trulpen's 1st G40 2v2-tourney: Results

@trulpen @Pejon_88 @axis-dominion @Adam514
That was one of the most fascinating games ever! How the allies dragged that back from a lost position was amazing!
Not looking forward to playing either of your teams 😫

@wizmark me and trulpen both take blame for those major events.

@Pejon_88 Im guessing the destruction of the german air in greece was one…what was the other?

@wizmark They took Rome because we missed 3 figs that could attack.

@wizmark said in trulpen's 1st G40 2v2-tourney: Results:

That was one of the most fascinating games ever! How the allies dragged that back from a lost position was amazing!

Wizmark’s comment made me take a look at this game. Very interesting indeed!

This game was certainly the Axis’ to win at one point. However, the key was right after taking Moscow the Axis decided to go for Norway and Egypt. By trying to do too much this split focus resulted in the failure of both objectives and allowed the Russian stack to move towards Western Europe which extended the game. By extending the game it allowed for the possibility of Axis errors to move the game back into the Allied camp which is exactly what happened. The move towards Egypt was a waste of effort and valuable resources that could have secured the north and wiped out the Russian stack.

As for the Russian move west; ALLOWING the Russian stack to move to Belarus was a huge mistake. That gave them the shorter pathway to Berlin in comparison to the German stack.

The loss of Italy was a disaster for the Axis since Italy was collecting so much money.

Greece was the second disaster that sealed the game for the Allies. This is a good example of having to watch out for a Neutral Crush and I should add that topic to my Warfare Principles of Axis and Allies article.

In essence, the Axis played great for the first 8 Turns then made multiple large errors that cost them a game they should have won.

@AndrewAAGamer Thanks! Great feedback. I do remember thinking that Soviet stack moving west was going to be a problem. We had a golden start Remember commenting that G1 was perfect and then trulpen said that a perfect start would include losing no units haha ;)

I agree that this was a perfect example of letting the Allies get back into the game and that if the Allies “survive”, I don’t know, the first 10-15 rounds its hard to win with the Axis. Correct me if I am wrong?

Also, interesting that no one has mentioned the Pacific theater at all! Is it because the game is usually decided in Europe in BM3 or was it just this game?

I would say the first few Turns were just about as perfect as I have ever seen. Great play and great dice; awesome combination. I did focus my comments on Europe since that was where the main mistakes were made however, I can comment on the Pacific if you would like.

As for the Pacific, again, it was dang near perfect till Turn 4. I am not a fan of going to Alaska on J4 since the US had a counter, but I can see some reason as a ploy to draw US ground forces north. However, on J5 Japan then tried to save that Alaskan transport by sending a significant portion of their fleet north. This allowed the US to counter with freshly minted units, so the logistics train was moved into their backyard. If those Jap units had gone south instead Japan would have had a 7-carrier force versus the 3-carrier US force.

This lack of Japanese firepower allowed the US to go to the Caroline’s on US5 and then Java on US 6 which caused a trading war that resulted in all the money islands being lost at the end of A7 and it took till the end of J9 for the Japanese to reclaim all the islands at quite a cost. Trading is Good for the Allies and Bad for the Axis. It allows little ANZAC to be just as useful to the Allies as big Japan is to the Axis plus it delays Japan from its strategic goals. All of that could have been avoided if Japan had concentrated their superior firepower south.

In addition, in effort to save transports I assume, Japan then split their fleet again in Java and Sumatra while the US was sitting off Queensland. Frankly you don’t want to do that. That means the US can beat you back to SZ6 which is exactly what they did. By threatening SZ6 from Hawaii and the Caroline Islands, with the IJN out of touch, SZ6 could not be protected and the US was able to take Korea. That is a disaster for Japan because:

1. It means the US can land planes in Korea which means every US plane in the Pacific threatens SZ6
2. It denies Japan its primary ship building yard
3. It forces Japan to spend money on infantry for defense in Japan which is a waste of money
   This was the move that lost the initiative for the Axis in the Pacific. Japan spent the next 6 Turns trying to get Korea back which gave the Allies time to hope the Axis would make a mistake; which it eventually did.
   When Japan was ahead early in the game with a superior fleet the Axis allowed the US, with a smaller fleet, to dictate the initiative in the Pacific. Japan was constantly reacting to their moves instead of combining the superior IJN and pushing the US around.
   I mean Japan took out China, India, eventually got Korea back and held the money islands. That is impressive! But never was the IJN able to force a decisive battle with the Allied fleet and in fact it was the Allies who outmaneuvered the Axis and on US 19 cut off and killed a significant IJN fleet that was caught by itself when trying to go for Hawaii. That -90 TUV loss for Japan removed the Japanese naval advantage.

Japan did not lose in the Pacific, but it did not win either. The Allies just had to stall in the Pacific while they won the game in Europe.

As for extending the game I am not sure that is in anyone’s favor assuming equal caliber Players. The longer the game is and the more complicated it is the easier it is to make mistakes. Unfortunately, for the Axis, the Axis made more mistakes than the Allies did so they lost.

I would say, with my limited BM3 experience - wow 1 whole game - that normally a longer game would favor the Allies in BM3 more than OOB due to the additional NOs available to the Allies in BM3. However, I noticed that for a little while the Axis actually collected more than the Allies were so that was not the issue in this case.

The game got long, it got complicated, and the Allies were able to adapt to that better than the Axis were. But the game should never have gone that long or been that complicated. That was a beautiful 8 Axis Turns; a model to emulate. A shame it was wasted.

@AndrewAAGamer many thanks for valuable input and for taking the time to put it in writing. Yes the Midway debacle was a poor way trying to put pressure on the US. I remember having problems knowing how to best take advantage of the upper hand I had during that time. Well it was a very fun game and I learned a lot.

@Pejon_88 said in trulpen's 1st G40 2v2-tourney: Results:

Well it was a very fun game and I learned a lot.

And that is really what counts.

@AndrewAAGamer said in trulpen's 1st G40 2v2-tourney: Results:

@wizmark said in trulpen's 1st G40 2v2-tourney: Results:

That was one of the most fascinating games ever! How the allies dragged that back from a lost position was amazing!

Wizmark’s comment made me take a look at this game. Very interesting indeed!

This game was certainly the Axis’ to win at one point. However, the key was right after taking Moscow the Axis decided to go for Norway and Egypt. By trying to do too much this split focus resulted in the failure of both objectives and allowed the Russian stack to move towards Western Europe which extended the game. By extending the game it allowed for the possibility of Axis errors to move the game back into the Allied camp which is exactly what happened. The move towards Egypt was a waste of effort and valuable resources that could have secured the north and wiped out the Russian stack.

As for the Russian move west; ALLOWING the Russian stack to move to Belarus was a huge mistake. That gave them the shorter pathway to Berlin in comparison to the German stack.

The loss of Italy was a disaster for the Axis since Italy was collecting so much money.

Greece was the second disaster that sealed the game for the Allies. This is a good example of having to watch out for a Neutral Crush and I should add that topic to my Warfare Principles of Axis and Allies article.

In essence, the Axis played great for the first 8 Turns then made multiple large errors that cost them a game they should have won.

very insightful analysis

Gamerman/regularkid vs. generaldisarray/drake. 0-1 (path to victory)

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35492/trulpen-tournament-ptv-low-rollers-axis-5-vs-generaldeath-allies/366

Well fought game thank you both again for the challenging game:)

ColtWitt(X) defeats Wizcats (L+14) BM3

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36134/tt-coltwitt-x-vs-wizcats-l-14-bm3/146

GGWP! Do we possibly face each other again? I know the tourney is single round robin and I don’t know if theres a championship or its just whoever has the most points at the end.

whoops, meant to post that in our game thread ^