Posts made by SuperbattleshipYamato

@The-Janus

Totally agree. Fast movers are especially important in the south because they’re expected to proceed into the Middle East as the Allies can usually hold the Italians off in the Mediterranean. Cairo is as many turns away from Berlin for mechanized infantry as Moscow is for regular infanty.

@The-Janus

I agree with most of what Stucifer said. Some additional thoughts (I’m no pro, but I’ve played this game 20-30 times):

Yeah, you defijnitely tried to do a lot. Generally speaking it’s not too bad of an idea to leave Southern France for Italy (especially if you’re going after Yugoslavia), and there’s a credible argument for leaving Normandy Bordeaux. Forgoing a G1 and a sea zone 91 attack (I find that too risky) frees up enough air and naval units to hit both fleets, even with a full Allied scramble (you might need to also sacrifice the sea zone 106 attack, but the transport won’t be able to do much in the first few turns while the British consolidate their naval position).

The “Yugoslavia ping-pong” where Greater Southern Germany units retreat to Romania through Yugoslavia is really important if you’re doing a G1, especially when you’re engaging in so many high-risk battles. I’d like to leave Yugoslavia for the Italians.

Italy seems to have been played okay. I think it really helped that the Brits weren’t very aggressive in the Mediterrean on the first turn (the Italians in East Africa should generally be considered low priority-if Egypt is well defended and you’re pumping tanks and mechanized infantry in Union of South Africa they’ve got nowhere to go).

Also, what on earth were you thinking with that sea zone 102 attack on G2? The submarines off Gibraltar could’ve joined the Italians in the Mediterrean and the one in 106 could’ve joined in the attack in 118. I don’t see the logic in that 2% attack.

I’d like to share a series of solo Europe 1940 games I did:

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

Files 2024-8-21 and 2024-8-22 are Sealions gone wrong, demonstrating how Germany has to strike a really fine balance if they pursue this riskier strategy. Files 2024-8-25 and 2024-8-26 are Dark Skies gone wrong. 2024-8-28 is exactly how not to do a G2-moving too slowly, allowing the Soviets to be relieved by the British and Americans. In Europe 1940 (less so for Global 1940, mainly because the Axis have such a huge advantage), speed is absolutely essential to have any chance of victory.

2024-8-29 is the most informative. Partially adapting from Cow’s G1 opener, sending most of the ground units in range to hit Paris gave a 99.5% chance of victory, with little threat from Southern France or Normandy Bordeaux. While admmitedly I didn’t hit sea zone 110 (or do the Yugoslavia ping-pong, though it wasn’t that big of a deal since moving the Greater Southern Germany units to Slovakia Hungary enabled them to engage on the Eastern Front), I was able to destroy all the British transports in range, which is what really makes the British being able to keep a navy so devastating (and clearly hindered them in subsequent rounds). For some reason, I was able to chug along with mostly mechanized infantry, enabling me to move quick enough to gobble up the IPC-rich territories in the south of the Soviet Union and the Middle East before the British built up a menacing enough force with a semi-Middle Earth strategy to halt any German advance to Egypt via a land route. I’ll admit that the main thing that made this victory possible were the Americans not going for Rome and instead opting for targets along the Atlantic, preserving Italy at a critical point. I wrote a more detailed analysis of this game in the thread itself.

Hoped this (at least kinda) helped!

@Shadowdoom286

This is for Global 1940 but I’m sure at least half of the details here apply to Europe 1940 (lots of options):

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/assets/uploads/files/1700408602301-allied-playbook-g40-collection-of-essays.pdf

@Grinchveld

👍👍

@Grinchveld

Thanks for clarifying!

@Grinchveld

I don’t quite understand.

So the losing player says “I can beat you in X number of turns as the winning side”

And if the winning player says no, they propose a lower number? What if both groups can’t find an agreement?

It’s a great idea overall. I like playing to end conditions, and this is a great way to incentivize that.

@The-Pripet-Martian

Thanks for the ideas!

@dazedwit

Pretty good, actually. Nice find.

I like how you use different colored diced tomatoes represent different values. Didn’t think of that before.

@simon33

Nice. I might take them out for a spin one day (note to self).

@The-Janus

Agreed.

@simon33

Good ideas. How do they affect the game in practice? What goals or behavior do they change?

@The-Janus

In my opinion, I think a naval base in Norway is only really worth it if the Allies commit into moving forces in that direction (i.e no large amphibious war in the Mediterranean).

Regarding tactical bombers:

While Norway is definitely a good target from Germans ones if the Allies build a naval base there, I actually don’t see many places where tactical bombers would be effective:

Axis Europe:

London: Situational, but its naval base is less used than I’d expect (the base the US mainly uses as a jumping-off point is mainly Gibraltar).

Gibraltar: Very useful, but unless you invade Spain it’s hard for tactical bombers to hit there. The Axis need to control Algeria, Morocco, or have a carrier.

Egypt: I don’t find the naval base there used much after the first few turns (though if you eschew Taranto and preserve the British fleet it’ll probably see more use). Still, I find it easier to temporarily disable the Suez Canal by going after Trans-Jordan. Similar to Gibraltar though, it’s often out of the way for the Axis to have tactical bombers hit there. Unless you’re having an ongoing offensive campaign in sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East or furiously trading North Africa, there’s not much else for a tactical bomber in Tobruk, Syria, Ethiopia or Iraq to do.

The Gibraltar issue actually covers most of the other useful targets:

Eastern and Western United States, Queensland, Hawaii, Western Germany, Southern Italy, Tokyo, Caroline Islands, and the Philippines.

In each case, particularly in the Pacific, tactical bombers don’t have long enough range to attack from land bases, so you’ll need carriers to operate within striking range from the enemy. If you can afford that, your opponent either has no navy (or a very badly misplaced one) or is so weak you can probably just conquer the territory instead.

Normandy Bordeaux’s naval base, much like London, is situational, but I concede that it could be a good target.

Malaya and Calcutta are both easy to attack from land bases and should be exploited by either side. Also French Indochina if the Japanese opt to build one there.

Bottom line is that owing to their range limitations, I find that tactical bombers just aren’t that effective at bombing enemy bases. They’re probably better off cooperating with fighters to support 2-3 move naval unit attacks or 1-2 move land unit attacks (an added bonus is that such attacks also usually eliminate a significant threat to the tactical bomber’s landing area).

Now, strategic bombers (or even better, the Rockets technology) don’t have this range problem and should be used to attack naval bases when appropriate. I’ve seen the Rocket technology be used quite effectively by Japan, Germany, and the US. Their many air bases allow rockets to strike many of the useful naval bases I outlined above.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

January 25, 2025, marks the 80th anniversary of the end of Operation Nordwind, a German offensive in north-central France (Alsace-Lorraine region) in a desperate effort to support their faltering efforts in the Battle of the Bulge. While the German army made some gains, they were unable to achieve their ultimate objectives and the pressure wasn’t enough to deliver an ultimate German victory in Belgium.

Some people also mark this day as the end of the Battle of the Bulge. I’ll wait until January 28 as some others say that was the true end of the battle.

@dazedwit

With respect, the photo doesn’t show much. It only shows the western side of the Atlantic. Most German forays taking the northern route are usually stopped on the eastern side, closer to where Britain is.

@dazedwit

Nice. I’ll advise that Germany was very lucky. I think most players know Ottawa is a victory city (after all, every city shown on the map is a victory city). I think this only works in a golden opportunity. I feel that most good players would at least “chase” the German fleet through the Atlantic and have the British or Americans build up land units in North America. At the very least, given the proximity of Allied bases in the area (Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scotland), it’s real easy for a group of aircraft to attack the fleet and land safely.

@The-Janus

Good ideas.

@Angel

Sweet!

@The-Captain

Sweet!

@dazedwit

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand. To get to sea zone 114 (which borders Berlin and Warsaw) you have to have a naval base in sea zones 110, 111, and 125. None of these sea zones border Spain (and with regards to 110, the London naval base covers that).

@dazedwit

Thanks!

I’ll note that because there’s a naval base in Gibraltar, the Allies can reach Denmark from sea zone 91 in one turn anyways (unless the Axis control the territory, but if you can amphibiously capture Spain you can probably retake Gibraltar too).