Posts made by Private-Panic

I knew it was just the allied commander!

Hey Young Grasshopper and wittman

The Carrier is great until J blows it out of the water!  That needs naval defence units.  That sucks the US into a naval build war.  That drags resources away from the European theatre.  That loses the game.  Or perhaps it was just the allied commander?

Looking forward to the game I now have with wittman.  He’ll sort me out!

Cheers
PP

wittman and Private Panic are pulling together a first 1942.2 Battle of Britain for 24th May 2015 in Derbyshire, UK.  We have three players and would like two more.  If you wish to join us then do post a response to the copy of this thread in Events.

We’d like to think that this will not be a one-off, so if you cannot do that date but would like to be involved in the future, then do post that as a reply too.

At the moment we are aiming at one game, but who knows what the future holds …

wittman and Private Panic are pulling together a first 1942.2 Battle of Britain for 24th May 2015 in Derbyshire, UK.  We have three players and would like two more.  If you wish to join us then do post a response to the copy of this thread in Events.

We’d like to think that this will not be a one-off, so if you cannot do that date but would like to be involved in the future, then do post that as a reply too.

At the moment we are aiming at one game, but who knows what the future holds …

wittman and Private Panic are pulling together a first 1942.2 Battle of Britain for 24th May 2015 in Derbyshire, UK.  We have three players and would like two more.  If you wish to join us then do post a response to the copy of this thread in Events.

We’d like to think that this will not be a one-off, so if you cannot do that date but would like to be involved in the future, then do post that as a reply too.

At the moment we are aiming at one game, but who knows what the future holds …

Thanks innohub

Somehow my posting has been duplicated on this board and you’ll see from the other thread that I had the same thought.  The joy of trying out different things and learning for myself ….

Cheers
PP

My head is brimming with ideas this morning!  Such as:

• Forget Honolulu & Calcutta.  UK fighters into Leningrad.  US fighters into Siberia.  (Need to check the board.) US Pacific fleet into the Atlantic and forces into Africa.  More use of bombers, which can feel like an expensive luxury in 1940.

I might let my excitement get the better of me and try some of these out before reading other’s posts ….

Cheers
PP

Hah hah!

I seem to have been very relaxed about showing my weaknesses as an allied commander don’t I!  I have no doubt that you will fare better with your first game!

Cheers
PP

Sorry - meant to post this on 1942.2, which I have now done - feel free to delete this!

I am posting this not so much as to boor everyone else with the thoughts of a novice, but to record what I thought I discovered in my first game of 1942.2 and next I will capture in a response to myself what I pick up from reading the various posts on this Board.  As one or two may have noticed I am sad enough to conduct a debate with myself.  In fact after all these years I may just have found someone who agrees with me?  :roll:

I decided to play my first game before I read all the advice and expertise here, as it will now mean far more to me.

I came at 42.2 with some experience of 41.  Clearly 42.2 is on a much bigger scale and ideal when you have all day to commit to it.  I can see why some of those used to 42 found 41 unsatisfactory, but having done it the other way around, here are the key differences I note from one game:

•   Artillery is a very valuable additional unit and played a big part.
•   AAA and Cruisers less so.
•   Significant increase in IPCs meant a willingness to risk loss of units and so more general attrition and less strategic focus.
•   Germany’s access to a production centre in southern Europe, the number of IPCs in Africa and the UK’s limited production capacity in India (plus the need to transit an additional territory, Persia, to reach Africa) dramatically altered the shape of the game.
•   This turned the UK into the weak link among the Allies.  Egypt went in G1, closing the Suez Canal and turning the Med into a G “lake”.
•   India was lost to J in turn 4.
•   By contrast, R held its own on the eastern front, causing G some problems, swapping Leningrad with G a number of times.  R will have been aided in this by an initial G focus on Africa.  That all changed when in turn 4 G built a production centre in the Middle East and J broke through in Siberia.
•   The problem of getting the US involved seems no easier in 42.2.  With the Allied loss of Leningrad and Calcutta, the US’s need to hold onto Honolulu lead to losing the Battle of Midway.  I imagine I allowed the vulnerability of Honolulu to distract the US from sufficient effort to support the UK & R earlier in the game, as it tried to catch up with J’s naval strength.  The strategic crux of the game may instead be to deliver that support to UK & R before J captures Honolulu?
•   As a result the Axis won in turn 6.  That suggests I have got a lot to learn about how best to play the Allies!  :-o

No doubt I did lots wrong, but look forward to reading how the UK can best hold Africa and the USA get itself involved.  :-)

Cheers
PP

I am posting this not so much as to boor everyone else with the thoughts of a novice, but to record what I thought I discovered in my first game of 1942.2 and next I will capture in a response to myself what I pick up from reading the various posts on this Board.  As one or two may have noticed I am sad enough to conduct a debate with myself.  In fact after all these years I may just have found someone who agrees with me? :roll:

I decided to play my first game before I read all the advice and expertise here, as it will now mean far more to me.

I came at 42.2 with some experience of 41.  Clearly 42.2 is on a much bigger scale and ideal when you have all day to commit to it.  I can see why some of those used to 42 found 41 unsatisfactory, but having done it the other way around, here are the key differences I note from one game:

• Artillery is a very valuable additional unit and played a big part.
• AAA and Cruisers less so.
• Significant increase in IPCs meant a willingness to risk loss of units and so more general attrition and less strategic focus.
• Germany’s access to a production centre in southern Europe, the number of IPCs in Africa and the UK’s limited production capacity in India (plus the need to transit an additional territory, Persia, to reach Africa) dramatically altered the shape of the game.
• This turned the UK into the weak link among the Allies.  Egypt went in G1, closing the Suez Canal and turning the Med into a G “lake”.
• India was lost to J in turn 4.
• By contrast, R held its own on the eastern front, causing G some problems, swapping Leningrad with G a number of times.  R will have been aided in this by an initial G focus on Africa.  That all changed when in turn 4 G built a production centre in the Middle East and J broke through in Siberia.
• The problem of getting the US involved seems no easier in 42.2.  With the Allied loss of Leningrad and Calcutta, the US’s need to hold onto Honolulu lead to losing the Battle of Midway.  I imagine I allowed the vulnerability of Honolulu to distract the US from sufficient effort to support the UK & R earlier in the game, as it tried to catch up with J’s naval strength.  The strategic crux of the game may instead be to deliver that support to UK & R before J captures Honolulu?
• As a result the Axis won in turn 6.  That suggests I have got a lot to learn about how best to play the Allies! :-o

No doubt I did lots wrong, but look forward to reading how the UK can best hold Africa and the USA get itself involved. :-)

Cheers
PP

Thanks  :-)

Thanks wittman!

BTW - sent you an instant message - did you get it?  Not showing in my outbox.

Cheers
PP

Black Elk - 42.2 arrived today so I had a quick look for advice on the forum and found this post from you.

Having only just benefitted from all your time and help regarding 1941 strategy I am quite simply gobsmacked by your deep knowledge and your willingness to share.

You are a star Black Elk!

:-D

Thanks again Back Elk.

You’ve sold the Manchuria move to me!  Allied fighters pouring into Moscow make it viable in my mind.  The trick will be the timing given all the other things the UK & US want to do in the N. Atlantic, Med., N. Africa and Far East.  It will need a careful eye on G’s progress I guess.

Since my experience is limited to 41 thus far (although I have just ordered 42.2) my starting position has been to take territory and hold it.  I certainly agree with your point about IPCs on the board vs the cost of unit purchase.  A conclusion I drew from that which you don’t mention is to minimise losses by focus of forces to ensure significant strike advantage whenever you can.  I imagine on the other boards you might take more risks with unit losses.

Staging USA into Europe via the UK or Norway makes perfect sense.  I did manage on my last group game to take W Europe with 4 US units from E Canada in 2 t/ports, supported by 1 bomber and 1 fighter, but G was in trouble following some early mistakes.  The UK then poured its units in and Berlin went within 2 moves. This would not work against a stronger G given their place in the turn order, so staging would I am sure be essential.

I had not countered your earlier comment re the value of the carrier, particularly for transport defence against air attack, as I assumed you were focused on the initial stages of the game, as you now make clear.

One thing none of your posts have commented on is what to do with the US Pacific fleet?  Typically in my games they lose a battleship at what I like to think of as Pearl Harbour in J1.  For that reason I did like your previous suggestion of the UK sub going up to support.  Unless J gives the US a naval opportunity in the Pacific, which should be unlikely, I have gone so far as to bring it through the Panama canal and focus on G. What are your thoughts?

Cheers
PP

Husbandly duties completed am now off the leash!  :wink:

I did revisit the value of N Africa in last night’s solo game and discovered it’s use as a USA 1 move landing strip beyond G fighter range.  This last post from you has opened up for me the subsequent 2 fighters per turn reinforcement to Moscow opportunity, which I had not considered.  Until now, allied air power in my mind has been focused on retaking the N Atlantic and getting US land units into W Europe.  But you put across a cogent argument as to the use of fighters in the way you describe being a quicker solution. 8-)

I now understand that your first posting did not necessarily mean Japan first at the expense of Russia. But rather give J something to think about so that they are distracted from Allied objective one - the survival of R. That’s how I am currently interpreting you. Knowing that such quick help is arriving may make me more comfortable with using Siberia to attack Manchuria rather than retreating to Moscow.  And understanding the importance of N Africa now increases the chance of diversion of G or R forces in that direction. We’ll find out as I play. :|

Look forward to trying out the bid process you describe. :-D

Black Elk - thanks very much for your contributions here.  You have moved me on a great deal. :cry:

Best wishes
PP

Thanks once again Black Elk.

Now understand opening up a territory adjacent to an attack target (especially a Capital) for allied fighters to come over and help. :-)

Yes infantry are best defensively and fighters have a significant range advantage.  Tanks have the advantage that they take territory.  However, I do understand the naval air advantage, especially against transports, unless accompanied by a significant force.  For that reason I hesitate over some of the G into North Africa suggestions, which is risking isolation of materiel that could be attacking R.  The UK’s production centre in India enables a counter attack against a G force that cannot be resupplied, except by air - which brings us back to the truth of your assertion. :-)

Interestingly I tried the Ukraine strafe move last night and regretted it.  The dissipation of R defensive force lead to R being gone in 3 moves.  I was playing solo, but the obvious weakness of R lead to me abandoning my usual N Atlantic G1 focus and going all out for R in the way you describe.  I’m back to consolidation of units in W Russia.  That rules out the various other options that are offered. :-(

I already calculate attack and defence points in the way you describe, but not hit points.  Can see the value of the latter though, or at least a focus on infantry numbers, for strafing.  :-)

Regarding removing luck - war contains a large slice of luck. :evil:

I’ll post this incomplete response as I am being summoned ……

That’s good enough for me.  I’ll buy 1942 now!

When I have learned the basics I’ll ask your advice on how best to get 3 other players interested for a date that works for both of us.

I also have my own business, but am fortunate that I have been able scale back and semi retire, giving me a couple of weekdays free each week.  However, weekends are always in short supply given social demands, so we might need to work out the date well in advance of the actual game.

I am not confident of taking my own player group with me into 1942, which is why the possibility of a group via this Board was important.  If everyone enjoys it we might have something that we repeat from time to time.

Thanks Black Elk - now I am not quite the same saddo having a debate with myself!

Don’t feel that you have to reply to these responses, but both to engage with your points and to show that your reply is much appreciated:

@Black_Elk:

…. your best bet is to throw everything at Japan early on this board, and then direct your full attention to Africa and Europe.

My earlier post will have shown that this approach is not obvious to me, probably because I am overly focused on Germany’s proximity to 2 allied capitals, but I bow to your superior experience and will have a go.

@Black_Elk:

I think the Ukraine strafe is just too unpredictable so I favor going all in on W. Russia with both tanks and trap Caucasus.

That’s what I have been doing until now, seeing the significant force then on W Russia as being poised for a counter-attack, especially if Germany are sucked into Stalingrad.  However I will try out the Ukraine “strafe” (I am learning the jargon) others have suggested before deciding.

@Black_Elk:

I also favor the Manchuria attack on R1, since this is your best chance to mess with Japan in the first round.

Again - my Germany first mind-set makes this a tough call, but will try it.

@Black_Elk:

USA is painfully slow to do much of anything.

Yes!  But thinking about it your Japan first strategy presumably gets the US involved much more quickly and that could make a big difference. :-D

@Black_Elk:

Another option if you don’t want to do the Manchuria opening, is to send 1 Russian tank and the Moscow fighter to Egypt, to give the Germans pause when considering a G1 attack there. This gives UK their best possible odds on Egypt defense, and opens up Africa to an early conquest by Allies. The Russian tank can then jet to India in the second round to support the British again.

Am still fixated on the need for UK & USA to support Russia against Germany rather than the other way around.  I guess, though, that this is because I play in a group that I recently started and who learned this Russia vs Germany mind-set from me.  The above plays will become more relevant if Germany is not all out on Russia.

@Black_Elk:

Fighter camping on the Capitals and key territories is common. Japanese fighters based in Berlin can hit Moscow in one move if G opens up a landing spot.

Opens up a landing spot?  Did not realise that allies could refuse allies access.  Will take a look at the rules.  But why would they refuse?

@Black_Elk:

Buying fighters just seems the best bet in most situations …

Was surprised by this.  :-o To compare a tank:

Fighter      Tank
Cost          10            6

Attack        3              3
Defence    4              3

Combat value per IPC
Attack        0.3            0.5
Defence      0.4            0.5

The fighter has the range advantage - if 3 forwards and 1 back = + 50%.

The fighter’s inability to land in a just captured territory can be either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the circumstances.

@Black_Elk:

you can still spam fighters into N. Africa, and from there they can get basically everywhere you need to go.

Need to take another look at the value of N Africa.

@Black_Elk:

… if you want to try the game with a bid, I think the Russian bomber provides more interest than other potential bids…

Bids?  How does this work?

Cheers
PP

Thanks Wittman

Perhaps I am the central location then and could host a game at some point?  Will buy 42 and learn it.  If I then tried to elicit some interest would you be up for it?

Cheers
PP