Posts made by Private-Panic

All of theses are the exceptions I explain during game play, as play grabs attention more than explanation.

Hi cal….

Although I am inexperienced myself I have taught 1941 to about 8 others.

I take the first game as a teaching game, spend 20 mins explaining the basics and then get straight into game play, with their agreement that I will explain the “exceptions” to those basics as they come up. All 8 have wanted to play again, which I take as a positive for this approach.

Not the answer you are looking for.  There are some strategy principles I explain up front which you might find helpful:

1. The cost of the units vs IPC income meaning a need to value your units.  E.g. if J losses more than 3 infantry in J1 it will start J2 weaker. Thus the importance of strategic focus on a few key objectives each turn - with overwhelming force.

Some get this immediately. Others insist on frittering away their power on as many uncoordinated attacks as possible regardless and lose quickly.

2. That the Axis have a massive opening unit advantage, but the Allies with an IPC one, so the opening stages are about the Axis changing the IPC balance by making their unit advantage count quickly.

3. Make sure that they are aware of the basics challenges faced in WW2, such as the N Atlantic.

I then advise them as the game progresses - I wouldn’t do that because … + have you thought of this …

Look forward to reading your other responses, which will help me going forwards.  BTW - Black_Elk’s posts in Article Submission may be about teaching 1942, but you’d no doubt find them helpful. He advocates a very different approach to the above.

Cheers
PP

Really interesting post YG.  Especially your thoughts on SZ37 and a factory in SA.  You seem to be doing much better as the allies this time, despite SZ37 - have you done something differently?

Did G wipe out the entire Royal Navy in the western hemisphere in turn 1?

Looking forward to your next update, although I’ll not see it until I get back from a holiday.

Cheers
PP

Now that I understand the rules properly (well some of them anyway :lol:) I can see a whole new set of options for the UK, in Egypt, India & possibly the Med, perhaps including SZ37. wittman’s G carrier in the Med is also making a whole lot more sense. And my use of R fighters looks set to change. I will just have to be sad enough to play one more solo game to test these out I guess.

I can not think of any previous game I have ever had which would have interested me enough to be as sad as that! :-D

Thanks for sharing your wisdom yet again BE.  At the rate I am learning I shall be able to debate intelligibly with you in 6,763 years or so. That will increase if I discover any other rule errors amongst the marbles I have lost! :-D

Thanks very much Panther.  As I thought - but harsh in those precise circumstances.

Discovering that I have been playing one of the rules incorrectly has sparked me to check this uncertainty out with the experts ….

I understand that liberated territories are owned by the invading player if the original owner’s capital is taken. They revert to the original owner if/when his capital is liberated.

The uncertainty relates to when a Power has completely disappeared from the game except for vacant territories. My assumption is that those vacant territories cannot be taken by his allies, irrespective of whether thy were part of the disappeared Power’s original footprint or later taken by him. Seems obvious, but can have a significant impact in certain circumstances - G turtling Moscow while surrounded by vacant Russian territory (as happened in one of my games) presents the Allies with something of a challenge - so wanted to be certain.

Thanks very much.

@Black_Elk:

Sadly the marbles are lost. � :-D

Darn it! I had thought you could fly over neutral territories. :roll:

The rules clearly say otherwise so where on earth did that misunderstanding come from!

It also makes the game more interesting though ….

@Black_Elk:

It’s possible there is some confusion with the Bulgarian Fighter’s movement. Unfortunately Bulgaria does not border sz 15 (the European part of Turkey is in the way) which means that there is in fact no German fighter that can attack Egypt on G1. The fighters in Bulgaria and Ukraine are both 4 moves away. Alas!

Sorry BE but I don’t understand. Rom/Bulg has a clear border with European Turkey, allowing it to reach Egypt via SZ17 in 3 moves, then land in Libya. Or am I losing my marbles? :-o

Or does a move from European into Asiatic Turkey constitute an additional move? :x

@Black_Elk:

If testing solo, you might enjoy playing TripleA. You can face off against the HardAI, which is not as competent as a human opponent, but still pretty decent …

wittman has suggested the same thing and I plan to take a look when I get back from a holiday that starts on Tuesday.

@Black_Elk:

As for the sz 5 Baltic hit by Russian air, the odds are strong 90% to win, but there is also a fairly strong likelihood that one Russian fighter will die in the process.

Very true. And R fighters are good for minimal infantry being committed to buffer zones, which has been a strong feature of my rookie R play. Will think about this. :|

Thanks yet again BE. :-)

@Young:

Playing my 2nd game tomorrow, I’m the Allies again… should learn from my first loss, but playing different opponent will present different obstacles.

When I play the Axis, I’m planning on leaving the German battleship and transport (bridges 1 infantry and 1 tank into Africa) and building an aircraft-carrier G1 (where 2 German fighters can land) to support a G2 attack on Egypt.  Â

Would really like to hear what happens YG. :-)

In all my 3 solo games I have left the G b/ship & t/port in SZ 17 for that reason, but have not yet failed with capturing Egypt G1 - as I keep preferring to use the R figs on the Baltic. Another solo player rut!

@Black_Elk:

It’s a nice play. If you buy a med carrier you can clear the UK destroyer in 17 with a fighter, since it will have a place to land. Stacking Libya makes holding Egypt a risky proposition for UK. I find when I do this with G that UK usually withdraws leaving just a blocker inf behind in Egypt. If the med gets too hot from UK or US Air you can always bounce through the canal to the Indian Ocean and link up with Japan for safety, until Axis are ready to re-enter the Med in force. Have fun man, let us know how it goes!

@wittmann:

I concur.I always buy a Carrier for the Med, YG.
I never do Egypt on one. I wait for G2 or G3.

The UK destroyer in SZ 17 and Egypt have always gone in G1 with me.

I was actually thinking about a G carrier in the Baltic, plus a t/port, as a means of forcing the UK to use scarce IPCs on a home force.

I have probably done as much as I can to learn this game solo. Too many unchallenged ruts and false conclusions. The BoB will show me! And really looking forward to meeting wittman.

Again - my thanks to everyone for their help. :-D

@Black_Elk:

Just real quick to PP error 3. If Germany puts their battleship in sz 17 to take Egypt, one possible response is to take the UK bomber and sink the German battleship and transport from the air …. 1 fighter + 1 bomber vs 1 battleship is 60% odds to the attacker. There is a 20% chance of a draw, but only 20% chance for the defender to actually win. That means only a 1/5 chance that the German battleship prevails. Considering the strategic advantage of locking down the med on UK1, this is a strong trade for Allies. The bomber can land in Transjordan.

Thanks BE. Not thought of this move. Playing solo tends to present repeats of previous tactics unless you get such helpful contributions.

@Black_Elk:

Use the remaining Indian ocean fleet to hit 61 and kill the second Japanese transport. Sinking the German med fleet makes India somewhat less critical to the Allied warplan, as it allows you to hold Africa and push across the Med.

Ditto!

@Black_Elk:

What’s more, if Germany fails to destroy the UK fighter in Egypt and take the Canal, then their African ambitions are royally screwed. This comes down to the first round of combat, meaning that G has to put a lot on the line. If UK is able to bring a second fighter or naval fodder unit into their counter attack against the German battleship, their odds of success shoot back up into the 90%+ range.

As for the odds numbers you posted, those odds are a bit off. If Germany brings the bomber (and they must for an attack on Egypt to work!) that is…

Germany: 2 inf 2 tanks and 1 bomber vs UK: 1 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter.
a little over 70% odds to the German attacker.

A Russian fighter in Egypt drops these odds down to about 30% for the German attacker.

It’s possible you were including the battleship bombardment in the calc, but the UK destroyer in sz 17 negates this. So Egypt is a very long shot for Germany if the Russians send fighter support. And even if the Russians don’t, there are still a viable way for UK to punish Axis for a G1 hit on Egypt, namely by killing their Med Battleship.

Yes - dug out my notes and I must have mis-entered the numbers. However G also commits 1 fig, so odds are 65% with the G bomber and the R fig also in play. So G has a good-ish chance of success.

@Black_Elk:

The Russian hit on sz5 is high risk. I would be careful getting too used to that move, as it can burn you really hard when it fails.

I am thinking R either 2 figs on SZ5 or 1 fig to Egypt. 2 figs on SZ5 is 90% - or am I misunderstanding you?

@Black_Elk:

One other quick point about leaving 1 infantry behind. I would caution against this on R1, in any territory that could be cleared by German coastal bombardment. You’re better off pulling back and saving that 3 ipcs TUV in infantry for counter attacks on R2, rather than leaving them behind for a weak defense. They will get just smoked on G1, especially if left in Karelia. The Karelia factory already blocks German tanks, so inf isn’t necessary here.

Thanks for the guidance BE. As always!  :-D

Well - in case anyone is interested I have worked out what happened. First I should mention that the Allies surrendered turn 6 following the loss of Moscow. This is why … I think! …

Allied Error No 1: Previous games R has focused all its forces into W Russia w/out any of the secondary strafes/attacks advanced by others, leaving 1 inf in each of Karelia and Caucasus. This game I varied from that because I knew what G was going to do (the danger of a solo game) and left the Karelia garrison there with the thought that would test the G Leningrad in force strategy. In fact it did the opposite by removing the counter-attack option, unless risking a 50% attack which would kill R if it failed. If everything had been in W Russia the chances of that counter being successful would have been approaching 100%.

Allied Error No 2: Despite G’s initial success against R, the capture of Moscow was brought about by J’s rampaging across central Asia and combining with G. J took India in turn 3 - they are getting better!  This is, for me so far, the biggest challenge for the Allies and one for which I do not yet have a solution, except to make SZ37 work, which relies on G not committing it’s bomber to Egypt (see below) or the UK’s 3 unit builds there each turn going to higher value units, which is a hard call  given everything else the UK has to do. Perhaps that’s what has to happen …? Central Asia is the key! But then so is the N Atlantic! And …!

Allied Error No 3: The R fighter attack on the G Baltic fleet looks good, but w/out a R fighter in Egypt G has a 90% chance of taking Egypt.  The R Fighter brings it down to 60%, unless G commits its bomber, bringing it back to 90%. So nothing clear there, 'cos either the bomber goes to the UK B/ship (if G has no Baltic fleet) or to Egypt. Either way the UK loses all of its western hemisphere naval and Egypt in G1, provided G is sensible in Russia. So not really an error, but a debate with myself.

Allied Error No 4: Desperate to get US forces across the Atlantic I took risks which resulted in massive loss of US naval materiel as the cost of landing enough force to recapture Africa. Two huge battles in SZ13. More caution might have worked better?

Allied Error No 5: Too slow to get carriers off US east costs and UK of fighter reinforcements. The UK was simply having to save enough IPCs after India builds to be able to place a N Atlantic fleet with some chance of survival in one go. The US was trying to get to Africa, which (as above) now seems like the wrong call.

I am going to stop posting every game on the board now. My very sincere thanks to those who have taken the time to respond. Their thoughts and my post and review process have been a huge boost to my learning. I do hope I have demonstrated that learning in these posts. But I think I have already drawn too much on your generosity and helpfulness.

Thanks again everyone.

Thanks KG7. For the first time I see a recognition of Nazi shortcomings in your post, which is a great encouragement. It will help me to continue to engage with and benefit from your knowledge.

I had begun to think that you were representing G’s actions as rational and reasonable, which I am sure is a perception you would wish to avoid. If future posts were to balance your many criticisms of the allies, some of them certainly justified, with a recognition of G’s terrible failings that would really help. The mass murder point being an obvious one.

I am sure you don’t see any correlation between the Nazi’s values and yours either, so you won’t find it hard!

I now understand that your key thrust is one of R being even worse than an awful G. In some ways you are right. I still think, however, that it was Germany’s location that made it the far greater threat to France and Britain. As a previous reply from you showed, Hitler himself understood this. He then took a range of actions that made that threat ever more real without investing the same energy in effectively re-assuring the democracies of his intentions being solely focussed on defence against R.

I also think amanntai’s point is a good one: You have made a strong case for why the Soviets were a threat, but you have not made a strong case for why the Allies ignoring Hitler would have been a better idea than what they did. Looking forward to your reply to that.

P.S. Poland was certainly badly let down by the Allies. Churchill felt it keenly.

Another knowledgeable post from KG7.  Good stuff.  :-)

@ABWorsham:

Read many of Keegan’s works, I will look into Hasting’s writings.

I’d be interested to know what you make of him AB. I have read Roberts, Beevor and others and he’s the best in my book (excuse the pun), which is not to denigrate the others.  If you rate Keegan more highly I’ll definitely give him a go. :-)

Thanks KG7. Again you display considerable knowledge of events.

I understand that Hitler had rational thought processes as well as irrational, a balance which gradually altered through the course of the war.  Plus that it is important to understand both side’s viewpoints, which makes me open to some of your arguments.

However, I don’t see in your posts a willingness to engage with the Allies’ side of the confrontation, which troubles me.

Yes Stalin was a monster, but that doesn’t make Hitler a saint. R was certainly a threat, but so was G. Hitler had clear designs on R, but that does not mean he did not have designs on others too. The democracies mislead Poland and made mistakes, but that does not make them primarily responsible. And so on ….

A more evident balance in your posts would increase the chance of engagement with the tremendous knowledge you display.

@Young:

That’s bad luck PP, of course my situation was crazy and rare getting 100% casualties and 0% loses. Wittmann is right… no point in doing it unless you’re willing to include the African fighter.

Was willing YG, but had already gone to G’s successful attack on Egypt. In which case forget SZ37!

Did not reinforce Egypt with a R fighter, but instead used both those to take out the G Baltic fleet.  Did not save Leningrad, though, which went G1 with overwhelming force. The result has been a significant G force in W Russia by turn 3, too big for R to take on, but not enough to seriously threaten Moscow yet. Getting closer to your experience.

Thanks to you (and a post by another forum colleague elsewhere) I decided to focus all my G1 eastern front efforts on Leningrad and it worked.  Need to re-set the game to consider the extent to which success depended on pure luck.

Interestingly the Allies almost have regained the N Atlantic turn 4 so help will soon reappear for R.  Even fighter reinforcements had been interrupted by Axis territory gains.

No - was watching a superb episode of Inside No 9 - have been fascinated, appalled and entertained by them since League of Gentlemen.  Turning off now …

@wittmann:

I suspected you werd playing with yourself (!).

Clearly you know me well!

@wittmann:

Unlucky PP. Might mean you have to consider an Allied bid. I can’t remember how I react to its failure (after the screams and spilt drinks). Has been a while since I played. Sorry I can’t suggest a UK2. Did Japan build a Factory and where?

Only my third game, my dear wittman, and the Allies won the second. It was the dice rolls “what done it” for the Allies in turn 1. We’ll see how the game as a whole pans out, despite the fantastic luck the Axis had.

Last game I got the UK fleets off India & Australia round into the Atlantic, which is feeling better than the SZ37 raid at the moment. To do SZ37 I combined the UK forces in SZ35 & 39 - excl the Carrier - that’s an attack value of 11 / 4 units vs a defence value of 16 / 4 units. I count a b/ship as 6 until someone tells me better. Felt like a disaster waiting to happen, but persevered regardless - the best way to learn is to do it. Just fed those into AACALC and got 14% chance of a UK victory. If I throw the UK Carrier in that only goes up to 24%, so that’s not it.  The only other missing element I can see is the UK fighter in Egypt, which brings it up to 55%. Still not great odds (much worse than I would usually take unless desperate) so I guess it’s only worth considering if the Egypt fighter is still available?

J did not build a factory, which I think about every time I play, but in the last 2 games J took India in turns 4 & 5, so have not deviated from pouring IPCs into materiel I can bring into play from Japan, plus transports.

The problem with playing solo as I am is you get stuck in various ruts. That’s why I was so determined to try SZ37. I am sure you will deploy all sorts of tricks and stratagems to grind me into the ground when we play! Grrr!