Naturally, but that is boring and un-dynamic, we need to keep things fresh, and the enemy will be thinking “What the hell is he thinking?” Which can be an advantage, because he will not know how to react. If you know a bit about actual World War II, then you’ll know that Mussolini really threw Churchill and the Brits off balance by being so unpredictable, he attacked in Greece, and in Egypt, and other places, and the British stretched themselves thin trying to counter that. In fact, if Germany had intervened decisively in Africa after the evacuation of the British from Somalia and Greece, they would likely have knocked the Brits right out of the Med. So the same applies to this game, if your opponent is not sure what you are doing, he as to guess, and has to place forces to counter what he thinks you are going to do. Comes in handy sometimes, whereas with 3 tanks, he knows precisely what you’re going to do with them, and be easily able to counter it, as long as he has money.

Latest posts made by Ó Ruanaidh
-
RE: Russian Strategy
-
RE: Russian Strategy
Hmmm, so it would be, perhaps if you buy a destroyer one round, then a transport the next, that why the Germans have to decide if they want to risk losing a bomber for some Russian ships.
-
RE: Should Germany take Egypt first turn?
Sure it would be in the possession of the U.K. on turn 1, but where do all those pieces come from (besides the planes, I know where they would come from), assuming that the Germans did attack on their turn? Even if the British survived that attack I doubt they’d have all the troops you say, unless they sacrificed India to bolster Egypt.
-
RE: Should Germany take Egypt first turn?
That is assuming that England is even in possession of Egypt, which this thread hopefully has limited the chances of. Being a British player primarily, I would not dare make a complex in Egypt, it is much to close to Italy and Southern Europe, and it only has 2 ipc’s, so South Africa has the same benefits without the risks, I’d throw on there instead of risking losing Egypt to the Italians anyday, for what happens when the Italians take Egypt? You might as well give up dreams of holding Africa.
-
RE: Russian Strategy
I agree with letter A, the plan is hardly feasible with Italian Battleships and cruisers cruising around the Med, but to B I say, not necessarily. If you wanted to buy a fighter, you could perhaps get a transport instead, so that way, Germany would have to leave at least 2 infantry behind in Bulgaria/Romania, and Italy would have to garrison the Balkans and Italy itself, which ultimately pays off on the Eastern Front in my opinion.
-
RE: Why the Allies have the upper hand
Fully agree. A good Japanese player can quickly make the game a living hell, KGF just isn’t feasible in this version in my opinion. Japan is just to strong, and it has a much larger Fleet, it can take India Australia, Philippines, all in 2 or 3 turns, and it can destroy China in the same time, tear Eastwards, threatening the U.S. mainland, and slowly marching west towards the gates of Moscow. Germany is also a tough nut to crack, and a good German player can waste all of the Allies time while Japan wrecks them. After about turn 5 I’d say the U.K. would have Japanese troops in Africa, would be reduced horribly in income to be hardly a threat to Germany, and Russia would be forced to meet their threat to the East, and it will fall between remaining German troops and advancing Japanese, which it will almost certainly succumb to, while the U.S. is to far away and harassed by Japan anyway to decisively affect the game. I repeat, leaving Japan alone is a BAD idea.
-
RE: Why the Allies have the upper hand
I disagree. Japan usually moves fast and far, and if the U.S. ignores them, then they move opposed across the Pacific. By the time Germany goes down, You’ll have a monster Japan that can destroy the Allies in detail. I’m usually a British Player and I don’t dare ignore Japan, I try and do what I can to stop them from tearing across that half of the board. If you ignore them, than you’ll see U.K. and Russia losing all kinds of money, as well as forfeiting U.K.'s NO, and the U.S.'s as well. Bad idea in my opinion.
-
RE: A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941
Super Submarines are useful. They are the cheapest ship and they can sink otehr ships without them retaliating. Of course Destroyers are their bane, but that doesn’t mean if the opponent has destroyers your subs are useless. Far from it, they can be used to pick off lonely ships, which would force your opponent to mass his fleet, which is in itself an advantage because they cannot sprawl all across the oceans hitting multiple targets. And subs can take out ships more powerful than themselves, I’ve seen plenty of battles where subs kill destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and even battleships. I’ll trade a sub for any of those, any day. Super Subs just make them even better at attacking. I’ll admit that it isn’t a huge improvement, but still it’s nice to sink those ships on a 3, when they could have fired back and killed your sub otherwise.
-
RE: A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941
I love the randomness that technology offers. Then again, I’m Irish and I believe strongly in luck and like to take chances. Besides, Karl von Clausewitz, the great German military theorist himself recognized that “War is the Realm of Chance.” I think it accurately protrays the war as well, since the U.S. took a gamble on the Manhatten Project, and though it could have been a huge waste of money, it paid off and it changed the whole situation of the War in the Pacific. I agree totally with Jenn, if your strategy is so flimsy as to fall apart if someone rolled “Shipyards” or “Long Range Aircraft” then it probably wouldn’t hold up without techs.
That being said, I do recognize that techs can decisively alter the situation of the board. If Japan gets shipyards, then it will be in a position to fight the U.S. much more effectively and for alot longer. Likewise if Russia gets Improved Artillery, then they can hold back Germany much easier, I would not underestimate this techs value. They can also be decisive in another way, much more favourable to those who hate techs. They can be a huge waste of money, and while your opponent spends money hoping to get Paratroops or Heavy Bombers, you can be pumping out more units to overwhelm them. Everything has consequences in this game.
-
RE: Russian Strategy
Nice, I’m glad that people are finding ways to beat the “German Ogre.” I also realized that Italy can help Germany out in Caucasus, but every game I’ve played the Italian player is to greedy for land in Africa and cares little about Germany’s position in Russia, though they themselves depend on it.
I played out my strategy of building 1 transport and 1 destroyer on turn 3, but as predicted the Italians laid waste that small fleet with their cruisers, the turn before the British came in and annihilated their fleet. Though I think it would have been quite effective if I hadn’t jumped the gun. As it was though it was a wasted investment and cost me dearly. Germany was able to take Caucasus and I failed to take it back turn 5, then we ended the game because it was getting late, and some of our players are horribly indecisive and take 20 minutes for their turn.