Posts made by SgtBlitz

@xzorn:

Once the Japanese have all of China and India and Australia, and the Germans and Italians can attack the US, the game is over anyway. Conquering the US is feasible, but it won’t be that deciding factor that turns the tide. The axis will have already gotten the permanent upper hand.

Yes, but this scenario ISN’T possible with the Pacific game, as the US has only ONE FRONT to deal with.  There has to be some rule that lets Japan grab as much as she can BEFORE the US enters the war b/c she’ll HAVE to have equal footing for there to be a “fair” game.  Otherwise its just fighting against the dice the whole time.

@xzorn:

Consider that, globally, Japan will never have to conquer the US. You act as if that should be achievable. Japan, conquering the US. That would be, and should be, impossible unless the US messes up big time. Japan’s goal with the US is to keep him bottled up and waste resources that should be going to Europe so Germany can push into Russia.

How do all of your Axis and Allies games end?  The reason one side gives up is because this outcome is inevitable by the game’s conclusion, due to the economic swing.  In AA50, if Japan gets all her NOs and most of Asia you’re looking at a 65+ IPC monster against a maybe 40 IPC US.  If Japan didn’t screw up too badly in taking all of Asia and still has a sizeable portion of her fleet intact, there’s no way the US can win, barring the dice roll of the century.  It’s simple economics, as those extra 25 IPCs a turn add up to a likely victory.  It’s even more apparent in AA50 since the US has to split those 40 IPCs to DEFEND both Eastern and Western USA against German/Italian AND Japanese fleets by Axis end-game.

However, America ISN’T in this game going to be threatened by Germany, whereas Japan has at least two fronts going for it (India, Aus, AND the US).  I assume if the Japan player is smart they’ll nip India in the bud as early as possible while the US isn’t in the war.  But even with most of her NOs nearly taken, how is Japan supposed to compete againt a a one-front USA?

@Tralis:

Remember that the US’s income is going to be split between the two boards. Also, Japan may be able to grab enough VCs to win even if they would loose if the game was continued. Plus, naval warfare is expensive and Japan starts much closer to the US in terms of IPCs, much less after it expands some.

Yeah, victory on VCs just seems hollow, especially if most of the early fighting occurs with Japanese initative.  Usually the first three rounds of any of these A&A games decides the dice outcome of any given Axis side and what routes they have available.  If America can’t break through the Solomons and into Australia due to bad dice, will it be a short game?  For the same matter, if bad dice generally happen with a particular Axis power, that side switches to the defensive and prays for the other side to take the offensive…  this can’t happen here, so if Japan’s fleet is sunk by round 3 or so (Midway) its always going to be an allied victory?  I don’t see how one front minature games are going to be all that fun.  I suppose India (Britain) will be a second front for Japan to worry about; will the VC’s let Japan win if they can grab India?  I still think the USA would have fought on if India fell.

So, the plan is that there is going to be a global A+A game that will incorporate BOTH pacific and europe maps…  How is this going to be balanced?  For that matter, how is Japan going to have a prayer in hell of winning the war against the US in 1940 Pacific???  There are a bunch of new territories and some old ones have been split into parts; but Japan’s available territories to conquer in the Pacific in this edition just doesn’t seem to provide enough resources to turn the tide against the US. Will NOs (Nat. Objs.) make it viable?  Like, a whole bunch of NOs???  Also, Japan NEVER goes for a land invasion of the US unless its end game, since the US can produce so many land units in a single turn without any of its territories at risk (Alaska is minor loss).  If the only real opponent of Japan in 1940 Pacific is the US, how can the Japs possibly expect to win the war with a naval invasion of Western USA with the insane production advantage the US will enjoy until the very end?  Are the only vulnerable US territories Alaska, Hawaii, and the Phillipines going to be like 1/3 the US income or something?

Usually Japan has to finish taking over Moscow or a lot of Africa in addition to its standard “base” of Australia and India to start playing even with the USA, and this is generally accomplished with heavy Allied buys in the European theater the first few rounds.  While they get a few rounds of leeway in this version before America fully enters the war, without the extra resources not available on the Pacific map I don’t see how Japan can compete.  If 1940 Pacific is “balanced” so that it DOES play at a reasonable pace for the Japanese, when the 1940 Global set gets released how do they possibly expect it to be balanced if Japan can then go after Russia and Africa in addition to its normal pacific IPCs???

Yeah, Hitler brought in the whole wacky superior Aryan-race thing with England over and over again, trying to negotiate some “separate peace between the two Aryan brother nations”, and no one but the Nazis and maybe a few pro-Fascist English politicians ever believed in it (no surprise, it was an insane idea to base peace on).  This was even kept up until after Dunkirk and the beginning of the Battle of Britain.  The best thing about the character of Winston Churchill was that he was the first leader to stop negotiating with the Nazis and actually be able to fight back in kind.  When England and Germany started SBRing each other’s civilian populations all talk of separate peace with England was dropped in Nazi circles.

Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s Deputy of the Nazi Party, actually stole a plane in June 1941 and ditched it in Scotland to try to negotiate a separate peace, he believed in it so much.  Of course he was delusional, as by 1941 the war was pretty much well on and too many people had been killed/property damaged to call the whole thing off.  Some people think that he attempted this even though he knew it wouldn’t work since he knew the Germans were about to invade Russia and he wanted Germany to avoid a two-front war.  Of course, his claim that Germany was about to invade Russia was completely ignored by the Russian govt. since Stalin was nuts too.

How did all these crazy people in the 1940’s become world leaders!?!  Or maybe we see them as crazy people since their actions are magnified as leaders?  Definitely shows that humanity is flawed.  And that world leaders should be the ones we put to the magnifying glass the most…  Some people say that democracy doesn’t elect the best leaders of a population since most voters pick on a compromise candidate to begin with…  Hell, who would want to be a leader to begin with, all the crazy people out there you are forced to deal with!  Most likely everyone’s crazy on some level.

So, invading England with Sea Lion in Axis and Allies doesn’t work…  Can we make an optional rule to attempt to negotiate peace by spending 5 IPCs a turn on diplomacy, and on a “6”, gain a cease fire for a few turns?  LOL NO NO NO that’s NOT how you play A+A.  NOT EVEN GONNA HAPPEN.

@Adlertag:

you are still off topic

How is finally concluding that Operation Sealion is NOT a possibility with AA1940 Europe possibly off topic???

K, so…

Consensus is that taking capitals DOESN’T get you all the fallen side’s income, plus DOESN’T knock the opponent out of the war (i.e., we want the person playing France to do more than get drinks for everyone the next 90% of the game…)  So, seeing this, it may NOT be in the Axis’ best interest to shoot for the capitals at game start with these rule changes/additions.  Maybe Paris, but definitely not London.  If the UK is getting 40+ IPCs at game start taking 8 IPCs for the capital will barely make a dent in their production, even with losing a turn’s worth of IPCs and needing to build factories elsewhere.

Operation Sealion is definitely not a possibility then.  Only if there was some rule that allowed the Axis to change history by seizing the French fleet at Marseilles intact or allowing the Germans to invade/garrison Spain to strike Gibraltar would it even be barely viable economically.  Otherwise the risk in building fleet and transports just isn’t worth the cost.

So, perhaps starvation, limitation of resources would be the only viable strategy; i.e., the traditional Axis and Allies game where the Axis gradually tip the world’s IPC balance in their favor over many many turns?  With this mindset in place, the game will definitely end up being another dragged-out game of attrition that will play pretty much the same as all our old games…

BLEH.

@coachofmany:

yes. but historically, the Graf Zepplin was only to carry about 50 Aircraft. 1/2 what American carriers were carrying which was 90-100 aircraft.
So, I think you should only be able to carry one fighter on the German carrier.
Of course other nations like Britain did not have the capacity either.

Yeah, but we’re forgetting that the Germans probably never intended to use the carrier for anything more than support and reconnaissance…  They had such a large number of aircraft based in Europe that building carriers wasn’t their number 1 priority…  I mean, its a lot easier if you just use land based aircraft if that’s what you’re attacking with anyway, rather than sink a whole bunch of resources into a giant steel flattop.  The Axis called Italy their Land Carrier of the Med for a reason.

I just don’t like the naval carrier mechanics in A+A.  A player is forced to consolidate their stacks at the end of their turns for maximum defense, which requires carriers for landing planes on to protect the vulnerable fleets, while nearby planes landed on the continent/island bases next to the SZ can’t contribute at all.  It’s not realistic in the European theater with land territories next to narrow SZs, and its really only realistically implemented in the open ocean SZs in the Atlantic and Pacific.  There should be an “intercept” or “scramble” roll for fighters stationed in land territories next to a SZ battle (maybe a 50% chance per fighter) so that the defender can get a chance to add in more air support if they want, unless the land territory the fighter is stationed from is also under attack.

What do you guys think?

I’m not sure about a G1 naval buy, but the Baltic’s the best place to try since you start with a sizeable fleet there.  Only problem in '41 is that Britain starts with like 42 IPCs and can easily build some expensive naval units to sink it.  '42 scenario might have a better shot.

One thing I have tried is building a factory in France G1, then building a fleet in SZ 13 G2.  It can easily stack with the Italian fleet, have two powers growing into it instead of just one, AND be a lot more strategically useful than the fleet stuck in the Baltic.  Only problem is that this only works against weak Russian players, since Germany needs NOs to be viable from Russian territory, and two turns of weakened land unit production leads to a defensive front.  I had a pretty good run in the 41 tech tourney against KGB; but it ultimately failed due to a MONSTROUS UNSTOPPABLE RUSSIAN JUGGERNAUT.  Let’s put it this way; if Germany’s NOT getting her NO’s, Russia sure as hell IS.  And that means Bad News Bear for the Axis.

Also, trying both of these suggested "tips and tricks"strategies; the “Red October” AND the “Persian Plunge” TOGETHER is a recipe for suicide with the Allies in a '42 game.

Use of Red October guarantees that the Persian Plunge UK IC build in persia will NOT be receiving the promised 4 inf from the Causcasus as backup, as all 4 subs use up the production necessary in the Caus the first round, and the forthcoming rounds will have so many German units threatening Moscow that moving inf away from Caus seems chancing the Russian capital (and the game).

Attempt these strategies at your own risk.  Either/Or would be better than trying them in conjunction.

@Adlertag:

@Gargantua:

What a poor strategy to be the focus of attention in the “Tips and Tricks” thread.

Here we go, you just got yourself one more smite. My grand strategy this week will be to smite you tree times a day.

Don’t let it get to you, Gargantua, this cat is thin-skinned…  I’ve been called an Islamic fundamentalist by agreeing with this clown.  Seriously.

-1 smite to Aldertag, just because I can, and +1 karma for Gargantua, for pointing out the obvious…

RUSSIA IS IN EVEN WORSE STRAITS AGAINST GERMANY IN THE 1942 SETUP THAN IN 1941!!!  How in HELL do you expect Russia to survive an all sub R1 buy if there’s no more land units forthcoming?  You have Ger units in range of the capital from two nearby zones and they are also an ace away from grabbing not 1 but BOTH of their 3rd NO territories!

The fundamental flaw in your strategy is that the med fleet is OPTIONAL for Italy… It can be simply a DISTRACTION for the Allies to waste IPCs on, and gain little to no income in North Africa while the Axis finish off Russia between Italy and Germany.

Who bases their opinions in a board game forum on the amount of karma they have anyway?

And it can be a gigantic time/money sink for the Allies AND the Axis; really, does Italy HAVE to build 2-3 carriers + planes + open up the suez for Japan’s fleet just to get the 10 IPCs from Africa for a few rounds?  Or even the +20 with NOs from Africa and the Med, which the Allies can easily negate with SBRs and North Africa drops?  I’m leaning more towards Jenn’s strat with Italy, Africa is a minor theater and will never decide the course of the game unless the Allies simply ignore it.  IF you can get both Italy’s NOs for a few turns early game its worth it, but barely worth building all navy with Italy to hold, when those extra resources can be thrown at Russia.

@gtg21:

And by page 4 this thread has completely fallen off the rails…

Back to Sealion.

The gov’t in exile rule sounds to me like a must have, considering Sealion (on a probablity scale compared to prior editions) appears to be a more viable option.

However, the exile rule should probably be limited to major nations (which excludes France, China, etc.) that start the war as transcontinental powers (which excludes Germany, Japan, and Italy) as in theory they’re the nations most likely to have potential centers of power farthest away from their capital and therefore independently capable of continuing on with the fight.

Nonsense!  The Germans could have their government-in-exile run from Argentina!  Or Japan could open their secret Antarctic base under the ice!

@idk_iam_swiss:

Do you think hitler ever could have taken britian? or the japs could have taken austrailia? Germans taking russia was possible…

Yes to all three, just be very glad they didn’t occur or we wouldn’t be having conjectural history discussions like we are just now!

1. Britain…  Would have been awhile, and probably would have eventually dragged the US into the war, but economic blockade with subs/aircraft/minelayers around Britain could have starved the Brits into submission.  The US was sending them Lend/Lease equipment in massive convoys which could have been a reason to declare war at any time; but the Germans were tearing the heart out of the raw material supply lines leading into England regardless.  A bit more pressure on the Brits supply lines at sea, a successful war in Africa and the Middle East to cut oil supplies, and it wouldn’t have mattered how MANY planes and ships Britain could have built, it wouldn’t have had the fuel for them.  There was a reason people were planting Victory gardens as well during the war, Britain largely imported its foodstuffs and if not enough food reached the Isles Churchill would have been forced to cry uncle eventually.

2.  Japs probably could have taken Australia if they had won a few key battles in the Solomons, enabling them at least minor naval supremacy…  The real issue would have been holding onto it!  Probably wouldn’t have held it very long against the US and an Aussie insurgency…

3.  No doubt possible!  Everyone knows this!  Russians got lucky or the Germans got presumptuous, but Stalin was very very lucky the Germans delayed invading Russia for a few months in '41.  In WWI the Germans handily beat them, and many were expecting the same outcome though a much shorter war.  Good thing we don’t emulate the winter weather in AA50.

@Twigley:

Just to say - do not be fooled by statistics.

The reality is that due to the purges and loads of other issues the Russian army was not an effective fighting force in June 1941. By December of that year Stalin had given plenty of lee-way back to his generals (unlike Hitler who tightened his control of the army yet further). The Germans lost half there forces by mid 1942 in Russia and they were still a long way from being booted out.

Yeah, Hitler was his own worst enemy; he was lucky throughout the majority of his career and it bred a sense of egotistical megalomania where he could do nothing wrong, which lead to his downfall in micromanaging his armies when they started encountering actual resistance in Russia.  There was this alternate history novel I read back in the day called “1945” where Hitler got put into a coma from a plane crash in Nov. 1941 and it was the best thing ever to happen to Germany, since the generals were able to regain control and set up a defensive perimeter instead of going all out for Moscow in the winter.  It was a pretty interesting read culminating in a Nazi sneak attack on the Manhattan Project in Tennessee in America, which isn’t entirely unplausible if Germany had won its war against Russia.  (This is also how I view Axis and Allies, where essentially you’re taking over control at a certain point in history where just about anything is possible.)

What I’m saying about alliances is couldn’t it be possible for Germany, Italy, AND Russia to go after Britain and the US in 1940?  Technically they were in a non-aggression pact but the US and Britain were the imperialist capitalists the Reds were eternal enemies against.  I mean, its not impossible; the Cold War proved that Allies’ alliance during WWII was just a alliance of convenience to defeat fascist Germany and Japan anyway.  Also like Germany and Japan’s alliance as the Axis powers, as their end goals would have had them squabbling over spheres of influence and control if they had taken over the world between them.  If Russia helped in taking out Britain, wouldn’t that be end game scenario right there?  (Of course, this would then end up like a big game of Risk, with Russia and Germany continually sizing up one another across Eastern Europe…)

@Adlertag:

@Shakespeare:

War is pointless??

War is theft. Its like somebody come to your house at night and steal your car, TV and silver dining kit. Hitler was a plain burglar, only difference was the scale, he stole oil fields, iron mines and whole countries. If he was not a Fhurer, he would have been a horsethief, it was in his blood.

My point is; wars, like theft, dont pay off in the long run. God will cut you down sooner or later. Just look at Germany. In 1945 they were poor. Butt when they quit stealing and started the hard work from 1950 and forth, they got rich. Today Germany is a very rich power. So no, you wont get 30 IPC when you conquer Moscow. You got to use the territorie’s IPC value and the factories, thats all.

So we agree.  The only point of contention is that you think the attacker should only get the territory’s value, whereas I think they should get the banked sum of IPCs.

@idk_iam_swiss:

So seririously I have to (assuming I am axis) take over almost all of europe. and THEN go after america? I like games where I can do a lot of different things (the 1941 scenerio in AA50 comes to mind). It just sounds so forced for the axis player…take france…then take britian…oh no! now I have to fight russia. Then comes america. I dont think poor little italy will be much help at all…

Heh is it a wargame simulation based on historical objectives after all…  I’m just wishing that different alliances/treaties could be made after all, like where Germany and Russia remain neutral and Germany with Italy can go after Britain and USA after knocking out France…  Or even better, no USA war declaration at all.  Technically, for about a year’s worth of the war from Jun 1940 to Jun 1941, Germany’s only real enemy was Britain (with minor flareups in the Balkans that delayed Barbarossa)!  The rest of WWII was declared by the Germans on Russia and the USA, so if the Germans hadn’t declared war on more than one foe at a time, there very much likely would have been a very different outcome.

@Adlertag:

@SgtBlitz:

Why are you even playing Axis and Allies anyway?  There’s the reason WWII was our last world war, and hopefully remains so.

I dont know what the teachers on your school told you, but Hitler startet this war from one reason, he wantet to kill jews, just like your muslim friends in Taliban and Hamas.

Wow, that was uncalled for.  Touched a raw nerve there.  All of a sudden I’m a pro-Muslim Extremist, when all I did was disagree.

Main point I was saying is that war in the long run is pointless.  Nationalities and people’s movements will always trump external forces trying to coerce people into submission through the barrel of a gun.  Axis and Allies doesn’t reflect reality.  There’s no way in hell the French would have willingly signed their country over to German control, I agree with the halved production assessment.  Just think that losing capitals should mean something other than a number on the board, and give something meaningful to the aggressor, for taking the risk in attacking it.  Otherwise its just a giant game of chicken.

@WILD:

"But Larry should make the US a beast in the economy department, we equaled the entire world in steel production at the start of the war and were outproducing it by the end of the war, the US should have an income that should almost equal the Axis all by itself. "

Ahh Yea the good old days when America actually had a manufacturing core. Thanks NAFTA.

LOL, yeah.  Only way Axis to win is if it takes over the rest of the world, THEN USA might start having some problems.

@idk_iam_swiss:

Does that mean that the axis dont stand a chance? Or does that mean they never did? I think if it wasnt for that whole lenningrad thing the germans could have taken russia. But they way you guys make it sound the axis are COMPLETELY surrounded by enemies…

Heheheh, if you look at it from the Axis sides’ perspective, OF COURSE they were surrounded by enemies… BUT in reality most of these “enemies” were self-autonomous powers that were just looking out for their best interests, without giving a damn about the greater global picture and what happened within it.  We take for granted today the U.N. and the our scrutinizing news reporters/human rights advocates/genocide watchers, that did not exist in 1940…  US was pacifist to the bitter end at Dec 7th, 1941, Pearl Harbor; looking at the actions of the world countries in the 1930’s-40’s, one could say that Britain and France were more of the world’s traffic cop!  Germany declared war on Russia and the US, which was totally not 100% necessary and the US war declaration was probably what sealed Germany’s fate more than anything!

@maverick_76:

Actually Russia had the world’s largest army when Germany invaded in 1941. But because of the treaty they were ill prepared for a strike by the Germans and the Russians lost huge quantities of men and machines during the first few months of operation Barbarossa. In fact if Hitler had not swept South to conquer Kiev, moving much of his mobile force away from Moscow, we might have seen Russia get conquered by the Germans! i think to make this accurate, Germany should get a first turn special attack like Japan had in AAP. Russia had huge forces but they were decimated because of the swiftness of the Germans, also on the first chance to invade I think units that move more than one spot should be able to move until they run out of moves, regardless of how many times the unit is in battle. This can simulate the blitz that the Germans put on the Russians which allowed them to conquer an area twice the size of Germany in six weeks if I remember correctly. Basically make the game to where if Germany plays their cards right, Russia can be taken in 2-3 turns, but as I have said in another post, make the game to where more than one allied capital has to be taken for an Axis victory, thus eliminating the tendency for Axis players to focus on Russia from both sides, because once they are done with that, they have a whole other capital to worry about.

Let’s not forget the PURGE!!!  Stalin had a purge of his armed forces in 1937-38, and got rid of most of his competent generals and officers and replaced them with Communist stooges that were very good at shifting blame onto their inferiors  (one of the fatal flaws in World Communism, it tends to reward the most mediocre or those best at playing the political game).  The Finnish invasion’s Winter War in Nov of 1939 demonstrated this folly to the world and showed many deficiencies in the Red Army… which was noted by the Germans as a critical weakness and factored into their invasion plans (Hitler is quoted as saying the Germans would only have to kick in the door and the whole thing would collapse like a house of cards!.. he was proven wrong).

Stalin was also slavishly enamored of Hitler as a fellow dictator, and trusted him until the end, still not believing what was happening when the Germans were invading in June 1941.  All these factors and above are reflected in that the Reds start with a huge DEFENSIVE army in 1940 but no real offensive units and they must be chosen carefully by the player to maximize effectiveness of his forces when the Germans DO finally turn their attention to Russia.

But yeah, if Germany WAS capable of keeping their Siegfried line intact in the West and continue their drive in the East I suppose its plausible; earlier better than never.  Personally, I’m totally mystified by them breaking their treaty with Russia; Stalin was sending Germany TONS of needed resources through the treaty, and they could have thrown their research into jet fighters and naval tech for invading Britain, or just throwing a lot more forces into Africa to kick Britain out of the Middle East.

I guess all of this shows just how crazy Hitler’s schemes were.  Hopefully Larry will have a rule set up so that repeating mistakes of the past isn’t inevitable.