The Malvinas War was a pyrrhic win. The political objectives were met, at the cost of losing several multimillion dollar modern warships with many more very nearly destroyed. The land battles were fought without the full benefit of combined arms, which then required WW2 style tactics that caused WW2 like causalities, and several of the land battles were fought solely to meet timing objectives about British progress in the UN/public sphere.
The British ships were shown to be virtually helpless in the face of even unguided bombs dropped from 2d-3d generation export fighters that cost 1/100th as much as a warship. There was no more practical air defense from ships than in WW2. If the Argentines had access to better fuses and a few more sea skimming missiles, the outcome would have been the loss of a dozen or more warships and a forced UK withdrawal.
The Falklands may have been the last war fought by UK forces but primarily to foster an Imperial English agenda without regard to the costs of that to the Union or anyone else. That English agenda has, 30 years later, made the UK a dying concept where Scotland is more attached to the EU than England, which is about to leave England as a rump country…
Canada would have been unlikely to have any assets other than air refueling that would have been any less vulnerable than UK assets. Canada has its own agendas, having contributed more overseas ‘peacekeeping’ troops and aid supplies to Afghanistan and other conflict areas in the 00s than any other relatively small nation. Canada has always been inviting to refugees and the oppressed. However, like Germany and France, it had little motive to be drawn into a US/England alliance of chaos so it has continued to quietly advance that agenda in wise correspondence to its actual strength and motives to do so.
I admire your patriotism but from the point of view of an objective observer, there is no Crown left to defend. England has long ago charged off on its own course to enhance its own prestige and resolve at the expense of its junior partners (the former empire) and to the benefit of its senior one (the US). That’s what the “Special Relationship” is all about.
And Canada may stand alone in its sentimentality about that, few of the other former British Empire/UK have any faith that England will ever do or act any different(ly). England has always seen itself as a leader but having pompously acted that way since WW2, there is precious little left to lead.
He’s talking about just killing the UK fleet in the SZ off India. A suboptimal move in my opinion, stretches Japan really thin and that fleet can’t really be aggressive against much without dying in return. It also makes your cleanup around the Solomons weak. Same with the attack on the Hawaiian SZ, there’s no point for Japan to be throwing its material forward in barely positive trades when Japan excels at keeping a large American fleet at bay when it can consolidate its fleet resources at the Philippines.
Agree with Ike here: it really depends on what the rest of the board looks like.
Some options from my own experience:
1. If Moscow falls G9 this means Germany has channeled a lot of resources east.
Strong counter for the allies is to land 40+ units in western Europe. Most likely even Western Germany and then push back west (liberating France) and south (taking out Italy). In the meantime Berlin should be maxed out every turn. Of course Japan must also be prevented a win in the Pacific first priority (defensive spending).
If the allies went ‘Japan First’, this option may not be available to you since it requires minimal spending in the Pacific (i.e. a defensive budget rather than an offensive one).
2. If Moscow falls G9 after the allies went ‘Japan First’ (assuming CaÃ¯ro is still allied controlled), the allies must of course start channeling more untis into CaÃ¯ro/Middle East than the axis can. And/or into London, depending on what the axis targets are. Hopefully they are able to do so and start pushing the axis back. Alternatively you can try to liberate another VC. If the allies can build up a huge invasion force/shuck from Gibraltar, they have the flexibility to try to liberate Paris or aid the defense of CaÃ¯ro.
Defeating Germany after Moscow fell with no meaningful allied threat in the west already in place is no small thing to do…
As the Axis I have noticed that hunting down VC’s too aggressively really means putting their heads on the block (like in option 1 above). IMHO for the axis it is best to be patient. Aim to stabilize economic balance and then jump in the gap the allies have left you. A few examples:
3. If the allies go Europe First (while still preventing Japan a 6VC win), Germany best prevent the allied landings at all costs. This takes away a LOT of resources from the eastern front so Moscow should be safe (except when Russia built too much ‘wrong’ units). In Russia, Germany + Italy need to aim for a defensive perimeter as far eastwards as possible in order to be able to contest or defend rich Russian territories.
Japan should secure India if it doesn’t already have it under control and then make a deep strategic calculation (4/5 turns ahead); will it be possible to grab Hawaii/Sydney if the USA defends it with all its resources while Japan goes all-in to take it and hold it? Will Japan also be able to hold all other VC’s? Could Japan ‘trick’ the USA and then suddenly swing east when it is too late or is the USA-player a bit Pacific-ignorant and do you think he/she will continue that?
If Yes, go grab this last VC. Otherwise, just match the allied (USA) forces and offensive spendings in the Pacific and send the rest to contest the Middle East/Africa. From India (Naval Base), Japan can invade Africa in 1 turn. If Japan cannot take it, can Japan convoy it? I once lost too many indian ships too soon and as a result, got convoyed all the way from the Persian Gulf to the Brazilian coast by Japanese submarines…
I could go on and on with options, particularly about allied strategies for late game ‘JF’ course of events and the axis responses but I think other players have more experience with this and I already wrote quite enough for now ;-).
CWOMarc! That map in the Midway war room is my favorite!
I also recommend (if you haven’t seen it yet) the movie Sink the Bismarck, which has a nice map-table-and-ship-model arrangement that is used at several points throughout the movie. Not as big as the CINCPAC one in Midway, but it looks good. At one point the movie uses the plot device of bringing a senior RAF officer to the Admiralty’s Operations Room, which provides a convenient excuse for the Director of Operations to spend a few minutes explaining to the RAF officer (and to the audience) the situation being displayed on the map table.
No beef, really. I just draw a distinction between what might foreseeably happen in a new, 2.0 version vs. what would occur with house rules/tweaking.
Given the WotC delivery on generic sculpts, no cold, hard, IPCs, and the like, I doubt anything like cavalry would make an appearence. Changes in the rules, however, are a more likely thing. Africa, especially, needs some simple but specific rules (ie. restrictive movement, reduced unit attacks/defense, etc.)
However, they would be something I would consider adding in a house-rule/variant derived from A&A 1914. But they would need to add something significant or unique to the game play. I know that’s been discussed in other threads, and personally, I’m split on the issue. I am more likely to add trains and fortresses to the mix (e.g. the latter did significantly affect the course of the war, such as in Liege or Przemsyl). It gives another focus for artillery/infantry, and siphons off troops from the otherwise attritional wars o’ stacks.
Point being, I’m just drawing distinctions between “what might” and “would if”. And nothing personal was intended.
Ever go to Guardian Games down there in Portland at all?Â I stop in there whenever I’m in town.Â Our next meetup game is June 1st in Puyallup.Â It’ll be Global '40 with a few n00b players.
I personally like to go to Fantasium in Federal Way or Game Matrix here in Lakewood.Â Most games are played at MSG in northern Seattle.
Never played F2F games in PDX but I’ve heard of Guardian Games. As for Fantasium never heard or been there but might be a good spot to check out. Games Matrix I know well, never played there but that would be cool to see A&A being played there.
When you’ve done that, venture out of your mothers’ basements and touch some real grass…. then go back inside and work your way up to shows for older kids. I understand Hanna Montana is great for tweens. Soon, soon my little ones, you will be watching movies for teenagers, and before you know it, adulthood will be just a few short years away.
Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go sit in my library all night and play an online board game while life passes me by. 😛
It makes me happy in some small way to see you guys support me on this.
I don’t know why this affects me so much, I never even met her. Maybe it’s because I never will. I’ll never get the chance to hug her or tell her how brave she was.
Thanks for the invitation to talk, Gar. I’ll take you up on that someday when I have the chance to reflect a bit.
I’m 100% proof positive absolutely convinced of one thing. I know this isn’t what she wanted. I’m sure she’d rather go the beach and play volleyball with me tomorrow morning than be dead. “The dead know only one thing, it is better to be alive.”
Hello all. I thought I would solicit your thoughts on which types of pieces in any version of A&A scream for painting the most.
IMHO, the most confusing piece on the board in the original Pacific and Pacific 1940 is the USA fighter in China. Having to differentiate between a Chinese fighter that looks American and any USA fighters in that zone seems like a headache waiting to happen.
Otherwise, I would say the pro-Axis and pro-Allies neutrals in Europe 1940 need attention. The fact is that upon being attacked, you’re supposed to pick any random country to donate an infantry to that territory. If the attacker doesn’t win, the infantry stay there but cannot be moved. Seems like confusion might set in eventually.
HBG has British infantry for sale. I bought 25 and painted them white to use for neutral armies.
Djensen has very good reasons for not allowing signatures.Â Mostly because it interrupts the page flow and the conversation.
Everything that is in a signature (a picture, some text) can be done using your “avatar” and the text under your avatar.Â You see this to the left of posts, therefore it does not interrupt the page flow and conversation.
I 100% agree with Djensen on this, and think it is a very good policy that more forums should implement.
Agreed. Signatures clutter things up too much, especially when they’re long.