Jim - did you like the alpha scenario?
Latest posts made by Zarnak
RE: Sealion Version 1.0
It’s depressing to see the odds on the UK navy in G1. If balance really needs to be looked at I vote for a return of the “each side gets 12 IPC pre-game to spend” that we saw in the original Europe. Let’s say Germany/Italy has to place theirs first. It would throw a monkey wrench in the “always do this” strategies.
Italy might buy a cruiser to try to save her fleet. Then France gets four more inf! Germany would be hard pressed to devote it’s air force to the destruction of the UK navy in that scenario. There’s alot of different variations possible.
From the global games I’ve played - the sooner Japan declares war the better off it will be and the worse off Germany and Italy will be. And vice versa. I’m in the middle of a game right now where Japan actually didn’t attack until Turn 4. It got Hong Kong, Malaya, and the DEI for one turn. The Phillipines never fell. He got half way into China before losing two big battles and retreating back to the coast - spreading out his fighters to allow his limited infantry to stand their ground in the face of the Chinese hordes. (Seriously - the Chinese army right now is 26 infantry, two artillery, and the fighter.) His fleet won a Pyrrhic victory over the UK navy and retreated back to SZ6 before the US fleet arrived. The Phillipines is being reinforced w/ infantry and fighters. Malaya was liberated by the Americans, submarines are hounding him, and the DEI are being freed one at a time.
On the other side of the world Germany conquered Moscow on Turn 5. Italy got all the way to Syria and Anglo-Egypt Sudan before the Americans arrived. German tanks are coming to rescue Japan.
On the other hand there are stories on the forums of Japan declaring war on Turn one, crushing India on turn 3, and being in Egypt on turn 5. Germany and Italy in those games are being hounded by an aggressive America.
I personally believe that China is a red herring for Japan. You need a dedicated effort to conquer a wily Chinese player - and it’s usually not worth it. You need those troops and planes for other things.
RE: First Game: Axis Domination
It sounds like they massed the 18 infantry as the Russians. I also am curious where you hit the Chinese. Yunnan? Hunan? That’s 4 infantry total to lose. While that hurts it’s not a kill blow. The Chinese are annoyingly resurgent.
In our games the Russians fall back from the border if attacked - and never mass. The Chinese also fall back towards the Russian border. Eventually The Japanese ground forces outrun their air support and that’s when you turn around and bite them in the a**.
Japan attacking on round 1 hurts Germany and Italy more then Japan. KGF becomes a viable strategy in my eyes should that happen. UK flies it’s airforce from India to Egypt and shuts down Italy. Team America has a mean attack force going in a very short time.
RE: Japan strategy
I’ve played Japan in global yesterday ( with the new setup but no NO for not being at war)
I’ve lost count on how many “new setups” there are for the eastern theater. Did you remove the 14 aircraft before starting? That’s the most recent experiment.
There’s little reason for UK NOT to attack on turn 2. Japan has already moved and it’s guaranteed to attack in J3 if it has not done so.
“When” to attack for the Japanese is the most crucial question. The longer you can delay it the better it is for Germany and Italy, but not for Japan.
I’m more curious how everyone destroys China so fast. They must be silly and take in on the chin in Yunann exchanges. You have to garrison Manchuria and if the Chinese player falls back rather then fights - there’s alot of Chinamen very shortly.
RE: Larry's suggested setup changes
The game by it’s nature is difficult to balance. The allies historically didn’t know that Japan was going to attack. Here it’s only a question of which turn. The allies begin to aggressively position their forces for an onslaught they know is coming if Japan does not attack turn one. J1 attack is the only one that catches the allies with their pants down.
I added the other suggested changes to a global game - 5 extra chinese infantry and a naval base in South Wales - that’s it. In the global, Germany and Italy are better off if Japan does NOT attack the first turn. I chose to attack the 2nd turn. It turned into an incredibly desparate struggle that I might pull off only because the US player can’t seem to stick to any one battle plan.
The plus to this setup is that with three less planes and minus an infantry in Malaya it will be more difficult for the UK/ANZAC player to fortify the DEI if Japan does not attack the first turn. It will also take the US longer to get into the fray with the loss of four aircraft.
The four extra Chinamen and the loss of seven aircraft make me wince though.
RE: Italy a bad design
I don’t think it’s inevitable that the RN is going to get destroyed in G1. The first game I played saw not one but two naval attacks on my fleet repulsed. I moved the BS, two cruisers, destroyer, and transport that survived into 109. I supplemented the force w/ two destroyer purchases.
I attacked the Italian navy. The next turn my navy in 109 was sunk at the cost of most of the Luftwaffe for my opponent. The UK carrier was sunk by the Italian counterattack. The french got the Italian survivors. And so it goes. In hindsight I could have moved the RN away from the coast and placed the two destroyers by Canada. Or I could have reinforced it with the CA and had a real fleet to threaten Germany with from the beginnning.
RE: German Minor Ic in Southern France
It really depends on the game. Did the Italian fleet get sunk on the first turn? Or did the British go for conservation of their naval forces?
I used all of the 70 IPC’s Germany got after G1 to build troops/planes to invade the USSR. I’m on the verge of capturing Leningrad and hence will not build a factory in Romania. Italian troops have captured Egypt and are poised to enter Syria this turn. A minor factory there would be interesting.
If Italy truly needed help I’d go for a minor in Yugo rather then bending over backwards for Southern France - Italy needs those IPC’s.
RE: Italy a bad design
I’m in the middle of a game as the Axis. My G1 build was three subs and a bomber. (only 6 German subs in the box btw :x)
I put two subs into 106 against the Canadian fleet. I put three subs against the destroyer and transport in 109. I used a large portion of the German air force against the BB and DD in 110. I had more then enough air force and army to get the job done in France. I placed the three subs with the German surface fleet in 113. UK’s European economy loses 9 IPC’s. It’s a conservative play.
At the UK turn my opponent is faced w/ a dilemma. He has a BS and 3 allied cruisers in harms way. His only DD is by Gibraltar. The subs are immune to attack unless he uses it. The German surface fleet is safe from attack as well. He has 6 subs, a BS, a cruiser, and the Luftwaffe to contend w/ the next turn with two more submarines over by Canada.
So my opponent picks up the aircraft carrier over by Gibraltar, taps it thoughtfully against the board a couple of times…… and then moves it to atack the subs in 109. The 56 IPC navy left up by England was too much to ignore for him. Still playing the game. Thought I’d share.
RE: Italy a bad design
Or they are a speed bump like they were in the real war until Germany got there. Italy utterly failed in Africa. That is just how it happened. Not by chance. Not by some unlucky battle or bad manuever that if they could redo would change things. No, they just really really stunk. Look up there battle against Ethiopia and other battles in the balkans. They really stunk. Now if 1 game turn is suppose to be 3 months, as I have read it is suppose to be,(which by the way I have a problem with) it makes perfect sense.
The real question is, is there a way for Germany to get in there and help. That is the question.
I suppose the problem for me is that I don’t think the German player really has the incentive to help the Italians in Africa, I mean if you are Germany do you really want to be fighting on three fronts? From looking at the map it almost seems that Italy is meant to be the only Axis player in the Med and Africa, Germany has too much on its plate to realistically commit to helping the Italians out too much.
This means that the weight of the Axis campaign in Africa rests almost entirely on the Italian player, and I’m not sure that with a UK attack on the Italian fleet in turn one that Italy will be capable of handling Africa.
Although this might seem historically accurate to a degree is it really desirable in a game like this. From the looks of it the Italian player will be spending most of turn one gritting their teeth in frustration as the British deal them a very heavy naval blow. The UK player might even land in Greece to nab the 4 guys and extra IPCs to cause further annoyance, if all this happens I just don’t think Italy has the IPCs and the units to cope. That is why I think the Gibraltar Naval base might be a bit too much, but who knows, it needs to be tested to destruction…
Maybe the game was designed that way or maybe it was an oversight, but I definitely think its a little too much pain for the Italian player to take before they can even get to move. Just my tuppence worth.
Exactly. Can the Germans move its whole fleet towards med. sea and try to open it and kill UK surface ships so Italy can build some ships? Yes. But would they want to? No. Too much resources being expended and for too long. Just so Italy can have some navy? Please that is ridiculous and thus I feel a change to setup is required for balance. The prior “italy sucked in real life and thus must loose Africa before it takes a turn” is very poor logic. Can we just agree the Gibraltar Naval Yard needs to go?
I’m not sure it’s broken with one global game under my belt. If it truly is broken though - Italy declared war only after it looked like they were missing out on the conquest of France. I’d prefer to make them nuetral until their turn rather then mess with setups. Shrug.