Posts made by Weezer 410

Overall I like this new set of rules, it makes the game more historically accurate and will change many strategies.

This i what I noticed:
-Japan is much stronger in this version
-Russia and U.S. are slightly weaker
-UK and Germany are slightly stronger
-very rarely will Russia or japan attack each other early on
-A Yugo minor will become standard
-Russia will most likely pull a lot of its infantry back to Moscow from the east
-The US will have a more balanced approach to the war
-Japan will be more Aggresive against the U.S.
-Sealion will be scrapped in most games in favor of heavy Barbarossa

For the first few turns as japan I generally go all out on China, sending most available units into Chinese territories, I also tend to buy one or two minor complexes maybe even a major just for taking out china, although it also comes in handy against India and pumping tanks into Russia when China is dead.

If you are looking for an economical way to contain China (there is no cheap way to kill China) Take and hold Yunnan (land planes in it), kill the flying tigers, and keep them at least two territories away from any ocean. You can usually do this with your starting ground forces and a bunch of planes which can easily be used against the fight for India. But beware that even a contained China is potentially hazardous.

ultimately I believe this strategy is doomed for failure, America only needs to build 10 inf. in central and western USA to make this strategy useless, and though it takes time and money away from the European front, it leaves the japanese in a bad strategic position and allows India and ANZAC a long respite, even with a small fleet off of malaya the british can spend a couple of turns building ships and easily grab the money islands. Pretty soon India will be getting 30+ Ipc’s a turn and ANZAC will probaly have at least 15 if not 20+  while Japan will probably be somewhere between 30 and 35 and thats assuming no convoy raiding and no russian attack.

I believe that this strategy is a waste of Japanese potential and is just using them as a distraction to give germany more time rather than allowing Japan to turn into the monster it can become by turn 5 or 6. By then it can attack the US or Russia and really change the game instead of delay the Americans one turn.

Italy could definetily use the economic boost, but it makes much more sense to give it to Germany. Germany is only given 30 ipc’s to start the game out, putting it virtually on par with the London Brits and far behind the Ruskies. Germany is also the most critical and important axis player (japan is a close second) as they start  out right in the middle of the fight and face the full brunt of the British and Russians and often times the Americans like to go for Germany too.

Therefore the Germans need France, it is a crucial part of the axis strategy, if the Italians were to take it they would probably either spend it all on a fleet, which would not be able to raise a finger against the american/anglo fleet, or spend it on ground units to take the fight to russia but would still be playing the minor role on the eastern front.

Germany also makes more sense strategically in taking france because they can afford to spend 3 infantry a turn in Paris to build up the atlantic wall while fighting the russians in the east, where as usually the Italian player is spending all of their money trying to take Cairo/africa, which under the direction of an experienced british player, can be very hard to take.

I think the Taranto raid is just fine, it gives the Brits a chance in Africa instead of having to rely on the Indian airforce. It is also historically accurate but more importantly it forces the Italian player to be efficient and creative. The Italians can often times preserve their fleet, or part of it, with German air support. all they really need is a transport to survive.

Although the Usual Russian Strategy of, one space back huge armies of infantry and artillery, usually is quite effective against the usual German onslaught. Perhaps the Russians should not be so predictable because it seems that though this strategy might work the first few times you are giving the German player the power to be creative with is Barbarossa.

Therefore I was thinking, assuming a G3 or G4 attack, mass 3 large armies. The biggest in Eastern Poland, the 2nd largest in Belarus and a smaller but powerful force in Karelia. This is assuming Germany has massed forces in the east and has some infantry in finland. Now the German player will be forced to divert the bulk of his forces to Eastern poland, as it would be impossible to bypass. The russian player would almost assuredly lose eastern poland but at a very high cost for the germans. Now the russians can succesfully counterattack the germans massed in Eastern poland and force the germans again to take out the large stack imposing on their front lines. As Russia do not defend Leningrad or the southern regions as they are relatively unimportant. With the Karelian infantry take finland and Norway to hopefully meet up with some brits or americans by 2 or 3 turns after war has been declared, from there Germany is doomed!

How did you manage to knock out China and virtually crush India in only 3 turns?  Was the allied player making some bad moves? Because usually you have to focus on one or the other to accomplish such a feat.

I would give the allies a slight advantage.

The axis are not in a terrible position right now, it looks bad but the Italians are about to take N. Italy back and even though the americans will take france and normandy next turn the germans will take it back right away. The russians too will get pushed back after germanys turn. The japanese are also poised to make a comeback in the pacific, as the DEI look like tempting targets or maybe even India. And with Japan gobbling up Russia’s eastern territories, the russians will not be able to fuel their great western offensive much longer. So america is the big variable here, mainly the mass of ships, planes and troops on gibraltar. If the Italians can move all available forces to Paris and hold it from the oncoming americans then the Axis has a chance because the germans can blitz through and take S. France thereby killing any American foothold.

Also fortunately for the axis, the american/anglo fleets are not that strong, and are apprx. comparable to the Japanese/German fleets, so if the american fleet can be destroyed or at least deterred from going back to the west coast for reinforcements then Fortress Europe will have time to rest and throw everything against the russians for a few turns. Basically as long as the Axis builds smart and does not allow the Americans a foothold in Europe No matter what the cost, they have a chance at victory.

Is this for a G3 attack or just a general Barbarossa strategy?

I build almost all artillery/infantry and position them in 2 or 3 main sectors one space from the border so as to do a quick counter attack, usually one north of the marshes and one south. Although I am toying with the idea of a large russian stack in Bessarabia because it is worthless for the germans to take it and if they ignore it they are facing the loss of Romania.

I also put a moderate amount of units in Leningrad if the Germans have transports in the baltic.

I like it! With America in Persia they can send direct support to Russia, India and/or Africa! It would also kill any Italian move to put an IC in Iraq and attack Russia’s vulnerable money territories. This pivotal move would be extremely beneficial, and not too historically inaccurate as I do believe that America had forces in Persia.

I made this so that the Germans could get guys into the Caucuses by the first turn of operation Barbarossa and totally outflank the russians, it is not designed to be a quick kill of Moscow but rather a way around the Barbarossa stalemate, and provide quick bases for the axis to launch attacks on Stalingrad and then Moscow by turn 5 or 6. The naval element is essential because it allows you to buy cheaper infantry and artillery that will arrive in Stalingrad faster then less efficient tanks and mechs.

I agree with the Battle of Britain.

If the battle of Britain had been lost then operation Sealion would have happened and there is little debate that the germans could have taken the island.

North Africa would have fallen.

Operation Barbarossa would have been delayed one or two more years, which is what the german generals originally wanted.

America would take much longer to get into the war without the use and aid of British bases and forces, they would also probably focus much more on the european theatre leaving Japan more unopposed and also have to liberate britain before taking france.

Therefore if we are talking single battles, the battle of britain was without a doubt the most Decisive.

But it would take time and units diverted from other fronts to do it. Also U.S. probably wont be able to make a move down there until turn 3 or 4 if Japan waits, and seeing as how the U.S. needs to do something ASAP, a good axis player can be marching on Moscow before those extra 6 IPC’s can amount to anything.

In my play groups for Global 1940 we have been playing where if you attack a true neutral only the true neutrals in the same continent as the one invaded will turn pro-axis/allies

It doesn’t really make sense that if America attacks Colombia.  Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc. become pro-axis. It also makes the game more interesting in that players are bolder and won’t feel so bad about taking a far away Neutral.

I realize that the original rule is so that you play more historically accurate games and won’t be attacking any neutrals but those guys are just so tempting sometimes!

I Also think that with this rule the fate of African true neutrals and MIddle east true neutrals are shared so that if the british attack Angola. Mozambique, saudi arabia and afghanistan will turn against you.

As I have been examining Operation Barbarossa and how to keep the offensive going in Russia (as most people’s offensives start to dry up after Leningrad) I noticed that all of the money territories in Russia are located in the south, From Ukraine to Stalingrad almost all of the territories are worth 2 instead of the 0 and 1’s we see sprinkled over central, east and northern russia.

Unfortunately it would probably take 4 to 5 turns to conquer all of these territories, so i was thinking the German player could build a minor complex in Romania and build ships in the black sea, if the germans do a G4 attack they could have 3 TT, 2 DD and 1 CC in the black sea. The russians will have a couple of fighters but that should hold them off. You would then force the RUssians to defend Ukraine, Rostov and Caucasus, either spreading out their defenses or not defending at all. You could potentially take all 3 territories in one turn. If you also do the normal push through russia with the rest of your ground forces into eastern poland you would overwhelm them.

You would also be threatening Stalingrad next turn and you could build minor complexes in all of the 2ipc value territories.  After 3 turns of barbarossa you could have Stalingrad, and two other minor complexes pumping out infantry for the assault on Moscow. Russian forces in the south would be non existent and all of the forces he had preparing for the assault in the north would be useless. The Russian player would be forced to try to either pull every thing back to Moscow or try to attack Germany with infantry/artillery stacks. You could then also use Finland forces to harrass him in the north.

I have not personally tried this strategy but I think it could work if germany focuses on infantry/artillery builds and Italy throws tanks/mechs in to support. Although it all depends on the Black sea fleet being used effectively.

If the Option to surrender is allowed for the french I believe that all of north Africa and the remaining European french territories should become Vichy French as another axis player. While the other french territories (F. equatorial africa, syria, french indochina, french guiana, madagascar) all become pro-allied neutrals/Free french. Any French units in other allied territories or in the same zone as an ally (british are the only ones I think) will automatically be transferred to that allied players control (replace french cruiser in SZ 112 with british cruiser, french infantry in UK for british infantry). The remaining french fleet will be playable as the Vichy french only in sea zones bordering Vichy french/axis territories. All land Vichy french non infantry units will be taken off of the map and replaced with German counterparts in neighboring axis territories. Vichy france will be allowed its income (should be 8ipc’s) half of which must be given to the German or Italian player. There will be no restrictions as to what the Vichy french may build or conquer as long as they follow the above rules. The other axis players may also occupy Vichy french territories once the allies have attacked any French territory and collect the IPC values for themselves, if the axis players choose to do this the Vichy French player may switch back to the allies.

In my last game of global the UK player dominated with this strategy, he also built a CV with ANZAC and was able to harass the Japanese in the south central pacific as well as the DEI, with both of these fleets they severely weakened the Japanese and forced them to build lots of navy and little ground units against China and India, at UK’s height they were pushing 30 IPC’s! And this was with America going 100% Europe first. Japan was able to eventually overwhelm the UK fleet but at a terrible cost in ships and time. I believe this is the best allied strategy for the pacific.

Note: French player brought in destroyer form Africa to help out UK fleet, And Japan did not attack till J3.

@oztea:

It does not take three bucks from japan….since they take it right back
And Russia does not get three more bucks because Korea is Convoy Raided on Russias collect income phase

The strategic value alone is worth 3 infantry IMO

I like to attack Korea because its 3 less bucks for Japan and it buys the other Russian territories time because the Japanese player has to use up his precious land units to attack, Im assuming I have two infantry left in Korea, and an IC in Manchuria would divert forces from southern china (burma road) and India which is what I am really trying to accomplish with those 18 infantry.

Also usually Japan will not have many land units available to defend Amur when he attacks J1 so it should be fairly easy to counter attack Amur R2 and stall the Japanese even more!