Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

The MTN has a garrison value of two, so put it where you need units with garrison values. That is the main reason for the USSR to build MTN units: only two BPs per garrison factor. The only other units for which that is true are MIL, which they can't build, and GAR, all of which should be built, but which have a bad tendency to die when Barbarossa hits because they can't get out of the German's way. (Of course a big GAR does very well in Leningrad, where it never wants to move.)

I suspect that USSR has won the '40 garrison race. And USSR can not win the '41 race with the break the pact optional in play. So, I think, that there is no need for cheap garrison units in the West. Units best used for a 41 or even a 42 Barbarossa should be priority along with keeping Japan out should be priority.

BTW. Maybe USSR should delay building fighters until better versions are in the pool.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

Maybe USSR should produce one armour or one mechanized now that the production has increased?

Is the MTN for Siberia?

warspite1

They can start building them from next turn. The MTN will be used for Garrisoning purposes in the East.

[:)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

I spent 1 oil From Libreville last turn.

Libreville is the Free French capital. It is fairly safe from German, Italian, and Japanese interference.

Syria, on the other hand, is not as secure. While Syria, currently is under no threat, it might quickly come under threat. Especially if Gibraltar is lost.

In Syria France gets a new oil every turn (as long as things do not change). Getting a new oil to Libreville uses up several convoy points.

Having oil on several locations can be an advantage since there might be occasions when a unit might not be able to trace to one oil. Then it might be able to trace to another unit.

Hence I propose that you use up the oil in Syria instead of the one in Libreville.

warspite1

If I use Syrian oil I cannot reorganise all the units - which seems a bit of a waste.

That would indeed be a waste. I'll take a look later on and see if I can fix that.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

The MTN has a garrison value of two, so put it where you need units with garrison values. That is the main reason for the USSR to build MTN units: only two BPs per garrison factor. The only other units for which that is true are MIL, which they can't build, and GAR, all of which should be built, but which have a bad tendency to die when Barbarossa hits because they can't get out of the German's way. (Of course a big GAR does very well in Leningrad, where it never wants to move.)

I suspect that USSR has won the '40 garrison race. And USSR can not win the '41 race with the break the pact optional in play. So, I think, that there is no need for cheap garrison units in the West. Units best used for a 41 or even a 42 Barbarossa should be priority along with keeping Japan out should be priority.

BTW. Maybe USSR should delay building fighters until better versions are in the pool.

warspite1

I don't intend building many (if any more at all) - I just want to ensure I am adequately covered if Germany decides to get silly in Finland.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm


Libreville is the Free French capital. It is fairly safe from German, Italian, and Japanese interference.

Syria, on the other hand, is not as secure. While Syria, currently is under no threat, it might quickly come under threat. Especially if Gibraltar is lost.

In Syria France gets a new oil every turn (as long as things do not change). Getting a new oil to Libreville uses up several convoy points.

Having oil on several locations can be an advantage since there might be occasions when a unit might not be able to trace to one oil. Then it might be able to trace to another unit.

Hence I propose that you use up the oil in Syria instead of the one in Libreville.

warspite1

If I use Syrian oil I cannot reorganise all the units - which seems a bit of a waste.

That would indeed be a waste. I'll take a look later on and see if I can fix that.

warspite1

Yes, I've double checked and the program will allow the Damascus oil to be used to reorganise the units in Syria and Lamotte-Picquet (in Australia) only.

As far as I can tell there is an uninterrupted convoy route between Damascus and Senegal/Morrocco/Gabon just as there is between Damascus and Australia.

Interestingly perhaps the Libreville oil can be used to organise the convoy in Beirut (Syria) but not the one in Tripoli just one hex north.

Edit: Hold the phone - is this perhaps something to do with "no more than 5 units can trace a path to the same oil resource".

The French have 10 ships + 4 convoys. Well in that case how can the Libreville oil reorganise all units?

Ah I see that because we are using SiF the ships count as 0.5 of a unit and the convoys 0.25.

So if I click on a unit that has both oil showing in the oil source location box and then highlight Damascus - all units reorganise.

If I do the same with the Libreville oil (note I use Lamotte-Picquet for this) - it works too and all are reorganised.

So the issue comes if I click on another unit - one that doesn't show both oil sources - e.g. Strasbourg then two units get left out and remain disorganised.

This is an example of a known bug that no one has yet figured out. Some oil resources are unable to reorganize units that they should be able to, and, to my knowledge, no one knows why.

The Libreville and the Syrian oil should both be able to reorganize the same units. Either should be able to reorganize all but .2 worth of oil units, with the remaining .2 coming from the other, and not being expended. I would just use the Libreville oil, and tell the other side that you actually used the Syrian oil. If it turns out to ever make a difference, have someone with a debug tool reposition the oil.

As I said, there is no need. I can get all ships to reorganise using the one oil. It just means that I have to click on the right ship before pressing reorganise. That I found this was total luck - my initial decision was to accept that the program was right and either use both oil (not recommended) or leave a couple of units disorganised (not ideal).

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As I said, there is no need. I can get all ships to reorganise using the one oil. It just means that I have to click on the right ship before pressing reorganise. That I found this was total luck - my initial decision was to accept that the program was right and either use both oil (not recommended) or leave a couple of units disorganised (not ideal).

warspite1

Except there is a need because in practice - when following the turn through - clicking on Lamotte-Picquet and clicking specifically on the Syrian oil ...... and the program uses the African oil.

With this in mind we will need to ensure that we garrison Syria ASAP me thinks.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

With this in mind we will need to ensure that we garrison Syria ASAP me thinks.

The Delhi Militia should be able to guard the port. But the Egypt-Syria area is way to lightly defended.

And now Algeria needs units as well.

Ormster my only thought about FF production is the extent to which it could help the Allies defend the Mediterranean - e.g. through TERR. However I am totally opposed to the French adding any burden on the CW's shoulders at this time. They have their hands full just getting everything done. The French navy - with its ability to do naval impulses should be entirely subordinate to the RN.

To many territorials that appear in the wrong countries for comfort. Currently I think that it might be best if France focus on TRS and air power. Maybe a HQ later on.

To bad that the French TRS was lost.

I really need to read up on the rules regarding Free France, units and production. I think France is allowed to place one reinforcement per turn. My thoughts is that eventually CW should be able to trade 2 BPs per turn to France. But at the moment I think that will deplete the convoy reserves.

Note that in the picture below many units, mostly ships, were filtered out to show the aircrafts and all the territorials.

My advice is to get the BPs to France as quickly as possible. Priorities for French builds should be TRS and/or AMPHs. After that, French LND are next -- the Allies never have enough air actions, and free ground strikes are useful. However, the ability to transport Allied units during a CW or US land is even move useful. I would build TRS first, because the Allies won't be doing many invasions immediately. By 1943, you will want an AMPH or two, but that is a long ways away. I would not bother with French land units.

Yes, send a min of two build points each turn. Build no land units only TRS and planes/pilots to start with. Some even build a Factory...

So do you have a updated plan to force Germany to surrender the Finnish Borderlands? US would really like to avoid losing 2 entry chits for a Soviet DOW on Finland so I would prefer if Germany didn't dare fight with Finland. And if it goes to war I hope that USSR has a plan to fight it to a fast and satisfactory end.

Summer is fast coming up. Will you be ready next turn? That is if Germany turns his focus elsewhere.

I mostly bring this up because I have nothing to ponder on in France/Spain before I see what Axis does. [:D]

Like you I can't do much until I know the Axis plan. Essentially my turns are:

a) Leaving free what I need for the ChiComms
b) Using what is left to ensure I stay ahead of the Germans on the border (and the Japanese)
c) What is left after that to think about other things. With Iraq now firmly on the back-burner that puts Finland as No.1 - but won't happen (if at all) until I know about a) and I am comfortable that I can maintain b).

Summer is fast coming up.

What do you mean summer is fast coming up? This whole game, in the words of Girls Aloud, "it's been a long hot summer". Spring is here and its er... summer, and frankly when the summer months actually arrive I don't think we'll notice the difference [;)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-72xwJ4ytY

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Like you I can't do much until I know the Axis plan. Essentially my turns are:

a) Leaving free what I need for the ChiComms
b) Using what is left to ensure I stay ahead of the Germans on the border (and the Japanese)
c) What is left after that to think about other things. With Iraq now firmly on the back-burner that puts Finland as No.1 - but won't happen (if at all) until I know about a) and I am comfortable that I can maintain b).

I am not arguing with you about this.

It is just that the window for Finland operations is, in my humble opinion very tight. This, of course, depends on the Axis progress and actions. If we go for Finland then I think Germany must be focused elsewhere. Spain and Gibraltar the probable target. And the Axis timetable could look like something like this.

Mar/Apr '40: Move forces to the Spanish border. Conquer Algeria.
May/Jun: Conquer Spain.
Jul/Aug: Capture Gibraltar and El Rif (Solving the Yugoslav and/or Greek issue).
Sep/Oct: Conquer Morocco and moving forces to Poland.
Nov/Dec: Moving forces to Poland.
Jan/Feb '41: Moving forces to Poland and/or declaring war on USSR.
Mar/Apr: DOW on USSR. Clear Eastern Poland and the Baltic.
May/Jun: Germany move into mainland USSR
Jul/Aug: Japan DOW USSR

The above is not a completely unlikely timetable.

If Germany is able to reinforce Finland with a couple of units then conquering Finland may take a couple of turns. Or even more depending on the pressure that Japan puts on the Chinese Communists and this may be considerable since it is summer in that area as well.

Therefore I think that if we go for Finland then we do not have much time.

Who is arguing about anything? Maybe my comment was not clear in its intent? Have you assumed a) b) and c) are sequential?

I am talking about individual impulses. Given the weather - and the maelstrom that is no doubt going to hit the Chinese, I need to keep some of my 5 moves aside for the Chinese.

Any left over (along with rail and air rebases) will be used to garrison the border with dem Narzeyes.

To the extent that I safely can, units will be allocated to Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus for possible use in Finland.

China is doing well. The Japanese are very passive with no campaign in the south at all, and they just invested in a SYNTH. With little or no infantry reinforcements on the way, they are unlikely to open a front out of Canton during Monsoon season. And the Si-An front is now quite stabilized with the ChiComm reinforcements appearing.

A 1941 Barbarossa with a closed Med is extremely serious. The advantage of a Demand for the Finnish Borderlands is that it helps keep the rail line to Murmansk open for enough impulses to move two factories there. If the Germans accept War, there is no need to push all the way to Helsinki, but the threat of doing that should allow the Russians to clear the north completely. The down side is that it will take that much longer to get to US Entry Option 29 (Lend-Lease BPs to USSR) and ?32? (US Re-Flags Merchant Ships).

The Allies are due for a nice Rainy month of May, 1940.