Posts made by spectre_04

You are an underdog in that battle, and if you lose or even draw you have no planes to defend England and Germany still has three transports.  UK will fall terribly turn three, taking poor Canada with it.  sad

Yeah, perhaps, it all depends on the rolls.  But you know what, at least I am somebody on this Forum who will put up a fight.  I am like Churchill in this game.  I know I am gonna have casualties and loose units and I don’t pussyfoot around to try and keep my precious stacks alive while my enemy gets the advantage.  Maybe some of you should read some Sun Tzu and play REAL games with REAL dice against opponents you are REALLY in front of instead of all this email crap.

I ask you this who think a British counter attack to be futile.  What would you do instead?  Assuming you are trying to protect your airpower ( and don’t forget the two aircraft, one TAC and one Fighter, you have on the carrier next to Gibraltar)
would you just sit there and polish you pretty fighters for the Hun to blow them up the next day?  If you would, you and Neville (Pussy) Chamberlain would become fast friends.

I wouldn’t attack if the odds were grossly out of favor, but if they were equal or close to it, then I will hit your Kriegsmarine and take some of them to the bottom.  “Fortune Favors the Bold”, the man who said that never lost a battle.

Unless Japan doesn’t want to attack until turn 3, then its a total waste of money, IF you even have the chance to build it there in the first place.

In interesting discussion here!  I didn’t read every sentence of every post, but I get the picture.

I tend to agree with the opinion that, the US is supposed to start slow, but grow to dominate.
The Axis have a narrow window to either all out win it, or climb to a high enough status to compete for victory, if they do not achieve this in time, then the game will be much like the war.

As far as historical accuracy is concerned, the soviet union should probably be earning around 60-70 by turn 8-10, as should Germany, Japan around 50.  the USA, if the game was REALISTIC would earn around 200-250 IPC per turn easy, we outproduced everybody and your momma.
That being said, it wouldn’t be much of a game if the USA earned what they REALISTICALLY earned no would it?  The axis never had a chance once our production got in gear, not a chance in hell.

Thx. Were was the rule clarfífication made?

When I was playing a game of Pacific about a month ago, my friend (Japan) pulled this one on me.  He attacked my fleet at Midway, which I thought was safe, with a bunch of Airpower I thought was out of range from the Carolines.  It turns out he bought 3 carriers in the sea of Japan and landed them there, I didn’t know about that, I disputed it, we looked in the Pacific 1940 Rulebook and its all there.  You can buy a new carrier, end the fighters movement (combat or non combat) on a sea zone adjacent to the factory where you buy the carrier, and land the fighters on the newly built carrier.  Essentially this gives you 1 more space of range on your fighters and Tacs, and allows you to pull a bit of a K4-2 square trick on your enemy.  Deception is part of the battle, I know better now.

Unless you want to legitimately threaten both Russia and Britain on turn 2. I am beginning to think that turn 2 is the best time to attack Russia, before they get too situated and consolidated. As for Britain, well, even if you aren’t serious about a Sealion, they don’t know that, so they’ll have to prepare anyway. I am on turn 3 and conducting an invasion of Leningrad now. Granted I could have bought my transports on G2 instead of G1, but buying on G1 hasn’t hurt me at all. And I didn’t even do that well against the British fleet. Instead my ships are now holed up in the Baltic. Only British planes can get them now.

The transports may become a bad buy if you fail as Germany to totally smash the British ships near the Baltic/English Channel. Even so, Britain will have only 4 aircraft to attack the Germans with on UK1. I would not make such an attack if I were the British (with only planes). It is far too wasteful. Most assuredly all your planes will be destroyed, while you may destroy the German cruiser and a fighter; easily replaced.

Completely agreed LHoffman.  I think your right that you need to hit Russia early, it doesn’t hurt you that much, and they only keep getting stronger, and more importantly for Germany, better positioned.  The thing you Don’t want to do is Declare war on the United States with Germany and Italy on turn one, unless of course you want to play the game on ‘hard mode’ as the Axis if you catch my drift.

I also suppose you could use that cruiser as an attaker/casualty in attacking the British and French Cruisers in that sea zone as well, might save you a plane.

You could use your cruiser as a speed bump in the seas zone to the left/west of your main fleet behind Denmark (sorry, don’t have the map in front of me), couldn’t you?  This would only allow British aircraft to hit you that turn, which they probably wouldn’t, if they couldn’t throw in any ships to also take hits, ie the carrier=2.  I think it would be a worthy sacrifice of the cruiser.

In fact Russia would not even allow fly overs or allow bombers to land in thier territories so the allies could conduct bombing runs deep into their territiores.

Your absolutely right.  I can back up your statement, remember the famous Doolittle Raid?  This is a quote from the wikipedia article “One of the B-25s landed in the Soviet Union at Vladivostok, where it was confiscated and its crew interned for more than a year”  That is an interesting house rule.  I also remember in the first AA Europe version, any allied unit that entered Russian Territory became Russian the next turn, but I think this is going the opposite direction and actually helps the allies get an advantage.

So far, playing and fighting against the Soviets, I think its far more important where they position their forces, than what those forces are made up of.

To be completely sure your fleet will survive I suggest building a CV (land two fighters), a destroyer and a sub for exactly 30 points.

I agree with this, its a better buy, especially if your opponent(s) is/are aggressive and knows that they might as well hit your fleet right off the bat and not wait around for sealion.  If I was Britain, I would attack you even if my fleet got wiped out, because I have Canada, eventually the USA as an ally, and I know that Germany isn’t gonna win the game by buying Sea units the whole game.  I side with you in buying the warships first and the Transports later.

Also remember though guys,

Assuming your playing the Global Game to test Sea Lion:  It sounds to me like G3 is the best (earliest or only?) time for Sealion to go down.  In that case, like was mentioned, A J3 attack might be best to keep US out of the war and avoid them landing men and more importantly fighters there.  That being said, I am more familiar with Pacific 1940, as most of you are, and we all know that the longer Japan waits, the more it helps the allies (in both Global and Pacific).  If Japan doesn’t sink that British battleship and transports, then they can build a carrier in India and have quite a little fleet, not to mention the USA having enough time to successfully evacuate the Philippine aircraft (which have always helped me when I could get them saved and utilize them later).

I guess in short I am just throwing it out there that if a delayed Japanese attack is required for a better Sealion outcome for the axis in Global, don’t forget about the repercussions that waiting for a J3 attack will cause to Japan in the East.

I played as Germany last night, Built a factory in Norway of turn one and built 3 tanks there (plus 1 AA gun) every turn.  It worked as a great defense in the north, kept my enemy down in the south near Italy, and also I had 8 tanks to send in with infantry when I attacked Russia on Turn 4.  Might not work every time, but It’s not the worst place to build your factory, especially if you don’t want your opponent building his there.  P.S. I still lost the game, but it was because of Italy, it was my first time being the Axis, and only my 4th real game.  I’ll do better next time.

@jim,

I apologize, I am really commenting on a Global game scenario, where it is assumed that USA is already at war with Germany after J1 attack (which I have always found works best, at least for me)

If Sea Lion works for you, then more power to you.  I just don’t favor the tactic.

I will give it too you, Yes, in a Europe game, assuming the US is not at war yet, then London is very Vulnerable, and I am sure it could easily fall.

So, I didn’t mean any offense or unfair criticism of your strategy.

When you say fire up a game, It’ll have to wait on the folks at Sourceforge, I just can’t do the PBF games, too much margin of error for cheating.

Also, they, along with the US, have an excellent position to gobble up Strict Neutral territories money later in the game.

Sea Lion is possibly, but only just.

It isn’t like its a surprise if Germany is gearing up for an attack, so, if your worth anything as a serious player, you counter it.  Keep your fighters there, build UK infantry, block with Destroyers, fly in United States Airpower (including bombers, they can take a hit instead of a fighter).  If Germany shows their hand, then don’t be afraid to fight it!  It isn’t like its gonna be a surprise.  Besides, if Germany is dumb enough to attempt a Sealion, then let them waste their money, it only helps out Russia. 
If the dice work out for Germany, then its possible that they take UK via Sealion, but think of the risks, I will never attempt it as Germany.  You waste your money on ships that are just gonna die, you are force to scuttle your Luftwaffe, its strategically stupid to even attempt it.  I play against an Axis lover who also happens to be a Sealion lover and I enjoyed watching him murder himself twice now, so as UK, I say Bring it, I will take you down with me.

If you build a factory in Cairo as UK, its great!!  If you can get away with it, which is hard.  The best way to do this is to save your transport, not worry about Greece, combine your fleet, bring up some reinforcements from south Africa, and land as many allied aircraft there as you can by turn 3 or 4.  If you throw down a factory there by turn 3 or 4, then you have Africa and a sizable fleet to help protect India one the good ole USA puts the vice on Italy.

What is this new reduced Japan aircraft setup I keep hearing about???

I saw the Norway Factory option the first time I looked at the map and read the rules.
It is a powerfull strategy, but I agree with some of the things that are said here even though I don’t think that it’s necessarily a gamebreaker.
It might be best to disallow the US to build a factory there.  Or at least only allow them a minor one.

It’s tougher to break down why games are won or lost the more players that are involved. 
That being said, I totally think that if the Axis attack all out on Turn one, then its pretty tough for the allies.
I have only played at the allies so far, and I will admit, my opponent is a good axis player, but I tend to agree with some of the statements.  Germany can gain lots of Russian money, Japan, if played right, can crush china and India and get huge, while ANZAC can’t hardly do anything, and its really only Italy that has trouble.
I think next game I play as allies will focus on #1 put the pressure on Italy, #2 create a second front somewhere to help out Russia (Norway or France) #3 try to get a factory in Egypt (worked out great for me last game even though I ended up loosing) and try to use it, the British eastern fleet, and ANZAC to protect India better.
It’s such a time consuming game and I have only played 1 and a half REAL games so far, so time will tell.  I am sure there is a solution for the axis 4 turn blitz.

NO,

Norway major IC for US plus a naval yard in Iceland is a great allied strategy.
Absolutely doesn’t break the game.
Do you really think Larry would put out something that simple?
You can always bomb factories, get super subs, build uboats, or just not let them land there anymore in the first place.

Agreed, but I wanna state that I DO APPRECIATE the efforts put in by those that write these texts.  I don’t take it for granted.

It’s always been my experience that the fewer the players the faster the game.  Now I am not saying that fewer player makes it a better game, it does make it different going head to head.  The fact that just two players goes much faster is a no brainer though.