Messages

61

WWII discussion forum / Re: How Hitler could have won WWII?

« on: November 03, 2006, 08:43:27 PM »

What you'll need to find is some literature from the German perspective as to why they lost the war.

62

Reviews / Re: Basic Game review

« on: October 28, 2006, 05:50:05 PM »

Obviously Mark & John must consider me an expert already since I got promoted to Captain. That's a rank that sounds familiar too! Purchased the basic game and if it's here before VETERANS' DAY, there could be 1 or 2  days worth of gaming at my place that weekend. I may be a little thin on some pieces, but I believe I've got enough scrap iron available to make the WAR quite viable. I've got a second, not in good shape, Fortress America game & those infantry pieces work well for neutrals, France, & the Chinese.  The cities make hasty defense pill boxes too. With a review of all the rules and a few trial sessions, I may have to put up or shut up on my inputs about INVASION JAPAN & ITALY AIN'T NO PROBLEM scenarios at a future convention.

63

WWII discussion forum / Re: pacific blunder

« on: October 24, 2006, 10:25:51 AM »

Fighting a war is ALWAYS expensive as materials are consumed exponentially & people get worn out at home, as well as on the battlefields. The leaders of any entity at war are always looking for any means possible to fund their war machine until victory is achieved. WWII took a heavy toll on finances, materials, and people. A lot of items were lost,  destroyed, maimed, and killed. Even today, the war on terrorism requires huge sums of funding, people, & materials on both sides. The bad guys need food, clothing,  shelter, & war materials while planning their next action. The good guys need the same items to counter what the bad guys plan to do & when possible be pro-active. Nothing is cheap here.

64

WWII discussion forum / Re: How Hitler could have won WWII?

« on: October 22, 2006, 12:54:24 PM »

Came across a 2 disk CD covering several blunders of WWII. One of the major Axis blunders was Germany NOT going to full wartime production, especially on armor & aircraft,  until late 42 or early 43 & by then it was way too late. Their factories were unable to keep up with these material losses at the front.  Another major blunder for both Japan & Germany was the loss of veteran pilots. The loss of knowledgeable & experienced veterans broke a vital link of training. Most experienced personnel were killed, wounded, or captured and not being recycled back to help train new personnel and show them what works and what was stupid!

65

Game Design / Re: The problem of Italy

« on: October 17, 2006, 10:14:20 AM »

I guess I'll have to play the Brits from start to finish at some convention just to show you Italy is not a problem!  John already saw the "OUCH" I can inflict in the Pacific when I was running the US in the Pacific.

66

Strategy Tips / Re: Any ideas on how to start U Boat production early?

« on: October 15, 2006, 05:40:26 PM »

The answer to the "HOW"  question is very simple, just start applying some funds to their production. The German U-boat operation can be just as annoying to the Brits in the Atlantic as the US submarine operation in the Pacific can be to the Japanese if started early enough. Take a few dollars now & then and tag a ship or two when the wolf pack gets hungry!

67

Strategy Tips / Re: Russia

« on: October 13, 2006, 07:03:06 AM »

As with the real war and many strategic board games covering WWII, the BIG critical battle(s) will be between the land & air forces of the Axis and the Russians. It's not that the other battles are not as important, because they are important and they do play major roles, it's simply because of the timing to supply and resupply the Russians. If the Russians lose more pieces than the Germans 2 or 3 major battles in a row then the Allies will lose. The attrition rate has to be in favor of the Russians and the replacements must exceed the number of the German replacements put on the board. So, for strategy, it's bide your time & counterattack when the odds are in your favor.

68

Game Design / Re: Units

« on: October 13, 2006, 03:40:18 AM »

For marketing purposes, you may want to put out a group of photos by country on this web site showing all  the pieces you will get for $995 + s&h. A picture can speak a thousand words for you here instead of someone just looking over the list.

69

WWII discussion forum / Re: pacific blunder

« on: October 10, 2006, 06:17:25 PM »

The biggest blunder for the Japanese was timing. The Pearl Harbor attack was scheduled to occur very shortly after their declaration of war was delivered to the US government. I believe that timing was an hour or less. Just like the signal, TORA! TORA! TORA! was used to let the Japanese fleet know that total surprise had been obtained. There should have been a message from the Japanese ambassador's office to show the declaration of war had been completely decoded and ready to be delivered. The ambassador's office could have had the declaration much, much earlier. Alas, secrets are so hard to keep secret.

70

WWII discussion forum / Re: Greatest Axis Blunder

« on: October 01, 2006, 11:41:59 AM »

All of these actions or non-actions were GREAT strategic blunders. Like in a football game, 1 fumble, 1 interception, 1 missed tackle or 1 missed block in and of itself usually doesn't cost the team the game. However, the accumulation of a group of these blunders will ALWAYS result in a loss. The one item that the Germans & the Japanese didn't catch on to was a simple intelligence matter.  The allied side was reading most of the Axis electronic mail accurately.  Midway & shooting Yamato's aircraft down in the Pacific are 2 successful results of those efforts. The allies had cracked some of the German codes too. I'm just not aware of any specific action that the Allies did that resulted in a major blunder.  I guess you can add 1 more big blunder to the list. That was the attempt to kill Hitler in that bunker in 1944.

71

Strategy Tips / Re: U.S.

« on: September 29, 2006, 06:43:29 AM »

That was "OUCH!!!" not just an ouch! That is what leads up to the invasion of Japan. Keeping Japan POOR

72

Game Design / Re: Miscellaneous rules ideas

« on: September 26, 2006, 05:05:00 PM »

I think 2 hits on a fleet carrier is appropriate as they were large enough tp absorb 1 torpedo hit or 1 shell hit, or 1 dive bomber hit & still float but they were usually crippled in speed or the ability to support aircraft or both. The escort carrier should disappear with 1 hit as they were smaller. Maybe something should be said for what caused the hit. Example: a battleship shot would cause much more damage than a destroyer shell. However, you want to keep the game on the simpler side so more what ifs(RULES) is not the way to go.  As for infantry only killing infantry until the enemy infantry is gone sounds like FORTRESS AMERICA rules which can be appropriate but infantry units, even in the squad or platoon size had some ability to tackle armor and even artillery if they were close enough. Maybe something like: the infantry will only fight infantry and which ever side has excess infantry, those excess units can then go after the non-infantry land units. As for airbases on small islands, the key word is small island. If there is a victory or production point there then maybe the limitation should match that # of victory points or production points. The point to remember here is that 1 aircraft represents a much larger number of aircraft. The 2 planes for a fleet carrier is representing roughly 75-100 aircraft of mixed types. Lots of variations available but to keep this game fun and not have it bog down is to keep it simple.

73

Strategy Tips / Re: U.S.

« on: September 26, 2006, 07:01:51 AM »

The US & the UK must both bolster their Pacific forces. I did that for the US at GENCON 2006 where I slowly transferred 5 infantry and aircraft to the Philipines. When Japan decided to attack everything in late 41, the Japanese player left that outpost alone and hit all the unmanned victory points instead. The other Pacific action I used for the US was submarines. I kept Japan on her knees financially at about $12 per turn after the war started using the American sub force. I kept them scattered hitting the convoy zones & when opportunity presented itself converged several subs on some hapless Jap warships until the American fleet has gained some strength.

74

Strategy Tips / Re: General Allied Strategy

« on: September 25, 2006, 04:55:29 AM »

It was probably Tim, because it was the same guy at ORIGINS & GENCON and was the German player both games + the game that was stopped because of the severe casualties Germany took from the NEUTRAL countries at the beginning of one game. Tim focused his efforts on Russia and provided quality & quantity assistance to the Italians when appropriate.

75

Strategy Tips / Re: General Allied Strategy

« on: September 20, 2006, 04:14:14 AM »

The allies made that decision in WWII. It was Southern Europe & Africa 1st. Probably to secure access to the oil fields. This area was considered the soft underbelly of the 3rd Reich too. Just don't tell the people who fought there it was soft. Then the Western Europe invasion so the Russians could see light at the end of the tunnel. Finally the leftovers went to the Pacific until Germany was near defeat & the full industrial might of the US was in full gear & wasn't even close to its peak YET. In the games I've participated in, the German player left the Atlantic alone and focused his efforts on the RUSSIANS and loaned the GERMAN air force to the Italians frequently & provided them some table scraps in land forces. Obviously, this strategy works well as both games resulted in Axis victories.