Best posts made by SuperbattleshipYamato

@The-Janus

Well, there are plenty of explainers out there (particularly AndrewAAGamer’s one), and most of what applies to Global 1940 works for Europe 1940 too.

Carriers are indeed more of a Pacific thing and the cost-benefit analysis done by AndrewAAGamer does confirm that battleships and cruisers are useless.

I assume carriers are just double hit to provide some extra firepower on defense, making them more valuable and justifying their high price (I assume the price has to be high to make it more realistic when compared to other ship types). Scale means the double hit probably isn’t required in smaller versions like 1942 and 1941 to justify the cost.

Been a while since I’ve played Europe 1940 by itself, but I generally don’t put facilities down in any of the 1940 games. Many facility locations feel suited for only one plan which can easily be changed or disrupted by your opponent.

Artillery is very useful. If the US is sending forces the long route obviously tanks are better, but artillery is superior in Western Europe. For Italy, I like to buy it to provide some extra counterattacking power if they’re in “defend Fortress Europe” mode. 4 infantry and 3 artillery on the offensive is vastly superior to 8 infantry (not saying that’s a good ratio to scale up, must trying to show how effective artillery can be).

And honestly, as Germany I buy artillery because if you only buy tanks, not many of them reach their “full potential”. If I just want some extra firepower for infantry, tanks are completely wasted in that role. I could see how tanks previously being 5 IPCs might make it worth it, but I’d much rather have 3 artillery accompany my large infantry stack than 2 tanks (especially since it seems that high level players don’t make that much use of blitzing on the Eastern Front, especially in crucial stages).

I rarely buy mechanized infantry too. They’re more for if you need extra movement to have as many forces as possible for a particular, large scale plan to be executed by a certain turn (say, a German assault on Moscow). I’ve never put mechanized infantry on transports.

Sorry if this was a bit long, I didn’t have time to make it shorter.

@Tamer-of-Beasts

Thanks for giving a good Central Powers Eastern Front strategy in the process.

@general-veers

For Japan, it was definitely the Nagato. The last echo of a dying era of Imperial Japan. No Japanese ships from World War 2 were preserved, actually few Axis ships overall.

The Italians could have had some of their battleships also preserved.

Germany, Prinz Eugen.

@all-encompassing-goose

What an interesting idea! Honestly I don’t have that much of a problem with the convoys because I didn’t see a better official version for a long time, and it was just nice to be accurate with this. That being said, it looks like an amazing idea, and you also should have an idea where destroying convoys will cut troops off from supplies, lowering their combat capability. This can be done by cutting off forces on islands (like the US did to Japan), or cutting off a land link (like at Stalingrad). An idea for separating IPCs from just a generic amounts of income to certain materials (such as oil, steel, and manpower), is a great idea as well, which I discuss more here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37367/an-accurate-version-of-axis-and-allies-global-1940?_=1636774373645

A link for finding All Encompassing Goose’s work on his map and new rules, and progress being made on it, can be found here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37639/has-anyone-tried-an-historically-accurate-a-a-game/10

Here are several of All Encompassing Goose’s house rules probably unrelated:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37646/new-neutrals-rules-g40/5

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37652/global-1940-bulgaria-mistake-on-the-board/1

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37647/global-1940-funny-how/9

@crockett36

Oh, they’re celebrities for sure. Maybe interview Charles De Gaulle next. Anyone famous enough to have their map on TripleA is worth an interview.

@barnee

From my experience, games, at least starting from 2.5, are compatible with newer versions, but not vice versa.

@mcclellansGhost

One thing I like to do as well is to have a transport or two in sea zone 8, then ferry forces from the US directly to Ireland (it only takes 1 turn for ships to move from there), then onwards to Picardy or Brest (the transports in sea zone 8 bridging). They can also move into sea zone 9 and desposit them in Belgium depending on the situation.

I still can’t believe it. She always seemed so resilient, the trademark of longevity. She led through so much, so many presidents, popes, and prime ministers, through years of greatness and pain. She was an auxiliary in World War 2.

But yet she passes to join her 500 year old name predecessor.

She leaves the first King Charles in 300 years.

@the-captain

Due to the fact that whilst most of your rules are historically accurate, their execution I have some problems with. To fix that, I wrote an article on changes to The Captain’s rules:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37504/let-s-make-the-axis-and-allies-global-1940-expansion-rules-even-more-accurate?_=1636385389023

@vodot

Yep. Also make the interviews shorter or break them up into several videos. More digestible for me.

@The-Janus

I’m not sure how important being able to threaten sea zone 91 from Spain is. Strategic bombers in Western Germany or Paris with a functional air base can reach the zone (yeah, they’ll have to land in Normandy-Bordeaux, but it’s not hard to stack land units there and if you’re destroying transports in 91 you won’t have much of a threat anyway).

I generally think attacking strict neutrals are a terrible idea, especially since the Axis have far fewer resources than the Western Allies. Turkey’s a tough nut and attacking it means you’ll have to take Sweden to preserve your national objective, and it’s easy for the Allies to activate the African and South American neutrals. Spain and Portugal are extremely dangerous in the hands of the Allies (and it’s pretty easy for them get their hands on those territories).

I agree with you assessment of facilities. Naval bases in Greece and Norway work well.

I must confess that one reason I probably do minor industrial complexes in the Middle East rather than South Africa-Persia shucking is that spamming units in industrial complexes just requires a lot less organazation and planning. I’ll also mention though that when I say the UK is “cash-strapped”, I don’t mean because they spent a lot of money on industrial complexes but because having so many complexes incentivizes you to use them to the max and build a lot of cheap units rather than a few expensive units (as is the case with investing in any complex).

I apologize. I was thinking of Germany in Global 1940 games, and I forgot how tough the Axis have it in the game until you reminded me. Sorry.

Here’s a list of games I played by myself where Germany was unable to gain enough momentum, as well as one where the Axis did win:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41133/how-to-win-as-the-axis

As I see it, Germany was able (with a bit of luck) to conquer the Soviet Union because they moved quickly and used mechanized infantry and tanks to cut deep. In my experience Germany has a pretty limited time window, so they have to do everything they can to move quickly. As you can see, what I did was that I had the slow movers move northwards (since they were closer to the capital) and bottled the Soviets up in Moscow via Bryansk. I believe that the game demonstrated that Germany’s mostly mechanized infantry builds were necessary to keep the momentum and have a large enough forces to pin the Soviets and move through the Caucusus, the Middle East and Africa. Italian support, both in distracting the Westenr Allies and helping out a little on the Eastern Front, was crucial. Italy’s main job, though, was to simply bulk up on infantry and artillery and deadzone the Western Front so Germany could do its thing.

2024-8-29-World-War-II-Europe-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

Edit:

I’ll also add that when I do Middle Earth, the UK doesn’t do a lot in the Atlantic. Maybe 1 or 2 transports to move the units from Canada and Scotland, but that’s about it.

@FMErwinRommel

Yeah, very different. Play centers around the Central Powers first beating Russia as quickly with as few losses as possible (either by Revolution or capital capture), then turning their guns on Paris and, if necessary, Rome. The Bombay strategy offered above instead proposes the Central Powers capturing the one territory of India as the UK can build unlimited amounts of units out of it and crush the Ottomans that way. Africa is mostly negligible unless the Allies screw up and let the Ottomans in.

@abworsham4

I agree.

@all-encompassing-goose

The Captain mentioned it in a private chat with me, so I’m sure he knows it, although I’m not sure on his opinions though. I might copy it to his glossary of his house rule topics.

@all-encompassing-goose

Makes sense. Thanks for the advice! I’m using your advice in all my games now. Particularly helpful for Germany, who doesn’t have a clear building strategy (the Soviets build all infantry, China has almost no choice, and all the other powers either don’t have the industrial complexes necessary to really use it, as amphibious assaults require different builds, or simply have priorities at sea).

@surfer

Update:

The thing is, several of the games listed up there (not the first two), used some of the openers Cow mentioned.

Anyhow, I just did his G1 (already tried Young Grasshopper’s that’s the 8-28 file), and while Britain was able to form Gibastion and smash the Italian navy on turn 2(!) thanks to the well timed activation of Greece, Germany was able to move with enough force and speed (massively helped by Italian can openers) to destroy many Soviet forces on the frontier and reach Bryansk by turn 4. By then Soviet forces were so weakened that Germany was able to dispatch large mechanized forces to push southwards through Rostov, Volgograd, and the Caucasus into the Middle East while still being able to threaten Moscow.

In the other games, the British would’ve normally destroyed the few tanks and mechanized infantry in these southern regions using their large numbers of fighters built in Persia and land units arriving from North Africa. However, the speed of the German advance alongside an early Italian capture of Egypt held up the British Army long enough for the Germans to sweep through into Persia and Iraq before British fighter forces grew too large (while in most games there would be 15-20 fighters in Moscow, by the time the game got to this situation, due to how early all the dynamics kicked in, there just wasn’t enough time for that many fighters to be built).

1 tank obviously went to Novosibrisk and cut off the last major souce of income to the Soviets. Similarly, British fast movers backed up by large numbers of aircraft usually made short work of them, but as mentioned above, these units weren’t available to provide the critical margin.

By the time the Americans landed in force, Germany and Italy (convoyed in sea zone 97 for most of the game, but managed to still make 10+ IPCs a turn) were making enough income to fend off American attacks and still conduct offensive operations in the east.

By turn 5, Germany collected 70+ IPCs. By turn 7, 80+ IPCs. By turn 8, 90+ IPCs, and they were collecting 100+ IPCs by turn 13, when Moscow was captured and they won the game.

Italy managed to hold their own despite the challenges and managed to defend Rome, Northern Italy, and some French territories for most of the game without needing German help.

I’ll admit the Axis got some really lucky dice (2 submarines held up 10 American units landing in Europe by a turn at a crucial point in the game) and the Allies made some mistakes (the Soviets left too few units as blockers, allowing an Italian can opening and the destruction of many Soviet units in Ukraine before they could join the large stack in Moscow), but I think Germany’s ability to bring the bulk of their forces before the Soviets could build much, threaten both Leningrad and Ukraine by positioning mechanized forces in Eastern Poland (Italian can opening provided, of course), forcing the Soviets out of those territories by turn 3 (and if lucky, being able to send mechanized forces to catch the slow moving Soviet armies and break them before the Soviets consolidated their forces), and amassing enough income to wage a war on two fronts by the time the Americans began landing in turns 4 or 5 were all key factors that helped Germany come out on top. While I certainly tried to do all these things in the previous games, I was able to manage them particularly well here, and I think going to war on G1 did help with that (I still think G2 is optimal, though).

Sorry for the long game report, it wasn’t only directed at you, but for anyone looking through this thread.

Here’s the file:

2024-8-29-World-War-II-Europe-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

@DoManMacgee

Agreed.

Like me, most of you have seen the 80th anniversaries of important World War 2 events come and go, being too busy to celebrate. In case we don’t have time later, let’s celebrate the 80th anniversaries of important events in 1943:

2 February 2023: 80th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Stalingrad. A devastating loss when Germany could’t afford it. If only Army Group A wasn’t diverted…

13 May 2023: 80th anniversary of the Fall of Tunis. In a world where the West’s contributions are highlighted compared to the Soviet Union, this “Second Stalingrad” (or “Tunisgrad”) this defeat for Germany is often ignored. While the losses for the Axis between the two battles weren’t the same, at least the Western Allies didn’t lose more men than the Axis over the same amount of time.

5 July-23 August 2023: 80th anniversary of the Battle of Kursk. The last major German offensive of the war, even if Manstein’s claims are incorrect I still believe Germany had a chance to win this battle or at least deplete the Soviets more than historically. To anyone hating on Britain’s role in World War 2, remember that the Soviets were only so successful because British intelligence informed them of German plans.

12 July 2023: 80th anniversary of the Battle of Prokhorovka. While not the largest tank battle or one of much importance, it remains the classic “pure tank to tank battle” with none of those other arms making things more complicated.

9 July-August 23: 80th anniversary of Operation Husky. Maybe the largest amphibious invasion in history, it helped collapse the Italian regime and tied up German troops in the future.

24 December 2023: 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive. One of the craziest and biggest offensives ever, Soviet forces crossed the Dnieper river while fighting in the midst of winter. The battle shattered the entire German front and forced enormous transfers of reinforcements from the Western Fronts and reserves.

While there were other major battles such as Operation Kutusov, the Donbas Strategic Offensive and the Invasion of Mainland Italy, the above are the main and some of the most important and decisive battles of the war, second only to the great battles in 1942.

Special honour:

9 December 2023: 100th anniversary of Beer Hall Putsch, the first major outing of the Nazi Party. It would have a profound impact on Hitler’s life.

@all-encompassing-goose

Thank you for responding!

I’m interested how you will edit and improve on this. I look forward to updates!

@thedesertfox

I’ll try a Pacific Fleet sometime.

I usually take Iraq or Ethiopia only if an invasion of Tobruk is not done.

In order to capture Ethiopia with 95+% odds you need that mechanised infantry from Egypt which then makes an invasion of Tobruk not viable.

Britain shouldn’t take Java, it’s usually Sumatra due to ANZAC using their starting units to take Java in the first turn. The effect is the same though.