Posts made by TheDesertFox

@gen-manstein

Good man, I also play Battle of the Bulge on December 16 every year ;)

@cwo-marc

And that I can honestly say, is one of the most fascinating and intriguing things about talking with veterans from the Big One. Granted, it’s one thing to get the account of what it was like from one person in the war, but to be able to put the pieces together of multiple people’s accounts on what something was like, especially if they were on the same ship, in the same platoon, or perhaps the same division is such a privilege since in these days we’re going on 82 years now since the beginning of WW2, and it’s important to be able to get the accounts of these veterans before its too late in they leave us.

For me, one of the most powerful messages I’ve read from Larry had to be from AA50. To me, it felt that Larry was doing this out of what every bodies best interests were, and not only that but to make it balanced with a game that can reflect the means of what World War 2 was all about, one of the longer messages but one that I can say is worth the time to read over. The Europe 1940 notes were another favorite of mine as well.

@cwo-marc

Those things are legendary man, every so often I pull out the game just to read Larry’s notes in the beginning of the rulebook, they trully are a treasure to remember.

@barnee

Yeah, there’s plenty of ways to do it and whatever works fine, for me though I feel that taking a break from the game for at least today would be the right thing, but nobody is required or should feel entitled to do that. Just honor the fallen however you feel honors them.

And it was on this day that we celebrate the lives lost in the Big One, and the Great War, and every other war that said country had participated in. Let’s honor the fallen soldiers that gave their lives for the country through out history to the present day. For we all may love war games and specifically Axis and Allies, we ought to take this day as a break from any game of Axis and Allies, any game of Global War 1936, any game of Risk, and so on and so forth to honor the men of each nation, both Axis and Allies, both Central Powers and Entente, both home nation and foreign. For at the end of the day, we might be pushing plastic pieces on a board, but must recognize the bigger and broader picture to that of what these battles, wars and conflicts were truly fought by men of each nation.

Have a good Memorial Day.

@crockett36

Precisely, you could almost think of it as a the ocean canopener.

@crockett36

A decently good idea if I had to say so myself, and with the British declaring war on Japan sooner then that of which Japan declares war on them, means that America will be out of the war until turn 4, so building a major industrial complex on the Western United States is imperative to get units pumping into the Pacific to be able to really give it to the Japanese.

Now the only problem with this is that, being that the wave technique as well as any strat bombers you wanted to mobilize, on top of upgrading you minor IC to a major one, is sinking ALOT of money into the Pacific side, so to me it seems like a risk reward situation. It could go well, but all the same you don’t have to plunge that much money into Japan to take them out, I think something that would inevitably imperative is the taking of the Japanese mainland all together as America if you’re going to go all in. In other words, you’re going to stage your navy in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, and make preparations for an actual invasion of the Japanese mainland. As crazy of an idea as this sounds, it’s like you said Crockett, Japan is a lot more fragile then people think. What you’d be doing here is turning Japan’s greatest asset (they’re located on an island), into their greatest curse, and since they’re on an island, they’re most notably open to amphibious invasion.

@crockett36

yeah best to try different scenarios since the time at which Japan attack definitely varies.

@crockett36

Precisely, you’re right on the money.

See the thing that I feel most American players don’t really take into consideration is that they feel that they’re only limited to either going 100% in the Pacific or 100% in the Atlantic. But from past experiences when playing as America I’ve found them to honestly primarily act as a support role if anything then actually take it to Japan. Obviously they’ll be fighting Japanese warships but really all you need to have as America in the Pacific is a small parameter of island-hopping troops, some strategic bombers to essentially utilize islands such as Guam and Wake Island to quickly maneuver around the Pacific and bomb Japan, and then after that the UK Pacific and Anzac will take the money islands for themselves and have an outstanding incredible boost in IPC’s to go along with their national objectives and they’ll essentially be beating Japan back at this point all the way to Manchuria, since frankly you really don’t have to make landings in Japan per say but just push them out of mainland Asia.

With that, you can still develop your floating bridge as the United States in the Atlantic whilst simultaneously using leftover IPCs you DIDNT use in the Atlantic to build strategic bombers in the Pacific as well as other warships/transports.

@colt45554

True, for me it’s a hit or miss, either it would work for the Soviets or it wouldn’t, I suppose it just depends how the beginning turns looked like for either nation.

@surfer

When you lose Kiev. Hell you might not build it turn 1, maybe not even turn 2, but seeing as the majority of Soviet players are losing because they can’t seem to figure out that giving up the main abundance of their IPC’s to Germany so it so much so to say that an industrial complex in the Caucasus might do yah a little bit of good to beating back the Germans?

Listen man, at the end of the day, maybe it is a bad idea. Maybe the dice just weren’t with you that game or maybe your German counter part was too cunning with their tactics, bottling up and condensing your forces together doesn’t work anymore, people have tried this and it’s failed all the same, General hand grenade’s counter attacking strategy had a good run for seeming ‘impossible’ to defeat when combined with Middle Earth and that predicament died fast, leaving a Soviet Union with absolutely nothing left to bring to the table, so understand that I’m trying to think of a way to win over as the Soviet Union or at least provide some ample coverage to keep those Germans at bay, but all the same it won’t bode well for the Soviet Union either way.

Germany is just too strong. They get 70+ IPC’s on the second turn to spend on nothing but mobilized ground units to send into the Soviet Union so how could there be any hope anyway. I’ve already made a counter to the Soviet counter attacking strategy to go along with emphasizing counters to middle earth and the floating bridge, so maybe at the end of the day Moscow is just destined to fall. Personally I don’t think the Counter Attacking Strategy works. I thought it was an incredibly lame way at calling a combined Allied strategy “impossible to defeat”, and frankly nothing’s changed. The Axis still have a huge advantage in this game and even with bids it still isn’t enough. I’m typically not very fond of playing the Allies and I’m more of an Axis player so I know and understand everything that you’re saying. Even if America gets ground units into Europe, it’s 8 a turn, by turn 6 to which the Soviets are on their knees to Germany with the Middle East and North Africa crumbling to the Axis powers.

In order to really stop them, you need all 3 Allied members going after Germany. All of them. There need to be British and American troops in mainland Europe as early as turn 5 to even stop Germany or have a chance to, and even that sometimes doesn’t work.

But, in any debate, it’s important to understand the merits at which are and are not possible, and with any benefits come downsides to doing something, bottling up on Moscow is leaving Germany completely untouched as they make their way to Moscow, counter attacking is throwing your units into a counter offensive against a Germany that might be delayed, but will still roll over the Soviet Union as a whole, a factory on the Caucasus? Will just forget it because apparently prioritizing the major IPC hub of the nation is just one sacrifice too great, but that’s the game, making sacrifices and winning battles.

@crockett36

Just a thought that came up in my mind Crockett but let me know what you think

So i think you’re strategy does bode well for the Allies in the pacific, obviously japan would definitely be taking the heat, but more often than not you’ll be trading navy for navy with Japan which isn’t always the most cost effective thing as America since Japan begins with an initially strong navy, so I think something that you could use your strategic bombers for is… well… strategic bomb the hell out of Tokyo.

Japan is limited to one industrial complex to start the game, already putting them in a pretty tough situation to increase their global sphere of influence, Granted while they may put IC’s in places like Shanghai, Hong Kong, Indochina and maybe Malaya, these’ll for the most part only be producing 3 and not much of a threat to the Allies, but bombing Japan can indefinitely decrease their ability to maintain a proper offensive against the Allies and China in mainland Asia as well as limit their ability to reinforce the navy.

Just a thought though.

@andrewaagamer

Ehhhhh, not really. That’s just plane math. And math says that you’re up more infantry then that of which you lost. Now granted, you won’t be up AS MUCH as you could have, which could potentially hurt you in the long run, so you’re right in that you won’t be making as much more infantry as you could be.

Also, no. He won’t have 70 guys there, he won’t even have 60, or 50, or 25 for that matter. Giving you that ample opportunity to actually make a comeback in the South, because your units are DIVERSABLE. They can move from one place to another in the event that it’s needed. If you have 6 guys sitting in the Southern area of the Soviet Union than shame on you for literally handing Germany your IPC’s because that’s why the Soviet Union is losing games consistently, they bottle up in Moscow, wait for the impending German attack, either they still get defeated since they left the German army untouched, or maybe they got some good rolls and beat em back, then you’re pretty much sitting in the water. You’ve got a weakened force that just battled like hell on Moscow city, and half your country is pretty much gone and you’re making dirt for IPC’s to produce anything of value since, half your country was taken after having given it to Germany.

I’ll tell you what, if you can prove to me that handing Germany the majority of the Western half of the Soviet Union, that giving them all those national objective boosts for holding the Caucasus, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, plus what they had to start, all those industrial hubs they have to reinforce themselves, and all those IPC’s that come with it is worth, then I will absolutely believe what you’re saying. But as of right now, you’ve only told me that consolidating your forces to protect Moscow, and there is something to be said for that, but it’s gonna take some good evidence to explain the benefit YOU get as the Soviet Union, from giving Germany all that money and power even if you were to win the battle of Moscow. It’s a pyrrhic victory for the Soviet player man, you won’t be able to mount a counter offensive at all.

@surfer

And you’re certainly not wrong, that’s the thing about it, but all that is in the end is just more unit distribution. If you weren’t going to mobilize it one place you woulda mobilized it somewhere else. You already start of with 4 industrial complexes as a whole so you’re already over stretching the amount of IPC’s you can fit infantry for all of them so this really isn’t anything new to the equation.

Frankly, that’s the beauty about the Soviet Union, it’s that even having taken a decent portion of their land, you haven’t taken away that much money. With territories of 1 IPC value spread for miles, they’ll still be able to produce something instead of nothing, now, IF the South falls then yes, that will be a significant economic downfall to the war effort, but if giving it up and condensing in Russia is the so said ‘better way’ to go, then could you maybe show me an instance where that’s worked? I’ve yet to see someone that’s condensed their forces together actually win over against Germany.

Other than that, I see where you’re coming from and you do have a point, but this is all in the assumption that Germany is trying to make a break for Moscow man. And if they are trying to get there with forces within 4 turns from the capital, I say absolutely protect Moscow. Since losing your capital isn’t exactly the latter option. But I’m just here to say this, a proper German player is going to secure the flanks, both Leningrad and Stalingrad, economically crush the Soviet Union to never make a comeback again, then move in to Moscow. Believe me when I say this you won’t be losing any forces from your initial invasion onto Moscow, nor will you be really taking up any extra time doing this.

Hitler thought he could get away with taking out just Moscow to end the war but as it turns out that didn’t bode well for him.

@andrewaagamer

Andrew… I’ve said this now a few times. You won’t be taking off enough units. In other words to answer your question, it really doesn’t matter if you take off more units than that of which you’d want or less, ultimately that’s up to the dice rolling, and that of what Germany does anyway.

I already have a counter strategy set in stone as Germany to stop them in the event that they attempt General Hand Grenade’s counter attacking strategy, but here and at this moment in time, I’m telling you that this is the latter of the 2 options. Germany will snowball, be left unharmed and unattended to if you turtle your forces onto Moscow, and it’ll be a pyrrhic victory for you. (a victory at which you lost so much that it could be conveyed as a defeat).

I’m not gonna give an instance of when the Soviets kill more Germans than that of which they lose because that’s a scenario that is COMPLETELY up in the air to which the dice decide if they lose more or lose less, maybe German units will be leftover, maybe none will be leftover, that’s the cost. Turtling or Counter attacking won’t completely stop Germany, but in terms of delaying them until the Allies arrive, counter attacking works effectively. Look at the countless amounts of games that have happened at the Grasshopper tournament, you’ll see Russian players turtling their forces onto Moscow with a decently formidable force, but that of which you lost everything you had around you, leaving you with a pyrrhic victory.

In the end, you pick your poison. Do you wanna atleast do some damage to the impending German army that comes to Moscow and bog down their force before it even arrives or not kill any of them at all and let their superior mobilization do the talking over your pitiful 37 IPC’s of units? Ultimately that’s up to the player.

It’s getting pretty late for me so we’ll have to pick this up in the morning, I’m enjoying this conversation so far.

@andrewaagamer said in The Caucasus Industrial Complex:

You are going to get those 6 infantry from the Far East whether or not you build the mIC so either way you are still down the 4 infantry if you build the mIC.

That’s compensation. Any time you factor out something, you can always factor something IN to sway the balance. Anything and everything that isn’t built toward infantry is factored out of the equation as having ‘lost infantry’. Bringing units across Siberia to fight Germany factors these IN to the equation. When you have a number of -4, add 4 to it bringing it to just the exact amount of infantry you would have normally had, plus another 2 leads you with positive 2, more infantry than what you would’ve lost. You’re not still down the 4 infantry by making this number up, and you’ll continue to make up for with the 12 more infantry moving across the land as well, that’s how this math works, any time you factor something out, it can always be factored in through mobilization of new units or units sent from another designated area.

If you can explain how you are going to hold the mIC than I will listen to your argument. If you cannot hold it, and I say you can’t, than it is nuts to build it for Germany to take over and use.

Do I really have to? Here you have a Germany with a meager industrial complex on Ukraine capable of pumping out 3 units a turn, with this industrial complex, and Stalingrad, you’ll be pumping out twice as many units as they are, which is kind of a big deal in this scenario. Capable now of pumping out 6 units a turn, they’re going to suffer from attrition (lack of proper supply of more units and resources) and therefore lose their grip on the Southern portion of the Soviet Union, providing proper war recovery to the economy and maintaining fighting capability. Germany’s already going to be delayed a turn with a first initial counter attack, followed then by the defense of Leningrad and finally having reached Moscow, an Allied landing being made in the West. Case in point.

@andrewaagamer said in Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?:

I have never seen a Russian counter attack strategy that worked. You must be seeing different games than I have. Show me a game where the Russians killed MORE of the Germans than they lost via a counter attacking strategy. With the one caveat the German player was not an idiot. Any strategy works against poor play.

Is that because it’s never done the job to fight off Germany alone? In that case, yes you’re absolutely correct. There is not a Russian Counter Attacking strategy that has succeeded to single handedly push Germany back to Berlin. Now, I can confirm to you that an assisted Allied invasion of mainland Europe to assist the Soviet Union’s counter offensive has worked, it’s worked well. Like I had previously stated before, “you’re going to take tons of casualties as the Soviet Union.” Fact of the matter is, as the Soviet Union, you won’t be killing enough German units on the board, it won’t be enough, and it won’t ever be enough. People have known this for years know, hence why nobody has tried to find a way for the Soviet Union to single handedly hold on by themselves against Germany, because it’s not possible. What is possible, is for the Soviet Union to hold out until an Allied landing is made by the British in Norway and Finland, and the Americans in Southern France and Italy.

I disagree with you here too. It is not inevitable that Moscow falls. Given enough help from the US and Brits Moscow can hold. Even if they can’t hold losing Moscow is not the end of the game as long as the Germans have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort taking it. As long as Japan is beat up the Allies can stop the Axis from getting to Egypt.

I don’t think you quite understood what I said here, I’m not referring to the Fall of Moscow here, that’s not even close to what I’m relating this to. What it is that I’m conveying here is the inevitability of losing mass amounts of troops at the cost of protecting your given victory cities and industrial hubs. It’ll take 6+ turns to properly execute Barbarossa on the Soviet Union and completely defeat the Soviet Presence as a whole, so I can only assume that what you are referring to is the Germans potentially taking to G8-G9 to get to Moscow, in which case yes, this is behind schedule and too little too late to have taken them out. Granted, losing Moscow isn’t the end of the game, but let’s quit the fruit picking and face the idea that it may as well be. What are you going to do against a Germany that’s now making probably twice as much money as the UK, and more often than not just as much money as America? You’d have to tell me that one. As for Japan, if ‘beating them up’ was so simple the Allies wouldn’t be having a problem at all, but it ain’t so simple as speaking the word, how do you plan to stop Japan? Do you have a plan to properly eliminate the Imperial Japanese Navy? Overall, do you know how to eliminate the Japanese sphere of influence?

Assuming German movement played properly the Russians cannot kill more German units than they lose via a counter attacking strategy. Thus it is not a wise choice.

As I previously stated, you won’t be killing enough German units, you won’t ever be killing enough German units. It will NEVER be enough, but sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad and play the risk, otherwise you’re pretty much handing them the win. If your units don’t die attacking those Nazis they’ll die defending, nothing’s changed.

@andrewaagamer

If the Soviet player doesn’t counter attack they’re going to lose, simple as that. This has been seen countless amounts of times in the previous years of 2017-2019 of people trying all sorts of defensive techniques and losing all the same. Germany makes much more money, mobilizes much faster, and packs a far bigger punch than that of which the Soviet Union can handle by just defending. You can turtle up on Moscow but all that would do for you is it will win you the battle, but it won’t win you the war. Because you’ve won the battle of Moscow, but you’ve taken severe casualties as well as quite literally losing your entire Western half of the country to the Germans.

You have to look at it from a broader perspective, tons upon tons of people said the same thing as you did that “You can’t throw away Russia’s defensive units” or “Russia HAS to defend Moscow because we think that’s the best option”, people tried a counter attacking strategy and it worked marvelously. The bottom line is, I think you’re trying to convey that Russia should focus on taking minimal losses on the front, and unfortunately that just isn’t possible. The Soviet player will be taking tremendous casualties, simply defending or counter attacking, it’s the latter of these 2 options though that will give them the benefit of the doubt on the Eastern Front. They’ll take tons of casualties, they just will, that’s what’s going to happen, and you won’t stop it, so if you’re men are going to die, take the enemy down with them.

@andrewaagamer

Andrew, the saving grace you’re gonna have is the infantry from Siberia. That’s what counter attacking is all about, you might be taking away 4 needed infantry, but you’re gonna get that back with 6 infantry that will arrive at Moscow right on time as the Germans are arriving, you could potentially get all 18 if you’ve delayed the Germans effectively by means of counter attacking.

And second, you have a better chance at turtling anyway then that of Germany, Germany suffers far more from attrition having invaded such a huge land mass, they won’t get newly mobilized units over to Moscow fast enough hence why that starting invasion on G3 is the force that’s going to have to fight in Moscow.

And my final point here, the unit distribution, makes all the less difference. You can only produce 3 in places like Kiev, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, which you wont be producing in Stalingrad until it’s under threat, meaning the majority of your units are going to end up in Moscow anyway, so it’s not like you’re taking anything away from Moscow. And be that as it may, a player playing Germany that’s just trying to make a break for Moscow is going to lose, you have to secure the flanks if you want a chance at beating them. The Nazis in the real war thought they could get away with taking Moscow and that’d be it but as it turns out they didn’t have a whole lot of luck with that predicament, so neither will the German player in this game either, seeing both the Northern and Southern flank of the USSR pushed them back to the point where Germany just wasn’t capable of making a counter offensive.

Now in the event that a competent German player knows how to fight against a properly sized mass of land, they’re going to secure Leningrad and Stalingrad, then move in on Moscow, and in these circumstances, you’re gonna have to increase your speed and size in mobilization across the country or you’re gonna lose both flanks, Leningrad is already bad enough being that it’s completely surrounded by 1 territories and it’s the closest city to the German front line so there’s no set intention to make it worse on yourself with Stalingrad.

Just consider the circumstances

Looking at Russia situation, really it doesn’t matter too much when they’re attacked G1, 2, 3 or even 4 it seems that the Germans tend to always bring the brute strength to the Southern portion of the Soviet Union, and they do it for 2 reasons.

1. Striking at the Southern portion of the Soviet Union severely damages the Soviet’s economic status and mobilization potential

2. It is the one area of the USSR that is the most difficult to reinforce.

Both of these are significant reasons, though having looked at it over and over the second reason seems to have the most weight. Having looked at it from your mobilization zone, Berlin, to each Soviet Victory City/Industrial Hub, it goes by which it takes 3 spaces to reach Leningrad, 5 spaces to get to Moscow, and 6 to reach Stalingrad and the Caucasus. Logically, the Germans are going to be bringing the brute force and brute strength to the South being that even if they do take out Ukraine at some point, their capability of reinforcing is only limited to 3 units a turn, which isn’t enough.

So having looked at this scenario, it seemed like a logical solution to outproduce them in units with another industrial complex, on the Caucasus.

Take the scenario of the Soviet Union and Germany, Germany has taken out Kiev and the industrial complex there and is no capable of producing 3 fast moving units a turn, against your industrial complex in Stalingrad that can produce 3 units. An even match for match, which isn’t good, Germany will beat the Soviet Union in fire power down south and producing of 3 units isn’t going to be enough. Yes the Major Complex in Moscow is within close proximity, but not close proximity to be building slower moving units like infantry, artillery or anti aircraft artillery. Now, that is the case, but with an IC on the Caucasus, you’ll have a lot more potential to beating back the invading Germans, and for what it’s worth, the first place to begin a push back against Germany being that the opportunity comes, is the South, being the least defended and least reinforced area that Germany can support, so use it to your advantage. A factory on the Caucasus also largely increases your able diversity of spreading units out across the big land mass, providing an equal opportunity of defending every square inch from those Germans.

Otherwise that’s basically it for this tactic, perhaps it would fare well in protecting the South perhaps it may not, but through and throughout it seems that quite the majority of Soviet players have completely lost control of Ukraine, the Caucasus and Stalingrad boosting Germany’s economic structure substantially, so I thought this might be that of a good idea.