quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Game 1

Italy need to make sure they don't get 4 corps to Albania. Problem is what happens when they invade Sicily.

There is not much we can do during this summer. Next summer we can start by attacking Greece from Bulgaria. We can attack by INF, PARA and divisions from sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Game 1

Italy need to make sure they don't get 4 corps to Albania. Problem is what happens when they invade Sicily.

There is not much we can do during this summer. Next summer we can start by attacking Greece from Bulgaria. We can attack by INF, PARA and divisions from sea.

Game 1

It might be better to invade Yugoslavia before that can come about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Game 1

Germany declares war as soon as there is fine weather in north temperate.

I have bad feeling about this (entire game), but let's see how the incoming summer goes...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I think the Axis are shafted in both games. To me, the decisive rule in play that has done that is defensive shore bombardment. It is simply too strong early in the game and not realistic at that point in the war. (Is there an example of the Allies getting such heavy support in 1940 in France or in Africa in 1941-42 once the Germans were involved?)

While other mistakes/things happened, I think the games would be better served without it until perhaps later in the war.

Just my two cents. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK


I've read of RN ships providing gunfire support in France 1940 to slow down the Germans while troops were evacuated but this tended to be destroyers. Ships also covered evacuations in the Med. I don't know about realism. Just because the Allies didn't use their capital ships in this way early in the war doesn't mean they couldn't have done. 15" and 16" shells fired in 1940 would have been just as strong as they were later when they were instrumental in helping defeating German counter-attacks at Anzio and Normandy. It seems equally unrealistic not to have it included.

I suppose you can always have a house rule limiting how much and when it can be employed. Perhaps In the Presence of the Enemy should not be used so if Allied BB's in the North Sea are all disorganised they don't slow down a German breakout by their capital ships into the Atlantic.

In both games, the Axis have chosen courses of action that allow the Allies to bring defensive shore bombardment into play. They could have done differently. Also, the Axis might have employed their air power to better effect to take out BB's in high sea boxes beyond fighter cover and naval power to raid convoy lanes in the knowledge the RN BB's were committed.

The lesson learned is playing to one of the Allies strengths and not doing enough to counter it, is likely to end in tears [8D].

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Can I rebase Italian fighter from Gibraltar to Madrid? Allies are going to bomb it a lot if there is no fighter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK


I've read of RN ships providing gunfire support in France 1940 to slow down the Germans while troops were evacuated but this tended to be destroyers. Ships also covered evacuations in the Med. I don't know about realism. Just because the Allies didn't use their capital ships in this way early in the war doesn't mean they couldn't have done. 15" and 16" shells fired in 1940 would have been just as strong as they were later when they were instrumental in helping defeating German counter-attacks at Anzio and Normandy. It seems equally unrealistic not to have it included.

I suppose you can always have a house rule limiting how much and when it can be employed. Perhaps In the Presence of the Enemy should not be used so if Allied BB's in the North Sea are all disorganised they don't slow down a German breakout by their capital ships into the Atlantic.

In both games, the Axis have chosen courses of action that allow the Allies to bring defensive shore bombardment into play. They could have done differently. Also, the Axis might have employed their air power to better effect to take out BB's in high sea boxes beyond fighter cover and naval power to raid convoy lanes in the knowledge the RN BB's were committed.

The lesson learned is playing to one of the Allies strengths and not doing enough to counter it, is likely to end in tears [8D].

No question shore bombardment support can be quite effective; I don't disagree with that. The thing I disagree with especially is the RN providing support in the North Sea area or really anywhere along the coast in 1940 in the face of the Luftwaffe. The CW knew the Germans had overwhelming air superiority at least on the mainland and along the coast. Risking battleships that are 10-15 miles off the coast in the face of a pile of Stukas is something the RN wasn't willing to do and for good reason. The RN battleships stayed well away from there and only light forces were engaged from time to time.

The issue is the mechanics of the game in terms of sea areas (where the German aircraft limited range plays a much bigger role in how effective they would be or not be) vs having ships sitting off shore at a given spot. There is no allowance for that scenario that should result almost in a automatic find and what should be a higher box for attacking aircraft in such a spot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

About defensive shore bombardment I say what I have said before:

If I attack a coastal city in fine weather and order 100 naval bombers (covered by 300 fighters) to prevent defensive shore bombardment, how can enemy ships sneak in ruin my attack? Any given moment there are dozens of planes flying but none of them can detect enemy ships...

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

Forwards. If not to victory, then let's make our defeat glorious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllenK

Forwards. If not to victory, then let's make our defeat glorious.

That's the spirit. However: advance with caution...