Team Imhotep (Axis) vs The Headless Neds (Allies) : the Rematch

[Stalingradski]

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 2.8

Game History

Round :19

Purchase Units - ANZAC
            ANZAC buy 1 armour and 2 transports; Remaining resources: 1 PUs;

Combat Move - ANZAC
            Giving bonus movement to units
            2 fighters moved from Java to 35 Sea Zone
            1 armour, 1 cruiser, 1 infantry, 3 submarines and 1 transport moved from 42 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            1 armour and 1 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines
            1 fighter moved from Java to Philippines
            2 fighters moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines

Combat - ANZAC
            ANZAC creates battle in territory 20 Sea Zone
            Battle in Philippines
                ANZAC attack with 1 armour, 3 fighters and 1 infantry
                Japanese defend with 1 airfield, 1 armour, 3 fighters, 1 harbour and 2 tactical_bombers
                Japanese win, taking 20 Sea Zone from Japanese with 1 armour, 3 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is -39
                Casualties for ANZAC: 1 armour, 3 fighters and 1 infantry
            Recording Battle Statistics

Non Combat Move - ANZAC
            1 armour moved from Northern Territory to New South Wales
            1 aaGun moved from South Australia to New South Wales

Place Units - ANZAC
            2 transports placed in 62 Sea Zone
            1 armour placed in New South Wales

Turn Complete - ANZAC
            ANZAC collect 16 PUs; end with 17 PUs total
            Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 22 PUs

[Stalingradski]

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 2.8

Game History

Round :19

Combat Move - French
            Giving bonus movement to units
            1 fighter moved from Caucasus to Greece

Combat - French
            Battle in Greece
                French attack with 1 fighter
                Italians defend with 1 mech_infantry
                French win with 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4
                Casualties for Italians: 1 mech_infantry
                French win with 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4
                Casualties for Italians: 1 mech_infantry
            Recording Battle Statistics

Non Combat Move - French
            1 fighter moved from Greece to Caucasus

Turn Complete - French

[Stalingradski]

Ok! That was decisive, and game over. Congratulations to you guys, and we look forward to another game against you.

THAT was a slugfest.

So, for whatever reason, not only did it not offer scramble (expected), it did not offer kamikazes (unexpected). Luckily (?), the Japanese garrison was dug in, and didn’t suffer a casualty, so the point was moot.

Any post-game analysis from Team Imhotep?

We had not experienced such determined resistance in Gibraltar - in my opinion, that was what won the game. The US lost TWO entire Atlantic fleets in this game before finally getting rooted in first in Morocco, then Norway. Insane. Very, very well played on the Europe map by your team.

The Caucasus stack combined with neutral crush = excellent recovery on our part, before succumbing in the Pacific.

Speaking of the Pacific… Infrastructure and I are still stinging over the early game debacle in Kiangsu. It was a fumble on the Axis’ part, we jumped on it… but got our butts handed to us. Because I need to do this for my own sanity…

• 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor/2 Transports vs. 3 Japanese Mech Infantry/Minor IC
• This is an 84% battle, with 2 units remaining on average!
• The loss would have meant a Minor IC destroyed, 3 IPCs (and the ability to build on the spot) for China, and a blow to Japan’s assault vs China.
• So… not only did it fail, but Japan had ALL 3 MECH REMAINING. Those 3 mech not only went on to terrorize the Chinese, but that factory continued for the next 13 ROUNDS to produce mechanized units.
• The 2 US transports then died in vain.
• If a different attack had been made somewhere else in the Pacific, they certainly would have taken an island, and preserved more transports.

I know I just belabored that point, but it was, in my humble opinion, a mortal wound from which we never recovered.

That having been said, the game was won by your team on skill… against less skillful players, the Kiangsu tragedy could have been overcome. But you guys kept systematically making key purchases (carriers at just the right moments with Japan and Germany), and making good decisions logistically.

You utterly deserved this game.

There, 19 turns out of my system… :-)

[Axisplaya]

The reason it didn’t offer scramble is the same that it was at the beginning when you wanted to unload in Korea : a bug of the program. The reason why it didn’t offer kamis is: we used ALL of our kamis vs Antholin’s aircraft carriers to splash his planes on the very 1st rounds, but the move was later cancelled and we didn’t get our kamis back.

Now, thanks for the compliments and for your fair play. It has been a very pleasant experience for us to play with you.

I’ll give you my post analysis, and the rest of team imhotep will post if they want to complete it.

Luck had its say in this game, but not at a point where it decided the win. Sure, Kiangsu was shocking, this is a battle you sure should have won. But i disagree with calling that situation a fumble for Axis. When you think of it, it’s a trade of 24 IPC (Japan) vs 30 IPC (US) worth of material. So even if you win that battle, it’s not the end of the world for Japan. Actually, when i build a Mic on China’s soil, i’m fully prepared to the fact that i might have it destroyed at some point in the game (which in my opinion is way better than watching the ennemy using it…) I agree, loosing this battle would have slowed us, but if you look at the position, we were ready to retake it immediately.
When you decide to attack Kiangsu, you actually relieve a lot of pression for Japan, and that’s why i prefer to temporarily loose a Mic that having those troops threatening to attack a lot of good spots, including Japan.
We were also lucky in Aleutian islands, when you failed to retake it the 1st time, and lost the IPCs for another 4-5 rounds.

What gave us the victory, in my opinion, is the destruction of 2 atlantic fleets in sz91.
As allies, you just can’t allow this.

The block in Gibraltar was a premiere for me after a successful Taranto. Usually, i can’t realise this after a Taranto where you still have so many planes left after the battle. Taranto was your big piece of luck in that game : CA, BB,tr,  3 fgt destroyed against just boats and a fgt…

After the Fall of Moscou, i will confess, i’m used to see my oponents just concede the game. The true neutral crush and your positional play at this point was excellent, it even scared Septimus a little !  :lol: :lol:

For my comprehending of the game, BECAUSE JAPAN WAS NOT DEAD, that game was won when Moscou fell. The rest was an impressive display of fighting spîrit and resilience, but it was over. Thus, i find it very interesting that you kept playing, because that gave the Axis some chances to make some serious mistakes, which hopefully we didn’t do. Following your exemple, i might keep playing some games now when i’m Allies after the fall of Moscou.

In the next game, you may find that the gap in skill between you and us is much smaller than you seem to think (if there is any at all !), because i’m handling the Axis WAAYYYYYY better than the allies.

A few words about us : I’m the vet, the most experienced player of Team Imhotep, and i’ve been reviewing almost all the moves of my teamates. Pomme is one of the people who taught  me the game in the 1st place, but he’s not spending his time playing in here, he’s not a total AA freak like me. Septimus is gradually loosing his “beginner” status. He might have something like 10 games of AA completed (all versions included) in his life. He gives me a lot of work reviewing his propositions for next turn, and i have to temper him a lot because he’s like a bull, ready to rush straight to the target, often ignoring the dangers of such a strategy. But he sometimes comes up with very original and brilliant ideas that i didn’t see myself. The nice AC purchase late game for Germany was his idea, as well as the grab of Queensland that i found very nice once i realised that whatever happen, i would have a harbour to start my move next turn, so allowing me to take Hawai.

Okay, next game, we’ll play allies, with no bid.

I will play Russia, USA, China, Anzac and France , Septimus will play UK.

Just UK for him, but he’ll do whatever he wants this time. We’ll coordinate our actions, but i’ll just live with his mistakes this time, no more complete reviewing his turns like before. I’ll just tell him if i see something that can cost us the game.
If Pomme wants to join at any point, he’ll be welcome and will play Russia, Anzac, France or China, USA, as he wish.

You can start a new thread and post G1 when you want, and Septimus will give you his scrambling orders if needed.
Just one thing, if you don’t mind, i’d like to play with tech on. I rarely buy some, but i like it to be possible.

[Septimus]

Thank you Stalingradski and Infrastructure. Very good game, to you guys as well as my team.
It was a pleasure indeed, including talking during nights (sometimes very late) debating on the right strategy each week.

Axisplaya is absolutely right : he is the senior player, and all the moves Germany did were shared and reviewed decisions. First because I know he may/must have seen something I haven’t, and also because it is the way I see team playing. I often told you that what was posted was not from me alone, but teamwork.
Sometimes I did alright, but more often than not I just faced a “no, hold your horses amigo” lol (or something like that) - and it’s fine.
Especially because I am too impulsive and also for I don’t get the full picture of the game, whereas he does.

Yes, I was scared by the attack on Neutrals, and contrary to my team mate I never felt completely safe until the very last turns. Had we made a serious mistake (very possible when I play), the game would have been very hard to win. It was hard to win.

My impression is that I should/could have gotten the win in Europe, but I was just not good enough against your playing with Caucasus + Neutrals. It is my disappointment.
What I’m happy about is the way we defended Europe, North and South, Scandinavia/sz113 and Gibraltar/Spain. I think it was very strong. And I also think I would have gone through Caucasus before you become dangerous in Europe with the US ; I was not concerned much about an Allied ground offensive from Norway etc. at the very end - but that is only an opinion.
From the fall of Moscow on, in the Russian ICs, I was the “pro-3 tanks each round”, he was the pro “fill your IC’s first” - no need to say who was right here, and who is the impatient guy  :lol:

Another disappointment is that it was obvious you’d be avoiding combat in Moscow, and I did nothing to prevent you from doing exactly what I hope you’d not do, and what you did : optimizing the Russian army till the end. Actually, that is the same disappointment : that the Russian army survived me because of me.

I’m quite convinced you play the Allies way better than we play them (not much because of Axisplaya, but because of me). Just so you know, it will be my second time playing the Allies in Global, and it is a certainty I will have to level up seriously and very fast if I want to last in the game.
Like it’s been said, I am a beginner, not a good player. That game of ours was a true experience for me, and for that, I thank you.

Snow and utter cold are upon us, along with December, 1st :mrgreen:
Perfect time for a new game, isn’t it ?  :wink:

[Stalingradski]

Fantastic responses! It’s a pleasure playing against the two of you (and the onetime opponent, Pomme).

I want to go back through and answer what each of you said line by line, but I only have a few minutes before my wife gets home and we go to pick up my daughter, so…

Axisplaya - re: Kiangsu - I see what you mean, and you make a good counterargument. When I play Japan and build an IC in Kiangsu, I tend to let the first several builds ‘pool’ if the territory is threatened in any way, and I park a few aircraft there as well, to protect it. Then, I start allowing infantry or mechanized units to leave only as long as it remains untakeable. Therefore, when we saw it was killable, we assumed it to be a mistake, rather than an acceptable loss.

Infrastructure and I are big believers in momentum and initiative, above and beyond math and game mechanics, as vital tools. Speaking for myself, the raid into Kiangsu was more about the former than the latter… more about forcing Japan to react to us rather than have to react to Japan. I find reactive gameplay to be effective only when comfortable in control of a game and just waiting for the end.

I had forgotten about the Aleutians…  :-D  I had that one stricken from all official records of the war.

An emphatic yes! that this game was won on skill rather than lucky bounces. Not even a question.

For my comprehending of the game, BECAUSE JAPAN WAS NOT DEAD, that game was won when Moscou fell. The rest was an impressive display of fighting spirit and resilience, but it was over. Thus, i find it very interesting that you kept playing, because that gave the Axis some chances to make some serious mistakes, which hopefully we didn’t do. Following your exemple, i might keep playing some games now when i’m Allies after the fall of Moscou.

Infrastructure and I learned from playing against each other that victory can occasionally be found in later rounds (even with LL variants) based on strong logistical/positional play. We learned the same way… games where each of us could have given up later turned into unexpected wins. Usually they don’t…  :wink:

Agreed on the Allied Atlantic fleet debacle. You’re right that it just can’t happen. If you need to fall back and regroup, it’s better than being wiped out - usually.

Septimus! Don’t try the ‘aw shucks’ approach with me!  :-) You played an excellent Germany. I understand your aggression had to be tempered by Axisplaya’s experience, but that means the two of you struck just the right balance.

Re: the Red Army’s survival - yes, I agree… trying to find a way to encircle Moscow is ideal, and not let the bear slip out of the trap. Then, you can settle into an attrition war that you can win almost at your leisure, if you have the Atlantic/Middle East/Mediterranean at a stalemate at worst. If any of these flanks get ripped open, you have to either move the Russian forces off Moscow or destroy the Red Army completely. Allowing Russian forces to head south en masse, to be joined with steadily increasing forces from the UK etc in the Caucasus region has led directly to my losing several winnable games as the Axis, and winning several games as the Allies. Caucasus, I believe, is the single most important territory in the center of the board. As Germany, I’ve started seriously contemplating getting there and rooting myself in before the Allies can put up a wall…

As to German Armor vs. filling factories - both are effective! It all depends on your goals. One of my favorites is to get a big enough mass of Axis troops on the border of Moscow, and then set my armor loose behind the lines… they can do tremendous economic damage to the soviet eastern holdings and China, while the German infantry/artillery/aircraft slowly grind down the Reds in a series of small battles.

Again - your carrier purchase with Germany was perfectly timed, and brillaint. I agree also that your ultimate response to the neutral crush was completely effective. Our aim was to make Team Imhotep have to react for awhile… because if we hadn’t the game was certainly over…

Ok, my wife came home, and she just told me I had to get groceries out of the car. I guess my writing has to come to an end.

Regardless - Infrastructure is away until next Wednesday, so that’s when he and I will start a new game with you. I think we make great opponents, and speaking for myself, I’d like to keep a game of 2 on 2 going for as long as we can - it’s great fun. Infrastructure and I have been beating up on each other in A&A for a loooong time, so it’s nice for he and I to finally team up after all these years. And I have to say - we’ve learned a LOT from playing against you guys.

Be well!

[Major Major]

Not much more to add.  Thanks for the lesson!

[Axisplaya]

So, do we start a new game ?

:-)

[Stalingradski]

I’m glad you prompted it, and looking forward to it… can you PM us Septimus’ e-mail address for the dicey?

Infrastructure will be Germany, but he’s a new dad, so he needs to carve out time to start the game. Easier said than done…  :-)

I’m looking forward to it, and will play Japan. He and I might be switching off round to round playing Axis powers, just for fun - we’re not sure yet.

See you here on the boards soon -

[allweneedislove]

wow 19 rounds, what a great game

[Major Major]

Just to confirm. We are using alpha 3 straight up, correct?

[Antholin]

Very impressive game. Congratulations to both teams.

[Stalingradski]

Thank you fellas…

We got our a%$es handed to us by around turn 12 or 13… then figured out how to pull a long slow death out of the jaws of certain defeat…  :-D

It was a great one. Many curses ( :-P) to our opponent’s ability to consistently make decent to great choices. Between relatively equal opponents, making fewer mistakes is often the way to victory, and Team Imhotep played a cleaner game.

[Axisplaya]

@Infrastructure:

Just to confirm. We are using alpha 3 straight up, correct?

Yup !