Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Avatar

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    314

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Avatar

    AAR - World League Title Bout - Rambo #1 vs Avatar #2

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Yeah, always the freakin' breakthru. No break for me ;) Seriously, I like the challenge, and a lot of the time, it don't mean ****.

    Units form line in France, waiting for German onslaught to begin. Ireland is attacked and assailed by 2 Carriers, Fighter. U-Boats being hunted down. Polish units cross Vistula into Germany. Polish Corp 2 hex away from Berlin and Prague. Will poland surrender?

    0

    North Africa key?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    K, when I posted this I was still a newbie, so no, I recommend not defending Egypt at all. Your mpp's are much better spent annoying the axis in on the mainland. HOWEVER, there was a reason, and it still holds. first, the axis NEVER use planes in Africa because the existing 2-3 corps in egypt don't warrant the Luftwaffe coming in. Ok, it costs 40mpp to transfer an HQ + 40 for each LW unit. Let's say he's deploying 4. That's 200mpp just to GET there, AND another 200 to get all that stuff back to the mainland. so 400mpp's the axis has to waste PLUS he can't use those units elsewhere. My original arguement was intended to be if you force the axis to commit more forces than he intended to (even better if you can hide your strength in egypt), he might be caught with his pants down and drawn into a fight for relatively few mpps (mind you, iraq is right there afterwards). so, is it worth HIS time and effort to fight for egypt? maybe you can make him change his mind.

    IF you're going to defend egypt, here's what I recommend:

    3 Corps, defending coastlines (you start with 2 there)

    1 Army, Alexandria (preferably free french, and just before Italy comes in too, so you can whisk it quickly to egypt)

    2-3 Air, as need be, depending on his involvement

    1 Bomber, if you haven't dismantled it yet.

    BIG optional: Brit HQ. Makes all the difference. I would only recommend sending an HQ in if France went well (July-Aug), and UK losses in France were light.

    You won't have much in UK, but you can always bring the Air back. If you're gonna lose everything in Egypt from a determined attack, then dismantle the HQ for mpps. Overall, you haven't spent any more than Axis player has trying to take Egypt. Might be worth it.

    Note: I have not tried this versus any expert player, only average ones. Still, let me know how it works out for you.

    0

    Time for the ryder cup 2004

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Terif, Zapp, you're both nice ppl, can't we just all get along? Thanks, from all the rest of us. Terif, ignore Zapp, Zapp, ignore Terif. Problem solved, everyone's a winner.The only other solution would be to get counseling, and since you both live on the same continent, perhaps this is even possble.

    Rambo, I'll your right hand man ;) sign me up

    And Terif, I hope you are playing in this. You won't have to play Zapp, he's on your side

    0

    Yo, listen up: SC2 needs proper US representation!

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    It was a good article Rambo.

    It's a good thing Patton never made it as far as President. With MacArthur as his running mate, those two would have invaded China during the Korean war, a scant 5 years after WW2, just in time for Patton to rise to Presidency. MacArthur, as is history, was in favour of pushing past the North Korean border into China. Since China was heavily supplying arms and men, why should they stop at destroying North Korea, but the entire Communist system in China as well? Thank god this didn't happen, as it could easily have led to a WW3. It didn't happen because Truman didn't let him decide things. I'm sure Patton would not have had the foresight.

    0

    In post-Poland invasion which way did these countries lean (Axis vs Allies)?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    In 1940, Denmark was a non-factor. I could have taken over that country myself. All one would do is put a swastika on their shirt & drive the speed limit to their Capital Government building.
    LOL LOL LOL LOL

    i seriously fell over laughing from my chair... Rambo, you crack me up. Xcept for that slander that all Europeans were Nazi's (i think you're joking to get a response from the ppl on this board).

    0

    In post-Poland invasion which way did these countries lean (Axis vs Allies)?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Forgot one, Finland

    Finland was not pro-axis at all. They tended to think they were fighting their own private war against Russia. Finns refer to 1941-1944 as their 'Continuation War' after the Winter War of 1940. The Germans were allies because they fought the russians, but for nothing else. The Finns even refused to advance close to Leningrad because that territory never belonged to them. They were pretty much only seeking the territory they had lost previously.

    0

    In post-Poland invasion which way did these countries lean (Axis vs Allies)?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Here we go:

    Baltic States(Axis)For all three states, neutrality was the highest concern. Only after threats from Russia did they seek German help. Unfortunately for them, Hitler had already signed away their independence in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 39 (Lithuania was not actually part of the original deal, but was thrown in later in exchange for 2 more Polish provinces). Germany was seen as a possible protector against Soviet expansionism, but it was hopeless. However, once Barbarossa was in gear, they did tended to think they were fighting for independance, and hence provided a large amount of volunteers for anti-partisan duties. All in all, these countries were definitely pro-Axis.

    Bulgaria(Axis) 100% this state was in the Axis camp, although NOT for ideological reasons in the least, as compared to Romania. Promises by Hitler of terretorial aquisitions in Greece and Yugoslavia led the government into alliance with Germany. Remember, they had lost the terretory of Salonika to Greece after World War I, as well as territory to Serbia.

    Denmark(Axis) It conducted more than 80% of it's trade with Germany, half the people were of Germanic disent, they were the first and only german 'protectorate' (higher status) than any other occupied region. They barely fought, they barely resisted until late 43. They're pro-axis if not by choice.

    Greece(Allies) Italy was bent on getting territory from them. Regardless of what the ppl thought (many were pro-axis), they were victims of aggression and looked to the UK for help.

    Hungary(Axis) Admiral Horthy had always been seeking to be his countries' saviour, and Hitler was seen as the method to do this. After WW1, Hungary lost of a considerable amount of territory on it's fringes, territories like Ruthenia(Czech) and Transylvania(Roum). The populace was very nationalistic as well, and these sentiments led Hungary to eat up parts of Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Hungary traded upwards of 90% of it's output to Germany. In his favour, though, Horthy was not anti-semitic at all, and Hungary protected its Jewish population well until 1944.

    Portugal(Allies) They feared a resurgent facsist Spain with allies like Hitler and Mussolini. They looked to the UK and USA for support.

    Iraq(Axis) Made a British colony in 1920. By 1941, militant nationalists were clamouring for independance and took up arms. They were crushed however, and hopes of Rommel crossing the Suez were just that.

    Sweden(Axis) They allowed numerous German troops through their territory and refused the Allies the same right. They conducted almost all their trade with Germany. Did they have a choice? Like most Axis allies (or satellites if you prefer), they were more or less bullied into compliance.

    Ireland(Axis) Only once the war had swung against Hitler did the Irish start to grudgingly support Britain. The Irish were supplied by german subs in WW1, and were still itching for the return of Northern Ireland when WW2 broke out. They assumed they would regain their island once Britain was defeated. (The Eagle Has Landed, great movie)

    0

    AAR: Winter Storm Tourney. Condor Vs Dalmatian

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    "From a historical side, I think the key is 'attack Hitler in the bum, during sealion'. Stalin had to know that if Germany could take down UK in a quick invasion (4-12 weeks) that Russia was doomed. Yes the Winter war was a disastor (unprepared/poor leadership) but attacking in 41 with UK still active (but unprepared) would be better then facing Nazi Eroupe all by your self in 42 or 43. Thats something even the Cazr's didn't have to face during during Napolians invasion."

    Just to get this out, Stalin had zero plans to attack Germany (he was quoted many times saying the Hitler was the only man he could trust). He would never have attacked in 41, or 42. This is also partially because the Red Army was struggling to catch up on modern strategies, and was as well in the midst of reorganizing it's armoured forces and officer corps (wiped out in the purges of the 30's). The only possible scenario of Russian invasion of Axis territory was if Sealion was launched AND unsuccessful. Stalin was waiting to see the results of this, and honestly thought that German troop movements in East Poland were a prelude to SeaLion, ie he thought it was a ploy to throw the British off guard. And by the way, there are many books arguing that Sealion would have failed in any case, as the Kriegsmarine was greatly weakened by operations in Norway.

    0

    AAR: Winter Storm Tourney. Condor Vs Dalmatian

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    "When you look at all of those details, with some appreciation of how the military really works, it becomes clear that Stalin couldn't conduct any offensive actions, even if he wanted to, until '42."

    I disagree. The Soviet winter offensive 41-42, although only partially successful, was devastating to the germans. Zhukov begged Stalin (and STAVKA) to concentrate Soviet reserves into 1 or 2 thrusts with clear strategic goals. Instead, Stalin insisted on a broad advance along the whole front. This caused a dispersal of soviet supplies, men, tanks, etc etc, and subsequently the germans were able to hold and regroup. OKH was really scared that Army Group Center was going to be encircled, and there was real substance in that worry. Lucky for them that Stalin was at the helm, and not Zhukov. But isn't that the way with all warlords?

    0

    AAR: Winter Storm Tourney. Condor Vs Dalmatian

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    You know, I don't really like to get involved in threads like this, because questions like "What caused the Russo-German conflict 41-45?" can't be answered on one page. For those students of the war, there are plenty of books to read that can really clear up a lot of the spaghetti that is world war II (btw, WWII is THE most documented event in history, more books on this subject than any other). One of the most famous is "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". This book follows mostly the political intrigues, with more than half the book devoted to the events prior to 39. A great overall book is Liddell Hart's "History of the 2nd world war". Great book, gives a good general account of the war and is recommended by most historians as a good starting point for entry level studies. MY favorite book is "The German Army: 1933-1945". Has anyone read this? It is AMAZING. Only when I bought this book, did I really start to feel I had gleaned some truth about what really went on in the German camp. It's written by an American, Matthew Cooper, but it's very objective. #1 thing is this book, BlitzKrieg is an invention of the Allies, for the Germans, the real strategy was "Vernichtungsgedanke" Cauldron battles, and this strategy dates back farther than even the Prusso-French war. Another interesting note from this book that on Albert Speer. Speer had said that had he been governing the war economy from the start, germany's barbarossa would have been thrice as strong. Although at heart a good man, I am glad Speer did not get that chance ;)

    0

    AAR: Zappsweden (Axis) vs Avatar (Allies).

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Feb 40:

    - LC still holding very strong. Allied Air Force has had impact on Luftwaffe. Expected to hold LC for at least 2, possibly 3 turns

    - Subs in Atlantic destroyed

    - LC minor units all destroyed

    - Didn't say before, but Denmark fell to the dumbest move on my part. moved the corp in copenhagen to defend the denmark straights.... bad bad decision

    0

    AAR WST: Zappsweden (Axis) vs Avatar (Allies)

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Good game Zapp

    Just wanted to go through the highlights at the end

    - Russia starts with 4000mpp, buys 6 jets in 3 turns + 5 jet tech. gets L3 Jets by turn 5. Axis on defensive on east. Russia builds no extra armies, tanks, concentrates solely on air and HQ. Finland falls quickly (take out the port!), and soon, because of the Iraq open door, Soviet troops are pouring into the outskirts of Baghdad. Soviet Air Fleets destroy weak italian units outside Baghdad while Luftwaffe is occupied in Spain. Russia is very strong at the end.

    - Axis invades spain (mistake on Zapp's part, I thought he should have concentrated solely on Baghdad until it was taken, even with the soviet presence). Allies intervene early because of placement of US/UK Fleets. They end up damaging the Italian Fleet, sinking 1, heavily damaging 2. 1 BB sunk by Luftwaffe, 1 damaged by italian sub. Spain is slow for him, but I couldn't fully oppose him. 3 more armies were on the way however and USA had 3 Air in Spain, as well UK had 1.

    Good game overall, I thought I had lost earlier when I frivolously threw away the canadian units and had 2 BB's sunk. I even bothered reinforcing Egypt with an Army (which was subsequently lost).

    0
×
×
  • Create New...