historically in most books.

China was BUYING supplies is a more accurate description.

It was sending stuff on a much larger scale to the other Allied nations (particularly Britain).  At this point the USA was still a bit isolationist, but there are always a few people wanting to get money from the other side.  The USA trade with Germany wasn’t really very substantial, and it is covered with bad politics and opinions nowadays.  There’s really no reason to include it.

@knp7765:

Germany was getting imports from the United States?  This is the first I have ever heard of that.

I do remember that when Italy invaded Ethiopia, the League of Nations imposed an embargo on Italy.  The problem was that it didn’t include coal or oil and also didn’t affect non-members like the United States.  That tells me that the US was trading with Italy so I guess it’s not too much of a stretch that the US was also trading with Germany as well.  I just assumed with all the stuff we were sending to Britain, that we wouldn’t send stuff to Germany too.  Then again, if we could send stuff to both China and Japan, then why not Britain and Germany.

Speaking of Italy invading Ethiopia - that was before WWII even started.  So at that point there was still Franco-German and Anglo-German trade, as well.  Even Russo-German trade, actually (and it was fairly substantial).

@Young:

America: “Let’s play war”
World: “I don’t have any weapons”
America: “That’s OK, I will sell you some of mine”

That really isn’t (or wasn’t) the situation at all.  That’s just what people think happened when they oversimplify thingsand want the USA to look bad.  You can do that with almost any country, if you know where to look.

It’s interesting, then, that both of you have apparently agreed the whole time but still had to argue over it.

@JimmyHat:

Yeah that was my point.  I understand not letting trn ships have an attacking value, but a carrier task force?  They do have guns…

Plus you have all the escort ships running in the carrier task force, although it could be argued these are represented now by the dd and CA models.

Yeah, I’d argue that the carriers in-game represent only carriers, not carrier task forces.  And cruisers and destroyers are their escorts.  A&A isn’t the kind of game to go into all the different ship classes and stuff.

@Gargantua:

How do you blow “Hundreds” of IPC’s in china?  Hundreds implies more than 100 thus atleast two hundreds (200).

That’s 20 planes “Wasted”…   Explain more please? I don’t get it?

You’re making an interesting assumption there.  I think it’s really hyperbole.  Destroying 18 infantry and an AA gun isn’t that easy, especially if they pulled back to prevent bombardment and such.  It’s a large commitment in terms of turns, IPCs and the fact that it forces Japan to spend less, if not nothing at all, in other richer areas.  And the USA can make it a pain for Japan, especially if it isn’t going for the money farther South.  That has to be dealt with, too.  But really, Cmdr Jennifer makes sense.  If Japan is focusing on helping Germany win (not going South for the money, NOs, or VCs), there’s no reason to commit large forces to subdue China when it’s so limited in what it can do.  Sure, they may push Japan out of China entirely, but at that point it won’t matter, because Japan is fully committed elsewhere.

And if it helped to take out Russia and bring a German victory, it’s not money wasted.

I personally prefer for each Axis power to try to win in their respective area, rather than forgoing improving their own economy just to help out someone on the other side of the world.  In my opinion it makes for a more interesting and fun game.  But maybe that’s just me.

Taking Yunnan certainly makes life difficult for China (no artillery or bonus NO income), but it’s hard to hold it with what Japan’s got round 1.  And if China can retake it then all the Japanese effort did was to destroy a few Chinese infantry and prevent them from buying artillery for one turn.  This means that Japan has to invest a bit in China to actually keep Yunnan.  It’s a slippery slope.  I think it’s definitely a good goal to take and hold Yunnan, but is it worth the cost compared to being able to spend those IPCs on taking out ANZAC or India earlier?

This has some information.

@JimmyHat:

The naval aspect has been improved, with the option of extra movement if you go from naval base to naval base.  I personally don’t like the new CV rules, pretty sure even a CV has defensive armament and therefore can fire at enemy shipping.  Also after playing the game I feel another area that is clunky would be the DOW system.  I don’t have a solution, but the current system is not right.

Provided you can schedule large chunks of time for the first few matches, and also the ability to keep the board up between sessions you should pick it up easily.  Now that I think about it when I first started playing, the first few games we were missing Scrambling options, had to redo the first turn because both of us kept forgetting it was even an option.  After a game or 2 though you should be fine.

It’s extra movement from a naval base - it doesn’t matter if it’s to a naval base.  And as far as I know carriers could always fire, but this time they can’t fire when attacking.  In real life carriers were built to launch planes, and the planes were the main weapons they carried, if not the only ones (though that’s still pretty formidable, as it turns out).

@Cmdr:

knp,

But if you do not perform sea lion, you now have a strong enemy to your rear.  So while it takes resources to do it, it also frees up assest that no longer need to protect your flank.

Except that the USA will be more inclined to try and open up that flank instead of focusing on Japan.  But that would take several turns, at least.

I think you’re focusing too much on Africa and not enough on Russia.  Taking Africa as Italy can be important, but helping Germany to get the required number of VCs in Russia brings the Axis much closer to victory.  Germany really shouldn’t be sending much to Africa unless Russia is no longer a threat (except perhaps for one land unit for the NO).  Some people here would say that even Japan should go after Russia to weaken it despite that meaning it’s giving up its own opportunities for expansion in the more valuable South.

Also, as a side note, if Britain falls to a successful Sea Lion (probably on G3) Africa is easier to take.  It also relieves pressure on Japan a bit because the US will want to liberate London.  Also, if you aren’t doing it already, it’s almost always a good idea to send planes down to Southern Italy G1 to help protect the scattered Italian fleet.

As in real life and previous A&A games, the most important part of the war is fought in Russia.  (A few people may disagree with me, but probably not many, and I like being melodramatic.:))  On a more serious note, look at how many VCs the Axis needs to win in Europe.  It needs to either go into Russia or across the Atlantic, and one of those is a lot easier.