Posts made by SuperbattleshipYamato

@mordedura

My first game was 1941. It was a really good game. The problems highlighted are true-not enough pieces, and no paper money. But as this was my first edition, I didn’t really mind, and the piece shortage can be solved (if you want) by getting more pieces online. To deal with this problem, I simply limit the amount of units of any type that can be on the board at any one time. This can actually change up the game quite a bit, and whilst Germany starts with too many tanks, I just have grey chips represent infantry and red chips represent tanks. Once enough infantry and tanks are dead to solve this problem (after a few turns), chips are no longer needed for the rest of the game. Whilst I like this edtion (one time I could finish one game in a day), there are so many historical inaccuracies that I quickly moved on to the more accurate global 1940. So if you are willing to adapt to my changes, it is an instantly playable game (how I kept track of income was I used the National Production Chart to keep track of IPCs a nation has, instead of just the amount of IPCs a nation’s territories generate at any one turn. Makes it a bit more complicated but with smaller numbers, it’s not too hard).

@general-5-stars

Do you mean Krieghund? Thank you!

@general-veers

I love that! Thank you for bringing this to my attention!

@general-5-stars

Thank you!

@marshmallowofwar

Great point!

@general-5-stars

How do you contact him?

@barnee

Why did Japan invade French Indochina? It doesn’t seem like they are at war with the Western Allies yet. This denies you 10 IPCs.

@marshmallowofwar

Thank you for responding!

I disagree:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasion_of_Iceland

@abworsham4

Germany spent a lot of money on synthetic oil-it wouldn’t have cost as much to expoilt naturally occurring oil fields, and those resources could have gone to producing more equipment (which the new massive oil fields, in conjunction with Romania’s could fuel). Germany might even have been able to the give the Italian navy more oil, which would help operations in the Mediterranean. Japan would be able to not attack the Western Allies, which would allow them to destroy China more easily, with all of Japan’s resources aimed at it, with a fully fuelled army and navy. Perhaps Japan, without a massive naval war, could even invest more in tanks and mechanized infantry which would be fully fueled, and would make a possible invasion of the Soviet Union much easier. Supply problems in China and the Soviet Union would have been not as bad. Perhaps several hundred more tanks and mechanized infantry at the Battle Of Moscow, completely fuelled, might have been decisive-and if that wasn’t enough, there would have been more casualties, which would set the stage for a renewed German offensive against Moscow without the need to take Soviet oil. Bombing the oil fieleds might have been sufficent enough to allow Germany to take Moscow in 1942. This would have been coupled with Japanese pressure on the Soviet Union. It would still be close, but the Axis may have won on the Eastern Front. After that, Germany can dedicate all their resources for submarine warfare and fighters to protect the oil fields, and the fighter force would still have performed well, as there would not be a loss of oil, which resulted in training cuts. All of this, with Vichy France and Spain joining the Axis, would have created a crisis in the Mediterranean, especially now that Germany could possibly send an entire panzer army to North Africa, and will have enormous amounts to men on the Atlantic Wall. If China falls, then altogether, the Axis would have won.

First of all, let me start with a question:

Why does Western Canada not have a Canadian emblem like the other Canadian territories? Thank you!

Also, Greece should not have a Black Sea coast. Bulgaria should control that coast, to more accurately reflect the geopolitical situation at the time.

@the-captain

Awesome! I love it! Are you planning to do a strategy guide for the 1943 edition? Thank you!

@general-5-stars

Well, there is a little problem: Wikipedia says there was one static division, one infantry division, one panzer division and one understrength static division in the area that he game board shows. Unfortunately, based on the amount of units in each division on the reinforcements chart, there are way too many pieces to represent 3.8 divisions at the start of the game.

@cernel

And based on your updated question, I would put Rommel with Patton. Too very aggressive generals greatly liked by troops, and masters of armoured warfare.

@cernel

I read that, but I am unable to draw any conclusion from the message you quoted.

@imperious-leader

Sorry if there was any confusion. How I interpreted the question is which general during World War 2 would have been the best partner to the best German general of World War 2 based on ability? Based on this, this seems to be a hypothetical scenario only.

Also, Rommel never fought on the Eastern Front in World War 2. Guderian and Rommel fought in the Battle Of France in command of panzer divisions, but they seemed to have little interaction.

@imperious-leader

As I said, Rommel would pair most well with Model or Manstein. As you said, Rommel didn’t have any counterpart, so I’m just pairing generals together based on their ability. Both Rommel and Model were excellent masters of defensive warfare.

I just don’t think Guderian was equal to Manstein in capability, which is why I don’t think they were the most deadly combo. Rommel was a much better tank commander than Guderian.

I’m sure many of you have heard of Infantry Attacks, a book by Erwin Rommel in the interwar era. It is about Rommel’s experiences in World War 1 as a mountain infantry commander mainly in Romania and Italy, but he also fought in France for the first year of the war, as part of a regular infantry unit. Throughout the book, especially in Romania and Italy, Rommel assumed higher and higher commands, ending in the command of the Rommel detachment of the Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion. This also doubles as a military textbook, with the English translator and the US army writing an introduction at the start of the book. I finished it and it is a great book.

One of the highlights is the Tolmien offensive in Italy, where the Rommel detachment of the Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion destroyed five Italian regiments and took 9000 prisoners in three days, the most successful of Rommel’s career.

I highly recommend it, but it’s quite a long and complicated book. It really shows you Rommel’s power as a commander. A sequel, Tank Attacks, was planned but never completed, due to Rommel’s suicide in 1944. It was meant to be based on Rommel’s experiences in North Africa. What was written can be found in the Rommel Papers. I just don’t recommend it because it was edited by Liddell Hart, a British general who edited the works to make it seem like Rommel was his “pupil”, and that Liddell Hart taught Rommel what he knew. It was also edited by one of Rommel’s staff in North Africa, and his wife and son.

If you have read this book, what are your thoughts on it? Thank you!

@aequitas-et-veritas

As I said, the best German general of World War 2 was Rommel.

@aequitas-et-veritas

How could you choose just two? There were so many good generals during the war. The best general of World War 2 was Rommel. Some people might fuss about Rommel’s logistics views, but that can be argued over (like how Rommel was willing to weaken his own troops to invade Malta), but hardly anyone comment about how “logistically minded” Manstein or Guderian were.

The “Professionals Of War”:

Erwin Rommel

Erich Von Manstein

Walther Model

Tamechi Hara

Jisaburo Ozawa

Gunichi Mikawa

Raymond Spurance

William “Bull” Halsey

Georgy Zhukov

Chester W. Nimitz

Ernest King

Now, if I can choose just two? Rommel and Model or Manstein. If given good fortifications and positions, they might be able to achieve a 1:5 or even 1:10 kill ratio against the attacking forces.

@barnee

An incident would not have been needed-Pearl Harbour still would have happened, just without Hitler declaring war on the US. The Battle Of The Atlantic would still have been won by the Allies, it just would have taken longer without the US fully committing to it. US participation would still have increased though, and if Germany did not declare war (which they should not, to make this scenario more likely), the US would have declared war on Germany in 1943. It might have been a different situation with a truce though.