Well, it’s not hard - then again buying enough navy to get enough troops over (without BB bombardment etc.) can take a LONG time…
Posts made by Twigley
RE: Not enough units.. How many more?
Why not buy another game in the series like 1942? After all, you get the extra units (which will be different models so make your armies more interesting) and you get the extra game. If you are an A&A piece junkie and you already own loads of versions then a second '41 might be what you are after. If 41 is the only game you own then why spend money on the same version twice? I would wait and see what the new 1942 is like - or find an old copy of revised. I still love that game. Or Anniversary (but that might be a bit pricey - and global?).
RE: The Mid-Game KGF Dilemna
Definitely hit Italy early and hard. She should be an axis liability by round 3 I reckon. Saves Africa and puts pressure on Germany.
For Russia (in a long game scenario) artillery is also good I think. Allow the germans to come reasonably close - but make sure by the time they arrive everything is deadzoned with inf/art stacks.
Also - once Italy is seriously out of the running - if you obliterate her navy that is enough, the USA can really turn to the Pacific. In the process of going after Italy she will have thrown a carrier, maybe a dd, ftrs, trannies into the Atlantic, so she will have the resources to start filing troops through Africa.
I think from that point on definitely go for Japan’s tail. Japan will be through China - and consuming USSR, but at that stage her navy may well also have left the Pacific open in response to your KIF strat - so you can go Island hopping…
As to gameplay. Well we face the same problem on both fronts. In terms of materiel the French AND the Russians were no way easy prey to the Germans.
In France it was ‘old veteran thinking’ that was the problem. Gamelin was happy to sit in his chateau well aware that orders dispatched would take 24-48 hours to get to the front. When facing a armour/air heavy series of attacking spearheads (Schwerpunkts) capable of moving at mechanised speed and with instant radio communications operating between ground units, air units and a central command this was simply like a slug fighting a scorpion (my metaphor - can you tell?). At this atage - the French didn’t even understand what ‘calling in an airstrike’ meant. Unfortunately for them - the Germans had all this down pat.
You’d have thought that the Russians would be better prepared. What they saw of the rapid destruction of the French grand armie worried them greatly. But unlike French WWI thinking - the Russian army had been purged of virtually anyone who even remembered WWI!
But then this is all the history. The fact is that in A&A armies are represented by plastic tokens with predetermined attack/defense strengths. This leaves no room for the fact that in both France and Russia the failures were in human judgement - not the tools for the job. This is of course dealt with in the old A&A Pacific with Japan’s first move advantage (all units save the chinese defend at a 1 for the Japanese attack on J1).
It reminds me of when I used to ponder the loss of Japan’s skilled airforce at the Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal. The factors that led to the deaths of hundred of green Japanese pilots over the Marianas (because the Japanese had neglected to develop rigorous training facilities to replace the pilots they lost.) I thought about having pink japanese fighters. Everytime a new Japanese plane was bought it would be a pink one which attacked at 2 and defended at 2. Hence over the course of the game the Japanese airforce would ‘de-skill’. Of course this would take an entertaining game and make it ever more complicated…
Just like the situation we find in this Europe game. The best way of dealing with this issue is to handicap the allies (Like in AAP41). Doing this with France is easy. With Russia is more difficult. After all if the Russian player knows his pieces will be at a disadvantage - he’ll picket his front with 1 inf in each territory. Then he doesn’t have to worry about all those tanks, fighters and expensive units being lost for nought.
Britain and France were also planning to send large contingents to Finland to fight the Soviets.
Interesting to speculate what might have happened if this had been ongoing when Barbarossa commenced.
Actually, it’s quite interesting - the French (in particular) were very anti-soviet. The main reason for ‘assisting Finland’ however was to get hold of the Swedish iron ore mines that were supplying the Germans. Both Norway and Sweden were aware of this and were anti any allied forces coming through their territory to ‘assist Finland’.
This led to the French proposing a Royal Navy led assault on the Caucasus (to distract Russia) via the Black Sea!!! Which was clearly barmy. The UK had no intention of doing this. At all.
However - the entire debacle of Norway’s invasion was down to that iron ore, as well as the fact that while the British and French were still debating things the Germans simply landed in Norway to ‘guarantee her neutrality’ (and the ore). Just like the benelux countries - the scandys were so obsessed with preserving their neutrality in the face of the blundering ‘great powers’ that as Churchill (while 1st Lord of the Admiralty) commented ‘It is simply TOO LATE to emphasise neutrality neutrality neutrality and then cry for help once the Germans have invaded.’
I suspect that the germans (in the eventuality of war between the allies) would have sat out… watched, prepared, built up and then conquered the weary victors of such a war. After all - the germans were not bargaining on their lightning victory in France - it surprised everybody. In winter 1940, faced with the ‘greatest army in the world’ (as the French army was widely toted to be) I reckon the Germans would have relished the distraction/destruction of their enemies through such in fighting. Added to this - Hitler felt that he was taking a massive gamble - not having wanted a european war until 1943 when he imagined Germany would be ready for such an undertaking…
RE: American split income?
If each axis has it’s own VC to be met individually, the idea to help the other is a waste, so playing them both and perfectly coordinating them might just end.
Yes. This seems to be a good idea. The question is though - what happens when one axis player reaches all their VC? Do all the axis win at that point or just the individual? In which case does that axis player ‘bow out’ and the others carry on until all axis have reached VC or been eliminated, I mean once you’ve won…
RE: The Mid-Game KGF Dilemna
A recent game was decided by a strong UK navy dropping units into the Baltic states allowing Russia to concerntrate on the south. Obviously this was after a few rounds where Russia had been aggressive enough that her and Germany were still swapping border territory.
I’m not a die hard vet of the forums like some of you. So I don’t know if this strategy has been tested and found wanting - but it was well worth Russia losing the 5 IPCs as within a couple of rounds the UK (the US had won back Africa so the UK had about 25 IPCs) the UK had dropped 16 infantry onto Russian territory - which really strengthened the (russian) western front.
Had the tactic been employed earlier - Russia may have been able to concentrate on dealing with Japan (who ate her up from the east). Also - had the tactic come earlier then possibly Russia would have got her 10 IPC bonus more often (she only got it once that game) which would have made up for the 5 IPC loss.
So a question is - are people still holding out at all costs for the 5 Russian IPCs and maybe missing the boat when it comes to (desparately needed) UK/US reinforcement?