Posts made by Twigley

It’s also important to consider what is behind the dead zone. It may be a vital territory meaning that your opponent will risk airforce to clear your zone of anything up to three or more inf.

A common example is in Revised. For instance, Russia has a stack in Ukraine. Germany has a stack in E.Europe. So the German player puts an inf in Balkans as a picket. This has happened more than once when I have played on Gametable online. It should be a novices mistake - but this happensmore often than you would think so the Uk sends a bomber over Balkans and clears it and the 8/9 Russian tanks can have a pop straight at Germany or even if Germany is stacked:Italy.

Even in situations where the German player has put three inf I’ve taken the risk of two ftrs and a bmbr if I’m confident that the Russians can get Germany next go.

Also - while I agree that the Japanese could not have conquered China entirely in a short space of time this was not because of chinese (KMT or Communist) resistance. It was more because of the logistical constraints of the Japanese army which was understocked with tanks, aircraft and other materiel along the Chinese front.

Despite this the Japanese used their forces extremely adeptly - and were still winning battles in China right up until 1945. Equally the Chinese managed to inflict some heavy casualties on the IJA, though the IJA were still making good amounts of territorial gains.

I wonder whether the situation would be better dealt with by changing the China rules to 1 inf per unoccupied territory. + 1 artillery. Still keeping the ‘no troops added to territories already containg 3 units’ rule. Or would that make China too powerful?

But at the moment she is a bit of a cake walk for the Japanese. I want to see bitter fighting in China. I want the Japansese having to devote (in some cases) annoying amount of IPCs to finally break the country.

Of course. In the other A&A games (Nova’s excepted) she is only represented by two territories and 5 units which suffer pretty quickly too.

Imagine in Round 1 the UK buy bombers - you know they’re coming for you…

Well it depends - if Germany took Egy - then you can take TJ and your ships are out of UK bomber range.

I would then by a fighter.

Who knows what the UK does next go? She could keep buying bombers - but 4+ seems extravagant - especially as Russia needs a break; so she opts to use her Rnd 1 buy SBRing and buys other stuff. Navy, IC whatever. At this point already Japan will begin eating into the British Empire in the east.

Round 2 Buy an AC, bring your BB, cruisers, transport back and drop 2 Fghtrs onto the carrier.

From now on drop troops onto North Africa. If you are getting NO’s maybe buy alternate combinations of destroyers, subs, and inf/art couplets. At that point Italy’s navy is very powerful.

Should the Germans have an IC in France then it is possible that a careful German sub building campaign (in Baltic/Med) could come together in a big way later in the game with Italian naval back up…

Now maybe this has been spoken about elsewhere but I’ve not stumbled on it.

Is it worth letting Russia go without her NO at the beginning if the Allies can actually really help? Like if you get a shuck going from the UK-Karelia and you can reliably dump 8 units per turn for a while then is it worth not doing this just to protect 5 IPCs worth of Russia income?

Is this glaringly obvious? Because I keep trying to hold up the Axis as long as possible with nothing but the little red guys and after a while they usually get in. After all once Japan is on 50+ and Germany has 40-50 poor Russia seems to be under enormous pressure.

Not to say that the allies haven’t on occasion won while avoiding ‘contaminating’ russia, I’m just wondering if I’m making it harder for myself in the long run.

Initially the Russians may lose their first NO. But if the allies can help take Bulgaria/Poland, Finland and Norway then Russia gets a 10 IPC boost that way - maybe earlier than they otherwise would on their own…

I’ll stop labouring the point. What do people think?

I think making both oceans bigger would be good. The continents have got bigger - but as far as I can see the Pacific is almost the same as in the 1984 ed! Definitely it is not significantly larger.

It’s difficult to make the pacific into a major theater with Germany flexing it’s muscles in the centre of europe.

Also - I think there is the knowledge that only ONE axis power needs to fall in 90% of games. Most people know that if Germany gets screwed then Japan will surrender. Which of course is not what happened in the real thing. In fact - during a 1v1 game online I kept playing on with Japan after Germany’s fall (she still had a big navy and lots of IPCs but she was never going to win) and the allied player accused me of time wasting. Because he had to beef up a big US navy, cross the pacific and get into Japan.

So in fact - when you play KGF and it works - you are in effect following roughly the right path. You just then need to appreciate the Japanese player who keeps it going for another hour or two!

Also - in sheer numbers the Pacific theater WAS dwarfed by the european theater in terms of combatants and casualties. It assumes drama in our minds because of the boats, the planes, the island hopping, but unlike Germany - Japan was not a threat to the world - her appetite was far too ambitious. To make things more realistic you need to double the size of China and eastern Russia - make all those territories IPC free and stack them chock full of inf which are restocked according to their ‘recruitment value’ IPCs like in AA Pacific.

That way - Russia will probably not waste resources creating an offensive force so far from Moscow, and Japan will see no point in wasting resources to claim wortthless territory - hey presto! A working non aggression pact.

IMHO giving Borneo and East Indies 4 IPCs each was a joke anyway - can we really say these two groups of islands have an economy nearly three times the size of the India subcontinent? Though it was good that it tempted the US down south for a bit of Pacific fun.

I think it is an interesting point that Germany’s attempt at Lebensraum was never predicated on a negotiated peace. Germany hoped to batter European Russia into unconditional surrender and conquest. Japan on the other hand (despite what the military hotheads of the cabinet were saying) had no option but to hit the US quick, hard, and hope that they folded. They needed the propaganda coup - the American people to sue for a quick peace rather than face a long bloody war. In the end they placed the wrong bet, the addition of Germany as an anti-US belligerent gave the people a feeling of being part of something greater - a fight against evil across the globe - and this was of course played upon further by Roosevelt’s oratory.

I would therefore argue that as the two axis nations had such different paths - maybe they should have different outcomes. Like Germany has to invade London or Moscow, Japan has to earn victory points or something. For instance. Once Japan earn x.no of victory points the US sues for peace and Japan can turn back on China and maybe Russia. Maybe Japan should have 2 aims - one enough VPs and then 2) own all of China. At that point she has won. Germany should have the whole ‘Moscow/London’ thing…

Of course, once one axis nation has secured its objectives it could help out the other (if it hadn’t already) with materiel etc.

I think the key flaw in A&A is that BOTH Japan and Germany will nearly always go for Russia - and as long as that happens the game will never look like WWII because that simply was not what happened, nor was it really possible…

SO just to clarify on the new map - are norway and mongolia both bordering the Coral Sea SZ (SZ 927)? I think they need to make it clearer…

I think that an allied IC is worth it in Egypt. But obviously is a distraction in terms of its defence. If the Allies put an IC there, and land significant forces in morocco then what are the axis really going to do?

The brits start off with 43 IPCs anyway - they can spare the 15 if it draws axis attention away. I would be less happy in the 1942 scenario - but this one it doesn’t strike me as a problem.

The axis have limited funds - make them spread 'em. Every unit that goes to Africa is not on the eastern front, and a competent allied player (i think) should be able to bleed the axis dry in North Africa…

Though it is ridiculous that the SBR damage is not limited to IPC values in this game. No way could Japan have been SBR’ed to oblivion by bombing Hawaii!

:lol: :roll:

The swastika represented a political party - but not in anything like the same sense we understand that in a democracy. The swastika represented the ONLY political party.

It was also the German National Flag from 1933-1945. Therefore the NATION of Germany - as it was at the time of world war II represented itself to the world with the swastika (as Jermfoot pointed out - tilted at an angle.)

That demonstrates the difference, in the western democracies - flags are not changed according to politcal leadership. That is the hallmark of some totalitarian states.

Also note - that the German flag of the period is represented on some boxes of A&A - we see its red field - we simply see the swastika censored.

As I pointed out - I recognise that the iron cross symbol used on National Control markers, game stationary etc is appropriate as it is the proper symbol of the Wermacht. I hope it is clear in my orignial post that I’m not some neo-nazi hell bent on seeing Swastikas all over the game… just noticing that the swastika is hidden here as it is in other game-related literature be they computer games, board games.

Also - the swastika I am talking about is the black swastika, tilted on a white circle, floating in a red field. As in the Nazi one.

Interesting pics Jermfoot.

Who are those sporty dudes?

I would be surprised if this topic has not come up before. But I was wondering what people think about the lengths gone to cover up the swastika in some material directly referencing World War II.

Is this appropriate?

I don’t know. But as someone with quite an interest in the war - it feels a bit like censorship impacting quite a major piece of symbolism - semiotics as it were - of the war.

The swastika represents Nazism - to pretend that Germany became embroiled in WWII independent of Nazism is wrong. For the years 1933-45 Germany literally was Nazi Germany. Symbolised by the swastika - an emblem which insinuated it’s way into every facet of german culture - and was even grudgingly accepted by the Wermacht.

The Hammer and Sickle is a symbol with equally terrible (if opposite) political and philosophical implications - yet this is represented in the game and notably on the game box.

I have no objection to the current use of the Iron Cross symbol on the gameboard and National Control Markers. They were definitely major insignias of German Military Forces. But do object to the (to me) blatant way on many boxes there is the Russian, British, US, and Japanese national flags - and the German National Flag (circa 1940) is obviously obscured by a face or tank or whatever.

It reminds me of an instruction manual for a PC WWII flight simulator which had photographs in it which had been doctored to remove swastikas from Luftwaffe aeroplane tails! Standard markings of German WWII aircraft were that swastikas were on the tail fin - not according to some game makers however.

Nazism was evil. It was predicated on racial purity and the extermination of millions of people either directly or through overwork. It argued that this was ‘survival of the fittest’ (a term not coined by Darwin but by social darwinists much later) - and carried it forward as actual genocide. The Nazi war machine arose in Germany and spread blood and death across Europe, Africa and the Atlantic killing millions of people - Americans, Europeans and Asians. It’s symbol was the swastika.

I believe the swastika should be seen. We should never forget what it stood for.

My father believes A & A trivialises a terrible time in history (he thinks it is wrong to make such a game)- and while I agree with him to an extent- I play because I think it keeps people interested and brings in ‘new recruits’ who want to learn about this vitally important time in World History. But do us a favour - and don’t sanitise it too much.

I say put a swastika somewhere - they do on the covers of some WWII books or books about the workings of the third Reich. Let’s get real.

I think there are too many added bits.

I voted ‘no’ on the understanding that ALL OTHER THINGS were equal. As in the war did start in June 1941 and continued pretty much as it did in the east anyway. The vast bulk of the Wehrmacht turned east in 1941. Easily enough to do the job (on paper).
The Luftwaffe too contributed the great majority of its men and machines to the effort. And as we know - for months the Russians dissolved under a hail of German fire and steel. A closely related question is - could the Germans have won in 1941 while at war with the UK? The answer is probably (in terms of capturing moscow) yes.
But as has already been pointed out - capturing a capital is far from (outside of boardgames) winning a war. This is partly why IMO you should be able to continue placing units in A&A as long as you have factories - irrespective of capitals. Though I realise that would potentially make the game utterly different - if not infinite!
Napoleon captured Moscow. He lost the war. Russia with her tens of millions of people would have been almost impossible to suppress entirely - partisan activity remained high even despite brutal SS action. An obvious tactic to limit partisan action would have been the demarcation of the great Reich in protectorates with self-government, but that would be far too liberal for the Nazis. As has been said before though - such a move could have enabled Germany to quickly gain economically from the Ukraine and other productive areas - and with teh supported of their new ex-soviet ‘citizens’ solidify their new border with the new (much reduced) USSR.

But back to my point at the beginning - all else being equal - I think the German war in Russia was mismanaged which is why they lost it - and those mistakes - based on racial hatred (death squads, and subjugation of ‘inferior’ slavic people) and political ego (obsession with Leningrad & Stalingrad) would have been made anyway. Eventually leading to the loss of the war. By the time the troops arrived at Moscow they were exhausted and their machines were worn out. One thing not covered in A&A - just how worn out a tank is when in one flick of your hand you ‘blitz’ it the equivalent of 1000 miles over (at best) shoddy roads.

Also - I have to say that my feelings about Nazi evil are this:
The Nazis were evil. People who supported the movement, who had read Mein Kampf and had seen jews and other ‘disappear’ from their neighbourhoods knew what the tennets of the movement were -and celebrated war as the ultimate expression of a race’s struggle for survival. The ideology was evil. People who perpetrated it, and allowed it to go on were doing evil.

BUT

Not all Germans were nazis. Though in one way or another most Germans contributed to the war effort because it was an irresistable force in their country. Many in the Wehrmacht retained a centuries old Prussian tradition of loyalty to the state and its leader, and considered themselves non-nazis in that they were non-political.

What I think is the uncomfortable truth though - is that many (if not most) Germans were Nazis - and had they won, they wouldn’t all be denying it. The interesting question that this raises (another thread entirely) is - could this not have happened anywhere? Just how much evil is there in all of us - ready to come out when the conditions seem right.

My grandmother refused to teach Eugenics at school. In England. In the 50s.

Sometimes that just happens - recently I rolled for 8 inf in Russia (against 8 attacking German tanks) and while the attacker did great with 5 hits - I got all 8 with 1’s and 2’s…

Was cool.  :mrgreen:

Or maybe like revised make it damage per bomber…?

Though in either case I think taking Hawaii is always a no no right?

One way I used bombers once was a cannonfodder. First buy was fighters - then bombers - then by the fourth round Japanese forces were very built up in Asia - I got 6 fighters and 5 bombers into china leading to a japanese counter attack with infantry and fighters. The japanese ‘won’ economically decimating about 150 IPCs worth of hardware. However - they lost nearly all of the infantry they had worked so hard to transport and were bearing down on India at the point. India was never in danger again at that point, and having committed to that strategy at the start Japan had not invested enough in building a navy to hold her victory points.

Big Japanese error had been to leave New Britain unoccupied. That was how I got my fighters into China. (after massing Chinese forces on the coast - which led to Japanese reinforcement of Hong Kong - my opponent thought that was my target!).

Oh, and back on topic - yes you can get 40 IPCs - but I reckon 37/38 is a better bet.

Though a US IC in Japan - if captured - becomes a target for allied attention - surely a large Japanese fleet could keep the Allies from building up significant forces to take it (or even surrounding islands)- and it becomes a base to attack both south to Australia and east toward India with, or reinforce the waters around Java, Sumatra, Celebs etc.

I reckon depending on how well the situation was handled (and the dice) the Phillipines could be a nice southern base for Japan.

If you want to go SBR crazy after all - you can go for Japan almost as easily… and while the US is buying bombers and fighters, they’re not buying boats… it’s a while since I’ve played Pacific though - so who knows maybe I’m off the mark…