Posts made by Endeer

Just played a game of Global A&A today. I played Japan and Italy, and a friend of mine played germany. I (being used to europe 1940 A&A) said sea lion is a money trap. Now in my opinion sea-lion is twice as effective as a Russian attack, this is because it can eliminate a major allied power very soon in the game. On the other hand if Russia is invaded, than it can offer two quick VCs to the axis cause where a sea-lion would only offer one. So my opinion is split. The one thing I can agree with is that Sea-lion is very viable plan to destroy the allies unlike the lack of time in Europe because of the undivided american attention.

Nine transports is a huge waste of IPC in the russian theatre, if you going to attack russia i would rather just split the IPC between Tanks and Mech. Infantry. The only reason I would ever do this, would be too for-stall russia and ready troops and next turn come back and the fallowing turn drop on England with favorable odds based on the units one would buy in those turns. This also only applies to a Global game of Axis an Allies…

What about Oran? The french said they wouldn’t fight with the british because they sent a low ranking officer to meet them, instead they sat in the port and waited for the Nazis. The British than destroyed the French fleet and went home.

that actually sounds like a great idea, more historical. In real life the english seized all french ships at The English Isles and Cairo. Than they sent a battle fleet to oran to give the french the options to fight with them, sail to America and disband, or be destroyed. They chose to be destroyed obviously but that does sound like a very realistic rule.

But the English did destroy the bulk at Oran because the English admiral did not send a high ranking officer to talk too the French admiral and so the french would not go out and fight with the English… they decided to sit in the harbor and wait for the axis powers to come.

What did the French contribute? Other than allowing the English to sink their warships at oran i cant think of much. The french did more harm to the allies than to the axis because of their willingness to give their ships over to the nazis because of mere pride.

“The US fleet must be strong enough” that is exactly what I’m saying. If the US has to build extra warships than it will greatly decrease the strength of their assaulting force. This can force the allies to wait a turn in order to get more troops to the beaches that are their targets thus giving more time to the axis to control and hold their 8 Victory cities.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the Russian hegemony. :P

You bring up valid points, but I hate the fact of giving up a major city, even if it is one that is out of the way. By the way FIRST GLOBAL GAME TONIGHT!!!

How many cities must one get in Global?

I completely agree. If you recall the 10 subs into range of the us fleet they can sneak attack and really do some damage. And with these subs they can take away IPC from england. In my opinion they cost less initial damage to germany than to the allies IPC pool.

I look at cities form the axis view point. The most economically feasible cities to take are: Paris, Lenin/Stalingrad, Moscow, and Cairo. this giving them 8 including Warsaw, Berlin, and Rome. Troops in Stalingrad will protect from a blitzing devision of tanks to take the city. This would protect the allies from defeat for a turn at the least. And by this I mean bear minimum forces to get the job done (this would be done by calculating threats. So in my opinion I would put ENOUGH troops in Stalingrad, Rest in Moscow, and your mech. Infantry, and tanks in the middle of two cities so they can react to the threats that apply too the cities as they come. Another point is that Moscow will always be a priority over Stalingrad. but you have to realize, if the Axis hold Stalingrad, they can put three tanks a turn within blitzing distance of moscow. Any comments?

but what I’m saying is that germany would use too much IPC taking england and would not have enough forces to take russia. In those extra turns russia will have the forces from moscow and Stalingrad on the front and will be a strong force. I was a little liberal with the strategy though. In my opinion if England can buy enough infantry to make it a 50/50 deal, and get the germans to invest the money into a Sea-Lion, than I would think it would be a gamble that the allies would be more than welcome to take. But I agree you should not give your capital too the germans… even though I recently said too… I= fool.

lol, yea i thought F4U or F6U and in my mind Corsair = best plain 6>4. 6 won out. Cant beat the cool wings and the fact that Papie Boyington flew it.

F6U CORSAIR ALL THE WAY!!!

I believe Stalingrad is two away from Moscow which allows for quick re deployment of troops into moscow if they are moved to the adjacent territories between Moscow and Stalingrad. Another thing you have to take into account is the fact that if the Wermacht is steaming for Moscow, than the forces at leningrad can begin a push for Berlin. This will force a recall of troops. So  a distributed force of russians in every major city would allow: quick redeployment from Stalingrad to Moscow if germans ignore the Leningrad forces, and counter attacks if their forces ignore the mass of troops.

I dont know, If a germany player takes out the English navy on turn one, than each sub will cost the the english 9 IPC before the americans can enter and the subs must be positioned for a counter attack. So a few subs would be profitable in and off themselves, but that isnt the problem. The real question is weather the germans can afford to suck the english dry, in my opinion the only way to effectively use subs is in masses which together can take the american navy and buy time. But this leaves the russian front without reinforcements. Opinions?

In my opinion the only plausible strategy with the russians is too put your troops on the front lines and defend against the germans for as long as possible. This is because as russia, your goal is to cost the germans lots of money and hold out till americans/british can come to aid you or bring another front to germany. This can be done by building… INFANTRY. Infantry are the best buy in the game. This is because they are bough for a measly buy of 3 IPC. The infantry will be able to cause major damage to him, and less loss to you. This enables the russians to make the fight with the germans a unprofitable fight for them which is able to be done because the germans will have to use mech. infantry in the latter stages of Barbossa. In my opinion this is what little the russians can do. Now the English I have less experience with. In my opinion they should lure a sea lion. Sea Lion can almost be a fatal move for the Axis because it will not give them the VCs they need on a time table with an American attack in mind. So in my opinion this can be done by forgoing infantry on turn one, possible buying one fighter and some ships. than next turn make a buy of all infantry. if he too the bait, he should be able to take you capital next turn. Loosing england I know does not sound like a good strategy, but through the extra turns and lack of infantry the Germans will not be able to make a good attack on Russia. These are my opinions, please tell me yours.

I could see enough subs in the atlantic being a real obstacle for the allies, which may give them another turn or two to secure the VCs and obtain victory. On the other hand, if italy has taken the med. and egypt and north africa, than their IPC should be used to assist the eastern front via mech. infantry and tanks coming up from southern europe. They can also (if they have transports) surprise attack the caucuses. The latter situation being very hard to come by. But I would have to agree that atlantic defense may not be a smart thing to invest in for the Italians.

Well its the obvious strategy, wait for the power with limitless IPC to come along and save the day.