What's up with the strategies posted on this site?

[Deathflame]

Hey SUD or Watkins.
I think you should just mail djensen about your thoughts, and stop dissin’ us.Also this thread should’ve been posted in general discussion, not under strategies.

I totally see where you’re coming from, but you’re doing it all wrong.
Though it is true the standards of some strats arent all that, but every semi-experienced player keeps to tell the person posting it it’s flaws, or just simply refrain from answering at all.

You should simply ignore the newbieposts and keep to the more experienced strats posted. You know after 2 lines if its a newbie or a pro posting, so its no hassle.

I’m gonna say again that i feel a newbie-strat and a pro-strat forum is in order.

P.S: Why dun u register?

Have a nice weekend ppl!!!

---

-=something funny=-

[ This Message was edited by: Deathflame on 2002-03-01 02:41 ]

[Mr Ghoul]

whoever the crying Anonymous guy is, see you later… and take that Sud dink with you.

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-01 15:27 ]

[Guest]

LOL…another erudite reply. Must be something in the water. I will try, however, to respect the wishes of the moderators, and keep it civil.

I suggest a few of you go back and read my posts again. Several of you are commenting on MB strategy chat and the like. I am not talking about posts on this MB, and I have made that abundantly clear. So quit taking things personally. Several others would not appear to have actually read the officially posted strats…at least that is my impression. Try reading them…if you are too lazy here is the essence of the 12 Germany strats:

1. Buy all arm and air. Continuously attack the UK Navy. Miracuously take Karelia.

2. Attack Canada with air on G1. (My personal favourite). Attack Alaska and WCan with Jap air on J1. Link the air together into a unbeatable force. Uh, you think we should post insane strats with illegal moves?

3. Attack Caucusus in mass. Build up forces there and attack Russia.

4. Buy 4 Arm + 1 Ftr. Then attack Karelia or Caucusus.

5. Buy 9 Inf + 1 Arm. Infantry after that. Not bad I say!!

6. Attack Karelia with 9 Inf, 7 Arm on G1.

7. Not a strat per se, but good analysis of the German problems in first few turns.

8. Buy 8 Inf + 1 Sub/Tranny every round. Other than the ship every round, not bad.

9. Buy all armour. Sweep the Russians aside. Then buy all Inf for home defense. Then buy all air for British suppression.

10. Buy all armour. Attack the UK Navy on G1 (good!!!). Then sweep through Karelia to Russia on G2 (sigh). Buy all air on G2 for the Atlantic battle.

11. (Another personal favourite). Buy an AC + Ftr on G1. Buy an AC & BB on G2. Evacuate Europe and attack Canada on G3. Build an IC in Canada. Take out the US. Best line: a smart US player might buy all Infantry, but this can’t win…Infantry can’t beat Carriers.

12. Buy mostly infantry (good start). Then buy all armour. Then buy mostly armour. You have miraculously taken Russia by this time…so then buy an AC & 2 Ftrs.

Please, someone try to defend the bulk of these strategies…especially the illegal Air assault on G1 in Canada. Face it, with the exception of a couple decent ones…these are drivel. Now, I don’t mind drivel at all from newbies…they need to learn. So, post away on the MBs…but I say it AGAIN… officially posted strats like these turn people away from this site and do not aid the newbie. My purpose is not to attack the people on this board…a casual perusal has already shown me that there are a number of solid players here. Your moderator Yanny is one. I read a post of his about the R1 Ukraine attack. He understands why this is a good attack and he understands the problems this poses for Germany. Probably a solid player. But, he of all people, should know just how poor most of the officially posted strats are…and he should understand the implications for attracting and retaining people to this site…and for helping the newbie learn.

Blast away all you want at me…but if I can get the officially posted strats improved/updated, I will have achieved my mission. If you cannot see the difference between MB strats/chat and officially posted strats…then please try to look at it from a newcomers point of view. You may all know that they are largely bad…but do something about it.

Finally, while I haven’t registered yet, I post my name on all messages…so please let that go. I am very well known in the on-line community and I sure the heck am not hiding my name. Just lazy and not sure if I should bother.

One last thing, I will put my effort where my mouth is and draft a strat for the moderators. I believe in giving back. Feel free to lambast it all you want :smile: but at least it will be both legal and sound. Yanny, would you like something such as Allied 101: How to virtually guarantee an Allied victory in 2nd Edition with no bid. I could also write something on bidding, if you guys are not familiar with it.

SUD

[Ozone27]

MARGINALLY BETTER airpower!?!?!?! MARGINALLY BETTER armor!?!?!? What are you smoking!?!? The Germans pitted their crack, combat-experienced pilots in the ME-109 (the best battle-tested fighter in the WORLD at the time)vs. inexperienced Polish flyers in BIPLANES and “parasols” fakrissakes!!! The Polish military relied on DEFENSIVE DEPLOYMENT vs. the Nazis & Soviets in the hopes of an Allied intervention that NEVER CAME (thank you, UK)… and posessed NO MODERN ARMORED UNITS whatsoever.

The German military’s accomplishments in the opening stages of WWII are very impressive. But they are not THAT impressive. Don’t insult the Poles (or the French) for losing when they had neither the tools, nor the experience–only the GUTS–to win…

Ozone27

[ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-01 21:54 ]

[TG Moses VI]

I dunno, for the Poles they did have an excellent calvary force that was able to outflank the Germans and invade the fatherland itself. And up until then, France had some pretty good tanks and fairly modern planes. But on the whole, all the equipment was pretty much hold backs from WWI.

[Yanny]

I’m sorry guys, I’m going to be forced to lock this thread if you keep up with all the hostility.

We’re working on revising the strategies right now. This sight has earned a reputation as a newbie sight, I want to change that. We should be on par with Don’s sight, or Thrasher’s sight. Hell, we got me dont we! :lol:

[TG Moses VI]

Newbie site? If I’m correct, this website has been up since 1997. It’s probably the first good A&A website I came upon in 2+ years of searching on the net.

[KING TIGER]

Sud, I am willing to work with you on these
issues. If you and Yanny are going to set
something up I will be glad to shed some
light and I agree that some of those strategies are BAD. I find myself completely ignoring the bad ones maybe I shouldn’t for the better of this site as you pointed out. Maybe we could talk about the importance of holding a territory. Many Newbies take a territory but seem to be confused about securing it. They may not even understand the importance of it. I guess we could start something that is rather basic and as we chat get more detailed. I think that this would work because newbies could throughly understand the basics and be able to adapt to more specifics.

What do you all think about this?

[Guest]

Yes, I am willing to help.

Despite getting off on the wrong foot, which I will take responsibility for, I would like to help if possible.

SUD

[TG Moses VI]

Maybe you can seperate the strats according to skill level. For instance: beginner (general principles), advanced (specific strats used by each country), and elite (play by play action on what to build and where to attack/defend).

[Mr Ghoul]

Polish Calvary……lol ya, they outflank German tanks… good job, now what… Poland was totally out-classed by Gremany.So was France …good tanks for the time…bad generals and poor soldiers.

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-20 18:18 ]

[HortenFlyingWing]

On 2002-02-27 19:55, Ozone27 wrote:
A bit off-topic, but I take exception to the dissing of “French generals”. The French were defeated in WWII partly because of outdated strategy (massing troops in forward positions, over-reliance on fortifications, inadequate air defense, etc.), and partly because of political weakness. The 1st was a flaw most World Powers had prior to WWII that France suffered most from because she was one of the 1st states attacked by Germany; the second was one which all Democratic powers suffer from time and again–1939 was just a particularly bad time for it.

I would like to point out to all present that France nearly took over Europe in the early 1800’s (under Napoleon)and amassed an Empire (albeit briefly) that DWARFED Hitler’s–and “French Generalship” should be respected just as much as any…

Sorry, pet peeve of mine–I am not even of French descent… :grin:
Ozone27

The French at the time had the largest army on Earth!

[TG Moses VI]

What I find funny was that even though America was already a world power, before WWI America had the 15th largest army in the world ranking behind Persia.

[Mr Ghoul]

lol, maybe if the French had Napoleon and his 19th century armies, they would have done better against Nazi Germany.

[TG Moses VI]

In any war, Napolean would’ve done the French glory. Remember a la Legion!

[Mr Ghoul]

i was being sarcastic

[Yanny]

Largest Army yes, but America has always won wars by production, not by brute force. Think liberty ships.

[TG Moses VI]

What’s the difference between production and brute force? Seems to me you need a large production base in order to supplement brute force.

[Ozone27]

The French Army up till 1939 was considered by many to be the most powerful in the world. people were aghast when the Germans invaded the Rhineland and France did nothing. Even Hitler himself admitted that this move was a desperate gamble: the Germans did not at the time have the power or the political will to prevent the Franch from taking it back. Here is where (as previously stated) the political weakness of the French nation of the time came into play. No one was willing or able politically to stick his neck out and call for war. France was caught off guard both politically and in terms of her strategic and tactical thought. I stand by my statement that the French do not deserve to be blasted for their defeat in 1939–if everyone knew how horrendous the Nazi war machine was going to be then both England and the USA deserve a whole heap of blame as well for standing by and letting it happen. But virtually no one in high political office did…cest la vie!

In response to Yanny, I basically agree in terms of USAs MAJOR wars (that is those on which the strength of the nation as-we-knew-it meant) if he is saying–as I think he is–we have won wars based on crushing strength of numbers and materiel, rather than (necessarily) quality of the above. I am speaking mainly of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and WWs 1 and 2. However USA has won (and lost) most of it’s smaller wars on the strength of subterfuge, political cunning, and precise use of military strength, rather than pure brute force. And one could argue that since the invention of the atomic bomb and the switch to an “all-volunteer” (that is a professional rather than citizen) armed forces, the situation today decidedly favors the latter…

Just my opinion. Blast away…

Ozone27

[TG Moses VI]

I don’t know exactly what you mean by “not necessarily the quality (men and material) of the above.” In all of America’s major wars, WII particular, the quality and skill of the US Armed forces and equipment had as large as a role to play as brute force. How else can you explain America’s extremely low casualties during the war?

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-20 23:00 ]