Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Hobbes
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 44
    • Posts 1,647
    • Best 3
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by Hobbes

    • RE: Allied Atlantic Defence

      @Argothair:

      Another thing to keep in mind is that beyond a certain point, German air force is inefficient. E.g. you really don’t need 8 bombers for trading territories in Eastern Europe, and 8 bombers are much less threatening to Moscow than 16 tanks, even though they’re the same price.

      Not if Germany switches its 8 bombers to strat bomb Moscow or Caucasus. The AA will get some of the bombers but the damage can be sufficient to prevent the Russians from building any units at all for a couple of turns to help defend those territories from a Japanese/German ground attack.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: WWII–-75th ANNIVERSARY DISCUSSION--#30---JANUARY 1942 (2)

      Were they truly evil at heart or just following the orders of Hitler and Himmler?

      To answer your question:

      Today marks 72 years that Auschwitz was liberated and it is also Holocaust Remembrance Day in several European countries. I’ve visited Auschwitz-Birkenau several years ago, walked between its barracks and seen the piles of shoes, human hair and even the lamp shades made of human skin made from its prisoners.

      Those historical artifacts that the Nazis didn’t manage to completely destroy while they were evacuating the camp in an attempt to hide their crimes, and the stories from the survivors of those camps to me fully prove that the Holocaust was real, and it was the work of truly misguided people, who were following orders but also many of them, if not all, shared and truly believed on that ideology of horror.

      But the important thing to remember to me is that Nazism and other atrocious beliefs aren’t the work of the Devil, but of ordinary men and women, and nowadays there are still those amongst us who support or condone such ideologies.

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • Article on New Yorker about US officers playing AA40 Global

      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/05/us-intelligence-role-plays-war?mbid=social_facebook

      posted in News
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: EURO 2016

      To me, as a portuguese, we won, fair and square, but that’s just my opinion :)

      Referee made mistakes that benefited both sides, like the tackle that took Ronaldo early out of the game, which is a common ‘cheat’ used in soccer play, or just a casual clash between players, and the referee decided to ignore it. But the most important moments of the game were decided by the players on both sides. And contrary to popular and pundits beliefs, Ronaldo wasn’t actually needed to win the final, which should have made easier to France to win the match.

      I completely agree that we didn’t play the best looking soccer on the whole championship. This win was a surprise for a lot of people here in Portugal too, specially considering what we played on the groups’ matches.

      posted in General Discussion
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Tank Blitz German opener

      @Herr:

      To hobbes,

      What advice would you give to my friend to help destroy tanks. After all, the German tanks (usually numbering 10 or more) are always protected by about 5 infantry the entire time. Could they be destroyed in Karelia? Archangel? Some other territory?
      (I’m a noob so I don’t know these things :-()

      He doesn’t need to destroy your tank stack in Karelia, Belo or Ukr, but he’ll need to destroy it in case it advances to Archangel, West Russia or Caucasus.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Tank Blitz German opener

      @Herr:

      Let me give some context. My friend and I have played about 20 games of A&A. I am almost always the Axis and he is almost always the Allies. He does the same Russian opener with little variation. He always buys the maximum amount of infantry that can be bought and places 2 in Karelia, and distributes the remaining 6 between Moscow and Caucases as seen fit for the turn.

      This is why your strat of all tank buy for Germany works: Russia does not have enough offensive power to counterattack G.

      On Revised and AA42.1 you see a lot of German players going for the 8 tank buy on G1 but this strat doesn’t work against experienced Russian players because Germany ends up trading tanks for cheap Russian inf.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: National Socialism vs. Communism.

      @KurtGodel7:

      More recent historians have praised him for having had more advanced attitudes towards homosexuals than did most of his contemporaries in Western democracies.

      What’s your source for this?

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Hitler plays A&A Spring 1942, 2nd Edition

      @Baron:

      The forum miss this guy posts and comments.

      I’m still lurking around, I just haven’t gotten back to A&A :)

      @Private:

      Downfall is a great film and Bruno Ganz gives a marvellous central performance. You see both the humanity and the monstrosity of Hitler. I agree with comments elsewhere that it is important to see both. It’s too easy to write him off as a one dimensional monster. Not sure that engenders much sympathy in me though.

      I seem to have contributed a serious answer to what began as a humorous thread. Sorry!

      Writing Hitler off as a one dimensional monster is ignoring how ordinary people can commit atrocities, the same way that neo Nazis conveniently ignore his flaws and crimes. We should always remember that Hitler was a human being, imperfect and flawed but also responsible for his actions, like the rest of us.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: 1942 Second Edition Battle Log

      @tchenao:

      In turn 8 over 20 divisions of German Tanks supported by 5 divisions of Luftwaffe attacked the 32 Infantry divisions in Moscow. The dice were so in favor of the Germans that they finally took Moscow losing only 6 units.

      Germany got very lucky. 20 ARM + 5 FTR against 32 INF + 1 AA Gun is 74% odds for the Russians.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Barbarossa - a preemtive strike?

      @Der:

      This post is based on information given by Viktor Suvorov, a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom. The information is from a video here on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Clv-c6QdBs, as well as one of his recent books, entitled The Chief Culprit. http://www.amazon.com/The-Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design/dp/1591148065

      I haven’t read Surovov’s book but I’ve read quite a few comments on his theories. The following are a sum of those comments plus my own ideas.

      First of all, look at the official coat of arms of the Soviet Union during this time:

      Notice there are no borders shown of the Soviet Union - the hammer and sickle are imposed over the entire globe. Imagine if any other country had such a logo - it would be very offensive, wouldn’t it? But this was the goal Stalin and communism - to eventually rule the entire world. Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, and he was right.

      Well, since Marxist theory was developed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks the idea was to spread the revolution to the rest of the world after it was consolidated in Russia. During the 1920s and 30s there was even an dedicated organization (Coninform, later Cominertn) to spread the revolution to the capitalist countries and coordinate the communist parties everywhere. But in how to achieve this there was a lot of discussion inside the Soviet Union, since some considered that it was required to develop the worker class before it was possible to achieve a revolution (and that communist was the ‘natural’ result of the development of human societies after capitalist), while others took a more revolutionary approach.

      So yes, communist ideology typically saw the dissemination of regimes and the implementation of world socialism as its goal. But in real life, the Soviet leaders usually took a more pragmatic approach and rather waited to see if the opportunity presented itself, rather than trying to implement communist regimes everywhere.

      The Soviet Union showed its aggressive nature by dividing Poland with Germany in 1939. The Soviets then attacked Finland in November 1939. They completely trounced the Japanese in the Battles of Khalkhyn Gol in 1939, resulting in a neutrality pact with Japan. Afterwards they forcibly occupied the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in June of 1940. This all happened a year before Germany attacked the Soviet Union.

      Historians often paint the Soviet Union as an innocent victim of German aggression. Some say that Stalin was afraid of Hitler and wanted peace with him at all costs.

      One of the main causes which led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the Munich Pact signed between Hitler and the western leaders and the later occupation of Chechoslovakia by the Nazis. The USSR had a alliance with Chechoslovakia like France had but once the western leaders caved in to Hitler’s demands (and completely ignoring the USSR during the Munich talks), Stalin started tp realize that he couldn’t count on the UK/France to contain Hitler.

      The Munich Pact also had another effect, which was to greatly influence German influence in Eastern Europe, which Stalin was eager to contain. The UK, France, Romania, Poland and the USSR tried to make a treaty to contain Germany in August 1939 but once it failed (no one really trusted one another) then Stalin turned and signed a Pact with Hitler, since he also suspected (suspicion of everyone being his trademark) that the capitalists had left him hung to dry against Hitler.

      Since he didn’t want to get the short stick, the division of Poland and the Soviet occupation of the Baltic republics were part of a deal for Stalin to gain time since he knew that the Red Army was in no condition to engage in a major war due to the purges and its outdated equipment and it was not until 1942 that the Red Army was considered fit for offensive operations. That’s also another reason why Hitler had to attack the Soviet Union in 1941 - Hitler was afraid that by 1942 the Soviet Union would likely be prepared to deal with a German invasion.

      DIVIDING POLAND

      In 1939 there was a natural barrier between Germany and Russia - Poland. As long as Poland was there, Germany could not attack Russia. Wasn’t Stalin safer from big bad Hitler with an intact Poland between them? But on August 23rd, the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was signed, dividing Poland between Hitler and Stalin. This was signed in MOSCOW, not Berlin. Hitler was not there. Stalin was there. Stalin signed it. In this pact the two nations agreed to attack Poland on Sept. 1st, the next week. In doing this, Stalin was removing his safe buffer zone between Russia and Germany. This proves he was not afraid of Germany at all.

      Proves he was not afraid? He knew that Germany would trounce over Poland since the western powers were too far away to do anything (and they had already done nothing when Germany raped Chechoslovakia) why wouldn’t he sign a pact to get a buffer zone between Russia and Germany? Your logic makes no sense.

      “WE’RE NOT READY”

      When Germany began its attack on Sept 1st as agreed, Stalin said “We’re not ready” and did not attack from the other side. This made Germany look like the total bad guy in the rest of the world’s eyes. This is exactly what Stalin wanted. Britain and France declared war on Germany three days later. Stalin left all the heavy lifting to Germany - he let the Germans destroy the Polish armies. It wasn’t until the 17th of September, after the battle was won, that Stalin said “OK we’re ready now” and moved into Poland from the East.

      Again, it was Stalin’s suspicious nature. He wasn’t required to attack Poland when Germany did, but since he didn’t trust Hitler would keep his part of the bargain, he moved to take the portion of Poland that was earmarked for Russia once it seemed that Poland would fall.

      RUSSIANS SUPPLIED HITLER’S WAR MACHINE

      After this, Stalin was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler, supplying him with huge amounts of oil and raw materials. The triumphs of blitzkrieg, the luftwaffe, and the u-boats were due largely to the steady supply of Russian oil and other vital war materials during this time.

      Stalin was buying time. Above all, he didn’t want a war with Germany until the Red Army was ready and he believed that the oil and raw materials would dissuade Hitler from attacking. He also tried in 1941 to get the Soviet Union to join the Axis but Germany wasn’t interested since Hitler was already preparing to attack Russia.

      SHREWD STALIN

      The reason for this support was that Stalin wanted to use the Germans as his hammer to destroy Europe’s armies. Then, when much of the German war machine was across the channel occupied with Sealion, Stalin would proceed to “liberate” Europe from the “evil” Germans. Of course any “liberated” country would end up a communist puppet like the Baltic States.

      This implies a lot of wrong assumptions: a) that the Soviets were ready to attack Germany while Sea Lion was taking place during 1940 (which it wasn’t and Stalin knew it); b) that the Germans would use most of their army for Sea Lion (which it wouldn’t, according to the plans).

      RUSSIA WAS PREPARED FOR ATTACK, NOT DEFENSE

      There is much evidence provided in Suvorov’s book which I can’t list here - I recommend you get the book. But here are a few facts:

      • The Soviets produced over 1,500 amphibious tanks in the thirties. Amphibious tanks are for offense - crossing rivers where bridges have been blown. In defense, you would cross your own bridges and blow them behind you.
      • Much Soviet armor and guns were of huge caliber and would not be of much use but for bombarding fortresses, which would be done on offense.
      • Over 2,700 BT-7 tanks were built from 1935-1940. These tanks could drop their tracks in order to run up to 70 MPH on paved highways. Germany had the paved highways, not Russia.
      • Thousands of Russian planes were setup on airfields within 800 meters of Germany. This was ideal for an attack, as the planes could be in range to support invading ground units. But it was bad for defense. This resulted in 3,922 Soviet aircraft destroyed in the first three days of the German attack.
      • Over six million Russian/German phrase books were published in Russia for the Soviet Army in May of 1941, a month before the German attack.
      • In 1941 the Soviet Union had more than 1 million trained paratroopers. Paratroopers can only be used effectively in attack.

      This can all be explained by Soviet doctrine: in case of an imminent attack it was considered that the best defense would be to contain at the border and the engage and destroy the aggressor on it own territory. This doctrine was also the reason why the Germany was so successful during the early stages of Barbarossa: the Soviet armies were close to the border due to it, but they had no defensive preparations (since the border had moved due to Stalin taking half of Poland) and Stalin didn’t believe that Hitler would attack in 1941.

      HITLER’S ONLY CHOICE

      Hitler eventually caught on to Stalin’s plan and, rather than wait for Stalin’s unstoppable attack, did a pre-emptive strike. Stalin totally did not expect this. In 1939, the Soviets had 21,100 battle ready tanks. Even more by 1941. Many of these were lost or abandoned in the early blitzkrieg because they were packed together at the borders in preparation for an attack on Germany.

      The Germans eventually lost the war to the much larger Soviets, but if they would have waited for a Soviet attack, all of Europe would have ended up under Communist rule.

      Ok, so you’re ignoring that Hitler had defended since the 1920s to take territory in Eastern Europe/Russia that he considered vital for Germany’s survival, and that he expected that, after the Battle of France, the UK would join Germany in a war against communism. Plus, even in 1942, the Red Army would not be in a condition of attacking Germany and facing the German Army, which had a lot of experience gained from conquering Poland, Norway, France, etc. Hitler himself considered the Red Army a joke, specially after the debacle in Finland in 1939.

      Hitler did attack because he realized that the longer he waited, the better prepared the Soviet Union would be for the war (which was exactly the same logic he followed in invading Poland/France against the opinion of the German High Command).

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…

      @KurtGodel7:

      I don’t get the feeling that you came to this thread to have a reasonable, civil discussion with those whose perspectives differ from yours. That’s certainly your choice. But I’d ask you to refrain from throwing around vague, sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations against undefined targets or undefined positions. Such a tactic enlightens no one, and merely serves to increase the emotional temperature of the room.

      I stopped having civil discussions with neonazis 20 years ago when I saw one of my best friends get beaten up by 10 neo-nazis because he was walking down the main street and had a darker skin color.

      And since you want me to be more precise:
      @KurtGodel7:

      Nazism consisted of three core aspects:

      1. Love for Germans and Germanic peoples
      2. Indifference or hatred for Slavs
      3. Intense hatred for Jews

      The motives for Nazis’ actions could generally be explained in terms of the above. However, the degree they were willing to act on 2) and 3) has been deliberately exaggerated and distorted by Allied propagandists.

      If this isn’t Holocaust denial, then you are pretty close IMHO. And the same applies for several ideas being tossed around under the cover of “civil discussion”.

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…

      @Der:

      I think they mostly have to do with traditional history vs. revisionist history.

      After what I’ve read here, my only comment is: revisionism = neonazi propaganda. And I’m not going to mention specifically the plain lies here since they’ve already been drawn too much attention to and that’s exactly what the posters want.

      And topics hijacked by people who merely want to use it to pass the kind of bullshit I’ve read here as ‘what really happened’ should be closed period.

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Ukraine has lit it up

      @CWO:

      If the Ukrainian government had nukes,

      …then Putin would never have the courage to try this sort of thing.

      posted in General Discussion
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: A&A pieces on The Last Ship

      @LHoffman:

      Did they talk about A&A in the show, or just happen to have the pieces around and decide to use them?

      They just use the pieces while discussing a mission. It’s actually funny since I’ve just read that they are using CGI and the actual USS Iowa to represent the Russian Kirov-class cruiser present on the series and the A&A piece for the US battleship is modeled after the Iowa class.

      @CWO:

      @LHoffman:

      Does this show address how the destroyer keeps operating in a post-apocalyptic world? I mean, I assume they can’t just pull into a port and refuel. Arleigh Burke class destroyers are conventionally powered after all.
      I am also assuming the US is no longer a functioning country.

      In the novel the destroyer was nuclear-powered - which struck me as improbable for such a ship type, even allowing for the fact that some modern destroyers are the size of WWII cruisers.  The US once operated a nuclear guided missile “destroyer leader”, the Bainbridge, but she was later reclassed as a cruiser.

      Well, the US had the Long Beach, Truxtun, Bainbridge, California and Virginia classes of Destroyer Leaders, all of them with nuclear propulsion and later reclassified as cruisers. The Burkes are classified as destroyers but their displacement is about the same and they pack more missiles than those cruiser classes.

      By the 4th episode they had to refuel twice, first from an abandoned cruise liner off the French coast and then at Gitmo.

      posted in General Discussion
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: The myth of blitzkrieg

      @Uncrustable:

      In fact, given that virtually all states who possess tanks and mechanized armies also own nuclear weapons, it is unlikely we will ever see such wars of mass maneuver ever again; and the ability to fight other forms of war become more paramount.

      This is an exaggeration - my country for sure has tanks and mechanized armies and does not have nuclear weapons and the number of states with nuclear weapons (USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan) is a minority considering the rest of the countries in the world.

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • A&A pieces on The Last Ship

      Yesterday I was watching The Last Ship, a post-apocalyptic tv series about a US destroyer, when I spotted that the characters were using A&A battleship pieces to represent ships during a confrontation with a Russian cruiser. :D

      AA.jpg

      posted in General Discussion
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Which Soviet City?

      @CWO:

      Option 3 would have been to occupy Arkangelsk from the landward side, but that would have involved conquering a swath of rugged territory covering about 1,000 kilometers from Leningrad to Arkangelsk – again, a case of too much effort for too little return.  If Germany really wanted to make a dent in the lend-lease shipments to Russia, they would have been much better off going south rather than north: conquering Iran and cutting off the Persian Corridor (with the added bonus that Germany would have gotten access to substantial oil reserves by doing so).

      There’s also option 4: sever the railroad linking Archangelsk to the rest of Russia.

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Which Soviet City?

      @sgtwiltan:

      Leningrad was the old Russian capital of Petersburg and a major port to be used in the lend-lease shipments.

      You mean Murmansk right?

      posted in World War II History
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Bid question

      @Toffels:

      Dies bidding always start with a low number that the other team increases? Are any extra IPCs that aren’t spent lost, or can they be divided up between the Allies? I assume the Allied players have to assume how the IPCs are spent; if they cannot, does the Axis player decide?

      No. You can have either increasing or decreasing bids. With a decreasing bid, you’d have:
      Player 1: I bid 9 for Allies
      Player 2: I bid 8
      Player 1: I bid 7, etc., until someone passes

      Increasing bids usually get larger bids, which may lead into problems. For instance, if you bid 10 for Allies and I think it is too much of an advantage for Allies, I’ll bid 11. But then you may think that you don’t want to play against someone with so many IPCs, so you’ll offer 12 instead and the bid just keeps escalating.

      Decreasing bids do the opposite. If I offer 9 for Allies and you think that’s too much or you really want to take Allies, you’ll offer 8 instead. Now it’s up to me to decide if I really want to take Allies with only 7 or pass and let you have them. Bids here get more conservative and with less impact than with increasing bids.

      With increasing bids it’s probably better to have a system where you offer bids for the opposite team:
      Player 1: I’ll take Axis and give you 5 IPCs to take Allies
      Player 2: I’ll take Axis and give you 6 IPCs, etc.

      Here, the more you offer, the bigger the amount of IPCs that the other player will use against you, so there’s a counterbalance.

      Regarding how the bid money is used it’s always better to have everything written down and presented before any bidding is done. Usually any leftovers are added to the starting money and can be used later to purchase units. It’s also a good idea to specify when the bid winner must purchase and place its units (usually before the game starts), if the bid can be split between different countries, how many units can be placed per territory (usually 1) and in what territories/SZs they may be placed (usually on territories that start under the control by the country of the bid units being placed or in SZs where there are already naval units of that country).

      posted in Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Japanese Units used for American Cruisers

      @wittmann:

      Evening Hobbes.
      I hope you have been well. You have been missed.

      Hey wittmann, hope everything is good with you too. I’ve been busy with life (and other games) but I check these forums once in a while.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 82
    • 83
    • 1 / 83