Posts made by zooooma

@JamesAleman:

Would it change your plans if UK pulled a fighter, tank and infantry from Alexandria into London UK2?

UK1: Transport and cruiser from 98 to 92, Fighter from Alexandria to carrier moved into 92, DD from 91 to 94 to block Italian navy. Build 9 infantry save 2 IPCs collect 28+2=30.

UK2: Transport from 92 to 106, drop off Infantry and Armor, land fighter in London. Three extra units plus 10 infantry production. Defense force: 22 infantry, 1 armor, 4 fighters, 1 tac bomber also 1 arm and infantry if 106 transport not sank-likely if you hit with 1 sub vs 1 DD. 28 pieces or 30 pieces on London G3. Did not remove any units from G2 as I’m not sure what you hit London with on G2 air wise.

Result Italian navy in tack and Egypt abandoned. Is London saved??

Germany can block with a Cruiser in sz91, but the loss of bombardment hurts, plus UK cans till get the fighter in.

UK collects 36 IPCs turn two, 39 if there are no German subs on board.  That builds seven infantry and three tanks.  Germany kills about six units wave one, over seven with the cruiser.

@Arminius:

Where does the 6th sub come from  :?

Oops!  1s post edited.  
@Arminius:

I think thats the weak spot in this strategy, if UK hit you there (like it did me on our first game) it could all be over very fast. Our UK player attacked me there…   …with what was left.
Here it would be 1CV (only good for 2 hits) 1DD 3FIG 1TAC (2,3,3,3,4) against
1BB (assumed damage) 1CRU 1CV 2FIG (2,3,4,4,4).
Not really good for UK,prepare to loose the CV , DD & the TAC.
Try to save the 3FIG for defending London. 1 or 2 combatrounds to give Damage to the German fleet. If all transports are in SZ112 I would sacrifice the 3 FIG as well to sink the whole fleet in one sweep.

On average that fleet only kills one plane.  Killing two is bad, killing two and wounding a battleship is atrocious.  I wonder the odds on that battle.  If Germany gets a draw and keeps the transports,  they’re home free against an airless England.

@Arminius:

(I would too, especially if transports were build in SZ112 - I build in SZ113)

UK can hit that space with air if they build an IC or move one to sz110.

@JamesAleman:

By the way, how many air units do you expect to lose G1?

Well, on average results only one.  But I don’t expect average results everywhere - the odds are against that.  I’m expecting an average plane loss of between one and two, but I’d like t work it out.

The beauty is if you loose too many planes, too much navy, or if the British survive with too much navy (essentially if you get unlucky), you can build you fleet in sz114 and be in okay shape against Russia (considering having been unlucky).  With the extra plane from Alexandria and the diversion of the cruiser, maybe you can only do Sea Lion if you get lucky turn one.  The fleet’s a nice build if it forces UK to build all infantry and divert the Alexandrian fighter.  It’ll also come in very handy attacking Russia and defending Norway.

@Arminius:

We have a different opinion here…

This is the stuff i want t discuss.  I don’t know if the money is better in German hands or Italian.  Why do you think it’s better in Germany?

@Arminius:

but well it depends on what your plan is,
taking complete africa or can opener in Russia.

I like to conquor Arfica, but the sooner this is done the sooner the Italian forces can help in Europe.

@Arminius:

Forgoing Seas Lion gets Japan into India faster because Japan has to sandbag if you’re pulling Sea
Lion.

Sorry but I don´t understand this term  :|

Sandbagging means not playing your best - purposely weighing yourself down.  If you want t keep Sea Lion an option, Japan shouldn’t declare war till turn four (maybe three).

OMG I wouldn’t build naval just for the odd chance that I could do this.  The battle in France has to go just right.  I build navy either because I want to pull a turn three Sea Lion or to force UK to build all men, to help secure the Baltic from Allied incursion, and to gain momentum later against Northern Russia.  read my turn three Sea Lion thread!

Forgoing Seas Lion gets Japan into India faster beacuse Japan has to sandbag if you’re pulling Sea Lion.

The French bounty is not lost to Germany, just given to Italy.  But I don’t know if it’s better there.

If America is kicking Japan’s can in the Pacific, you can take and hold London with Germany.  If you’re not going for London, you should be able to take India early with japa and most of China. and enough firepower to tip the scales in Africa.  This generates enough income to beat back whatever USA has sent your way I think, and still be a thorn in Russia’s side.

More a Tactic than a strategy.

If, at the end of a combat round against France G1, there are just one or two French units left, Germany can consider a retreat.  Now Italy captures France turn one.  As long as you’ve built a carrier and two transports to threaten Sea Lion, UK won’t dare send enough air support to hold France.

Of course lacking the twenty three extra IPCs, Germany must abandon any thoughts of a turn three Sea Lion, but that gets Japan into India all the faster.  This, coupled with the enormous boost to the Italian economy, should be enough to crush the Middle East and Africa.

Would anyone do this if they opportunity arouse?

@MarkVIIIMarc:

Interesting strategy u have. What do u think japan can do to help the most?

I don’t know.  Probably wipe out India turn four Get into Africa and the Middle East.  That might not be enough.  maybe massing around Alaska will force USA to commit enough troops westward so that they cannot liberate UK round four.

I’m going to play Sea Lion some more and hope I get some good ideas.

@Redjac:

You post details attacking London via Bomber(s) to damage the factory in turn 1 and turn 2?

If so, how do you get past the 3 UK Fighters in London? Interception is not an optional rule in A&A 1940.

Good point.  Send the bomber to sz109 and the fighter from there into France.  That’s how I played it in practice.

I have edited my 1st post.

@gsh34:

I loved being able to pull off Operation Hollywood on each opponent once in Revised…

A strategy which only works once against each opponent will never work against a strong opponent.

Edited.
Okay, one more revision:

Turn one

Germany buys one aircraft carrier and two transports

Attack sz109 w 1bmb & 1sub
Attack sz 110 w 1ftr 1tac & 2sub
Attack sz 111 w  1ftr 1tac & 2sub
Attack sz 112 w 1sub 1crs 1tac & 1ftr
Attack Normandy w 1inf & 1tnk
Attack Yugoslavia w 1tnk & 7inf
Attack France w everything else.

• Build your fleet in  sz 112 with your existing navy (this battle is overkilled because you can’t afford any loss of navy - not even a wounded BB - you need the fleet intact to protect your builds).

• build your fleet in sz 114 if combat is is disastrous.  To Russia with love!  Other wise build in sz112

• Non combat into Finland and into Bulgaria and pull two tanks back from the eastern front

Turn two

• Move your bonus infantry from Finland back to Norway and move all available continental infantry, armour, and artillery into West Germany

• Build up to ten transports as needed

• Attack Scotland w 3inf & 3tnk

• Destroy any UK boats in range of sz111

• Move your battleship to sz111 and the rest of your navy to sz113.

• Build in sz113

Turn three

Germans land in England!

UK’s defense

UK can build  nine units round one.  This leaves:

• 10inf

• 2rtl

• 1tnk

• 3ftr

• 1tac

This is if there are no German subs and UK brings reinforcement from Africa as in reply #4 bellow.  Otherwise UK’s pips will be lower.

UK can counterattack Scotland and/or attack sz111.  If they did neither, maximum round two homeland defense would be:

• 11inf

• 2rtl

• 5tnk

• 4ftr

• 1tac

This gives a defense strength of 60 pips for UK. against Germany’s 81 plus plus offshore bombardment.  This (for the sake of argument) is based on six planes surviving till G3, and five of those should survive the flac, accounting for 17 of the 81 pips.  This number is conservative, but leaves much extra strength should fewer p[lanes survive.

If UK attacks Scotland, they will need three or four ground units.  If they attack with four planes and two infantry/artillery pairs, they’ll lose about 3.5 units, so they don’t want to skip much more than that.  So maybe they’ll take away 12 pips from Germany’s offense, but at a cost of 8 points of they’re own defense.  This makes Germany roughly 69 vs 52.

If UK attacks sz111 they will need three planes.  One fighter and one Tactical bomber are a 3:2 dog to kill a battleship and survive to sink the transports.  If they send three fighters, they’ll reduce Germany from 81 to 69 (and remove a bombardment shot) for the cost of about on fighter plane.  This is on it’s own not enough, but it also makes it harder for UK to deal with Scotland efficiently.

Sea lion indeed can be forced baring any real bad luck G1.  But is it worth it?
[center]The problems

Germany sits proudly in London with an extra 30 or so pounds in hand.  But between two navy builds, anti aircraft fire and evacuating over 100 IPCs worth of ground units from Europe, Germany looks pretty frail.  Russia is Huge, America has massed a fleet in the Atlantic, and Japan has done nothing in order to keep USA away from the British Isles.  No pressure on India means a weak Italy.  America can soon liberate UK, and Germany can’t afford to fight for it - even without the Russians on their doorstep.

Overall, I’m convinced Germany can capture England, but not convinced that it is (or isn’t) their best option (who’d have thought).  I do think axis post sea lion is worth refining.  Can Germany hold out long enough and can Japan explode quickly enough?

Either way, I stand by the turn one build of Carrier and two transports (for now).  Even if you don’t attack England:

• You force UK to buy infantry round one

• Your Baltic fleet will help you against Russia

• Your Baltic fleet will help against allied invasion

• You force America to build Atlantic (though maybe this is what they should do anyway)

If the Allies don’t put up a decent defense, sea lion is too easy and most likely is a winning move.

Thoughts?

Global 1940 is as much better than AA50 as AA50 is better than MB’s Gamemaster edition from 1984.

Great thread.

Larry - I haven’t been this excited about Axis & Allies for years and years.  A&A is my favourite game and Global 194 is the best A&A by miles!  Thank you so much.

Upon more reflection, Germany can force Sea Lion in this manner. The most UK can muster for round two defense is:

• 12inf

• 1tnk

• 3ftr

• 1tac

They’ll lose about seven units that turn (depending o your air losses), leaving:

• 12inf

• 4tnk

• 3ftr

• 1tac

Against ten or more loaded transports plus air and offshore bombardments in the round three defense.  Brittan falls unless they catch a lucky break somewhere.

to refine the strategy, wave one should be artillery and not tanks, or two artillery and one tank.  This saves the cannon fodder for the battle which actually has a second round.  Also, lose the sub before the plane in sz112.

@Funcioneta:

I don’t know … if Sea Lion is a viable strat, then we’ll need delete the rule that says that countries without a capital cannot buy, or at least make Ottawa UK’s second capital

Sea Lion is viable as it’s own end, but USA can take it back.  So is the massive set back to UK plus the bounty plus maybe saving Italy plus tying America’s hand worth the two builds blown on boats, the over-one-hundred IPCs worth of ground units sent at UK, the flack, and the restraining of Japan?

I don’t see why you’d want an artificial rule to prevent this strategy - if Axis can win this way, it’s still a good fight.  It’s historic too.  In real life Sea Lion was viable and almost happened.

essentially, Russia and Japan start at war.  Neither side are bound by the restrictions associated with not being at war, and contrapositvely there is no advantage in not declaring war, because the other side is not restricted.  A declaration of war is only meaningful in this game if the other side cannot.

The peace treaty is just nonsense!

“It’s up to the Japanese and Soviet players to work out the details of such an agreement”.

Doesn’t this all just amount to Russia-and-Germany-can-attack-each-other-but-don’t-have-to?  This is how it’s always been with any two opposing nations.

I realise this is mostly for historic flavour, but it seems silly.  The rulebook encourages diplomacy between opposing sides in a strict win/lose game.  Almost like a role playing game.

Germany buys two transports and one air craft carrier.

Attack sz109 w 1bmb & 1sub
Attack sz 110 w 1ftr 1tac & 2sub
Attack sz 111 w  1ftr 1tac & 2sub
Attack sz 112 w 1sub 1crs 1tac 1ftr & 1bb
Attack Normandy w 1inf & 1tnk
Attack France w everything else.

• Build your fleet in  sz 112 with your existing navy (this battle is overkilled because you can’t afford any loss of navy - not even a wounded BB - you need the fleet intact to protect your builds). Edit - lose sub first.

• build your fleet in sz 114 if combat is is disastrous.  To Russia with love!

• Non combat into Finland and pull your tanks back from the eastern front

On turn two:

• Move your bonus infantry from Finland back to Norway and move all available continental infantry, armour, and artillery into West Germany

• Build mostly transports - make matching loads with existing infantry and artillery (see above).

• Attack England (to soften) with 3inf 3tnk & (probably) air

Edit - use artillery, save tanks

• If your navy was threatened, more warships can be built in sz110 with the IC in Normandy

Turn three attack England with everything for the finishing blow.  Russia and USA are not yet at war.

I have only played four games of Global 1940 (four solid days) so far, only thrice as the Axis, and had terrible starts with Germany all three games (though I took England in one game).  I have not analysed England’s possible responses given various results.  I don’t see Sea Lion being talked about much here (and I think it’s all we should be talking about), so 'm starting this with less theory and practice than I’d like…

The time I took England It seemed like a liability.  U$A had built 100% in Atlantic, and it cost more to protect England than I ever got out of it.  Of course England is a bigger liability when it’s active, and it’s in theory worth some investment to shut it off and keep it off.  But retaining it takes a lot away from the Russian front, Meanwhile I’ve spent two full build with no new ground forces, and all but evacuated the force that did start in Europe.  Russia and U$A were both huge and surrounding me.

I did get an unlucky start that game (I lost four subs and five planes and UK kept a battleship  :(), so maybe I could have come out stronger.  It was difficult as it happened.  I wasn’t sure whether to forsake the UK to US liberation having stalled the UK significantly, or to invest in holding the UK and hoping Japan gets big fast enough.  But Japan (in Keeping USA away from Germany) didn’t even Get India till turn four.  It didn’t seem good at all; then again I really was roasted G1.

In the Game where I abandoned Sea Lion and built in sz114 I did quite well.  The navy helped against Russia, and I’m inclined to think this is a safe enough build.  Japan got to wipe out India and get big fast.  Japan assured the Axis conquest of Africa, which hurt UK’s economy.  I wondered if it was worth forcing Sea Lion If it depletes Europe and stunts Japan who would soon devastate the UK economy anyway.

I’ve got lots to think about and lots to test.  I haven’t been so excited about A&A for a long time!  But I’d like to hear from anyone else with more (or even different) experience or analysis.

• Can Germany Force Sea Lion?

• If not, can Germany threaten Sea Lion but still viably target Russia (such as with a navy build or no build G1)?

• If Germany can force Sea Lion, is it worth the cost to the campaign in Europe and the delays to Japan?
  Could it really be that Germany can force Sea Lion but shouldn’t?

Does the set up errata for Pacific 1940 apply to Global 1940?

@nutbar:

don’t give it bad ratings due to game balance because you can always fix that

that said, other A&A games have at least had optional rules to potentially address balance.  MB had restricted Russia and bonus axis tech.  Revised had NAs.  Even AA50 has the Dardanelles optional rule to help the Allies.  AAE1940 (and hence global) has an option for improved U-boats (should the Axis prove to be out gunned).

That’s my only complain, and is is related to balance.  I gave it five stars, but rounded up from 4.99 stars.

Picked it up today, played (and finished) global today.  :-D

@djensen:

• The Global game
     - Combined map photos
     - Setup changes
     - National advantages

@The:

national objectives

Is global bringing us National Advantages, National Objectives, or both?

The Consensus seems to be that Japan is the favourite in A&AP:1940.  This means that to balance the gloabl game Germany should be the dog in A&A Europe.  The Allies will have to divert resources from Europe to Pacific or Japan will spill into the Middle East, Africa, and/or Russia.

@Gargantua:

If Japan and Russia never break their Non Aggression pact… can the axis still win?

We haven’t even seen the set up!  Still, Japan can help Germany by invading Russia, but they can also help out by crippling the British economy or by forcing USA to spend money in the Pacific.

Furthermore even if the Axis can’t win without breaking the treaty, so what?  They can always just break the treaty!

@SgtBlitz:

I’m hoping Russia is a special case where Axis war decs on Russia WON’T trigger US war footing…

I can’t see USA bleeding for Russia.  Germany was at war with both Russia and England well before USA got off their butt.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Why can’t Russia buy inf round 1? Do they already have 20 inf? Why is China neutral when it was the first allied nation at war?

Russia starts with all twenty infantry on the board.  This is actually less than they start with in MB’s 2nd edition.

As for China, it was neutral but pro U.S. - a mechanic which was dropped from A&A.  I can’t say why, you’d have to ask Larry.