Excellent point. I suppose it could be tweaked a bit. Make some more difficult NO’s, and perhaps not add any units. I’d put an infantry in British Columbia and that’s about it. I’m not terribly good at the game and I’d prefer to have more playing options to have more fun. I’m not really worried about balance issues since I’d probably lose anyway, even if I gave Canada 10 battleships at the start. But I can understand from your point of view.
Posts made by Lord Claremorris
-
RE: Canadian Territories
-
RE: Do you raid?
Precisely, and it should be remembered that the Home Islands of Japan were overpopulated and unsustainable without imports of food. Just like Britain, except that the US Navy managed to do to Japan what the Germans tried to do to England. The Japanese were being starved, and since they had no fleet they had no further means of effectively resisting. Their troops were scattered and isolated with no way of getting back to Japan and no way of preventing American and British forces from eventually throwing them out. So Japan already knew the gig was up long before the A-Bombs were dropped.
-
RE: Canadian Territories
He was only trying to help us out. No need to be rude and say his ideas are total crap. I actually think it’s worse for the Allies, less income for UK Europe, so Sealion is more viable. Having an independent Canada is pretty sorry compensation if you lose London.
-
RE: Do you raid?
They don’t ever submit. That’s the whole point. I cannot think of single example where this happened besides Japan in WWII. The French used terror tactics (killing civilians in retaliation for French casualties) on the Spanish and that just caused the Spanish to resist even more fiercely. The Germans did that in Russia and in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Resistance was intense in those areas, whereas in Denmark or the Netherlands, where German occupation was relatively benign, there was very little resistance. All the examples in history go against the use of terror on civilians instead of for it.
-
RE: Do you raid?
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were very different from carpet bombing. Furthermore the UK, USA, and USSR had just beaten Germany into the dirt, and Germany was a much stronger country than Japan. So Japan was at war with those three, as well as France, China, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada etc. with no fleet. They were bound to surrender anyway. I wouldn’t argue that they would have surrendered with or without the bombs, but they couldn’t long resist a landing in Japan itself. All examples of conventional air forces attempting to bomb their enemies into submission have been failures. The Spanish Nationalists could not do it to the Spanish Republicans, the Germans could not to it to the British, and the British and Americans could not do it to the Germans. Other examples would include Vietnam, where the US dropped more bombs than they did on Germany, and they still lost the war. It’s not as decisive as it’s made out to be. As for sieges, that’s a very different operation, where the intention was to take physical possession of a given location, whether it be a proper fortress or a fortified town. In carpet bombing the hope is that you can force a capitulation without needing to occupy the enemy’s territory. Besides, in Medieval Wars objectives were very limited, the entire overthrow of your adversary was practically impossible, so a well conducted siege might get you some small concessions. Carpet bombing would imply you desire the total destruction of your enemy’s war making capacity, which was simply an unattainable goal in previous centuries. Even much later than Medieval times, heck, in the 9 Years War France alone withstood all the other Great Powers of Europe and neither side achieved hardly anything.
Well Grant defeated the main Confederate Army, and his victory at Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in two. A brilliant achievement militarily. Anyhow, the purpose of the Army (defined by Clausewitz, who attributed the idea to Napoleon) is to destroy your enemy’s ability to prosecute war, i.e. defeating them in the field. If they still have an army they will not surrender, no matter how much terror you cause.
-
RE: Do you raid?
@Cmdr:
And it was hardly ineffective! Sure, they might not have hit their targets all the time, with 100% precision and accuracy, but the goal in any war is to get the enemy population so sick of losing they force their leaders to capitulate. It’s why Sherman was a pioneer (an a**, but a pioneer!) in warfare.
That was the argument of Giulio Douhet, which was thoroughly debunked during WWII and also the Spanish Civil War. Cities could be blown to pieces and the population would still have no intention of capitulation. Germany only surrendered after it was physically occupied by the Allies. No amount of carpet bombing ever broke any nation. Also the Confederate States of America did not surrender because of Sherman, they surrendered because their forces in the field were decisively defeated and they had no means of further prosecution. Terror tactics generally create more resistance rather than extinguish it.
-
RE: Do you raid?
The Historical Strategic Bombing Campaign was the US and UK’s way of showing the Russians (and themselves?) that they were doing SOMETHING against Germany, because before 1944 the Russians were tangoing with pretty much the entire German Army and Luftwaffe. So naturally Western writers would prefer to pretend their SBR was decisive instead of admitting that “The US and UK bombed Germany to little affect while the Russians did all the actual fighting at the time.” Albert Speer thoroughly debunked that in his memoirs, Germany’s production actually INCREASED during the bombing campaign, instead of decreasing. Pretty pathetic performance in my opinion, complete waste. It was a total political tool to satisfy the Russians.
EDIT: Bear in mind this is in relation to the war against Germany only. I’m well aware that the British wrecked the Italians and the Vichy French, and fought hard in Greece, Norway, France etc, and were also engaged in heavy fighting in Burma. I’m also well aware that the Americans primarily defeated Japan, and helped defeat Italy and eventually Germany. The Russians bore most of the brunt against Germany, but did hardly anything to Japan or Italy, so no need to inform me of what the Americans and British were doing (which was much more than nothing), as I’m perfectly aware.
-
RE: Question for Krieghund?
Alright, I understand now about convoys. Also, one more question concerning the AA, do Major and/or Minor Industrial Complexes have built in AA as well?
-
RE: Question for Krieghund?
I have a question for Krieghund as well, and I figured it would be easier to ask it here than to post a new thread. So, I want to know how convoys contribute to Allied income, and what the whole deal with them is. Also, it says in the rulebook that Air Bases and Naval Bases have AA capacity, does that mean if there’s a spot with an Air Base, Naval Base, and AA that all three fire at attacking planes, or just one?
-
RE: Canadian Territories
This is a thread with some discussion on the matter
And here are the rules themselves, in essence, tweaked slightly to compensate for the 6 months that have passed since.The ANZAC pieces (Dark Grey) are used to represent the new power “UK Commonwealth”
The Commonwealth takes one turn, but has a split economy (Exactly the same as the UK Europe/Pacific split).
The Economies are:
10 IPCs : ANZAC; Capital is Sidney (all territories marked with the ANZAC roundel)
7 IPCs :Canada; Capital is Ottawa (all territoreis marked with the Canadian roundel)The following rule changes are made to accomidate the new Commonweath power
Game Mechanics:
-Commonwealth forces may choose to conquer enemy territory on behalf of the United Kingdom power instead of themselves if they desire.
-The Commonwealth may assume control of United Kingdom territory as if it was Dutch if the UK capital in that theatre has been captured.Setup:
Do not place United Kingdom Units in Ontario, Quebec, or Sea Zone 106 during setup. Instead follow this setup for Canada, using Commonwealth (Dark Grey) units
British Columbia - 1 Infantry
Ontario - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base, Minor Industrial Complex
Quebec - 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Artillery, Minor Industrial Complex
New Brunswick/Nova Scotia - Naval Base
United Kingdom - 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 123 - Destroyer
Sea Zone 106 - Destroyer, TransportModify the Alpha+ 2 Setup Accordingly
United Kingdom:
Gibraltar - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Iceland - 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 123 - TransportGermany:
SZ 114 - 1 SubANZAC:
New Zeland - 2 Infantry, 2 Fighters, Minor Industrial ComplexNational Objectives:
United Kingdom:
Replace the United Kingdom “control all original territory” objectives with:5 IPCs for the European economy if all Canadain territories are controled, as well as Egypt and Gibraltar and Sea Zone 109 is free of enemy ships.
5 IPCs for the Pacifc economy (India) if all ANZAC territories are controled, as well as Malya and Kwangtung and Sea Zone 39 is free of enemy ships. Also the UK is at war with Japan
Commonwealth:
The ANZAC economy benifits from its normal National Objectives, these IPCs go to the ANZAC economy only. The Canadain economy can benifit from the following National Objectives:5 IPCs if all Allied convoy zones on the European map are free of enemy ships
(Convoy zones adjacent to a currently controled Allied territory on the Europe game board)5 IPCs if the United States is at war with the Axis Powers
Notes:
The Commonwealth conducts research and development as a single power.
The United Kingdom European economy begins the game at 21, the Pacific economy begins the game at 17.
Use ANZAC roundels (or the “union jack” roundel) to denote Canadian conquests.I love it. Very well thought out and superb. Thank you for sharing that.
-
RE: The French
Which is why I suggested it go before Italy but definitely after Germany. That still probably won’t work, but I’m willing to test it out and see how that goes.
-
RE: The French
That’s simple and brilliant. I wouldn’t mind doing a test round like that. France has to fall though, if France goes first and Germany can’t defeat them quickly then there’s no point. It would be nice to see France and the Soviet Union crush Germany but that doesn’t make for a very fun (or fair) game for the Axis player.
I’d also consider having France move before Italy, and perhaps giving France a transport in the Med in which to carry troops from Southern France to Africa. I can understand Germany quickly defeating France, but if Germany fails, then I’d like France to be able to reinforce before Italy hits, as historically the Italians wouldn’t have stood a chance against France, and certainly wouldn’t have taken Paris.
-
RE: Canadian Territories
Hi,
I am playing an A&A variant called A&A Global War 1939, the map is almost 4’ X 8 ', and your questions/queries are answered in the rules for this variant. Like Canada has is own ipcs, 10 and get 3 more when the US is at war, and an other 3 more if UK own all its territories in the European war, and built its own units with the minor ic in Québec.The UK can built units on its commonewalth territories : 2 more units in Canada, South Africa has an income of 3 ipc and must built an infantry first and then Uk can built an other unit there. UK can built 2 more units in Far East Command with FEC built and 2 more units for ANZAC with ANZAC built.
FEC and ANZAC can not built capitol ships though and can not upgrade ic to major ones. There is a little more rules than the ones I mentionned so you will have to read the rest for yourself.
I really enjoy this variant ( only played it solo as I am learning the rules ). Now I am waiting for the new units to come out too. As soon as the Italian units are for sale, I think I will be selling my other A&A games like A&A Europe/Pacific, and 50th Anniversary. And when all the other armies will be done, maybe I will sell A&AE40 and P40.
You can find all this in the A&A variant forums.
J. 8-)
Awesome. That sounds very interesting. I also would like a link.
-
Canadian Territories
Greetings. I’ve recently run across an individual who mentioned there are House Rules giving Canadian territories (and therefore income) to ANZAC, making them something like a Commonwealth Dominions faction. I rather liked the idea, but I have certain reservations. It would reduce UK Europe’s income, which would make it less likely to defend against Sealion, or hurt the Italians. Secondly, ANZAC is pretty much just and extension of the UK anyway, so it wouldn’t make much difference in terms of fighting capacity. I was just wondering if anybody actually tried doing this and what the results were.
-
RE: How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
@Cmdr:
Claremorris:
Yes, I believe I mentioned the flaw in the Italian armor on their cruisers. The ship you mentioned was a cruiser, hence, it died to one shell hit (allegedly, I claim no ownership on your statement).
However, it is clear by a google search (German Warships Med) that the sole purpose of the British fleet in the Med was to protect Malta and the shipping lanes from Gibraltar to Egypt (of which, Malta was the lynch pin). So I have to disagree with your disagreements until such time as you give me some references to support your claim. As I said, use the search parameters above and you’ll get the same information I did to make these statements.
As for whether or not the British fleet “could” protect Malta, I have no comment. I can only say they were sent there specifically to protect Malta, despite their ability or inability to do so.
As for German submarines, perhaps just moving a submarine from the Atlantic to the Med might be a solution? Perhaps one of the submarines that can hit SZ 106 but not SZ 91, that way you might give England the boost they need to win against a G3 Sea Lion as well (unless England does not build with the intention to stop Sea Lion.)
Two birds, one stone?
From wiki;
"Malta, as part of the British Empire from 1814, was a shipping station and was the headquarters for the Mediterranean Fleet until the mid-1930s. Due to the perceived threat of air-attack from the Italian mainland, the fleet was moved to Alexandria, Egypt shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. This decision contributed to the continuing ability of the Fleet to sustainably fight against the Axis forces.
There weren’t any warships in Valetta harbour, only submarines used Malta. As for the sea lanes, the Royal Navy failed to keep them open, only at great risk and great loss did Churchill send a few convoys direct through the Med. Otherwise traffic to Egypt was redirected around the Cape. So Malta was important, but its defence was not the most important, and much less the sole purpose of the Royal Navy’s presence in the Med.
As for the German subs, I’d be up to try that. Though that would mean one less sub to throw at the British ships around the UK on G1.
-
RE: The French
Indeed sir, I prefer the British myself, but I have nothing but respect for France. France was defeated by an oversight (the Ardennes), and because its air force was much worse than Germany’s. What few people realise is the French actually HELD the Germans on the line of the Meuse, until the Germans swept behind them when they emerged from the Ardennes unexpectedly. That was pretty much checkmate. As for having more men, France couldn’t keep that up long anyway, as France had 38 million people to Germany’s (with Austria and Czechoslovakia) 70+ million. As for the British, I know better than most how badly they would have been defeated had their been no Channel and no Royal Navy. Even though England saved its army at Dunkerque it lost most of its equipment, and for several months Britain was short of everything. That’s another point though, Germany had been preparing for war since 1933, 3 years after that Stanley Baldwin’s Government in the UK informed the Admiralty and War Office to base their budgets on “no war for 10 years.” 3 years later they were at war and totally unprepared for it, I imagine it was a similar position in France.
-
RE: New Carriers - For Better or For Worse?
Garg people were saying carriers were tough to kill, and i think i just said that carriers were not all that tough. Responding that a carrier is not a single ship really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Unless of course your going to argue that since the cruisers and destroyers survived the battle that Japan did not lose 2 carriers pieces at the battle of midway?
The losses you listed for the Americans were only a fraction of the number of carriers they possessed, none of which were sunk, even after taking kamikaze hits. The Japanese carriers were not easy to destroy either, most were eventually sunk because they were hit multiple times by overwhelming US aircraft. The British lost the HMS Eagle to a German U-Boat, and the really old and terrible carrier HMS Hermes (the Royal Navy’s first carrier actually) to the Japanese, it took 70 bombers 40 hits to sink her. And that was an old obsolete carrier, talk about easy to sink.
-
RE: How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
@Cmdr:
The Mediterranean was a traditional focus of British maritime power. Out-numbered by the forces of Regia Marina, the British plan was to hold the three decisive strategic points of Gibraltar, Malta, and the Suez Canal. By holding these points, the Mediterranean Fleet held open vital supply routes. Malta was the lynch-pin of the whole system. It provided a needed stop for Allied convoys and a base from which to attack the Axis supply routes.
Indeed, Malta was extremely important, and every effort was made to sustain it.
Note: Regia Marina was the Italian Navy. Thus, it is said, the Italian navy had MORE ships than the British navy in the Med in 1940. So while there may have been a carrier present in the Med with which to launch an airial attack, the Italians had more ships than the British with which to absorb said attack. This is not represented on the game board.
The Italian Navy had six battleships in the Med in 1940, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham had 5, HMS Malaya, HMS Barham, HMS Valiant, HMS Warspite and HMS Ramillies, as well as the Battlercruiser HMS Renown, and the carriers HMS Glorious, HMS Illustrious, and HMS Eagle. The Italian fleet was clearly outmatched entirely. In fact, it failed miserably in just about every major fleet action, even where it outnumbered the British.
The warships of the Royal Navy (Regia Marina) had a general reputation as well-designed. Italian small attack craft lived up to expectations and were responsible for many brave and successful actions in the Mediterranean.
Such as? The Trieste was sunk with one shell from HMS Barham in literally seconds. As was the Fiume at Cape Matapan. The only “successful action” I can think of was the attack by Italian Frogmen on HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant at Alexandria.
So essentially, if we are to leave the British fleet in the Med, perhaps to be more historically accurate we should add more Italian destroyers. Thus the Italian fleet would “out-number” the British AND would be more representative of their “well-designed” and “brave” reputations?
I can agree with this.
More than 60 U-boats were sent to disrupt shipping in the sea, though many were already attacked at the Strait of Gibraltar controlled by Britain (of which nine were sunk while attempting passage and ten more were damaged).
Perhaps Germany should have a few U-Boats in the Med too? If we are going for realism.
This I can agree with as well, though it was not until September, 1941 that the first U-Boat, U-371, entered the Med.
Okay, so it’s probably a bit ridiculous to just add 2 Italian destroyers and 1 or 2 German U-boats, it would unbalance the game, I think. Unless it was rebalanced.
If you want it to be more realistic, then move the British fleet from SZ 98 to SZ 96, they were there to protect Malta, not Egypt. Add 2 destroyers and a cruiser to the Italian fleet in SZ 97, but remove the Battleship. Italy out numbered the British, but they were “well known” for their “highly effective small warships”. Further, add 1 or 2 German U-Boats in SZ 92 to represent the German campaign in the Med.
The British Fleet was not there to protect Malta, it could not. The German and Italian aircraft based in Sicily would chew it up. The main British Fleet in the Med was confined to the Eastern Med, to protect Egypt, as well as Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Cyprus and to give encouragement to Turkey and Greece. The British would conduct raids in the central Med but they could not stay there long because of the close proximity of Axis aircraft. As for the dispositions you mentioned, I quite like that idea.
The state of the Malta defences was poor, verging on non-existent. This stemmed from a pre-war conclusion that the island was indefensible and should not be defended.
Given that information, remove the British infantry from Malta to represent the “poor” defenses. However, since it was the “lynch pin” in the Med (providing a way station between Egypt and Gibraltar) it is plausible to think there should be more aircraft present, so add a fighter. (Note, this fighter is more intended to counter the increased Naval units of Italy which has traded 1 battleship in for 2 destroyers and a cruiser. Italy + 7 punch - 4 Punch = 3 Punch, England + 3 Punch, it’s a wash with combat values, but Italy gets an added hit which should make the Italian fleet a bit more survivable.)
Above the single line, quotes are my thoughts, unquoted text comes from internet searches. Below the single line quoted text comes form internet searches.
I quite like your ideas. I might adopt them as House Rules, I’d only throw one German sub in though, Germany has enough subs in the Atlantic to begin with, and I’d keep the British Fleet in the Eastern Med, covering Egypt and the Middle-East.
-
RE: France
That’s an interesting thought. If I were Germany I would consider France the bigger threat over the UK. The UK has more money, but France has a decent amount, and it doesn’t need any transports to hit Germany. If France is allowed to survive for a few turns it might be able to throw a decent amount of troops at West Germany or Holland/Belgium and take them from the Germans, or they could take North Italy and take the Italians only Major IC. Even if the UK falls things will not be pretty on the Continent, and if Germany doesn’t manage to finish France of by turn 3, then they’re pretty much screwed, because in comes the Bear. But yes, both Italy and Germany get set back pretty bad, the UK might have the chance to wreck Italy’s Navy which would more or less neutralise the Italians.