Author Topic: 1941 Scenario  (Read 14232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

smckenzie

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
1941 Scenario
« on: June 04, 2010, 09:46:35 AM »
Should Italy have an Inf in one of the spaces of Yugoslavia?

Any strategy hints/comments on this scenario?

Figure I'll try this for a change.  Hoping newer players will find it easier/better, and curious about it myself.

I see England has a Heavy Bomber, but in a 1939 game the earliest they could have a Heavy Bomber is the end of Summer 41?

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2010, 12:02:52 PM »
Good catch with the heavy - I will let Mark comment. I'll let you guys figure out the strategy angle... :)

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2010, 05:25:40 AM »
Yes - Italy helped garrison Yogoslavia and starts with an infantry unit there.  Also, I started the British with a heavy bomber in the Spring 1941 scenario even though they could not have one on the board until the Summer turn in the 1939 scenario.  If this inconsistency between the two scenarios is a problem for you gaiming group, replace it with a regular bomber.

Mark

smckenzie

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2010, 11:04:28 PM »
Thanks.

Not a problem, just making sure it is not an error.

Italy does not have a unit in yugoslavia according to the set up, but I put one there.

Also, we usually use the airbase rules, and so the Italian planes in Libya are overstacked.

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2010, 11:53:21 PM »
For the airbase rule, I would add one in North Africa for the 1941 scenario - so that none of the spaces are overstacked. . .that was an oversight when the airbase rules were created.

let me know how things go - I think the 41 scenarion slightly favors the Allies -

qxxx

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2010, 10:29:28 AM »
i have also modified the 41 start and we play tested it at A-Kon this past weekend.

It was anyones game at the end of 42 when we had to break up the game at midnight to catch trains/ closing parking lots etc...

kenb

smckenzie

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2010, 03:49:58 AM »
I finished my game.  This was a solo game.  Also the first time I played the 1941 scenario.

Still looking for players in Hawaii.

Japan starts with a factory.  The russians are nice enough to have left large numbers of units on the border, including those in the north, easily Isolates.  Russians built their light armour, 1 t-34, both early fighters, and very little artillery and AT, and no AA I think.  Everyon is desperately short of planes, especially the allies.  US has built nothing but factories, half a cv, and 2 inf, that they were nice enough to send to the Phillipines.  Britain has just about nothing in Asia.  The germans have 4 subs.  The brits have a coupla extra DD.  Just about all of this favors the axis in my opinion compared to starting in 39.  China has lost just 1 production center and still has as many units as it started with.  Italy has lost a cruiser and still has just 1 transport.  These last two are the few things that I think are unusual that makes it favor the allies.

I would say overall for an axis player this is better than starting in 39.

Thinking it was probably a major error, but what the hell it's a solo game anyway,  I bought a BB with both GE and IT.  I started a CA and DD with IT on T2, and a CA and 2 DD with GE on T2.  Germany maxed fighters the whole game.  I built 4 subs IIRC with GE, or may be started 2 on T1 and started 2 on T2.

I have been thinking is it possible to have a game where Berlin falls, but japan has enough points to continue on its own.  In many of th games the Axis has won that I have seen, failure to do anything about Japan was problem.  In a 39 game I consider it an error not to garrison the Pac islands.  I for some time now have been building CV and FTr w/US before the war starts, and so the US will have 4 nearly full CV at war start.

I started 2 US CV and 2 US BB on the Us 1st turn at war.

I built a lot of tanks, and I built fighters with Russia.  Less artillery than I usually do, and after a while I was no longer max producing INF.

With Britain, I tried to undo the “mistakes”  that apparently the historical british player had made.

I tried to garrison the Pac islands and invade north Africa the turn before the US entered the war.

The axis won 3 fairly close a battles in the med, to take cairo, and Sinai.  I failed the trigger rolls.  Axis hen got unlucky, were stopped in Palestine, and then lost Egypt but eventually retook it.  I did not build a second IT transport until the games was almost over.

Britain was stretched to try to do so much and hold Egypt, and fight the fighter war and the battle for the atlantic…

Things started bad for Japan, the only thing sunk at pearl was a sub, and the british garrison at Tarawa killed 3 japanes inf and held out.  They were still holding out when the war ended.  VC’s for those guys.

I built 5 inf every turn with japan, and maxed ftr production only after war started.  I eventually built another CV with japan, but it never saw action.  I built some AA and the occasional para, I believe at least 1 art pre-war.  Started an armour unit, but the game ended before it arrived.  The two original Arm died in a valiant effort to take Mosul.  I max produced Japanese surface units after having expanded the Japanese economy somewhat, but none of these guys ever saw a battle.

Britain was stretched, and US help did not arrive fast enough.  Axis took London twice, but I failed the trigger roles again.  I thought the euro axis was dead at this point.  Russia had been hurt, but never really crippled, pushed back as far as Kharkhov.  The U-boat war ended and germany was on the defensive.  Euro axis had virtually no ground units on the board except those in Russia, and these were becoming inadequate.  Axis started to retreat in russia.

Wetsern allies including Britain built slews of surface combat ships.

Japan took Aleutians, midway, Hawaii, and raided the us west coast.  Japan took india, Ceylon…souther Persia…japan bypassed the phillipines in doing all this did not finally take Manila till like spring 43.  Took Rabaul and new guinea in fall 43, when the game ended.  So Tarawa and Australia and that other place in there were still holding out way isolated when it ended.

The game ended on Fall 43.  Japan alone had 25 VP.

Allies needed to get 3 vp to stay in the game.  Greece, Hungary, berlin, Bavaria ere all vulnerable to paradrops ony.

Paris, allies had landed 16 guys in Normandy the prior turn, but I had like 16 guys in paris.  The allied had virtually no planes for ground support in Europe.
Norway, ge had most of the finnish army, but the allies could take it, though it meant substantially not reinforcing france and cost a lot to do (like 32 points IIRC).

Then the mighty clash of the red army and the revamped wehrmacht, reinforced by the reggia aeuronautica who had sunk the last allied transport in the med, which alloed me to strat in most of the Italian army…

The reds were not ready to take warsaw that turn and were blown away.

Would have lost any way, the red Guard paras were massacred over hungary.  Some US and british guys (one us tank and a brit inf) tried to make it to Tobruk, but were spanked by the 4 IT INF and 1 it Art, sent there just to stop them this turn.

It was possible for the axis to go for victory the previous turn by trying to hold both warsaw and Rumania and hold Libya.  They probably could have held Libya, but holding both warsaw and Rumania would have been tough.  The germans were to wimpy to hold both, but apparently way strong enough to hold just one, although the lack of allied trans in the med, and the fact that it was a gam winning situation helped.  I Built forts in warsaw and sent everything I could there and did not defend the flanks, as an isolated warsaw would still be an Axis victory.

The euro axis fleets had been destroyed at this point.  The reinforced british fleet was almost totally destroyed.  The us took heavy casualties.  5 us and 2 brit CV’s were making their way to asia, but had only reached the Indian ocean at this point.

Well I thought it might be a quick game when I decided to build all those euro-axis naval units, but It did not end the way I thought.  The axis won handily although just a few turns bfore they did, I thought Berlin would fall quickly and then it would be over.  I have had several games were japan romped, but then once berlin fell and the allies were all over them, Japan came down fairly quickly.

The axis hit no triggers, failed basically at pearl harbor, and there was even a japans invasion force blown away at Tarawa…

I’d say my major mistakes as the allies were…

Esp. given the more or less targeting of Britain,  I needed to forget about the pac Isles and invading north Africa.  Possibly forget everything and build ground units in England, and send a few to Egypt.  Just a coupla ground units would have made a big difference in Egypt.  The main luck I would say is the axis won the first several close battles in the med, but perhaps they never should have been so close.

US needed to chase the Japanese away from the west coast much sooner.  US has a lotta points but 10 here and 10 there every turn is a lot.  Also needed to retake Hawaii and Alaska.

Britain never fell, but I had to retake London twice.  Lots of ground units would have solved the problem.

Germany was super weak.  The attack on Warsaw failed, but it was Fall 43, and the allies could not take Paris, but it was Fall 43.  Japan collected 48 on the last turn.  Never took the PP in new guinea or Australia or NZ.  I think the British reaction to what I did is to build ground units.  US can’t let he japans run that wild in the pac.  Divert some air units to chase the japans from the west coast.  If you can hold Egypt and Gibraltar you can contain the IT fleet.

Russia was OK, but was never really under a lot of pressure.  They had conquered Finland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Northern Norway, and held every of their start 84 PP but one.  The Russian planes helped both the Russians and the allies.  The tanks helped destroy German tanks.  What I have seen is Russians with too many artillery running out of infantry, and that if you don’t build tanks early, it get’s to where the tanks are only marginally useful, as the GE has so mant tanks/at he eliminates all your tanks in the first round of combat, and this makes things very hard for the Russians and the allies.  The planes gives you greater flexibility, you can contribute to the fighter war, and if you need to fight japan they are very useful.  Keeping the para threat alive is always useful, keeping german naval units in the Baltic under threat is useful, and unlike the artillery, you rarely have so many planes that your support get’s cut.  I frequently conquer Scandinavia with Russia.  Many people have said this is an error, but in general the way it happens is I reinforce lenningrad/Vyborg to protect them from the ge/finns, and remember, if the ge has lots of trans/para, the threat is considerable.  Eventually, because I have the planes, I can easily attack.  When you have a stack of art he prtty much knows where you are going.  When you are on the defensive you can shake him up by building a ton of units and doing your 20 strats into one space, but on the offensive it is more difficult.  Using air with its 2/3 space range you can change the odds in a variety of battles, and the defender can only react  space with his air.  You can also always just bomb him.  I’ve seen that work well for both the Russians and the germans depending on who has air superiority in the east.

I wouldn’t say this scenario favors the Axis, but I would say it is better than 39 for the Axis.  I believe 39 is heavily weighted in favor of the allies if they play patiently.  Even the axis hitting a trigger or two should not win it for them.  I’ll write that up some time.  4 ge subs at start.  We have found it difficult to keep that many subs on board.  Usually the brits will build more destroyers, even when the GE des not build subs….are we doing it wrong?

Generally speaking, in a defended sea lane subs get attacked at 2, and then you are taking 1’s from his planes during the allied turn…brutal…one of the things I would recommend changing to alter the play blance, and encourage the germans to build subs.  To a certain extent the same applies to US subs in the Pac.

I’ll have to try 41 again and see if I can do better with the allies.  A Bb w/both GE and It on T1, a CA and DD on t2…lots of german submarines.


smckenzie

  • Major
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2010, 03:51:20 AM »
Also, airbase in Eastern Libya would help the axis a lot in my opinion.  I did not play it that way.  I had the axis have to deploy one of the air units into another adjacent space.

Darkman

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2010, 05:22:20 AM »
Hey all,

i played a LOT 39 and 41 scenarios now and also have the feeling that the 41 scenario has a slightly better favor for the axis than the 39 scenario (europe and asia)

last week i played a (europe only) scenario and there is one mistake i found.

The VP Victory Chart for the Allies is better than in history , in other words the axis(germany is defeated earlier in late game than it was by that time)
For example winter 1944 the allies win with 8 VP or less.
Shoudn't it be 6 or less ? Or kinda that.


John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2010, 05:55:36 AM »
Mark may hold the answer... :)

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2010, 08:18:28 AM »
MARK ALWAYS HOLDS THE ANSWER. . .(though it is usually wrong. . .)

Well, Winter 1944, historically, what did the Germans have left?  Berlin, Oslo, Athens, Budapest (Feb 45 - so not sure) - any other VPs they held historically at the end of Winter?  I may be forgetting one somewhere - don't have the map in front of me - That's 6.  So the Germans can't win holding onto 6 in Winter 44 if they need to beat history to win.  Eight seemed like a worthy goal.

I can't recall now - but I seem to think the allies won more of our 41 playtests than the Axis. . . surprised with the solo play by play - sounds like the British really got messed up by Germany.

Darkman

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2010, 09:55:04 AM »
Hi Mark , you are right , but you got it wrong.

in Winter 44 , Germany looses with 8 or less by that time with the europe only vp chart.

It's not about winning , but the fight shouldn't be over. For my feeling the Allies winning is too fast with the "europe only" Vp Chart in mid 44 - late 44

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2010, 11:03:51 PM »
OK - what is a good suggestion on how to scale the VP level down in 1944 and 1945 - lets toss a few alternatives around

Yoper

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2010, 02:23:49 AM »
I will look up our thoughts on the '41 scenario, but Eric from our group actually felt that German set up wasn't as good a set up as he could theoretically produce if he started in '39.

We played against John at Origins a couple of years ago with an adjusted '41 set up that we felt gave the Axis a better chance.  Even then, Eric got turned back at the Urals by Tim and his Soviets.

Check the game AARs for the our review of the playout.

Darkman

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: 1941 Scenario
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2010, 04:38:49 AM »
I would scale down the VP Axis loosing on historical facts (if you do it worse than history, you lose) ?