Posts made by rohr94

Additional information:  Their plan was to attack Hungary from Yugoslavia using all the Yugoslavian troops with the addition of the British tank from Cairo that activated the pro-Allied countries.  my issue, beyond the historical inaccuracy of the entire situation, is that the minor Axis powers are all independent countries.  Moreover attacks cannot come from the territories of the minor Axis powers or from minor Axis units themselves until either at war with Russia, either Yugoslavia or Greece is controlled by an Axis power, or a mixture of both.  Therefore how does it make sense that these pro-Allied countries can attack into minor Axis countries which cannot attack them back.  I have no problem with attacks from Yugoslavia being directed at a belligerent Italy or Austria, but attacking territories which cannot attack back is the definition of broken.

I have just encountered a broken part of the game with regards to Greece and Yugoslavia.  On my first and second German turn the Balkans was ignored.  Paris was taken on the second turn and my idea was that Italy would invade Yugo, and then Greece.  However, Britain has activated both and is preparing to launch an attack into one of the minor axis powers if not two.  My issue with this is that both Yugoslavia and Greece remained neutral until attacked in 1939/40.  So not only is the Pro-Allied rule historically inaccurate to begin with, but allowing Britain to conquer one if not two of the minor axis powers through the use of Greece and Yugoslavia and as a result removing a substantial portion of the German forces for the eastern front and gaining the minor powers incomes for a turn seems ridiculously broken. I argued that 1) the minor axis powers technically aren’t at war, this was immediately shot down.  2) It’s A-historical in so many regards.  I want everyone’s opinion on the topic please.

Hey all, My friend and I called the Russia first game, it just didn’t look like it could end in an axis victory. So we switched sides and started a new game.  Unfortunately this game won’t be able to be finished either, since my friend leaves monday for school.  But it was a very interesting first three turns and I thought I’d share them with you.  It’s interesting mainly because on the third turn France is still alive and in possession of all their original territories.

On the first turn, my opponent built all airforce and as a result did not have enough units to hold reims.  He sent 6 infantry into denmark during the second impulse and had only 4 mech in reims at the end of the first turn.  On the French Uk turn, the allies attacked reims with every unit that was able to reach it.  Germany was unable to mount a second attack on reims until the third turn.  on the second turn the french built a new fortification, and had 20 infantry/artillery sitting in reims, plus 2 fighters (1 uk 1 french) and 1 tac in paris, and 3 british fighters in normandy.  i just rolled this battle, and i have to say the allies got incredibly lucky.

This was the battle:

Germany: 8 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 grenadiers, 4 armor, 5 fighters, 4 tac, 3 ss panzers

allies: 1 mech, 3 art, 2 FL, 1 tac, 14 infantry (6 french, 8 uk), 5 fighters (1 french, 4 UK), 1 aa.

(I just realized we have been playing with A&A 1940 aa rules, where they fire before combat as opposed to during the first round. but we have used this version throughout the game for both sides so it evens out in our games.  However this situation could have turned out differently given that.)

Any way.  AA makes opening shots, kills 4 fighters and 2 tac.  then we did air supremacy.  He devoted 1 of his two fighters so as to not give my fighters +2, and i devoted 1.  I won, and his 2 remaining tacs now attacked on a 4 rather than a 7 (a 3 given the fort.)

First round of combat allies kill 10 germans only kill 4.

Second round, allies:8 Germans: 7

third and final round allies: 7 (remaining units)  Germans: 2

moral of the story good rolls combined with your opponents poor choices makes for a hard game.  Also these pictures are of before the battle.  I will post after the battle tomorrow.  We are playing the historical lend lease rules, that is why there is an american navy off the coast of normandy.

3 points

1. we did mess up with regards to the minor axis, I assumed that the only reason the didn’t benefit from the second impulse is because they weren’t going to be at war with anyone.  So as a result you would have to wait until at least the second turn to invade Russia otherwise you can’t get enough men into Russia.

2. if on turn three the UK declares war on Japan and Japan retaliates on turn four that would not cause France and the UK to declare war on Germany. Only an unprovoked Japanese attack would effect German uk/french relations.

3. this strategy is hard mainly because the rules never considered france surviving past the second turn.  For example France can’t research.  Also pro allied status is hard because does an invasion of a pro allied nation cause war with the UK.  Not according to the rules.  Also can a non active allied player claim a pro allied nation.

The bottom line is if you aren’t willing to use house rules the strategy can’t work.  The designers never considered this strategy and as a result the rules are just too unclear in too many places for it to work without house rules.  The strategy is a bust.  I would like to see a consideration of this strategy in the next version of the rules.  But I don’t expect it.

Also sorry I haven’t provided pictures of the game.  We are on Italy turn three.  My friend and I smoked weed and I completely forgot to take pictures.  I will resume picture taking when we play again.  Ahaha.  Russia and the allies are looking very strong though.  Germany has more money than Russia but just can’t get enough troops to the front line with transports and the minor in karelia. They need to be able to build in enemy lands.

To allow this strategy to be viable we agreed on some interpretations of the rules.

1. all pro allied nations function in the same regard as finland.  the allies and axis can fight within them without declaring war.

2. Minor axis can attack during the second impulse.

also the rules only state that england, is diplomatically tied to france, holland, and poland.

This strategy is not viable if the minor axis can’t attack during the second impulse.

First turn report:

Germany has declared war on Russia.  First turn build: 3 transports, 1 tank, 2 tac bombers.

First impulse: Combat, all troops in Elbing attack the Baltic states, 4/6 infantry from west germany attacked denmark with support of second bomber.  4 subs eliminate danish navy.

Non Combat, move 4/5 of Germany’s starting tacs and fighters to Helsinki in addition to 1/2 bombers with 1 airborne.  activate Romania and Hungary, use transport to move 1 infantry and 1 tank from stettin to helsinki.  move all infantry, mech, and artillery within range to austria for attack on yugoslavia during second impulse.

Second Impulse:  Combat, 4 infantry 4 tanks, 4 tac bombers with support of 1 cruiser and 1 battleship attack leningrad.  troops in baltic states invade pskov.  3 inf and 1 art attack karelia from vipurii with support of 5 fighters.  Romanian troops invade western ukraine and bessarabia.  3 inf in turin invade murmansk.  8 inf, 5 mech, 1 art, 1 tac, and 1 fighter invade yugo.  1 airborne is paradropped into western russia to secure my flank.  all attacks are successes.

Non Combat, all planes in army group north land in helsinki, all planes in army group south land in romania, 6 infantry in berlin move to stettin to prepare to move to the front.

Tomorrow I will be giving the Russia first strategy a try.  I would like this thread to be a place for discussion of different strategy ideas, and a place to discuss issues with rules that would otherwise not come up in the historical route.  First of all I am going to bring up a few rule issues which my opponent and I will have to settle tomorrow before we play, but I wanted to have your opinions as well.  Second I will post my moves turn by turn and hopefully include pictures so keep updated to see how this plays out.

1. In the rules it specifically states that both Germany and Russia can attack strict neutrals.  I think it is quite silly to assume that Japan and Italy could not do so as well.  As members of the axis powers they are seeking to establish “empires” and the restriction to only being able to attack allied powers seams silly.  Although I do agree that the allies, save Russia, should not be able to attack strict neutrals.

2. my second concern is with neutral France and England.  Given that these two powers will both be neutral until Germany decides to attack them, I believe they should have a couple of restrictions on them.  The main one is that, so long as they are not at war with an axis power, they can not activate pro-allied nations.  I have two specific examples that will come up in my game tomorrow.  First, Greece.  Since it starts the game pro-allied and generally Britain has been at war with Germany on the first turn, Greece gets activated by Britain.  But since Britain will not be an active member of the allied powers I don’t think it would make sense for them to be able to activate a power, and collect their income, when they themselves are not at war.  My second example is a country which gains pro-allied status as a result of an invasion.  Specifically Turkey.  Turkey is key to my southern Italian invasion of Russia, because of the Turkish straights.  When Italy invades Turkey, the entire country will not be conquered, and so the remaining territories will become pro-allied.  Like, Greece, I don’t think neutral allied powers, like Britain, should be able to activate or receive these countries navies.  In both examples I think that only Russia, as the only active allied power, should be able to activate these types of territories.

3. Finally, I come to Industrial Complexes.  I know that the notion that conquered minors ICs get destroyed has been floating around, but I have not been able to find this in the written rules anywhere, an truthfully find it to be a silly rule.  I know that ICs can only be built in original territories or conquered.  However, I think an exception should be made for strict neutrals.  Strict neutrals are not given industrial complexes, despite the fact that they would surely have industrial capabilities.  It would be hugely advantageous for Italy to be able to produce troops in Istanbul, mainly naval units, and yet this is an impossibility.  I think that strict neutrals should either A be exempted from the original territory rule or B have an inherent production capability like the Minor axis powers.

These are the only three issues I could think of right now.  I hope to see some discussion on the questions I posed, and on the strategies that everyone would pursue in a Russia first game.  Stay tuned for my game updates with pics.

@sophiedog2:

yes, but with Italy entering the war against all allies, the French took Rome, and Paris and Moscow fell the same turn. Warsaw fell a turn later. The allies still won.

If Germany’s opening move is to attack Russia, Italy would join the axis and thus only be at war with whoever Germany is at war with.  Italy would not necessarily get murked.

first impulse: you dont attack denmark, you can go through the straights and their neutral navy doesn’t cause combat.  if you attack and conquer denmark on the first turn you would control the straights but their two ships may cause combat if the neutral rolls don’t go your way.

i’ll let you know when i try ahahaha.  in the mean time has anyone actually tried it?

just side note for those who don’t have easy access to the map while they are posting or reading.  if Italy successfully captures turkey and gains access to the black sea they are only 1 territory away from both Stalingrad and Moscow.  That would spread the superior income of Russia quite thin, even if the Italian attack isn’t incredibly powerful initially.  The added benefit though is that Italy wouldn’t have a Russian navy to contend with so they could focus on a land invasion force.  Russia has 48 Ipcs not taking into account the money they would lose to Japan and Germany on the first turn.  Germany has 36 base just from the Axis minors, if Germany successfully conquers denmark and norway that would bump Germany up to 44 plus the income of karelia and leningrad which puts Germany to 48.  that’s not including any paratrooper drops you might do to secure your flanks.  I’d say this is an incredibly viable option.  The only shortfall is that russia can just start throwing infantry at you turn one, so while it may be viable it is certainly not going to be easy.

" On the turn that Germany takes Paris, or London, or declares war on Russia, Italy joins the Axis on the start of its turn" page 25 of 7.2 rulebook.  i would assume that in the case of Germany ignoring the western allies and going straight for Russia, Italy would only end up at war with Russia and not the rest of the Allies like Germany, i come to this conclusion because it says joins the axis, implying that Italy would be at war with anyone who is at war with the axis.  Italy being able to build up for a confrontation with Britain for many turns while also helping in the fight with Russia is key.  Italy can secure the Turkish straights and focus on the southern flank of Russia, allowing Germany to only attack in the North.  The question that is risen by this scenario is can the Axis attack strict neutrals without provoking the allies, and more importantly can they attack pro allied without consequence, because both Hungary and Bulgaria require the axis to hold Yugoslavia and Greece to attack.  This is an interesting prospect and i’m looking forward to trying it when i find reliable players.

@ghr2:

@sophiedog2:

@ghr2:

Wait, I thought the UK and France start the game at war with Germany?

tHE uK AND FRANCE WILL GO TO WAR IF THEY OR POLAND OR HOLLAND ARE INVADED.

So, Germany just focuses on Russia via transports?  Seems like not a viable strategy.

It can be viable if done right.  i’ve never attempted it before, i prefer to go the historical route. by focusing only on russia, you’re accepting that the allies will become incredibly powerful.  as a result it is key that both japan and germany attack russia.  japan while not be doing much martial damage but will slowly detract from russias income.  if germany can conquer leningrad and karelia on the first turn, while also using airborne troops to secure key territories, both can be held.  while germany is focusing on northern russia romania needs to begin the attack in the south.  Germany will be at an income disadvantage so if you have the resources to spare, try and take as many national advantages as possible.  russia will take a few turns to get into a position to strike and hopefully by that point you’ve created enough of a buffer that you can build up a solid defense in the north while now focusing minor axis and german resources to the southern portion of russia.  it’s a tricky balancing act but if done properly you could break the game.  i may try this in my next game.

definitely shell out the extra $50 and get the bigger version. i can’t imagine using the smaller board, i have the big one and there are still times where there are too many pieces to fit in some of the smaller territories.  also  the rules for gw39 (despite some issues with recent updates) are far more balanced than 1940, which in my opinion is broken and hasn’t been updated lately to my understanding.

@billcallaway:

I love this game but it seems to just keep getting more confusing. The spirit of what is intended is clear cut. The writing of the rule itself seems to be an issue.

I never did see where paratroops clarifications were written into the rules. The Japanese sneak attack rules are still a bit cloudy. I believe we play both correctly but I’ve been wrong about my interpretation before.

Maybe rewrite the rules like they were written in the original Third Reich. Example: See rule 7-1.a.c. and rule 6-4.b.t.

The fortification rules I thought were going to say only 1 fort per territory?

You only need one great game and everyone will buy it.

There are so many AA variants out there and in many ways this is the best, but it’s still fiddly with rules. Changes should be made slowly and with great care in wording. We keep getting in fights and flip a coin over tiny issues that actually change the whole game. For example, it doesn’t say Japan can’t move into Vichy…so Japan does so UK can’t attack it unless UK declares war on Japan. It’s exploitation but it’s allowed so it can’t really be argued.

In this game you can attack Russia first turn and leave UK/Poland/France alone. They can’t even attack Germany until after Japan attacks UK. I actually really love this option but it seems a bit unrealistic. Just little ways to exploit the game here and there at times makes it a bit frustrating for us.

3/4 of the questions out here are actually clear cut in the rules, but some things should be rewritten to be more clear. Basically the longer the rules get the more fun the game - but more interpretation issues occur.

I agree the rules could be more clear, my friend and i would get into arguments about little things that could have a huge impact.  but i’ve been trying to adapt my own one month rules and so i know how hard it is to address every issue that may come up.  also i think sometimes common sense just needs to be used.

with regards to your issue about germany attacking russia and the allies not getting involved.  while it may seem broken for game balance i think it is accurate.  there is a ww2 computer game called hearts of iron.  there are actually three alliances within it all with their own play style.  it’s broken up into the axis, allies, and comintern, and considering that the capitalist system of the allies is the antithesis of communist russia, i dont think it would be far off for the allies to ignore germany should the german player avoid attacking poland or any other neutral which the allies have guaranteed sovereignty to.  i think that if Germany were to make substantial progress into russia the stalin may call for help from the allies, but this is hard to simulate in a baord game.  it works on the computer because diplomacy can run through an algorithm which runs all the possibilities.  i havent even touched on the political situation in my variant, but just brainstorming ideas i’ve come to appreciate how difficult it is.

there will always be ways to game the system, and rules that may seem prefect to one group but another group finds all sorts of issues with them.  i think people, who are lucky enough to have groups that play together consistently, should just address the rules from the get go and write down their interpretations and stick to those.

i also agree that sometimes people read to much into the rules, just use common sense.  in the case of minors building navy, if they can build troops without a factory, and a navy requires both a naval base and a factory then it stands to reason that for a minor power to build naval units they would only require a naval base.  i dont quite see the strategy for building naval units with minors.  it would require many turns of saved income just to build transports and to what avail.  as for industrial complexes being destroyed, i think reducing majors is important for game balance, but the destruction of minors doesn’t make much sense to me.  again i think gaining control of a minor with max damage would make more sense.  also could someone point me to the actual section of the rule book where it says minors are destroyed?  i didnt see it under facilities or capturing a territory.

liberating and capturing territories are very different things.  thus the capture of paris by an allied player would not destroy the minor factory.  the problem that would arise from the paris minor, is if paris is liberated but the allies are unable to hold it and the axis recapture it then would the minor be destroyed?  and is the minor is warsaw destroyed when germany captures it on the first turn?  maybe a more realistic option would be to capture the factories with full damage markers that the capturer has to deal with.

just a note on historical accuracy, if you change things to be more proportional you’d also have to take into account that many ships in many nations navies were outdated, in some cases they were pre wwi ships.  obviously having lots of different attack and defense values for theses ships isnt very viable but just something to remember.

ok, yeah thats what i thought.  because historically Holland and belgium both wanted to remain neutral.  they only entered the war, in both wars, when germany violated their neutrality to gain access to the plains leading into france.

when germany take holland, do you play that they roll for the navy in the pacific? Ive always just left it as pro-allies.