I voted to remove troops from china and defend the solomon islands, to maximize the defenses and therefore the time before defeat. But really it wouldn’t have mattered in the long run.
Posts made by 221B Baker Street
-
RE: Japan, the Summer of 1942
-
RE: What to do with Japon ships after pearl
Two turns before you as the axis decide to crush Moscow or at least try to do so, take Alaska. The US will probably re-take it, disturbing their transport of troops to Russia giving you essentially an extra turn of infantry (or the US one less) at the critical point. For this you and the German player need to decide to go all-out against Moscow at some point. Germany is going to have to take and hold Karelia one turn before this attack (which in itself can sometimes be difficult) and still have forces for a significant attack on the next turn. If the axis do not take Moscow, its all over because here the German will give up fighters before the last infantry is removed so that there remains the least number of allied forces present.
Otherwise, you could putz around picking up an IPC here and there (NZ, Australia, Madagascar?, Hawaii, Panama?, etc.) and hope that Germany does well (particularly in Africa) in an attempt to get an economic victory. The problem with this is that the transport used to do this is probably better suited to ship extra infantry to Asia.
Or you could send the fleet to the Atlantic to try to disrupt the forces there. Problem with this is that the allies will always have a far superior force at least from a defensive perspective.
-
RE: Norway 1940
Its worth noting that when Germany conquered Norway, it was thought the war would be shorter and less consuming than it was. Certainly, the massive Russian front was not even considered possible at the time due to the treaty between Germany and Russia.
The forces used in holding Norway were insignificant compared to the other fronts (the Russian front especially), and keeping Norway did provide benefits. I don’t think that simply leaving Norway (say in Spring 1942), even to reallocate the relatively meager resources, would have been particularly appealing to the Nazi leadership…
-
RE: Norway 1940
Norway was a fine prize, doing the following for the Nazis (in what I consider the order of importance):
1)Protecting the Swedish imports of steel, etc.
2) Enabling air bombings on the Northern part of the British Isles (at the very minimum forcing the English to keep back critical planes from the air battle over the channel).
3) Provided industrial material to the Germans, including heavy water. While it is not known what the purpose of this was meant for, heavy water is useful for building nuclear weapons, and it is known that this was shipped to Germany during the war…
4) Norway provided a way for the Germans to squeeze the convoys to Russia. Just not enough to affect the outcome on the Eastern front.Besides all this, what is the opportunity cost? These naval forces were never going to be sufficient to take on the British, and would have been very quickly sunk if they tried to break out and commence attacks on the merchant marine. Most likely they would have simply rusted away at port instead.
-
RE: General Lee, 1863
I think he should have re-taken New Orleans. Give the British a reason (the possibility of renewed cotton exports) to enter the war; or at least break open the naval blockade. This would also open the west again and make the Union attack on Vicksburg of minor (rather than critical) importance.
However, Lee needed to stay in, or near, Virginia to ensure the Union wouldn’t/couldn’t take the confederate capital of Richmond and the rest of Virginia; really the heart of the Confederacy was Virginia. Not sure that the South would have dared allow a lesser general to take command of this region to enable Lee to march on New Orleans.
-
RE: How do you go about keeping the German Med Fleet alive?
The fighter heavy initial purchase of this thread is an interesting twist to the initial game
Think you’re mixing threads.
No fighter heavy purchase here, no fighters purchased at all. Second transport isn’t really necessary, except to increase the cost of taking out the Atlantic fleet when/if the allies go after it, and to beef up any attempt to remove a few Allied transports from the Atlantic.
Atlantic blockade is just on turn one, and minimal with the sub, to as a contingency opportunity to potentially prevent the allies from diverting ships to the med fleet on R2. The US is then committing its bomber to that attack, if they want to take a swing at the submarine.
The Med fleet if anything is a deterrent to allies breaking off a transport and landing in Africa on the next turn
Infantry aren’t likely being transported past round 2, if any can afford to be moved at that point.It will be a while before the Allies can divert troops to Africa, unless they make a special effort in that regard.
If they wait until turn 6, thats Axis +41/Allies -41 (roughly). Thats a swing of around 26 infantry on the European continent over that timeframe. Obviously somewhat variable. The swing is not as big if the Axis aren’t trading as much land on the Soviet border.IF Japanese is coming inland hard, especially on the southern route, they may have a carrier (potentially with fighters) and a transport in the region relatively quickly. Very much depends on US tactics and Allied aircraft activity, as well as the initial Pearl Harbor decision. Potentially landing reinforcements, of limited number on turn 2, although circumstances and priorities may vary.
I never suggested that concentrating on Africa was a particularly strong strategy, just a way that has a high probability of securing Africa for the Axis in the early game, and generally very quickly. I am presuming that the intent of keeping the fleet alive is to get the IPCs from Africa. Any fleet survival from that point is just a bonus, more likely it will be an elimination of some Allied air assets that could otherwise be protecting Karalia or wreaking havoc elsewhere.
Eastern Europe can be reinforced with fighters in the second round, barring a full English counter attack from India. In the first round they will have to make do with perhaps 2-3 fighters unless only one is used in Africa, or fighters are desired elsewhere. Obviously any casualties from the naval attack, won’t be returning to base.
Sorry for my delayed response, been quite busy lately.
I did confuse the threads a bit …but in either event the German blockade of the atlantic can only happen for one, maybe two turns.
In most games, the UK (and USSR) does get small before the tide turns but it doesn’t usually matter as the US is essentially untouched the entire game. Then the allies are able to provide enough to push the Japanese back in Asia (go from the USA/UK to Moscow/Novo to counter Japan at Novo) and to push Germany back in EE (or sometimes pressure Germany in WE/Spain depending on how weak Germany decides to leave this).
The German fleet in the Med is usually sunk, but I don’t think it matters much anyway. Germany cannot afford to send much there or she becomes too weak to hold EE. And whatever Germany choses to send, the allies can send much more. Japan cannot afford to go there (she should be sending everything towards Russia) either.
Africa can only be held by Germany, IMO, if Germany takes it early and the allies are forced to send everything they have to hold Karelia and Moscow…which are obviously more important.
-
RE: How do you go about keeping the German Med Fleet alive?
Another option
Crush the Atlantic fleet and Egypt with airpower and your libyan troops. Bomb out the US transport and blockade the Atlantic.
…An Atlantic blockade is NOT going to happen against experienced players. Even with a fighter/bomber rich initial purchase (like we are discussing) that might gift EE to Russia, the Atlantic belongs to the Allies and the Axis cannot and should not do anything about it.
Without going into great detail as to why, consider that a transport costs 8 ipcs while fighters cost 12. These are the pieces that will get traded after round 1/2 (maybe round 3 if a German sub survived into round two) since everything German will be sunk by then. The UK buys a CV and transports in UK2 (assuming they saved their money in UK1 due to the heavy Axis airforce), the US lands two fighters on it and moves transports purchased in US1 to the North Sea. So on G3 there are a CV, two fighters, several transports and possibly a sub to defend against fighters/bombers only. By the end of round three at the very latest, the allies have much more than the axis can possibly counter at a reasonable cost.
Why is the Axis cost so high? Because Germany must defend against Russia and prepare for large numbers of Allied troops in EE (via Canada/UK to Norway, then Karelia). Even without the US/UK contributions, Russia can deliver plenty to EE until Japan soaks up Asia. Germany must prepare to defend or retreat from Africa (as the allies can dump a large number of troops whenever they feel like it - perhaps round 4 or 5). Germany must have a defensive force sufficient to hold WE (keeping in mind the possibility of the allies taking spain, then WE on the following turn). Germany must be ready to defend SE in the event the large numbers of troops in Africa (or Spain) then exit Africa on the same transports for SE. Must above all else (except maybe taking Moscow with a combined German/Japan lurch as long as Japan gets the territory and can hold it) also keep enough in Germany proper to prevent a successful amphibious assault there. Not only must these defensive forces defend, they must also do so cheaply; I’d happily strafe EE and trade Russian tanks (5 ipcs) for German fighters (12 ipcs). Fighter are great at defense, but there must be sufficient infantry that losses for Germany is affordable and that means infantry.
It is also highly desirable that Germany keep enough forces on EE to present a credible offensive threat (not just defensive capability) so that significant numbers of allied troops stay there. This allows Japan to take most of Russia and effectively puts the allies in the dilemma of how much to send to Karelia and how much to send to Moscow/Novo(?). This allows the axis to approach an economic victory both by holding the rich European territories (3 ipcs each) and allowing Japan time to conquer far away places. A strong presence in EE by the Germans might also cause the allies to delay or ignore German conquered territories in Africa, helping the economics for the axis (and possible economic victory).
This is quite challenging by round 7 or 8 and to be successful at all this (and a chance for the axis to win the game by Japan/Germany taking Russia, or an economic victory) Germany simply cannot afford to spend money attacking the superior allied fleet. Some would argue that Germany cannot afford even to send troops to Africa after round 1 or 2 (and I tend to agree). The fighter heavy initial purchase of this thread is an interesting twist to the initial game, but it seems to me the end result is the same with Germany in trouble (and buying only cheap inf for defense) in the mid to late game…if not sooner…unless the allies respond poorly.
How about the option to bring in Japanese support? The Japanese navy cannot get there for several turns more and even so, the US Pacific battleship will get there first, along with numerous other transports and whatever else the allies wish to buy as they will see this coming for a very long time. Also, the Japanese fighters do not have the range to reach Europe and still provide the offense the Japanese need to take Asia (they might not even have the range to reach Europe at all). Its simply not worth it for Japan to bring fighters/bombers to Europe unless and until Japan is in Novo pressing hard on Moscow (the end game). Long -range fighters change this equation, but that means the Axis is rolling for tech, an altogether different strategy/gambit for them to play.
-
RE: How do you go about keeping the German Med Fleet alive?
The MED fleet’s primary function is to get forces to Africa. This allows Germany to cash in higher and build forces; also to potentially cause UK/US to divert forces from Fin/WE, in order to buy Japan time in their Asian conquest & push to Moscow.
Yes. Of course, Germany must decide how much to send to Africa. It must be enough to take and hold as much of it as possible, but not so much that Germany starts having trouble in Europe due to lack of forces. As the allies, I might let Germany have Africa if I can take and hold a big part of Europe (like WE) early…
The fleet will not likely survive long in any event. Venturing west from the MED will be suicidal most often. After Africa, it has limited use. It can support an all out assault on Cau, et al, with naval bombardment and to add Inf from SE/EE?! that otherwise would not reach.
A mad dash to Brazil or headlong excursion to UK/North/Central American waters to disrupt shuck-shuck momentarily, by striking at a weakness, are other last ditch options. Otherwise it can sit in WMED trying to lure naval forces out of position or just guard the Ger southern flank.
It could escape east via the Suez Canal, but I’m not sure what the benefit would be unless UK/US are some how challenging Japan for control of the Pacific.
Well, there is always the option of taking forces to Madagascar (1 ipc) and/or S. Africa, then head off to Brazil from there (or maybe NZ/Aus if Japan isn’t interested) to pick up a few extra ipcs…though if the Allies decide to let the German navy survive, keeping the option to send more troops to Africa and/or placing troops in Caucasus might be a better option.
Of course, you can also just let/make the Allies take the fleet. Maybe you can force them to lose a couple of aircraft which they won’t then be able to use against you in Europe.
-
RE: Luftwaffe Strategy
…
SUMMARY
Japanese have to be in position for a round 4 attack to win the race against the Allies. The Axis may not have an effective contingency plan if the first round Japanese assault on Asia goes poorly. … Axis peaked at 76 IPCs as they were not able to secure Africa completely. Eastern Europe is a standoff situation, neither side can gain advantage early unless the Soviets are forced to defend Russia or either side tries to strafe. If the Allies can prevent the Japanese from positioning or establishing a blitz situation or holding a border point, the Allies will win.That’s pretty much a summary of any non-bid game.
I want to test play this myself when I get some more time but I have a couple ideas on things the Allies could do which you might want to consider.
-
As Germany purchased fighters instead of inf., what would happen if the Allies pursued a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy instead? You can do a search on this topic if you are unsure of the general strategy of KJF.
-
What if, instead of building an allied superfleet consisting of a BB, the allies built three transports instead? The defensive potential (three dice rolling a one vs. one dice rolling a four) isn’t terribly different. But this permits the allies to land more force more quickly to Karelia, or elsewhere…
-
Such as Spain. At a cost of only three ipcs, a placement of a few forces here (say on R2 or R3) now means the allies could bring much more to a WE attack on the following round. To respond, does Germany strafe spain? Build up WE at the cost to EE? Consider the “rolling” defense, where Germany alternates holding WE and EE by tank moves (and purchased inf in Germany) from one to the other? Granted this wouldn’t happen until later in the game when it would be hoped Japan is making serious inroads in Asia.
-
What if, when Germany builds the planes then sinks the allied navy, the UK rolls for tech and builds bombers until the US builds a navy sufficiently large to hold the N. Sea? Strategic bombing, especially if the UK gets Heavy bombers would starve the German war effort. If the UK gets industrial technology, expect lots of UK infantry in the mid game…
I also still think Russia is going to be able to take (and maybe even hold) EE (and I would consider doing so even at the cost of the Russian tanks especially if it takes out German planes), but I haven’t played this scenario out.
-
-
RE: Most influential person of 19th century
Been reading a book, by Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World
which makes me think of Nathan Rothschild as Niall makes great claims regarding the role of finances in shaping our modern world. Definitely someone who has shaped the 19th century to an extend.
-
RE: Luftwaffe Strategy
Wow, I get busy in real life and now I have to read more posts than I have time for right now.
One of my main concerns in this scenario, however, is that the deadzone (spartan brought up) between Russia and Germany has at least been moved from the Ukraine (with Russias strength in Karelia and Gemanys in E.Europe) to E. Europe. More than likely, Russia will be able to take E. Europe in force and hold it… I think after R3 :-o Where Germany needed only defend E. Europe and Russia Karelia (with the two trading Ukraine), Germany now must defend both Germany and S. Europe while Russia need only defend E. Europe.
This is a very much weakened long-term position for the Axis. First, Germany is down 3-6 ipcs per turn (and Russia is up 3 ipcs) which will add up over the course of several rounds of play. More importantly, the defensive arrangement for Germany is split between two territories instead of one (Germany cannot afford to lose, or even trade as a deadzone s. Europe with its 6 ipcs). And this must be defended with the expensive fighters purchased in round 1 rather than cheap infantry.
I’ll try to read up on this thread when I get more time…but that might be a while unfortunately.
-
RE: Luftwaffe Strategy
My thoughts on this is that you have delayed any US/UK naval action by, at most, one turn. By doing so, however, you have given Russia the equivalent of several turns headstart. If I were Russia I would quickly go on the offensive because you won’t have the infantry necessary to do anything about it. Expect to quickly lose massive territory in the East and be sweating against a massive Russian force.
Worse still is going to be the economics. Its way too soon for Japan to take much, if any, Russian territory and Russia is going to be taking quite a bit of E. Europe, possibly threatening to take S. Europe and Germany itself.
Best case is Russia will soon be building nearly as much as Germany and will be able to hold Germany off much longer than it will take the US/UK to rebuild.
-
RE: Was the US a superpower before WWII?
@Emperor:
Call them whatever you want Superpower, Great Power, Global Power, Empire, the Spanish-American war marked the rise of the US as one, and removal of Spain from the category. The creation of the country Panama and the building of the Panama canal is a testament to the US’s new status.
Prior to WWII I would classify the Super Powers as US, UK, Japan, and to a lesser degree France. Notice I do not include Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungry, or the Ottoman Empire. I condisder these regional powers, only the first group had the capability to project power far beyond their shores. I would argue that even after WWII the Soviet Union did not deserve the title of Super Power, it would have been hard pressed to conduct a major military campaign far beyond it’s borders. Even a campaign in next door Afghanistan proved too much for them.
I like your definitions, they make a lot of sense to me. Yes, the USA would have been a super power at 1898 as demonstrated by the Spanish-American war (where America projected power across the globe; Puerto Rico, Cuba, Philippines…)
Would the opening of Japan by the Americans in 1853 as an example of actions by a superpower have counted do you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ShipsUnder your hypothesis, when was the USA a regional power? I would guess at the Adams-Onasis treaty of 1819 where Spain gave up claims to Florida and Oregon, simply because the USA wanted these.
-
RE: Was the US a superpower before WWII?
Super power status does imply ability to project power. At the start of World War I, the US standing army including reserves was smaller than Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria or Romania. Even by the end of WWI, the US army was only ranked fifth in total size. Germany and England had had a naval arms race, although Germany lost the race, the ended up with the world’s #2 ranked navy. Had the US and Germany fought a war in 1914 on land or on the ocean, the US would have been spanked. Germany might not be able to project much power along the western coast of the US, but had the US had to fight Germany over Africa, they would have lost. I would suggest that Germany was more of a superpower than the US was in 1914.
Standing reserves are not the same thing as the total number of forces which could be made available…unless the war can be very quickly finished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900
British Empire = 367M
Russia = 132M
French Empire = 81.5M
USA = 76.2M
Germany = 56M
Japan = 42MOf course other things, like the level of industrialization or the size of Navy at the start of conflict matters also. But clearly the USA was already significantly larger in population than Germany or Japan. This means the USA could have fielded a significantly larger military force in 1900 than could Germany.
-
RE: NBA playoffs
Chicago didn’t win anything without Jordan either. Say what you will about the difficulties in guarding Kobe or LeBron or DWade, Jordan was truly unstoppable. In fact, had Jordan not retired for two years I think they would have won those years as well.
-
RE: Most influential person of 19th century
I agree with Bismark and Napoleon. But I would also add (as a negative) Empress Dowager Cixi.
-
RE: Was the US a superpower before WWII?
@Imperious:
The North used its economic might to overwhelm the better led and more capable Southern armies. US Grant and the long line of dismissed generals before were killing this this economic advantage by wasting human life by poor strategy, allowing the South to stay in the fight. Eventually they made a military mistake and they were already living on small margins so the struggle finally played out.
If US was led by General LEE and Sheridan and fighting in Europe in 1860-70 it would be like Patton all over again running thru France, except with Cavalry
Agree completely…
-
RE: NBA playoffs
Well, Miami just closed out the Celtics…considering Boston owned them during the regular season I had figured Boston would win the series and go on for one last title before old age would catch up with them. But this is why the games are played.
-
RE: The People Behind WWII
Okay so this is a kinda controversial question but an interesting one. Do you think the acts of the people of the countries (I mainly mean the Axis but the Allies could be included too) were right?
Example: You are living in Germany in 1939, a citizen of the Third Reich. Poland has been invaded and war has been declared between Britain-France and Germany. What do you do? Join the army? Thats a great contribution. Maybe stay in the country and work in the economy building things from domestic products like furniture, food products, or even rifles and bombs. Or do you flee the country all together?
Many people seem to find it difficult to put themselves in the places of citizens of Axis nations. Your thought-provking question requires us to do exactly that.
…
It would appear that Hitler believed that large numbers of German nationals were being killed within the portion of Germany under Polish occupation. If Hitler himself believed this, it seems reasonable to assume that his government attempted to convince the German populace of the same thing.
To put ourselves in the Germans’ place, we need to imagine that a portion of our own nation’s homeland had been placed under foreign control. And we need to imagine what it would be like if we believed that some of the people in the occupied area were being killed. Under such circumstances, would we feel justified in supporting a war to reclaim those areas for our nation?
Your hypothesis seems difficult to support. If this were true, why then the (re)taking of the Saar region, Austria, and Czechoslavakia (twice)? How then to explain Hitlers declarations he was going to do these very atrocities (gassing of Jews, and Lebensraum) in Mein Kampf, written in 1925 (vol. 1) and 1926 (vol. 2)? This was written well before Hitler rose to power in Germany and seems to be before these supposed killing of German nationals by the Poles.
-
RE: Last known WWI combat vet passes.
Thanks for sharing. They will all be missed.