Posts made by Twigley

Well, it’s not hard - then again buying enough navy to get enough troops over (without BB bombardment etc.) can take a LONG time…

Why not buy another game in the series like 1942? After all, you get the extra units (which will be different models so make your armies more interesting) and you get the extra game. If you are an A&A piece junkie and you already own loads of versions then a second '41 might be what you are after. If 41 is the only game you own then why spend money on the same version twice? I would wait and see what the new 1942 is like - or find an old copy of revised. I still love that game. Or Anniversary (but that might be a bit pricey - and global?).

Whenever I play with my mate Cat (and we use the national advantages) that one is off the table. It’s too powerful IMO. Though we don’t generally play tech either…

Definitely hit Italy early and hard. She should be an axis liability by round 3 I reckon. Saves Africa and puts pressure on Germany.

For Russia (in a long game scenario) artillery is also good I think. Allow the germans to come reasonably close - but make sure by the time they arrive everything is deadzoned with inf/art stacks.

Also - once Italy is seriously out of the running - if you obliterate her navy that is enough, the USA can really turn to the Pacific. In the process of going after Italy she will have thrown a carrier, maybe a dd, ftrs, trannies into the Atlantic, so she will have the resources to start filing troops through Africa.

I think from that point on definitely go for Japan’s tail. Japan will be through China - and consuming USSR, but at that stage her navy may well also have left the Pacific open in response to your KIF strat - so you can go Island hopping…

@bugoo:

‘The problem is this sets up a deadly dance.’

:-o

As to gameplay. Well we face the same problem on both fronts. In terms of materiel the French AND the Russians were no way easy prey to the Germans.

In France it was ‘old veteran thinking’ that was the problem. Gamelin was happy to sit in his chateau well aware that orders dispatched would take 24-48 hours to get to the front. When facing a armour/air heavy series of attacking spearheads (Schwerpunkts) capable of moving at mechanised speed and with instant radio communications operating between ground units, air units and a central command this was simply like a slug fighting a scorpion (my metaphor - can you tell?). At this atage - the French didn’t even understand what ‘calling in an airstrike’ meant. Unfortunately for them - the Germans had all this down pat.

You’d have thought that the Russians would be better prepared. What they saw of the rapid destruction of the French grand armie worried them greatly. But unlike French WWI thinking - the Russian army had been purged of virtually anyone who even remembered WWI!

But then this is all the history. The fact is that in A&A armies are represented by plastic tokens with predetermined attack/defense strengths. This leaves no room for the fact that in both France and Russia the failures were in human judgement - not the tools for the job. This is of course dealt with in the old A&A Pacific with Japan’s first move advantage (all units save the chinese defend at a 1 for the Japanese attack on J1).

It reminds me of when I used to ponder the loss of Japan’s skilled airforce at the Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal. The factors that led to the deaths of hundred of green Japanese pilots over the Marianas (because the Japanese had neglected to develop rigorous training facilities to replace the pilots they lost.) I thought about having pink japanese fighters. Everytime a new Japanese plane was bought it would be a pink one which attacked at 2 and defended at 2. Hence over the course of the game the Japanese airforce would ‘de-skill’. Of course this would take an entertaining game and make it ever more complicated…

Just like the situation we find in this Europe game. The best way of dealing with this issue is to handicap the allies (Like in AAP41). Doing this with France is easy. With Russia is more difficult. After all if the Russian player knows his pieces will be at a disadvantage - he’ll picket his front with 1 inf in each territory. Then he doesn’t have to worry about all those tanks, fighters and expensive units being lost for nought.

@Flashman:

Britain and France were also planning to send large contingents to Finland to fight the Soviets.

Interesting to speculate what might have happened if this had been ongoing when Barbarossa commenced.

Actually, it’s quite interesting - the French (in particular) were very anti-soviet. The main reason for ‘assisting Finland’ however was to get hold of the Swedish iron ore mines that were supplying the Germans. Both Norway and Sweden were aware of this and were anti any allied forces coming through their territory to ‘assist Finland’.

This led to the French proposing a Royal Navy led assault on the Caucasus (to distract Russia) via the Black Sea!!! Which was clearly barmy. The UK had no intention of doing this. At all.

However - the entire debacle of Norway’s invasion was down to that iron ore, as well as the fact that while the British and French were still debating things the Germans simply landed in Norway to ‘guarantee her neutrality’ (and the ore). Just like the benelux countries - the scandys were so obsessed with preserving their neutrality in the face of the blundering ‘great powers’ that as Churchill (while 1st Lord of the Admiralty) commented ‘It is simply TOO LATE to emphasise neutrality neutrality neutrality and then cry for help once the Germans have invaded.’

I suspect that the germans (in the eventuality of war between the allies) would have sat out… watched, prepared, built up and then conquered the weary victors of such a war. After all - the germans were not bargaining on their lightning victory in France - it surprised everybody. In winter 1940, faced with the ‘greatest army in the world’ (as the French army was widely toted to be) I reckon the Germans would have relished the distraction/destruction of their enemies through such in fighting. Added to this - Hitler felt that he was taking a massive gamble - not having wanted a european war until 1943 when he imagined Germany would be ready for such an undertaking…

@Imperious:

If each axis has it’s own VC to be met individually, the idea to help the other is a waste, so playing them both and perfectly coordinating them might just end.

Yes. This seems to be a good idea. The question is though - what happens when one axis player reaches all their VC? Do all the axis win at that point or just the individual? In which case does that axis player ‘bow out’ and the others carry on until all axis have reached VC or been eliminated, I mean once you’ve won…

A recent game was decided by a strong UK navy dropping units into the Baltic states allowing Russia to concerntrate on the south. Obviously this was after a few rounds where Russia had been aggressive enough that her and Germany were still swapping border territory.

I’m not a die hard vet of the forums like some of you. So I don’t know if this strategy has been tested and found wanting - but it was well worth Russia losing the 5 IPCs as within a couple of rounds the UK (the US had won back Africa so the UK had about 25 IPCs) the UK had dropped 16 infantry onto Russian territory - which really strengthened the (russian) western front.

Had the tactic been employed earlier - Russia may have been able to concentrate on dealing with Japan (who ate her up from the east). Also - had the tactic come earlier then possibly Russia would have got her 10 IPC bonus more often (she only got it once that game) which would have made up for the 5 IPC loss.

So a question is - are people still holding out at all costs for the 5 Russian IPCs and maybe missing the boat when it comes to (desparately needed) UK/US reinforcement?

How is it decided who wins? Are there still victory points?

@Adlertag:

@!ACHTUNG!:

Are you high dude?

He is right you know. China must be stronger. This game is not balanced. Also IMHO Borneo and East Indies are not worth 8 IPC, they should be 2 IPC each as in classic.

Totally agree with this. Especially as Japan gets the 5 IPCs for owning them on top of the 8 they are worth! In fact - surely that makes them worth 13 IPCs - more than W USA.

Good point there Cymerdown. I meant also if the Japanese had invaded Hawaii which would give you one less fighter. But nonetheless. I agree that the Americans can launch a financially beneficial attack should they want to.

My basic point was this - if there is enough Japanese forces to deadzone the west coast (the Hawaiian square for example - but not the best example) then buy subs - because they are ‘invisible’ to the IJN if they lost that destroyer to the US BB.

Quite an obvious point - but there you go! :)

I think 2 or 3 turns is excessive. But if the Japanese attacked your BB in Haw with ftrs and the dd on round 1, and you took the dd with you (which is often the case). Then the Japanese may have 2 carriers, a transport, 4 ftrs etc. In the hawaiian sea zone. In that case buying 5 subs on round 1 works well to scare them away. Then round 2 fill out your navy with the necessary surface units and round 3 you’d better get moving!!!

I totally agree that the Axis need to nurture Italy early. I think the way to a solid win for the allies is to knock out Italy in Rnd 2. If the Germans can secure the Italian NO’s that’s a start.

And if the Suez is Axis, and India is carelessly open then yes. Definitely give it to Italy. Then it’s 3 IPCs for Italy - and 5 for Japan. A good split of booty.

Yes. Game balance is vital.

Of course - the actual facts and figures also don’t account for the fact that the axis militarily did come close to winning at some points.

In fact - looking at the situation in autumn 1941-spring 1942 - you could say they were unlucky to lose.

Oh sorry - according to wiki the Soviets did produce less of one unit than the Germans…

Training aircraft…!  :roll:

(maybe Larry could make that a special piece - Germany could start with a tower of training aircraft)

@questioneer:

Excellent- Gorshak +1 also- I’ll post this on Larry’s site for him to see, this may help balance or at least give a more historical G40 set up. :-)

I’m afraid that in the name of balance the real figures simply have to be ignored. Or else Germany would be starting one 10 IPCs or something…!

The figures of production show how outpowered the axis were - especially once they took on the US - a nation they had no way of directly attacking, and which was continental in scale of resource and population - the ‘arsenal of democracy’. Even the russians once they had recovered slightly from the loss of the Ukraine and moved their industries east began production on a scale that Germany could not keep up with…

Probably the most false aspect of A&A is the money - the axis were quite simply doomed. The closest approximation in A&A so far is Pacific and the US’s de facto 70+ income versus the Japanese who despite owning all those Islands never came close to even half of US production (see the wiki article and others i.e. Oxford Companion to WWII).

In fact - looking at Japan in particular - it was surprising she didn’t fold much sooner when you look at the bare facts and figures. But there you go. That good old Bushido spirit was good for something aye?

@LuckyDay:

no, france didn’t start them, it was that they couldn’t win them…

why do americans dislike the french?  why is it that no one asks why the french dislike americans?  Americans are thankful for the french aide in their revolution, twas invaluable.  Nowadays, the americans are often made to feel that the rest of the world dislikes them, especially the french…   perhaps the americans are hurt that after all they did to save france from communism that they felt slighted that they have to pay to rent the land that was used for cemeteries for the soldiers fallen at Dday…?

@Funcioneta:

@LuckyDay:

of course, if you look at how Russia got a 6 month headstart getting into the war and it is 6000 km from washington dc to berlin as compared to 1400 km from moscow to berlin, and still russia only made it to berlin first by a matter of days…

Well, in fact, USSR (not Russia) could had arrived a couple of months before, maybe even more. But Stalin wanted ensure soviet influence sphere on Balkans and eastern Europe,

and Patton couldn’t have gotten there months earlier had Montgomery not gotten all of his supplies used in Market Garden…  it would have to be alot more than 6 months to make up the difference in the 3000+ kilometers…
@Funcioneta:

War in Europe was won before D-Day (soviets would win anyway alone at that date), that’s credit for soviets. But D-Day saved France from stalinism, that’s credit for USA & UK

War in Europe was far from over before Dday as a win for the Soviets.  Had Germany not had a Western Front, they could have utilized it’s factories at full capacity without American/UK bombing and resources would have headed to the East without pause.  The American supplied Soviets would have been pounded to dust even with Hitler’s neurotic commands (which would have been lessened by the lack of the Western Front).  Credit the Soviets for sucking American supply lines.

Switzerland was not impassible in ways similar to the Himalayas or the Sahara, and for those reasons I don’t see any reason it shouldn’t be as playable as Spain or Sweden…

I don’t think they meant without US/UK aid - but I do think that by D-Day the Soviets had the game in the bag. Aided by SBRs from the western allies yes - but the land invasion of France did nothing but distract an already mortally wounded Germany. If the western allies had continued their aerial attacks - but not invaded Russia would still have won.

In fact - if in 1944 the US and UK had made peace with Germany - I think Russia would still have won. Germany had lost too much by then to be replaced. Not in terms of equipment - which German factories produced in large amounts but in terms of the loss of people; both Army groups south and centre - over 2/3 of their fighting forces - and the remaining third - battered and broken and trying to plug holes which were spread over 100’s of miles of  front.

I mean, don’t get me wrong - I’m a brit. But to say that the Russians NEEDED us to invade France in 1944 is wishful thinking. They were begging us to in 1942 - and we didn’t. Then arguably it may have made a difference.

Please note: I am NOT saying the Russians won WWII in europe without the western allies. Just that by 1944 they could have.

The UK/US liberated France - because by 1944 they were already preparing for the Cold War. To pretend it was out of ‘honour’ or ‘commitment’ is fanciful.

I agree with Rockinroboff on this.

It is a bitter loss that Germany gets Karelia. But I really think that stacking it commits to many Russian forces. They are pinned and if Germany goes a southern route then they are out of range to intervene.

For that same reason - I don’t tend to like putting Russia troops into Norway/Finland.

And also - Rockinroboff is quite right - if you’re bothered about 5 IPCs then putting UK fighters into Karelia loses you 5 anyway.

I say let Germany take Karelia turn 1. It will force her to spread her force. Consolidate around Belorussia and cause trouble in the south - once Germany is moving south - get Karelia back. SBR it and remove AA to invalidate it as a production point. That way the Germans (if they want to use the factory will have to pay (hopefully) 3-4 IPCs just to use it and 6 IPCs just to AA it. They probably won’t - so you can concentrate on fighting in Ukraine. Pushing for Bulgaria and your 10 IPCs as the UK/US take scandinavia.

A fleet of subs is a good way of clearing the japanese fleet away from your west coast, if they’ve snatched your Islands NO (haw, mid, sol etc.) you’ll want to get that back. Subs can keep Japanese carriers away.