Looks like you are looking at a turn 2 Sealion.
Odds are WAY better for a turn 3 Sealion.
German strategy for the world game
-
The Japanese shouldn’t be allowed to attack the USSR until Germany or Italy does. Is this going to be a rule? It would at least make a nod to the fact Japan never violtaed the Russo-Japanese peace. But I dont think AA would be the same without the possibility of Japan attacking the USSR, that has to be possible.
-
Apparently in Anniversary, the Axis make the same income as the Allies in 2 turns.
As in… the Axis make double the Allied income in one turn… or the other way around? I would think it is the other way around, unless we are talking about the Axis having additional income from conquered territories.
-
Anneversary was broken either way. If you played 1942 then Italy was crippled and the game was the same thing weve been used to for years. Allies win in 3 turns…In 1941 the Axis can totally pwn anything in a few short turns. This game hopefully wont be like that
-
The Japanese shouldn’t be allowed to attack the USSR until Germany or Italy does. Is this going to be a rule? It would at least make a nod to the fact Japan never violtaed the Russo-Japanese peace. But I dont think AA would be the same without the possibility of Japan attacking the USSR, that has to be possible.
I don’t think Japan should attack USSR in the first place.
-
I think Japan should be able to attack the USSR for the sole reason that if the Axis were to win the war, this would have had to happen. The US would’ve been bearing down on Germany at some point. But the US was perfectly happy to watch the commi’s get killed by the millions at the hands of the Germans. The US would’ve landed Greece or Yugoslavia behind the German front lines if the Germans continued to advance against the USSR. This would’ve been ideal for the US, because then we could’ve liberated Eastern Europe and converted all of those counties to strong democracies with pro-capitalist puppets, of course. But instead the USSR beat the Germans on their own and the US launched DDAY to make sure WEstern Europe stayed capitalist. Anyway, my point is, the US wasn’t going to let Germany capture Russia. The only way it would be feasible is if the Germans had managed to fight the US on their own, with Italian help and Japan chewed up massive amounts of the USSR very quickly, which it easily could’ve done, assuming Germany won the battle of Stalingrad.
-
Apparently in Anniversary, the Axis make the same income as the Allies in 2 turns.
As in… the Axis make double the Allied income in one turn… or the other way around? I would think it is the other way around, unless we are talking about the Axis having additional income from conquered territories.
I mean that after 2 turns of play, the allied income is equal to the axis income.
-
Apparently in Anniversary, the Axis make the same income as the Allies in 2 turns.
As in… the Axis make double the Allied income in one turn… or the other way around? I would think it is the other way around, unless we are talking about the Axis having additional income from conquered territories.
I mean that after 2 turns of play, the allied income is equal to the axis income.
You calculated that? Somehow I find that hard to believe, but you seem pretty knowledegable… I will go home and check it out. I just don’t see how, if that is the case, it seems so difficult for the Axis to win. Granted we usually play total victory… but if germany takes and holds Russia, and Japan is still afloat, we usually quit after a turn because the Axis will end up victorious.
I assume your calculations are based on the 1942 starting setup.
-
No, that’s what I hear the veteran AA50 players saying. If any are on this forum and know I’m wrong, please tell me. I never played it, so I wouldn’t know myself.
-
No, that’s what I hear the veteran AA50 players saying. If any are on this forum and know I’m wrong, please tell me. I never played it, so I wouldn’t know myself.
I was referencing AA Aniversary Ed.
Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. What exactly is AA50? I apologize for the confusion.
-
No, that’s what I hear the veteran AA50 players saying. If any are on this forum and know I’m wrong, please tell me. I never played it, so I wouldn’t know myself.
I was referencing AA Aniversary Ed.
Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. What exactly is AA50? I apologize for the confusion.
It’s the same thing. 50 means 50th anniversary
-
No, that’s what I hear the veteran AA50 players saying. If any are on this forum and know I’m wrong, please tell me. I never played it, so I wouldn’t know myself.
I was referencing AA Aniversary Ed.
Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. What exactly is AA50? I apologize for the confusion.
It’s the same thing. 50 means 50th anniversary
Okay, that’s what I thought. You haven’t played it? I just figured you had. I would not call myself a master, but a veteran would suit me. I have been playing AA50 almost exclusively since it came out, so I believe I am qualified to comment here. However, we are off topic, maybe we need a new thread… unless there already is one. I haven’t looked around the Anniversary Ed. page much, just Europe 40.
(Sorry to bog down the thread everyone.)
-
Getting back to topic, earlier it was noted the Germany won’t have units in Africa, or ships in the Med. I saw that posted on Larry’s site a long time ago as well (I don’t think he has said much more about it). My hope is that he was talking about war ships, and there is at least one German transport there (w/Italy’s protection). In AA50 (41 & 42) the Germans have units in Africa. In E40, they should have limited ability to get there I would think by like rd 2-3. Bringing down the Baltic fleet is a poor option at best, and would take way to long (if it even survives). If there is no Grm tpt, then you would have to build an IC somewhere in the Balkans ,or Vichy France (once you take them).
I am really looking forward to the new straight rules. Having Denmark, Gibr, and Turkey controlling those sea ways is going to be a welcome part of the game IMO. It will create some very interesting battles in those key areas. Someone mentioned that Russia could start w/a mini navy in the (closed) Black Sea. I think this is possible as well. They could also have a couple of ships in the Baltic, or Barents Sea. Russia starts off neutral so they may have a round or two to maneuver.
-
wait, what! Denmark closes the Baltic Sea? Ok, I need some new clarifications on what countries close what bodies of water, because apparently I’ve missed some of the updates. Here is a list, correct me where I’m wrong and add to it if I’m missing anything.
1. Egypt -The Suez Canal which closes movement between the Red Sea/Med.
2. Panama - the Panama Canal which closes movement between the Carribean/Pacific Ocean.
3. Turkey - The straights of Dardanelles close movement between Med and Black Sea.
4. Gibraltar AND Morrocco or whatever the other African territory will be close movement between the Med and the Atlantic? Or will Gibraltar alone close movement b/n the Med and the Atlantic.
5. Denmark - now you’re saying Denmark closes movement between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea? Do you have to own Sweden AND Denmark or just Denmark to close the straights there.
6. Anything else? -
I think it’s Gibraltar and Denmark both alone
-
I think it’s Gibraltar and Denmark both alone
They really got rid of the Suez and Panama canal thats silly. Also does that mean Britain’s ships can’t go into the Baltic without controlling Denmark, so Navy could work, if I get this right!
-
@Dylan:
I think it’s Gibraltar and Denmark both alone
They really got rid of the Suez and Panama canal thats silly. Also does that mean Britain’s ships can’t go into the Baltic without controlling Denmark, so Navy could work, if I get this right!
You misunderstood me. I meant that Gibraltar alone controls the Strait of Gibraltar and Denmark alone controls Skagerrak, not they they are the only tt that block ship movement
-
Yea, Denmark’s protecting the Baltic will enable Germany to build a navy. But that doesn’t make it a smart move. Gibraltar closing the Med might help more though, becuase there are many games where transports are within reach of Italy or the Balkans and Germany has to keep a small force in those territories to rebuff an allied landing. But now those troops will be free to guard the northern borders of Europe.
-
Yea, Denmark’s protecting the Baltic will enable Germany to build a navy. But that doesn’t make it a smart move. Gibraltar closing the Med might help more though, becuase there are many games where transports are within reach of Italy or the Caucuses and Germany has to keep a small force in those territories to rebuff an allied landing. But now those troops will be free to guard the northern borders of Europe.
Britain can pass through, germany can’t.
-
Britain can pass through both Gibraltar and Denmark even if they own neither, but Germany can’t pass through either unless they own them?
What about Italy and Japan, same as Germany?
What about US and other allies, same as Britain? -
Britain does own Gibraltar. Germany owns Denmark and can pass through.
Suggested Topics
