BiB's AAR

[IEX Totalview]

Help me out here...

The U.S. could not establish air superiority over CALIFORNIA!?!?



Come again?

I guess in RL the Japanese were morons. They should have thought to:

1) Take over the Phillipines peacefully

(2) Take over the Dutch East Indies before war w/America

(3) Wait for the U.S. to move the fleet to Guam (Closer to Japan than America, in the middle of a chain of Japanese islands)

(4) Destroy said fleet (w/ Carriers, Battleships etc.)

(5) Move the Carriers off the coast of California and begin bombing

(6) Wait for America to say, hey, we didn't want Hawaii anyway...

(7) Victory!

This sounds a tad unrealistic. However, I don't really know since I've never played, and, if it is unrealistic, I have no doubt Paradox will patch it. Still, it doesn't jive with my understanding of the Pacific war.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by tuna
BiB: I'm assuming that the year was 1942 when the US signed a peace treaty with the Axis, basically ending the war. Does that mean certain victory, or could UK and USA declare war before 1946 once again on the Axis?

The game lasts till 1948 so that's possible U can have more than one world war during the game.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior
So, let me get this straight: You took over a state, and after the war the U.S. allowed you to KEEP it? And why do I get the feeling that the only reason you didn't invade California was that it would cause us to complaign more so (that would be frightning, eh)? What was the U.S. ariforce doing while you were bombing California?

I think the Axis are way over powered, in every AAR so far Germany has captured Moscow... and BiB defeated the U.S. in less than two years with basically no significant losses whatsoever...

Maybe because every AAR was with the Axis featuring as lead? I also played a game as the UK where Germany was annexed. I bet if only AARs were posted of players playing the Allies we'd hear about the Allies being overpowered. And I lost plenty of ships and planes.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by BiB


Maybe because every AAR was with the Axis featuring as lead? I also played a game as the UK where Germany was annexed. I bet if only AARs were posted of players playing the Allies we'd hear about the Allies being overpowered. And I lost plenty of ships and planes.

But you weren't Germany, and in the UK one (can't remember the name) Moscow was taken (although the Germans were pushed back).

And when i say "significant losses" I mean losses that hamper your war effort, you still were able to park off the coast and hammer the U.S.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO
Wow.
Japan conquers hawaii and bombs LA ?
Iam becoming very-very very disapointed with this game.

"The USA doesn't win a crushing victory, the game is shyte". Jeez, a human played Axis nation (with a very good player to be modest ) takes a few islands from the USA, oh my god. Come on, this was a game in which everything went well for the Axis, for all members, which should defo be possible, and got a different cold war created. Sounds pretty good for a game to me.

Of xure if u want a game where the US always wins, well, sorry, then ur right as in that way it is disappointing. It's the strongest nation and will win most times but it is not undefeatable. As it should be.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
Help me out here...

The U.S. could not establish air superiority over CALIFORNIA!?!?



Come again?

I guess in RL the Japanese were morons. They should have thought to:

1) Take over the Phillipines peacefully

(2) Take over the Dutch East Indies before war w/America

(3) Wait for the U.S. to move the fleet to Guam (Closer to Japan than America, in the middle of a chain of Japanese islands)

(4) Destroy said fleet (w/ Carriers, Battleships etc.)

(5) Move the Carriers off the coast of California and begin bombing

(6) Wait for America to say, hey, we didn't want Hawaii anyway...

(7) Victory!

This sounds a tad unrealistic. However, I don't really know since I've never played, and, if it is unrealistic, I have no doubt Paradox will patch it. Still, it doesn't jive with my understanding of the Pacific war.

It doesn't jive with ur understanding of the historic Pacific War. It fits just fine in this save's Pacific war.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by BiB


Of xure if u want a game where the US always wins, well, sorry, then ur right as in that way it is disappointing. It's the strongest nation and will win most times but it is not undefeatable. As it should be.

BiB, our problem (or atleast my problem) is not that the U.S. lost, it's that the U.S. didn't really put up much of a fight at all.

I agree that the Axis should be able to win, but a total victory over the Allies in 1942? C'mon

 

[BiggN]

well let me also say...
If I was playing the game and 2 months later i still hadn't figured out how to beat the USA I would be pissed at myself.. not the game...

On the other hand, If i beat the US first time around, then yes somthing is wrong.

I'd expect BiB to conquer the US not just beat it for how long he's been playing.

-BiggN

 

[unmerged(7580)]

BTW BiB, thanks for answering all our questions/fears/rants.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior



But you weren't Germany, and in the UK one (can't remember the name) Moscow was taken (although the Germans were pushed back).

And when i say "significant losses" I mean losses that hamper your war effort, you still were able to park off the coast and hammer the U.S.

No, strange as it is, in this game the Axis can actually win! The USA can be beaten! Oh!

The UK one u shouldn't refer to as I never posted an AAR about my UK game.

It is possible to take significant losses AND do what I did.

What's the big deal about the fact the USA can actually lose?

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by BiB


The UK one u shouldn't refer to as I never posted an AAR about my UK game.

I was refering to The Hanoverian's.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior



BiB, our problem (or atleast my problem) is not that the U.S. lost, it's that the U.S. didn't really put up much of a fight at all.

I agree that the Axis should be able to win, but a total victory over the Allies in 1942? C'mon

I would have to think that if the game is historical the Axis has to win by 1942/1943 in order to win at all. Also the ARR's start in 1936 which gives the AI a lot of room to mess up the building up of allied nations and the player a lot of time to adjust the country to their own playing style. I would like to see how the Axis does in a 1939 scenerio.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior



BiB, our problem (or atleast my problem) is not that the U.S. lost, it's that the U.S. didn't really put up much of a fight at all.

I agree that the Axis should be able to win, but a total victory over the Allies in 1942? C'mon

They did, I just am not so into describing battles. The Pacific at points is very littered with wrecks

The war started sooner and lasted 4 years, pretty close to reality and they moved quicker and had more success sooner. Doesn't seem so much of an aberation to me ...

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior



I was refering to The Hanoverian's.

I wasn't In my game as the UK Germany was annexed as it was historically between the Allies and Commies with the USA ai invading Japan proper. Basing long term opinions on 3 AARs is not an accurate thing ...

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Panzer39


I would have to think that if the game is historical the Axis has to win by 1942/1943 in order to win at all. Also the ARR's start in 1936 which gives the AI a lot of room to mess up the building up of allied nations and the player a lot of time to adjust the country to their own playing style. I would like to see how the Axis does in a 1939 scenerio.

Good point, most people play the '36 scenario because that gives the most options to change history.

 

[unmerged(1104)]

Originally posted by BiB


Good point, most people play the '36 scenario because that gives the most options to change history.

Just like the 1419 GC can significantly alter European History.

Didn't the Italian push into East/Southern Africa come from units based in Italian East Africa (Ethiopia-Somalia) not Libya?

Your AAR is well written and very informative - thanks.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Originally posted by BiB

Basing long term opinions on 3 AARs is not an accurate thing ...

You should post this phrase in 20pt. bold letters and sticky it on top of the AAR section

EDIT: BTW, great AAR! Although I'm a little disappointed you didn't actually invade L.A. ...

 

[unmerged(2238)]

Very informative BiB. Nice work. As has been said, a tad disturbing, but again, a sample of 3 AARs does not a trend or statistic make.

 

[L G]

Yes it is still early i would like to see more wars

 

[AOW]

Not worthless, just not as valuable (for the investment) as air power.
Billy Mitchell proved this point in the 20's. Yammamoto ran with it, though used the idea to promote and build carriers which got sunk. Islands don't sink.
Air is the ultimate long jab. Subs are surprise, stealth coupled with a big punch. Why spend years building up a navy that can be taken out in an afernoon (Midway, Pearl Harbor)?
As I've have only played about 2 games worth of EU2, I am hardly being swayed by "old" continental thinking.
I fight to win, and I believe the way to win is to take out the SU and then use its resources to hold off the US. Just lasting to 1947 is better than historical, but still a draw.
I do look forward to more of the AAR, BiB. PLease keep it rolling.

Kampai