Best posts made by simon33

Curious as to what you are getting at with this thread. Yes, a well constructed German strategy should crush Russia without a massive effort by the allies to help out.

I would argue that Japan keeping peace plays into the allies hands and I think you’ll find that view conventional on this site. For a start, the starting ANZAC fighters can reach. UK_Pac can send through a few planes. With a J1 or J2 DOW, the ANZAC fighters can’t cross onto Asia. And UK_Pac will lose its capital very quickly without its planes. Also, UK_Pac has a bunch of income if they have peace and can afford to build some planes probably.

That the axis have a huge advantage on this board is why bids are so high or significant house rules are used, such as balanced mod.

Not just a league question but why does everyone hate the combat move first idea? Ever time I have to reload because I’ve put in the wrong buy I find it really irritating. Enough that it really reduces my enjoyment of playing the game. Why do you players like this idea? In 1.10, you’ll be able to post from the Purchase phase so will that resolve the annoyances with this idea?

Or is it the repair, plunder or CV purchase bugs? I’m guessing that it’s none of those things. Just that it’s different to the way it’s always been.

Also it seems I cannot grab files previously uploaded.

Regarding tech, one thing I hate about it is that it isn’t directed. Doesn’t it make more sense to be able to specify which technology is being researched?

I wonder if the op plays for total victory and not just axis victory on either map?

@oysteilo said in Oysteilo (Allies) vs Simon33 (Axis) taamvan mode Game II:

@simon33 why was this required???

The attack on Novgorod? It’s always good to kill some Russians when you have the chance.

Ok, feedback FWIW after several games.

• If the new scramble rules require require a surface warship or a land unit, why was this not retrofitted to the old scramble rules? Should be consistent.
• Disappointed the reduction in the Chinese Burma Rd objective was retained. This reduction reduced the fun of fighting in China.
• Guerrilla fighters are less of a factor and China is stronger. The merit of this rule is further reduced in P2V as opposed to BM.
• Like the Siberia IC although I am not so sure about it being in a coastal territory.
• Don’t understand the need for the complexity of removing Industrial complexes in USSR. If you don’t want Germany to take the Ukraine IC, just take it off the map. In Siberia, removing the IC if Japan lands makes it less valuable for Japan to do so.
• Leningrad is no longer connected to the Barents Sea. This improves realism but I am less keen on not having a naval base or airbase on the Barents Sea. I think there should be an airbase on Karelia and a naval base either on Karelia or Archangel.
• No universal scramble?
• No paratroopers?
• Canada losing its production in a sea lion game is still pretty dumb.
• Japan’s income has been migrated from the money islands to increased objectives. I can’t see anything good about this idea. Fighting over the money islands was a fun aspect and this has been reduced.
• Less objectives can be more. Increasing everyone’s income without increase the number of starting troops as significantly tends to make the game last longer. Perhaps this is an intended outcome, not sure really. Not really sure why the Carolines etc objective should be extended to Japan.
• Like the Malta airbase.
• Positively hate the partition of SZ38
• Pacific victory is almost impossible without a near complete abandonment of the Pacific by the allies or some major miscue.
• Interesting that the reduction in bomber attack power reduces the odds on Taranto with no other changes.

If you assume there’s a J1 DOW, won’t Japan just run after India and the money islands and ignore your fleet?

You don’t really have enough to hold SZ6 against a strong attack with so many subs and so few CVs. All those subs can’t hit planes so Japan can attack with its enormous air force and lose only a few planes. There’s no reason Japan has to have any ships in SZ6 so long as it can strike it.

Are you taking the Caroline Islands? If you can take and hold that, your subs can hit the IJN anywhere that they’re useful. If they’re hiding in SZ37, you can then start convoying SZ6 and take Korea.

@trulpen said in BM3 trulpen (X+3) vs axis-dominion (A) #1:

Believe I got a little diced/owned in the opening. Seems very wise of you to scramble. I usually never dare that.

Definitely agree with axis-dom. You overstretched in SZ110. SZ111 was a risk I understand but SZ110 invited a scramble which you weren’t really prepared for, especially with the German buy which implied a G2 DOW. Scrambling SZ110 had a +7 TUV expectation.

@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

What do U mean by sz 38?

Not sure I understand the question. What in OOB was SZ37 became SZ38, the coast of Malaya, in early versions of P2V. Later versions split this into SZ38 & SZ132 the FIC and Calcutta coasts are now for sea squares away. Makes it hard for Japan to challenge UK_Pacific.

I don’t know, if Moscow falls G6, it’s pretty hard for the Allies. If it falls G7 they’re still a long way behind if the Germans have a chunk of their force left.

If around turns 7-8, Moscow, Calcutta and the Middle East are still in allied hands and strong then the axis have probably lost unless they have some gain elsewhere. Are you saying that your table top games show something else?

Hmm, perhaps P2V should have a separate league. I guess Gamerman01 wouldn’t really want to moderate two leagues though. I would consider doing it.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

The issue with proposal B is that there’s no scaling of the scrambling effect as the number of carriers increases. You go from having carrier scrambles be a significant part of the Pacific in the beginning of the game to being largely irrelevant when a sufficient number of carriers are amassed on both sides.

This already exists with airbases, so it isn’t a new problem, if it is a problem. Interesting feature, maybe, particularly because you can’t buy multiple airbases on the same territory.

@PainState said in Stopping the J3 Calcutta crush:

@simon33

Well, it seems to me the only reason to worry about a J3/J4 Calcutta crush scenario is if you are playing in a TT tournament which rewards a VP for Japan to perform the crush move.

IF you are playing a standard game on table top or Triple AAA the Crush is a no bueno move for Japan if the USA player has any skill level what so ever.

I don’t agree. If you take India you get a free IC, a bit of plunder and most importantly you stop an enemy from producing units. What part of this is not of benefit to the Axis? I don’t think fighting China first is as profitable.

I agree about BM (BM4?) should be the default game for the 2021 league.

But I still think P2V should have its own rankings and playoffs. The differences are too much.

I have a few comments.

I disagree with using the 3rd TT to take Wake. It should attack Borneo. The marine/Cruiser at the Carolines can take Wake, the Carolines objective isn’t worth as much as Borneo, I would say. Manilla can be attacked with an inf/art/ftr rather than 2inf+ftr, perhaps assisted by a bombard. I would be very tempted to scramble from Davao to Manilla with your attack.

I agree with skipping the attack on the UK BB.

Taking both bombers to the Philippines seems a steep price to pay. Perhaps 1 to Hawaii and 1 to Yunnan, with the Carolines pair of planes to Manilla.

I think taking Yunnan J1 is worth losing a plane - you didn’t do that. That attack was too skinny for my liking.

These changes should make the move stronger IMO. So probably a viable opening. What is it that makes it viable when it wasn’t really in BM? I think the Cruiser+Marine at the Carolines. That means you don’t need to bypass attacking Borneo to attack Pearl. The downside appears to be that your fleet at Wake Is may be vulnerable to a strong US counter strike but if you attack from SZ24 at least you can retreat to SZ35 or SZ7 next round.

So here are my suggested attacks

Yunnan: 1bomb 1ftr 1tac 3inf 1art - 100%
Borneo: 1inf 1art - 92%
Hawaii SZ(27): 1sub 1DD 1bomb 2ftr 2tac - 100% with no scramble, 94% with scramble
Manilla: 1inf 1art 1ftr - 73% with scramble
Davao: 1inf 1art 1ftr 1tac - 98% with no scramble
SZ36 (Philippines) minimum of BB, DD, sub 72%+8% draw.

Option 2:
Other SZ36: BB, DD, sub, Cruiser - 96%+2% draw
Other Borneo: 1inf 1arm 1tac - 100%
Other Yunnan: 1bomb 1ftr 4inf 1art - 98%

Although Option 2 does mean you can’t take Kweichow or Hunan

I think Option 2 is definitely preferable.

Here’s a radical suggestion for stopping the Calcutta crush without a bid:
C1:
Flying tiger to Burma
Leave as big a stack as possible within range of Yunnan.

UK1:
If SZ37 Cruiser is still alive, attack with DD, and all planes
DD to SZ37
Cruiser to SZ38 or to SZ37 if DD dies in battle (SZ38 means Japan has to commit a plane or it can’t use any planes from CVs in SZ36/SZ43)
TT from SZ39 picks up 2 inf from Malaya to Burma
Everything India -> Burma
All planes land on Burma
SZ71 DD -> SZ79 (West India)
French DD SZ72 -> SZ79

With all of this, Burma is well not quite impregnable J2 but too expensive to take down.

C2/UK2 you have to retake Yunnan and Shan state if the Japanese put down an airbase and probably otherwise, or Japan can plonk down their entire airforce on those territories. After that, retreat to India. The extra round of inf bought will make the naval assault too hard J4 without land based planes. By J5 Japan will probably have enough because its troops can have walked across from the Chinese coast and it’s unlikely you’ll be able to stop it applying the entire air force, well unless the USA gives it better things to do I suppose.

Radical plan with a bid? Bid a fighter, land on Java with UK and ANZAC, fly all the planes there, use the ANZAC DD to block bombardment. With the ANZAC planes reaching India, it will be real hard to take India J3. Assumes that Japan doesn’t win the SZ62 attack. If Japan can fill and use all 3 TTs to attack Java, it’s still only 37% and -7IPCs. Not great for the allies but not great for the Axis either.

I don’t think either of these plans is as good as a Yunnan stack if you have enough of a bid to do that.

@WindowWasher said in League General Discussion Thread:

do play off games count toward 2021 rankings?

Yes.

@superbattleshipyamato said in Global 1940 Parisian Rebalance:

@simon33

I don’t see how creating a quasi-Vichy France will allow the US to continue producing units even if Paris is liberated.

Please elaborate on your rules.

Well, if/when USA lands on Normandy, assuming it can hold it with UK help, it can start producing units there. It can then build up a little and maybe take Southern France also. What it can’t do is proceed to Paris because then USA can no longer produce units in Normandy. Also, being next door to Germany’s major factory is a somewhat higher bar to defend than being next door to the minor factory in Paris which is a candidate for strategic bombing. So there are scenarios where trading Paris would be attractive for the allies but because it stops USA from producing units this does not occur.

I’ve done the J2 a number of times. It is just less strong than a J1. One of the worst problems is ANZAC fighters have a real go of getting to India. Japan can still hit a Java stack, but at pretty significant cost, frequently. The Qld fighter can make it easily via Sumatra. It’s better for Japan to take FIC and lose 8IPC to put down the IC on FIC J2. So that begs the question, why not just J1?