Your Favorite Nation to Play and Why

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: coregames
For the Axis I love Italy, because it was the only power with which I was able to win the individual victory (I had six objectives at the end).

I prefer reading that than reading about players not caring about achieving something with Italy, and only optimizing Germany + Italy as a team led by Germany with only Germany's interests in mind.

This is great !

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I prefer reading that than reading about players not caring about achieving something with Italy, and only optimizing Germany + Italy as a team led by Germany with only Germany's interests in mind.

This is great !

I bet with MWiF you will see a lot more Italy Playing for Italy. It will be a lot easier to ignore the pleas of the German when he lives a half a world away instead of sitting in the same room.[:)]

That being said it will be easier for the German to ignore the Italia Pleas too.[X(]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Japan by herself cannot win. But I think that's true of the Axis as a whole. You can't lose a major axis country and still win in my experience. MAYBE you could lose Italy, and still get an Axis win, but I'm not really sure that's possible either.

What ??? [:D]
I won as Japan, by Japanself alone.
And I made the Axis side win by achieving that !

Sure Japan can win.

In 2001, our game XII, the scores were :
Japan + Italy +10
Germany +3
CW 0
USA + China + France -5
USSR + Comm China -9


In 1999, our game IX, the score were :

Italy + Japan +16 (21 objectives)
Germany +4
USSR + Comm. China -4
USA + China + France -6
CW -11

In 1945 I was holding Egypt, Aden, and I was conquering Persia. The Pacific was quiet, as the USA was in deep troubles in Europe with France only liberated during the last turn of the game, and suffered some sore setbacks having done wrong choices in his axis of penetration in my co-prosperity sphere [:D].

Here's a news flash for you. If Germany and Italy have surrendered Japan has no chance.

Japan can not win by herself.

None of the Axis countries can.

But I would have loved to see you holding Egypt and Aden with Japanese troops I bet that was one heck of a fight! [&o]

Japan didn't win that game Germany did. If the US was in deep trouble in Europe ant Pacific was QUIET....Japan reaped the benefits of Germany's good play not her own.

NO AXIS COUNTRY CAN WIN ALONE.....none of them.

Good Hunting.

MR

[christo]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Japan by herself cannot win. But I think that's true of the Axis as a whole. You can't lose a major axis country and still win in my experience. MAYBE you could lose Italy, and still get an Axis win, but I'm not really sure that's possible either.

What ??? [:D]
I won as Japan, by Japanself alone.
And I made the Axis side win by achieving that !

Sure Japan can win.

In 2001, our game XII, the scores were :
Japan + Italy +10
Germany +3
CW 0
USA + China + France -5
USSR + Comm China -9


In 1999, our game IX, the score were :

Italy + Japan +16 (21 objectives)
Germany +4
USSR + Comm. China -4
USA + China + France -6
CW -11

In 1945 I was holding Egypt, Aden, and I was conquering Persia. The Pacific was quiet, as the USA was in deep troubles in Europe with France only liberated during the last turn of the game, and suffered some sore setbacks having done wrong choices in his axis of penetration in my co-prosperity sphere [:D].

Here's a news flash for you. If Germany and Italy have surrendered Japan has no chance.

Japan can not win by herself.

None of the Axis countries can.

But I would have loved to see you holding Egypt and Aden with Japanese troops I bet that was one heck of a fight! [&o]

Japan didn't win that game Germany did. If the US was in deep trouble in Europe ant Pacific was QUIET....Japan reaped the benefits of Germany's good play not her own.

NO AXIS COUNTRY CAN WIN ALONE.....none of them.

Good Hunting.

MR

Same goes for any of the Allied powers. If the USSR is defeated then the allies have no hope etc etc.

NO COUNTRY OF ANY SIDE CAN WIN ALONE

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: christo

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Froonp


What ??? [:D]
I won as Japan, by Japanself alone.
And I made the Axis side win by achieving that !

Sure Japan can win.

In 2001, our game XII, the scores were :
Japan + Italy +10
Germany +3
CW 0
USA + China + France -5
USSR + Comm China -9


In 1999, our game IX, the score were :

Italy + Japan +16 (21 objectives)
Germany +4
USSR + Comm. China -4
USA + China + France -6
CW -11

In 1945 I was holding Egypt, Aden, and I was conquering Persia. The Pacific was quiet, as the USA was in deep troubles in Europe with France only liberated during the last turn of the game, and suffered some sore setbacks having done wrong choices in his axis of penetration in my co-prosperity sphere [:D].

Here's a news flash for you. If Germany and Italy have surrendered Japan has no chance.

Japan can not win by herself.

None of the Axis countries can.

But I would have loved to see you holding Egypt and Aden with Japanese troops I bet that was one heck of a fight! [&o]

Japan didn't win that game Germany did. If the US was in deep trouble in Europe ant Pacific was QUIET....Japan reaped the benefits of Germany's good play not her own.

NO AXIS COUNTRY CAN WIN ALONE.....none of them.

Good Hunting.

MR

Same goes for any of the Allied powers. If the USSR is defeated then the allies have no hope etc etc.

NO COUNTRY OF ANY SIDE CAN WIN ALONE

That kind of depends on the opponents. On what they do and how they play.

I once played a Global War game that started bad for Japan in China. Western Allies started a buildplan with alot of carriers and other units to take care of Japan. Meanwhile Germany and Italy put presure on CW in the Mediterranian so the Allies shifted their focus and their build towards the European front. When US entered the war Japan had less success than normal against heavy resistance. US started to send alot of units towards Europe and with CW made some invasions. The Western Allies saw a chance to liberate France and maybe even get Germany so they put all their efforts toward Europe.

The turns (maybe a year) went and all the Allies still had all their focus on a slowly crumbling Germany. Meanwhile Japan slowly started to make progress. Still no Allied reinforcements to the pacific front.

After 2 years of war with the US the Japan got bored with no real action. He had captured all he wanted to capture since a year back. Except in China where it was a stalemate. So Japan made an invasion of India and was soon close to conquer India. That made the Western Allies react. But with all units and all build focused for an European war they decided to just send enough reinforcement to stop the Japanese advance in India. The still felt that Germany was just another offensive away to break.

When the game ended Germany was close to crushed. Mainland Italy was not yet invaded. Japan still had ALL of its pacific conquests except India. Raboul, Singapore, NEI, Phillipines and even Ceylon was still Japan controlled.

You can ofc claim that Japan wouldn't have won this game without the fight Germany and Italy gave the Allies so Japan got the space it needed for a win.

[Mad Russian]

The one strategy that wins every time for the Allies is a balanced attack on the Axis. I've never seen where a theater was just left to sit, like the Allies fighting only in Germany, works.

When that happens the quiet theater erupts into a defensive nightmare for the Allies. Japan won't be happy to just sit back and do nothing. She will find a place to fight on her own terms. This is the very basis for the strategy that our group uses.

I've seen it said that you have to have a pretty concrete agenda as a nation and that it's hard to make changes to that agenda once it's in place. The really successful players/generals MAKE those changes and take what the enemy gives them. Of course we all have plans. It's how you react to the changes to your plan that can make the difference between winning or losing.

You should have A RESERVE. That helps you both offensively and defensively. Nothing is more helpful than to have even a few units uncommitted that can arrive to either bolster your defense or show up unannounced in a spot you were least expected.

Good Hunting.

MR

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I've seen it said that you have to have a pretty concrete agenda as a nation and that it's hard to make changes to that agenda once it's in place. The really successful players/generals MAKE those changes and take what the enemy gives them. Of course we all have plans. It's how you react to the changes to your plan that can make the difference between winning or losing.

Good Hunting.

MR

I think you were refering to my thoughts on Grand Strategy, so let me clarify.

I think the key words in the post were that I don't play with blinders on.

If, for instance, I am playing as the Germans with a Russian Focus and then:

1. I nab some of the BEF in France
2. The Italians sink some CW loaded TRS in the Med on there way to Egypt.
3. I notice the CW ignoring thier Army in the Production Spiral.
4. etc...

All of the above will never happen of course, but if enough of the above happens to warrant it, I will completely rethink and change my Grand Strategy. Recalculate how many corps I will now need for my defence, recalculate how many short range Fighters and Stukas I will now leave in Europe as opposed to the Russian front...replan everything. But the Grand Stategy is essential in my opinion, it gives me the information of how many units I can build, how many I can put here, how many I can put there...

I guess the point I was trying to make in the other post was that an individual target is not enough for me to want to deviate from my chosen path. But, I am more than willing to adjust when luck and maybe opponents mistakes warrant it.

The opposite is also true, if my army in Poland and France Shoot Blanks, the Luftwaffe take a beating, and I have to use one of my O-Chits just to get by. If that is enough to totally throw off my Production plans for a Russian First Strategy...Then again I will go back to the drawing board and create a whole new Grand Strategy.

But if everything is progressing normally and my Russian Focus is on track, then I stick with it. My plan to win the game is to take out Russia or Nerf it as not to be a threat. With Russia as my Goal:

1. Is North Africa important?
2. Is Spain important?
3. Is Norway important?

There are going to be exceptions, there always are, but generally the answer would be No. The risk is if Russia is not defeated or nerfed considerably, these ignored objectives will be a thorn in my side later. But if my plan works...

Hope this explains it better.[:)]

[Mad Russian]

I don't know if that was one of your posts or not. I didn't have time to go back and look at them. I've been working from 0730 until 2130 most of this week. So, I have to give quick answers, more to what I remember than actually quoting from them.

For our group the Allied strategy is:

1) Crush Poland
2) Crush France
1 & 2) Or was that crush France and then Poland???? I forget....  [&:]
3) Crush England.
4) Crush Russia.
5) Or was that crush Russia and then England???   [&:]

Man, this agenda stuff is tougher than I thought.....[:@]

As the Allies:
1 - 99) Roll with the Axis punches. Then Crush Germany, Italy and Japan.
100) Never used because of the implementation of 1-99.

Now that one wasn't so bad!  [:'(]


Good Hunting.

MR

[gridley]

So we have a sense of humour do we?[;)]

Don't worry it won't be long till you feel the wrath of my neurotic planning. Then we will hear your barely audible whimper of "We Surrender".[:D]

Or if you get all the luck we will surrender like Gentlemen with honour. Then I'll have my Brother phone up his buddies form his days at TCU and...egg your house or something