BloodyBucket Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but here are the basic German options I remember from 3rd Reich and World in Flames: </font>Invade England </font>Invade Russia </font>Invade Spain (Get Gibraltar) </font>Grab what you can and fortify, no invasion of England or Russia </font>The sub-options include Russia through Turkey, Isolate England (U-boat and Air), Spain becomes Axis minor, North Africa-Persia (Most attractive with a Japanese player in WiF). I am guessing that most will be possible in SC, with the exception of the Japanese link-up via Persia-India. Any thoughts on how these options will play out in SC, and are there any more out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Hey, these are - totally unrealistical things like Z-Plan aside -, more or less all options there are for the Axis. I think they should all be doable. Even without Japan, the Middle East plan (after having won in North Africa) should still be interesting as long as there are nice oil fields to get. Also, this opens up the possibility of a strike into Russia through the Caucasus from the South. Straha [ April 27, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Straha ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient One Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Well judging from the screenshots the map doesn't go past Syria, so no Persian campaign. One thing I'm worried about with regards to Axis strategies is that Operation Sealion will be too easy. In my opinion it should only work if the Allied player REALLY drops the ball. Sealion should definitely not be something the Axis player can count on to succeed on a regular basis against a reasonably competent Allied player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Originally posted by Ancient One: Well judging from the screenshots the map doesn't go past Syria, so no Persian campaign. One thing I'm worried about with regards to Axis strategies is that Operation Sealion will be too easy. In my opinion it should only work if the Allied player REALLY drops the ball. Sealion should definitely not be something the Axis player can count on to succeed on a regular basis against a reasonably competent Allied player.Persia: Ah, yes. Hmm Sea Lion: I think it should only work if the Axis player concentrates all his production efforts on this project early on. OTOH, Sea Lion should also be ever more difficult the longer the Axis player waits after the fall of France (a time when there were close to no serious army units in Britain, all the equipment was lost in Dunkirk and the US had no presence in the UK yet.). So, I'd say timing is the other important factor as time runs against the Axis player. Straha [ April 27, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Straha ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted April 27, 2002 Author Share Posted April 27, 2002 Originally posted by Ancient One: (snip)... Sealion should definitely not be something the Axis player can count on to succeed on a regular basis against a reasonably competent Allied player.Agreed. Reasons it wasn't a go might include: </font>Lack of German transport </font>The Royal Navy </font>The RAF </font>Hitler didn't have his heart set on it, hoped for negotiated peace </font>Large scale sustained amphib ops not easy to begin with, combined with any or all of the above </font>Since, IIRC, naval transport is not a seperate, buyable unit in SC, how can the other factors in SC make it a dicey, but not impossible, task against an allied player who does not aim the majority of his resources at "invasion proofing" jolly old England? If the allied player wants to gamble and put his eggs in other baskets, he might deserve what he gets if Sealion works. [ April 27, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Man! I can't wait to try all these things out! I can't wait till we all have it and can set up these "what ifs" and PBEM like crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 The Axis player will have to - pile up alot of spare resource points to pay for the shipping of alot of stuff. - concentrate on buying cruisers etc. to protect the to be shipped armies. Furthermore, I gather that even if the transfer is not interrupted, he will have the problem that his armies can suffer losses right when setting foot ashore. Plus, he will have supply problems galore. Finally, there is always the danger of Stalin not sitting on his hands like he should. So I think, in the end, maybe it is not too easy after all. Straha [ April 27, 2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Straha ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted April 28, 2002 Author Share Posted April 28, 2002 With the Fog of War option, a clever allied player might be able to set up a "bluff" defense of England, or a trap, with a few strong units. I think there will be enough options to keep SC interesting for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by BloodyBucket: I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but here are the basic German options I remember from 3rd Reich and World in Flames: </font>Invade England </font>Invade Russia </font>Invade Spain (Get Gibraltar) </font>Grab what you can and fortify, no invasion of England or Russia </font>The sub-options include Russia through Turkey, Isolate England (U-boat and Air), Spain becomes Axis minor, North Africa-Persia (Most attractive with a Japanese player in WiF). I am guessing that most will be possible in SC, with the exception of the Japanese link-up via Persia-India. Any thoughts on how these options will play out in SC, and are there any more out there?BB, All of them are possible, plus: </font>Turkey is Axis minor ally</font>Invade Sweden (attractive resources)</font> [ April 27, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: SuperTed ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Straha: Hey, these are - totally unrealistical things like Z-Plan aside -, more or less all options there are for the Axis. I think they should all be doable. Even without Japan, the Middle East plan (after having won in North Africa) should still be interesting as long as there are nice oil fields to get. Also, this opens up the possibility of a strike into Russia through the Caucasus from the South. StrahaStraha, Persia has two oilfields. Unfortunately, Persia and Russia share on hex worth of border. So, it would not be hard to defend against an Axis incursion from the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Ancient One: Well judging from the screenshots the map doesn't go past Syria, so no Persian campaign. One thing I'm worried about with regards to Axis strategies is that Operation Sealion will be too easy. In my opinion it should only work if the Allied player REALLY drops the ball. Sealion should definitely not be something the Axis player can count on to succeed on a regular basis against a reasonably competent Allied player.AO, As long as Britain has the RAF and the RN (nurses were worth their weight in gold ), the Axis player will have a tough go of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by BloodyBucket: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ancient One: (snip)... Sealion should definitely not be something the Axis player can count on to succeed on a regular basis against a reasonably competent Allied player.Agreed. Reasons it wasn't a go might include: </font>Lack of German transport </font>The Royal Navy </font>The RAF </font>Hitler didn't have his heart set on it, hoped for negotiated peace </font>Large scale sustained amphib ops not easy to begin with, combined with any or all of the above </font>Since, IIRC, naval transport is not a seperate, buyable unit in SC, how can the other factors in SC make it a dicey, but not impossible, task against an allied player who does not aim the majority of his resources at "invasion proofing" jolly old England? If the allied player wants to gamble and put his eggs in other baskets, he might deserve what he gets if Sealion works.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Straha: The Axis player will have to - pile up alot of spare resource points to pay for the shipping of alot of stuff. - concentrate on buying cruisers etc. to protect the to be shipped armies. Furthermore, I gather that even if the transfer is not interrupted, he will have the problem that his armies can suffer losses right when setting foot ashore. Plus, he will have supply problems galore. Finally, there is always the danger of Stalin not sitting on his hands like he should. So I think, in the end, maybe it is not too easy after all. StrahaStraha, Good points all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 One hex of a border between Persia and Russia! Hmm, so the Caucasus option seems to depend on Turkey ... Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted April 28, 2002 Author Share Posted April 28, 2002 In other games, building transports was a clear indication of German intentions. The MMP use for buying transport could be an elegant solution, as they could well be used for other things, like ground units for the Russian campaign, assuming they are relatively quick to build. Sounds good to me. Of course, the other edge of the sword will come when it is time for a second front on the continent, and the German player cannot so easily gauge were it is coming by watching where the allied transports are placed. The MMP system looks like it will be very flexible without being overly simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted April 28, 2002 Author Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by SuperTed:... All of them are possible, plus:... </font>Invade Sweden (attractive resources)</font>Attractive resources? Indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by BloodyBucket: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed:... All of them are possible, plus:... </font>Invade Sweden (attractive resources)</font>Attractive resources? Indeed! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient One Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by SuperTed: Persia has two oilfields.Don't you mean Iraq? Persia (Iran) is entirely offscreen. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Ancient One: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed: Persia has two oilfields.Don't you mean Iraq? Persia (Iran) is entirely offscreen. :confused: </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Britian even though it has a small Army it has the Naval power which will allow it to threaten many far flung outposts Of SuperTeds empire,or give support to allied minors.namley Greece etc. I guess with the ability of Rapid long range raids is a thousand cuts causes many wounds and thy enemy would bleed to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Ancient One: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed: Persia has two oilfields.Don't you mean Iraq? Persia (Iran) is entirely offscreen. :confused: </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient One Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Straha: In COS these two countries happened to be grouped together. So when SuperTed wrote of Persia, I automatically assumed it is the same here (Persia proper does not have oilfields anyway ). StrahaYes but I think it was a mistake in CoS to Call Iraq/Kuwait Persia. I can understand adding Kuwait to Iraq for simplicity, so calling the whole thing Iraq would make more sense. I don't understand why both Kuwait and Iraq should be added to an off map country. In SC the map is even more limited (too limited imo), not going anywhere near Kuwait, only showing about half of Iraq, so there is even less justification for using the name Persia. I'm also wondering, does Iraq begin controlled by the UK in SC? It should, not like in CoS where it is neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Ancient One: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Straha: In COS these two countries happened to be grouped together. So when SuperTed wrote of Persia, I automatically assumed it is the same here (Persia proper does not have oilfields anyway ). StrahaYes but I think it was a mistake in CoS to Call Iraq/Kuwait Persia. I can understand adding Kuwait to Iraq for simplicity, so calling the whole thing Iraq would make more sense. I don't understand why both Kuwait and Iraq should be added to an off map country. In SC the map is even more limited (too limited imo), not going anywhere near Kuwait, only showing about half of Iraq, so there is even less justification for using the name Persia. I'm also wondering, does Iraq begin controlled by the UK in SC? It should, not like in CoS where it is neutral.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 No, wait! Wasn't Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon and Syria a protectorate of the league of nations since 1920 or so, and only formally administered by the UK (Syria and Lebanon by France)? This would make the status of these countries even more difficult to portray ... Straha [ April 28, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Straha ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Originally posted by Ancient One: ...I'm also wondering, does Iraq begin controlled by the UK in SC? It should, not like in CoS where it is neutral. AO, Iraq is nuetral, as it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts