Moderators: rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
Joe,joerock22 wrote:November 20, 1939
I'm 100% sure that losing the chance at Blitzkreig is not strategically insignificant. I have been using Blitzkreig for at least a year now, and haven't tried Sitzkreig more than a few times. So I'm losing the ability to use the strategy I'm more comfortable with (and I still think is the better strategy). This means it's more likely that I'll make mistakes, leave a unit exposed, etc. I know Borger will make me pay for them if I do. And I did lose those 27 PPs, a complete waste now. France will fall later, depriving me of more PPs, and I will probably suffer higher casualties. So you can understand my frustration.
joerock22 wrote:I officially hate the weather gods, and they hate me. MUD again in October.
The odds of getting mud twice in October is 1 in 16. Super. I'm glad I only spent that extra 27 PPs in rail costs. Borger has been telling me that he favors the Sitzkreig strategy, and I may be forced to use it this game. If I get clear weather in November, I will invade Belgium. If not, I will wait until spring. The reason I favor Blitzkreig is that it allows me to kill 1-2 French units in the winter while suffering practically no casualties. I can keep up the pressure while not exposing any of my units to counterattack. And I don't have to rush in the spring to make Paris by June; I usually get to the Paris by May easily. Unfortunately, the crappy weather is forcing my hand this game.
Joe,joerock22 wrote:The end of the world? No. Annoying and frustrating to have my plans disrupted by something totally beyond my control? Hell yes. I guess one turn of fair weather in October-November was too much to ask for. Mad
I totally agree, strategic bomber looks like pretty useless unit for axis, they burn a lot of oil and even couple of steps lost from flack fire will cost you more PPs, then you will inflict to the opponent. It is fair trade for allies, with their almost endless resources in late game, but for axis - no, I think. Its better to build tank and destroy dozens of PPs on the battlefield hehe, and you would have 15 PPs left for garrison evenjoerock22 wrote:I will probably also bomb London strategically, though I hate building another strategic bomber. After London and Moscow, the thing becomes utterly useless and to me, the 95 PPs would be better spent elsewhere.
I fully agree with you on Yugoslavia. However, I wonder whether ignoring Greece and going for Malta is a good idea. In one of the other AARs, the Axis did not invade Greece. When the Allies invaded, they were indeed able to push them out easily, but only after Greece had surrendered (if the Allies come in force, it seems unlikely the Axis can prevent Greek surrender). While forced out of mailand Greece, this leaves the Allies in possession of many islands that can be used as bases to bomb Ploesti. As for Malta, I have tried several times to subdue that island, and it seems impossible. One turn of bad luck (i.e. inflicting only 1 step losses), and you can almost start over again. In addition, I don't think that it is as strategically as important as it was in the real war. What can the allies really do with it? If they place a TAC there, it will get shot down by Axis fighters. If they place a FTR there, it will not do much harm to the Axis. The port is helpful, but not decisive. Come Husky time, the Allies will have North Africa and longe-range aircraft anyway. But I would be very interested to see how your plan turns out...joerock22 wrote:June 17, 1940
Nantes is occupied, and some sub attacks. I'm probably telling Borger a lot about my nonexistent Sealion plans by using those subs, but that's fine. He's going to figure it out soon if he hasn't already. I purchased another sub and repaired some more units.
Another thing to note is that I will not be invading either Greece or Yugoslavia. I tried this in a couple previous games, and I REALLY enjoyed not having to kill partisan after partisan in Yugoslavia. I was amazed at how many extra Axis minor units I had to bolster early defenses in France and Italy, not to mention send into the USSR. Yes, my income suffers slightly, but I think the benefits of not having to leave and repair garrisoning forces easily outweighs the loss. In one game, my opponent did invade Greece during Barbarossa, but with the help of the Greek forces I was able to completely crush the invasion with a few infantry and fighter units from the east. Greece is much easier to defend with those native units helping you.
The one location I may attack is Malta, to take away a valuable Allied airbase and set them back a little in the Med. My bombers aren't doing anything else, so I don't worry about the oil expenditure. I'm still debating this one.
So basically, it's going to be a long, boring year with maybe one possible exception. Hopefully I can get through these turns quickly and get to the good stuff!
It is very difficult for the Allies to attack Greece in force without Crete as an airbase. The Greeks can hold out pretty well if the only air support the Allies can get is via CVs. With no Tacs, Athens is too tough a city to fall in less than three or four turns. And if they invade Crete first, then I have some time to rail some German or Italian units to Athens. I worse comes to worse, I can occupy the fortress in the north and counterattack or form a strong defense in the Bulgarian mountains. Either way, the Allies will need plenty of air support to advance beyond Greece, in an area where I have better supply and can rail in reinforcements at will. Those Allied air units which would probably be better spent elsewhere.eisenkopf wrote:I fully agree with you on Yugoslavia. However, I wonder whether ignoring Greece and going for Malta is a good idea. In one of the other AARs, the Axis did not invade Greece. When the Allies invaded, they were indeed able to push them out easily, but only after Greece had surrendered (if the Allies come in force, it seems unlikely the Axis can prevent Greek surrender). While forced out of mailand Greece, this leaves the Allies in possession of many islands that can be used as bases to bomb Ploesti. As for Malta, I have tried several times to subdue that island, and it seems impossible. One turn of bad luck (i.e. inflicting only 1 step losses), and you can almost start over again. In addition, I don't think that it is as strategically as important as it was in the real war. What can the allies really do with it? If they place a TAC there, it will get shot down by Axis fighters. If they place a FTR there, it will not do much harm to the Axis. The port is helpful, but not decisive. Come Husky time, the Allies will have North Africa and longe-range aircraft anyway. But I would be very interested to see how your plan turns out...
