Naval/Air Bases

Good. Please do. There are always people with time to listen and share thoughts.

It’s in the errata/FAQ.

Thanks for answering, Kreighund! These rules are a big departure from the other A&A games.

Awesome thanks man

@WILD:

So I was thinking, instead of mandating naval battles only go one round, why not just give both parties a retreat option (TBD). In many cases this would self restrict naval battles to one round.

Yes, but when you retreat, the other is not allowed to chase you. In real naval battles it is common to chase each other, but in a game that kind of behavior violates the turn order.

I think time is an issue. A game turn is considered to be like 6 months, while a real life naval battle usually took less than a day. On top of that, our ships seems to be stuck in their little seazone. In the real world a ship could easily sail around the world in 6 months, as is the length of a game turn. Now imagine that in a game, a ship with unlimited movement.

I think in order to make a game that behave as close to the real world as possible, we must analyze every naval battles from 1904 to 1945, and then we will see that WiF is the game that come close, and that Axis and Allies has a long way to go.

@Jocher:

@Frontovik:

@Jocher:

Don’t consider an invasion of the British Isles…not going to work.��  Too many territories in the home island that the Brits can keep building upon in no time.��  Plus you have mines to face.��  The strategy doesn’t work.��  My advice, having played Germany a bunch now, is to destroy the Russian battleship and use YOUR waters as opposed to Britain’s waters.��  You can’t keep ferrying over troops to the western front with transports.��  you’ll keep facing mine dice.��  Better off using your navy (protected by 2 TT’s of mines) to ferry troops to the Russian front to make the Russies go down easier.�� 
Also, destroying the British home fleet isn’t such a bad thing.��  You’re right, it sort of leverages the Brits to building up India, becoming a pain for the Ottomans.��  However, as I discussed in my post at the top of the forums, the Ottomans are more than a match for a 100% British blitz in the middle east.��  Just keep retreating slowly, all the while piling up your forces.��  Better to have one huge clash 7 rounds in to the game, rather than have 7 smaller skirmishes that the Ottomans can’t keep up with.��  Fight in Constantinople…you will have accomplished taking the Brits out of the game almost completely, as they’re spending too much time chasing the Ottomans and not enough time where it matters…Europe and the Eastern front.

sounds like hitler luring the russians to berlin before beating them back to moscow and so winning world war 2…

not gonna happen; you can have your clash even later; but by round 9-10 constantinopel is in allied hands (unless the brits force that army up to sebastopol, which can be done if russia retreats from moscow to prevent RR)

Luring the Russians to Berlin?  This is a game bud.  Not real life.  So yes, the Germans could do what you are suggesting above and be successful sometimes and not successful other times, because we are playing a game.  Don’t confuse the two.  It’s silly that you are comparing a strategy in Axis and Allies to real history.

And yes, it is going to happen…I’ve already done it.  I might try another 10x only to fail 9x (or succeed), but the fact remains it is a viable strategy.  The money the Ottomans earn for their territories does not warrant a ‘stand your ground’…all that means is losing a lot of smaller skirmishes and having the territory taken from you anyhow.  I am not suggesting an immediate retreat.  I am suggesting that 4-5 turns in, when the Brits amass a large enough force to start taking Ottoman territory, that be the point where I suggest the Ottomans pull back some.  A Brit strategy to go all out in India means a good chance at conquering the Ottomans.  My suggestion is to pull back if the attacks are overwhelming and make your stand with a very large piled up Ottoman army in a territory closer to Constantinople.  Hopefully by then, Germany and Austria would have expanded because they haven’t had to fight the brits in Europe…only the weakened Russia ns and and the mighty French.  Austrians could, of course help the Ottomans if possible with reinforcements.

ok, now i understand; thanks. i use same strategy. but i’d add a tank to the force, for the small skirmishes that can’t be counterattacked. i think it saves a lot in a longer game. but face it, the ottomans will be overwhelmed and then the brits will start coming in the balkans.

and fun fact; india is as far away from vienna as berlin is from paris :p

Because of amphibious assaults.

You can’t have boat loads of infantry waiting around in sea zones for the end of a naval battle that might last for months.

I still think ships should be allowed to retreat from combat, however.

Allowing planes to retreat after a round of aerial combat is another idea, but what happens to planes that withdraw and then have nowhere to land because their side has been wiped out on the ground?

You could allow them to retreat to a friendly tt, but that in effect gives them an extra movement point, and it seems to go against the game mechanics.

There are many reasons for the failure of the Spring Offensive the nutritional status of the German Army, the Deciphering of German radio traffic by Georges Painvin, 1 mio CP Soldiers still hanging out in the East, but the main reason were the Strategic errors of the German leadership.
Ludendorffs decision to reinforce troops who encountered the stubborn resistance led to an improper use of the powers. The findings of the subsequent World War showed that to maximize the shock effect precisely those troops should be increased, which had already achieved the greatest success. Generally, the reserve management during the offensive was problematic, since only the troops in the front line were reinforced and that no full new units were brought there. This led to rapid fatigue of the deployed forces. Furthermore, the fixation of the General Staff only on the military concept of the breakthrough. The offensive had been planned by the OHL consistently methodically, but only up to the supposedly decisive goal, the shock through the enemy lines. An orderly plan for the exploitation of the resulting gaps, something like an (don´t know whats it in english) “Umfassungsmanöver” was not hit. The shock of the attack had been identified as shock troops tactically decisive factor, however, to use this principle as a strategic moment, was not considered.

Hey Flash, will you also simulate the Christmas Peace of 1914 ? Maybe with a little football on the map ?  :wink: