Posts made by UN Spacy

You realize this house rule screws up one of Italy’s NO, right?

Also, that sounds too complex for a game like this and I play Twilight Imperium! We already have enough political rules to bog newcomers down with.

@lnmajor:

Players with ADD? WOW, that must be an experience :roll:
I had a friend who sounded really interested in playing so I had him over one night for a game. he is reasonably intellegent but could not grasp the game. Was trying to move the wrong pieces and whatnot. At one point I was like, “dude, what are you doing!?” turns out he said he was COLOR BLIND and would that make a difference!!! :-o

It was. It’s not like ADD severely affects everyone. It’s major for some, minor for others.

How’s this to convince you:

IT’S WORTH EVERY PENNY! GET PACIFIC AND EUROPE!

On a more serious note: the additional rules are nothing to gawk at. I have several friends who play it avidly and have ADD, and become hooked for hours.

@Dylan:

@GrizzlyMan:

At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.

Fourth behind who? USA, USSR, and UK? Technically wasn’t the Canadian military part of the UK (commonwealth) military?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18760.0 There there’s my proof. Also saying thats part of the commonwealth is like saying modern Australia is part of the British army today! Or the Canadian army today! They were just loyal to the British still, but were’t British. They were Canadian.

That’s not proof. The 4th largest army in the world in 1945 was not Canada, nor Australia. I’m pretty sure it was France, whom had over a million men by the end of the war.

The Canadian Army was in fact a Commonwealth army in WWII for all intents and purposes.

@BJCard:

The british should do the Italian raid every game, and NCM the carrier to the french fleet.  Most of the time the UK will with with 1 tac, 1 ftr to land on the carrier.  If the germans want to attack 1 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 Tac, 1 Ftr with air, than so be it- they will lose 2-3 aircraft in the first round, with another 1-2 in the second round (depending on how many hits the germans get).  If the German airforce is depleted that much, then subsequent UK builds are much safer.

Of course if the Germans build 1 CV, 2 Transports round 1, then the Tac will be needed in the defense of Great Britain…

They WILL lose 2-3 aircraft? I don’t think so. The dice, as I’ve said for the umpteenth time, can be very unpredictable.

@Imperious:

That’s exactly what you should NOT do is bring the CV in the battle.

Well the CV is for defense to protect the fleet from the other Italian units. I think the CV will survive the battle, while the idea is to trade out the balance of Italys navy because at 10 IPC it can’t buy a new navy as well as UK.

But it can certainly put ships in the Med much faster than the Brits. And, as always, the dice is always unpredictable; the most hits Italy can get is two hits. If the UK player takes out the destroyer and cruiser as casualties, that’s  going to severely limit its projection of power in the Med. If it takes out both air units, that’s two less air units that could have helped in the defense of Egypt, or protecting the French fleet.

If the carrier takes a hit, that also dooms the air units.

what do you think the results of the battle might be if the CV stays?

Less catastrophic for the British player, that’s for sure. If the Italians roll two hits and the British player is forced to take out the destroyer and cruiser, the carrier, in a NCM, can move with the French fleet and land the tactical bomber and fighter on it. Yes, Germany might attack it with its air force (again, this depends on how much of the air force was destroyed on G1), but a cruiser, destroyer, aircraft carrier, a fighter, and tactical bomber will be quite a match-up against an air attack, those precious Luftwaffe units that would be better off being transferred to the Eastern Front.

@Dylan:

@UN:

@Dylan:

:-D Polish sucked!

That’s like saying Canada sucked.

At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.

The United States, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan all had cavalry.

Fourth? Care to share where that statistic comes from?  :?

@Imperious:

So I don’t think we need to fix anything, at least not at the moment while everyone’s nitpicking everything. The attack on the Italian fleet is risky and can end in disaster for either side roughly equally. Why? Because of the dice.

Well not really. UK can potentially bring the CV, CA, DD, 1 tactical, 1 fighter and crush the larger Italian fleet. THat is if Germany does not build transports on her turn.

This is the crux of the issue. The game forces players into options in order to prevent glitches. If Italy was not at war till she starts her turn ( UK cant attack) this saves the game from this travesty.

That’s exactly what you should NOT do is bring the CV in the battle. If it gets a hit, the planes will have no where to land and be destroyed. If you have your other ships take the damage (destroyer or cruiser), that’s one less warship that the British have against the Italian menace. Yes, the French fleet is there, but the Germans will attempt to wipe them out with a swarm of aircraft, along with any surviving British warships, and we never know for sure what the extent of the damage will be for either side because of the chaotic dice. So you’d have to have the hits go on the planes, which is just as bad because  Britain needs air power to survive in Africa and the Med.

So the CV should NOT be in the battle at all, which leaves a cruiser, destroyer, a tactical bomber, and fighter vs. a cruiser and battleship. Again, the dice WILL play heavily into this battle; seven out of thirteen times the Italians gave the British a fatal beating for their attack. So it’s a huge risk that will increase the chance of success for the victor.

@Dylan:

:-D Polish sucked!

That’s like saying Canada sucked.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

Just because the Italians lose their fleet doesn’t mean the axis lose.

Agreed.

But seriously, Italy is not broken. At all. I understand that the game is only days old, and that people should nitpick it as much as possible, but I hope they understand that in Europe, there is really no right or wrong strategy. Everything has its pros and cons.

For example, a UK1 attack on the Italian fleet.

Pros: Destroys half of the Italian naval prescense, has support of the French fleet, prevents Italy from reinforcing Africa (temporarily perhaps), and from getting its NO.

Cons: The Germans can definitely strike at the Allied navy from France if it wanted to with the Luftwaffe (given it survived relatively intact in the attack on France and the British navy), sinking a CV, fighter, tac. bomber, cruiser and destroyer, giving the Italians plenty of time to re-build its fleet while the Brits have little to no naval prescense in the Med now.

HOWEVER: the other thing is the dice. THE DICE. The dice decides the battles. Strategies are one thing, but rolling the dice truly decides the fate of battles. I can list every pro and con of attacking the Italian fleet on UK1, but they can all suddenly be null and void if the dice leans towards one or the other. I’ve had an instance in my last Global game (not the incredibly slow one I’m playing online right now  :roll:) where the British attackers on the Italian fleet was mortally wounded, with only a fighter surviving (where it thereafter was destroyed because it could not land anywhere). I’ve run multiple simulations after that game on a British attack on the Italian fleet, and the Italians survived relatively intact seven out of thirteen times while inflicting horrendous losses on the British.

So I don’t think we need to fix anything, at least not at the moment while everyone’s nitpicking everything. The attack on the Italian fleet is risky and can end in disaster for either side roughly equally. Why? Because of the dice.

I JUST lost a Taranto battle, damaging the BB while losing everything except the ftr. I rolled 1@2, 3@3, and 2@4, and I could only get 1 hit. He rolled 2@3 and 2@4 and got 3 hits.

What was up against what, exactly? I thought the Western Italian fleet only has a battleship and cruiser? :?

I love the United Kingdom, because of their extensive hand in every theater of the war.

I’ve never played as any of the Axis, but I’d like to play as any three of them.

Just because the Italians lose their fleet doesn’t mean the axis lose.

Agreed.

But seriously, Italy is not broken. At all. I understand that the game is only days old, and that people should nitpick it as much as possible, but I hope they understand that in Europe, there is really no right or wrong strategy. Everything has its pros and cons.

For example, a UK1 attack on the Italian fleet.

Pros: Destroys half of the Italian naval prescense, has support of the French fleet, prevents Italy from reinforcing Africa (temporarily perhaps), and from getting its NO.

Cons: The Germans can definitely strike at the Allied navy from France if it wanted to with the Luftwaffe (given it survived relatively intact in the attack on France and the British navy), sinking a CV, fighter, tac. bomber, cruiser and destroyer, giving the Italians plenty of time to re-build its fleet while the Brits have little to no naval prescense in the Med now.

HOWEVER: the other thing is the dice. THE DICE. The dice decides the battles. Strategies are one thing, but rolling the dice truly decides the fate of battles. I can list every pro and con of attacking the Italian fleet on UK1, but they can all suddenly be null and void if the dice leans towards one or the other. I’ve had an instance in my last Global game (not the incredibly slow one I’m playing online right now  :roll:) where the British attackers on the Italian fleet was mortally wounded, with only a fighter surviving (where it thereafter was destroyed because it could not land anywhere). I’ve run multiple simulations after that game on a British attack on the Italian fleet, and the Italians survived relatively intact seven out of thirteen times while inflicting horrendous losses on the British.

So I don’t think we need to fix anything, at least not at the moment while everyone’s nitpicking everything. The attack on the Italian fleet is risky and can end in disaster for either side roughly equally. Why? Because of the dice.

Also, I really think Italy’s image has been tarnished by British wartime propaganda. Like the French, the Italians were poorly led (though they had far worse equipment then the French), but they were capable of acts of bravery. Italian artillery would literally continue to fire until they were literally overrun. Plus, their motor vehicles were actually better than average, with commanders like Monty using them in his African campaigns!

And oh boy did they put up a fight in Sicily, though by the time the Allies gained a foothold in Italy proper there was much friction between the Italians and krauts.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@reloader-1:

The French equipment was top of the line. (tanks especially).

They had serviceable fighters and other equipment. That is probably one of the reasons why they are disparaged so much, is that they cannot blame losing on inadequate equipment.

The French soldier was capable of bravery. However, they were so ineptly led and trained that they were near useless in combat. It is sad that the war ended so fast for mainland France, for they were unable to develop a national “character” of their soldiers. For example:

Russia = Soldiers developed a reputation for tenacity - no matter what, they would keep fighting, no matter the costs
Japan = Developed a reputation for sheer lack of the fear of death - until a Japanese soldier was dead, he wouldn’t stop fighting
UK = Brave, resolute, steadfast and dependable. They may not be the quickest to achieve an objective, but they would take it.
German = “Thinking” soldiers. They would outthink you on the battlefield, using flanking movement etc. Also very brave.
US = Not giving up. It may take thousands and thousands of rounds, but they would not give up. NUTS!
Italy = Not really in the war, they would surrender due to apathy and inferior equipment (and rightly so).

The only possible image we have of France is of a near immediate surrender. (Hence the jokes) I really feel that the blame lies on commander from the Sergeant level up - the French soldier was not motivated enough, and that is inexcusable, especially when your country is invaded.

What about ANZAC and China?

What about them? They’re almost never actually portrayed in anything, period.

…that they were near useless in combat.

The British evacuating from Dunkirk would disagree with that; even when poorly led they put up bitter resistance against the Germans as they closed in on Dunkirk.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

@maverick_76:

Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.

Not sure what historians you saw.  :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.

And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.

Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers.  :roll:

But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.

However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!

I think in Poland, the calvary was attacking German inf, and then tanks showed up.

Polish cavalry never charged German tanks or entrenched infantry or artillery, but usually acted as mobile infantry (like dragoons) and reconnaissance  units and executed cavalry charges only in rare situations against foot soldiers. Other armies (including German and Soviet) also fielded and extensively used elite horse cavalry units at that time. Polish cavalry consisted of eleven brigades, as emphasized by its military doctrine, equipped with anti tank rifles “UR” and light artillery such as the highly effective Bofors 37 mm antitank gun. The myth originated from war correspondents reports of the Battle of Krojanty, where a Polish cavalry brigade was fired upon in ambush by hidden armored vehicles, after it had mounted a sabre-charge against German infantry.

@The:

@Sloan:

Guys I have been reading these posts for awhile and I am getting tired of people whining about possible Europe 40 glitches…Yes I agree that pacific is broken but can you honestly say that playtesters didnt see the UK attack on Italy or the RN getting destroyed first turn? Even the Sealion?? In the Rulebook It states that Sealion is a very concievable option and LH did that on purpose. If you can find that it is broken just by playing it for a day then we have so little faith in the developers as possible. I personnally love this game and think that it was designed beautifully. I know that not all of you are whining and I know that Im newer to the boards so go ahead and rip me a new one. But stop trying to find the “faults” to the game… LH is smarter than you think

I have not yet finished a game of G40. So I will not yet post an opinion. But all of this is Larry and his own playtesters fault. Pacific1940’s awesome potential and abysmal failure has changed people’s policy of “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”. Until people think that the game is a success, they will think of it as a failure. And I agree. I would go so far as to say “seriously?” to people who complain about complainers. Aka you. We’re all trying to make the game better, and although some people will be content to sit back and bleat that “everything is good and perfect” I am not one of those people. And until I see a perfect game, I will continue to critique.

I think Larry’s been proven innocent at this point. Or, have you not seen the colossal post on his forum where he personally discusses proposals of fixing Pacific?

Actually, I think he made a thread there that states the intended changes he wants us to test.

@maverick_76:

Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.

Not sure what historians you saw.  :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.

And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.

Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers.  :roll:

But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.

However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!

@maverick_76:

Honestly the main problem was that they were using pre-WWI equipment, they actually reverted back to calvary and stopped producing tanks. It was a horrid chain of events that led up to them getting run over like they did. They didn’t have an air force, ther generals were all old and still in the mindset of WWI tactics (anyone just has to look at the maginot line to see that they still believed in trench warfare).

Uh, a lot of armies at that time still used cavalry, including the Soviet Union, Germany, and the United States.

We had better tanks than the Germans, and although our air force (which we did have, we do have the world’s oldest airforce after all  :-D) was mostly made of outdated planes (though not bi-planes), the D.520 fighter was actually a very modern aircraft, comparable to the German Me-109 or the British Spitfire. There was also the LeO 45, a very effective bomber, but only saw limited use

So it wasn’t that we lagged behind in military development; we just lagged behind in producing enough of that good, modern stuff.

So…is it a cruiser in A&A terms?

Did the French player stack up the 3 infantry in North Africa in Algeria? If not…well, that should be a textbook move. Three lone infantry is worse off than three combined infantry.