Posts made by Xandax

@knp7765:

Also, the French stopped Italy cold in Southern France.

Well, so did almost everybody else the Italian went up against :D

@knp7765:

I just think you all should cut France a break and stop bashing them all the time.  They weren’t cowards or sissies, they were just faced with an overwhelming force.

Sure - France has a very bad rep - not only when it comes to WW2, but military in general - it’s just an internet thing most of the time.
However much of the situation for how France is handled in this game is due to game balance.  It’s difficult, if not impossible, to accurately map up a strategy game mimic real life’s complexity. It’s not - I hope - because the makers are anti-French, it’s just that the game would be hard to balance as a 1940 game, without doing some very tricky rules.

@KillOFzee:

@special:

Yes you can land on a newly purchased carrier.

Really? But the purchase units phase comes after noncombat. Is that an alpha 2 rule

No - also an OOB rule.
It is clarified in the rulebook under Carriers where it states that: “Landing doesn’t actually occur until the Mobilize New Units phase”

@KillOFzee:

@Stalingradski:

Germany - Carrier and 2 Transports

I am sorry for being ignorant, but for weeks I have been trying to figure out why the Germans buy an aircraft carrier on turn 1, and not two destroyers. All planes can hit England anyway if they are in Holland or West Germany, and two destroyers allow for better protection against subs and get two hits instead of one with an aircraft carrier. If you can’t land planes on it that turn, what’s the point of having an aircraft carrier?

Could someone PLEASE enlighten me on this one.

The carrier is so you can land planes in the sea zone around England if you clear it of the navy and thus defend your position on Englands turn easier. If I remember right (at work) it can help bring the Norway fighter into play for a Lion as well.

It’ll also help you if you’re successful with Sealion to push out into the Atlantic or to remove the Russian battleship. As far as I remember, England or USA don’t have subs so destroyers anti-sub is marginal, unless you want to hunt the Russia sub to begin with.

However I’m sure you can do other things than a Carrier and still be successful.

@Cmdr:

No, those values are only for strategic bombers vs an industrial complex which is always protected by an anti-aircraft gun by alpha 2 rules, and I think OOB, but it’s been a long time since I looked at the OOB rules.

Facilities have own AA in OOB as well.

@rock`n:

<snip>i do not agree, as you know already. never seen sealion work AND the axis winning afterwards. that sealion works, no doubt, but only with the price of loosing the european board.</snip>

That you’ve not seen it happen is not the same as it a) can’t happen and b) can’t win the game.
The only time I’ve won OOB as Axis was with Sealion. In that game, removing England caused Italy to become very powerful, very fast - even to the point where it was throwing tanks into Calcuatta, had taken South Russia, the entire Africa and was playing catch with the USA.
Sure, the game might have looked different if I got diced on Sealion, but well …. you can plan with the dice, but you can’t control them.

I’m sure you can win the game without, but well - that’s not really the issue and frankly, I do not care that people win doing only Barbarossa. The issue is that you claim it is a “dead end” and will cause you to loose the game. Well, others disagree, not just me, and use the tactic to great advantage.

And no, the game isn’t poker, but that does not change the fact that if you’re a one trick pony, and always visible go for Russia, it’s much much easier to counter, than if the enemy doesn’t know which direction you go and must plan accordingly. And heck - I’d find it a very dull game if it was always a rush for Russia. Doubt I’d even play it much then.
So I’m glad Sealion is a viable alternative for me.

@JimmyHat:

<snip>I was wondering what will be best for the UK to do to assist in this strategy. </snip>

Basically - avoid being invaded successfully :D
And then harass Germany/support Russia IMO.

@KillOFzee:

@Xandax:

@KillOFzee:

I keep hearing that sea lion takes 3 turns to complete, but i’ve done it in 2 turns. If the British navy is completely destroyed in the North Atlantic, then on Germany’s second turn, it can invade england with 4-10 ground units, along with 4 fighter, 3 tac Bombers, and a Strat bomber, PLUS naval bombardment. And during that time you can move soldiers into Russia to invade on turn 2!

So the total benfits:
-GETS RID OF AN ALLIED PLAYER (DURR)
-Receive Englands unspent IPCs (30 or so)
-Neutralize English factories in Canada and, more importantly, Africa
-Allow for a another naval stike into Russia the next turn
-Keeps US busy for several more turns
-Allow for naval stirkes as far as Canada and the US

You can do a G2 Sealion indeed, I’ve done it as well (with one art as surviving land unit :D) - but it takes a bit more luck with the first move removing the enemy navy and leaves a lot up to how England moves their first turn.
If England leaves themselves open for it, IMO it is very much worth the risk trying a G2 Sealion, especially because it doesn’t remove the G3 Sealion if G2 fails - but also  because that means you could do a G3 (or potentially even G2) Barbarossa afterwards/instead.

3 turns, or even 4, is however the easier one to actually plan for as it leaves less up to England’s move.  But that’s why I usually do buy 2 transports in G1, just to have the off chance of an invasion G2.

My problem with invading England on turn 3 is that it gives the English 2 turns to buy 10 inf and stock them up in England. That means by G3 you’ll be fighting 20 inf and 3 fighters. And G2 purchases need to be used for Russia, most importantly, a Major IC in Romania, which alone is 30 IPCs.

At turn 3 you can present a similar force, and I’m not in the “major IC in Romaina” camp - I see that as a waste of money better used elsewhere.
As said - G2 is possible, but it is very much up to what England does and how G1 turns out - to make that possible. G3 is more “in your hands” so to speak.

@KillOFzee:

I keep hearing that sea lion takes 3 turns to complete, but i’ve done it in 2 turns. If the British navy is completely destroyed in the North Atlantic, then on Germany’s second turn, it can invade england with 4-10 ground units, along with 4 fighter, 3 tac Bombers, and a Strat bomber, PLUS naval bombardment. And during that time you can move soldiers into Russia to invade on turn 2!

So the total benfits:
-GETS RID OF AN ALLIED PLAYER (DURR)
-Receive Englands unspent IPCs (30 or so)
-Neutralize English factories in Canada and, more importantly, Africa
-Allow for a another naval stike into Russia the next turn
-Keeps US busy for several more turns
-Allow for naval stirkes as far as Canada and the US

You can do a G2 Sealion indeed, I’ve done it as well (with one art as surviving land unit :D) - but it takes a bit more luck with the first move removing the enemy navy and leaves a lot up to how England moves their first turn.
If England leaves themselves open for it, IMO it is very much worth the risk trying a G2 Sealion, especially because it doesn’t remove the G3 Sealion if G2 fails - but also  because that means you could do a G3 (or potentially even G2) Barbarossa afterwards/instead.

3 turns, or even 4, is however the easier one to actually plan for as it leaves less up to England’s move.  But that’s why I usually do buy 2 transports in G1, just to have the off chance of an invasion G2.

@Endeer:

<snip>By the way FIRST GLOBAL GAME TONIGHT!!!</snip>

Good luck :)

@rock`n:

@xandax:
russia will turtle anyway. the point is, how much time you give her! i´d say as less as possible…

but could you please outline your “viable strategy”? all i have read is virtually “sealion then barbarossa”, without any details! (where you go with what? in which turn you want to achieve which conquest etc. maybe with some estimated numbers of units you throw in there etc. …)

another thing: it is even not doubted that the UK and the USA will be able to take away some african possessions or even get into the normandy etc. the point is, how to deal with it. is it possible to delay that or to deny the allies any advantages out of that like the ability of producing etc.

It’s as much a “viable strategy” as saying Barbarossa, but it isn’t as such a “play-by-play” strategy, but more opening up different possibilities and then capitalizing on the opportunities as they arise. You’re also much more able to pressure the Allies into making tactical mistakes if you do not go one route only.
If you only open up for Barbarossa, England is “safe” and will build accordingly - if you make a move which indicates both, you force the Allies to plan accordingly and open up for the tactical blunders.

So I generally do the pretty standard opening with Germany aka kill off as much navy as possible and all that, and I do buy 2 transports. Then if England opens herself up I can move for a quick Sealion in G2 or G3 or use the transports to hit Russia or …. and so on. 
And if you get London - Italy will have a much easier time in Africa (until the US potentially comes along) and you can then use Italy to push Syria -> South USSR or even push Persia -> India.
Heck - my last game, I had Italy landing troops in central America, just to goat the US into the European theater as they were pounding hard on Japan and Japan was about to crumble. It worked.

So as said - it’s more about not closing yourself off too fast. If showing your hand in turn 1, you can effectively plan the entire game, baring dice luck.

Sealion works as well as Barbaross and I have seen nothing to indicate that it is a “dead end”. In fact, it looks to open up the game so much more.

@rock`n:

i understand your point. i - some time ago - thought for myself the same way, but i realized the following mistake in thinking you clearly stated:

@Xandax:

If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.

thanx for that, by the way.
it is a kind of a logical error which you proposed. the logic seams right, but only in logical thinking, not in fact. it is not germany alone who keeps the uk at bay. it is the axis, italy AND germany. it is this very special task for italy to do so.

It’s also the Axis keeping Russia at bay. The Italians can play a part, and Japan can play a part. Especially if USA is kept busy by Germany.

@rock`n:

as germany it is well more possible to have troops on land against russia and winning this european theater, than having a navy which cannot be defended well against a determined allied force and used only once after britain fell. more than 90 IPCs wasted to gain 30, if lucky 60??? nothing for me…

another important point is: TIME!
you just do not have sufficient time as germany to do sealion AND barbarossa! calculate 3 rounds for sealion - optimistic version - two turns to get all material from the UK to russia plus minimum 4 more turns to conquer russia - this time heavily fortified. you need to hold 8 VCs for one turn (london will fall to the USA, so you have to go moscow anyway :D), which in this phase of the game is nearly not possible, only due to lucky dices. summa summarum already 9/10 turns.

And when Russia turtles as you say England does, you can easily face the same situation and being bogged down outside Moscow while England and USA pounds on France and/or taking Africa away from Italy.

@rock`n:

and even if sealion will be staged, the USA can afford to invest fully in the pacific for two rounds just for keeping up the pace with japan. turn three and four investing mostly in europe won´t stall this process. it is the AXIS who has to CONQUER territory and the ALLIES to DEFEND!

When I play Japan I would love for the USA to only spend fully in pacific for 2 rounds.
That basically allows for taking India/China and possible Anzac pretty fast. Or allows you to push into Russia to keep pressure off the Germans. Or even stage an invasion of mainland USA.
The navy the US puts up in 2 rounds can’t pressure Japan mainland enough to divert many resources away from India/Anzac/China.

Now, I’m not saying you can’t win without doing sealion or that you must do it - but it is far form an insta-loss as you seem to indicate. It is a very viable strategy - especially if playing bold with Axis and not just doing a Moscow rush.

@rock`n:

i think it is a dead end, because of way too much ipcs invested in effectively  - economically spoken - no gain. well, uk can be cut out from game for two rounds, that is a good thing. no way to argue. but meanwhile russia gets too big to be conquered. (as russia i would not suggest attacking any german territory in range of the sealion-fleet.) in the long distance, imho, sealion is no game-winner. only with lucky dices…

it takes germany at minimum three rounds to fulfill an operation sealion. 111 ipcs for russia to spend with no risk of loosing, positioning well etc. even if japan attacks on the other side…who cares?

and : a sealion forces the US to take action in the european part of the game, but with its huge income it is no problem for them to deal with this, isn´t it?

now it is your turn… ;)

If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.
And if you can only hold England for 2 rounds, USA will land somewhere else after the 2 rounds, and with your troops in Russia, they’ll should do so easily.
And if you can dedicate enough resources to keep England at bay, you should be able to dedicate enough resources to keep Russia at bay.

Resources used on taking England are resources which can now be used against Russia, after all transports can be used for assaults on Russia as well, so you can strike over a broader fronts. Or you can use the resources to threaten the USA fast.

Resources that US must now dedicate to Europe are less resources they can use to go after Japan giving them some space. Japan can then grow big and powerful. Possible even allowing Japan to move deep into Russia or participate with Germany on threatening USA, so they’ll care.
Having USA splitting income in turn 3 or 4 between Europe and Pacific is a golden opportunity for the Axis.

@rock`n:

okay, opinion accepted.  :-)

but can you do me a favor, please? can you outline why it is “most definitely not a dead end?”

without this it is just a lone shout in a dark forest anywhere… ;)

I’d much rather why you claim it is a dead end and then back that up, as it is you making claims.

However, I say it isn’t a dead end, because taking London does not cause you to loose the game.

@rock`n:

i am not convinced that building up a german navy is a wise decision. sealion is a dead end! once planned and bought this way, germany is doomed to loose the game.  i would suggest 3 artillery, 3 mech, 1 sub.

Sealion most definitely is not a dead end.

I rarely can justify to myself the chance of loosing a 12 IPC pieces on something like that. And when I have enough resources to waste on it, I likely will win regardless.
I’d much rather group up my bombers with some fodder and lay waste to the enemy units, thus both removing them from the game and forcing the enemy to buy new ones. Better value for my investment.

So I don’t.

I agree - the advantage is if Italy is if it is left unchecked for a number of rounds. That can lead it to push towards both India and in from South Soviet.
However if pushed, Italy will struggle keeping control of North Africa and will fold like a card of house.

Usually I’ve found my Axis doing much better if Italy is pushing the Allies well. It does seem Italy is the soft underbelly of the Axis and if punched - the Axis will run out of steam fast.
It’s very much up to Japan and Germany to take the heat of Italy, but if it succeeds - Italy can be strong and powerful if allowed.

In my last OOB game, Italy owned all of Africa, parts of Russia and was pressuring Calcutta more so then Japan was (which were struggling with Anzac and USA). Axis won btw.

Imagine the level of detail a game would need to accurately represent every aspect of WW2. It would be all but impossible - but could be interesting to play though :D
Some things must given to be able to make a board game.

Often Allied in this game is strategy is “holding out until the USA can move enough troops in”, so you’ll experience this particular strategy a lot.

@MacNaughton:

I’ve seen Paris survive the German attack twice. The Axis tried to weaken Paris on G1 so that Italy could have it I1. The thought was that Italy needs the 19 IPC to boost their start more than the Germans do.
That’s why I was wondering about GB sending its planes. Italy would have a tough time knocking out that air force, and France gets to buy 6 new infantry to stand ready for round 2 (for which Germany didn’t buy any ground units as it was planning on a G2 or G3 Sealion).

My thought is that the Axis is going to take both capitals in the first 3 rounds no matter what. So which capital has the greater potential to be a nuisance?

Germany needs the IPC from France more than Italy, for either a push against London or Russia.
Italys income needs to be increased via the Mediterranean and northern Africa and move from there. Otherwise Italy and Germany will compete with themselves.

@jim010:

Taking Hawaii on turn 1 has about a 3 in 4 chance of succeeding.  The India Crush is pretty much guaranteed.

I will play anyone who thinks otherwise.

As for doing this in a global game … only played Global OOB once.

The difference is that with Global, US get a larger economy which it can dedicate to the Pacific, yet Japan stays the same.
I think if only playing Pacific 40 that Japan is strong enough, but if playing Global, the game is out of sync due to the increased US abilities can still be spend fully in the Pacific.
It does seems like the global game is balanced from the notion that USA spends money in both theaters of war from the start, and when they don’t …… well.

Pacific balance does not equal Global balance.