quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

that's true. but the USA didn't even attempt to declare war, nor sail the Carriers away, as would happen in any normal game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markb50k
And the Germans achieved strategic surprise with the Brits picking the wrong sea area to patrol? In a solitaire game?

quote:


The problem is that he doesn't tell ; new players may think a normal game runs this way, and this is plain wrong!

There should have been a clear warning about the intentions of the author.

Yves

quote:

ORIGINAL: yvesp

I am now reviewing the past of this thread with a critical eye:


* Not playing with the oil rules is extremely advantageous to the axis units in the early game : fleets can run wild, especially the Italian Navy and the Japanese one, one doesn't care when turning down a HQ or armor, which the Germans have plentiful... Also, the axis has more production : oil resources can be turned to production while the Commonwealth just has nothing to do with its huge production... Well it can lend to France for as long as it holds, and that's all.
* Poland setup looks like the worst I have seen and can be broken by second rate units. I remember a game with a good setup and rain after the first impulse where Poland was still there in the second turn.
* The author himself tells us that the Belgium setup was flawed! Yet, it is critical to buy up time for France!
* Hungarian setup: what does this 2-4 cavalry do in the open ? It should be behind the river, possibly as a reinforcement to hold the capital one more impulse.
* In France, the first German that breaks the French line happens in a two to one hex attack, in rain: none of the attackers get turned down. Possible, yet... The French reaction is what is required by the situation: The units in Lille don't move an inch to close the gap. The units in the East go bravely north. Nobody cares about the road to Paris. The French prefer to destroy a turned down German LND in Belgium rather than save their own turned down fighter. There also was a pointless attack on Strasbourg, and odds and with a weather that I can only guess, but which still succeeded at some losses for the German. France's fall is then inevitable.
* The capture of Egypt by the Italians holds in part on a failed naval combat, where supposedly surprise was achieved by the commonwealth. Combat purpose: disrupt the supply lines. I cannot do this unless I get lucky AND choose a naval air combat to chase away the transports. Surface combat was chosen. There should also be a territorial unit somewhere in Egypt. Where is it hiding and why is it not stacked with Wavell ?
* Attack in Russia: I count a German garrison of about 21. Offensive/Defensive chits should cancel out each others at a ratio of 2 to 1. In May, the Russian production alone from the start of the game should amount to 9 infantry corps on the border, that is 18 points of garrison (it is possible to do better by building garrison units and mechanized units.) The USSR have more than 2 infantry in the west at at start, no ? where are all these troops ? And I do not count the aircrafts that should also be there... Actually, experience shows that Germany has a hard time transfering its units fast enough from west to east before it is too late (i.e. fall)

And so on, and so on...
One such thing is a small blunder ; two make a great blunder. But so many ? This is no coincidence!

So What ?

This author has decided to play a game where the allies are doing every possible blunder, ensuring an easy axis victory. Possibly even some rolls are rigged, but after all I cannot be certain. In any case, it doesn't mater: this is his game. He plays it as he likes and we are free to read or not to read.

The problem is that he doesn't tell ; new players may think a normal game runs this way, and this is plain wrong!

There should have been a clear warning about the intentions of the author.

Yves