Why the Allies have the upper hand

[Alair]

That's one way of looking at it.... but that doesn't take into account the whole picture.

Karelia on it's own is worth 2... so by having the fighters on Karelia Russia loses 3 production (fighters mean $5 less but keeps Karelia's $2 production).. plus keeps another factory.  That factory is huge for Germany.  Germany has problems supplying infantry to the front, so not letting them take it is big.

Plus, Germany gets $5 for taking Karelia or Caucassus.  So the real calculation should be:

Russia - loses $3 and keeps Karelia, isolating Finland and all that area off from the rest of Germany meaning America/Britan can take it easily.
Germany - loses $7 and stays at one factory... where they only start with Germany itself.

To me it's a no brainer.

Something else, I looked at it again.  If Germany attacks the BB off Iceland then they will lose airforce, so 2 fighters will suffice to keep Karelia.  If not, transport a tank and army off England along with the 2 fighters into SZ4 just north of Karelia.  That's what I'm going to try my next game.

[AdamD021]

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

[Uncle_Joe]

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we've played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan's huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific 'strat' resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I've learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan's bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be 'realistic', but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.

[Alair]

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we've played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan's huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific 'strat' resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I've learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan's bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be 'realistic', but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.

I agree 100%.

Taking India on J2 is the equivalent of a KEF strategy and the USA should move against them accordingly.

When I did the J2 India the USA got a ton of bonus income from national objs because I neglected to take some key points.  I think Japan focusing on England and then Russia first should mean that USA builds a massive feat and comes in early.  If Japan focuses on on the US then England should have a IC on India.

Looking at the game more, it's just like the first AA.  If the allies want to build an IC on India, there's nothing the Axis can do about it, you should have to do some moves to assure you get it.  With that being said, I still think it's balanced against the allies.

[Count_Zeppelin]

IMHO the 41 scenario (Tech / no NOs) is balanced with neighter the axis nor the allies having the advantage. Sure, the first round germany and japan are almost unstoppable, but in turn 2 and 3 the tides turn. Earlier or later the germans stick in russian mud with his royal navy bombarding the western territories and the japanese forces wear thin in China while the United States Navy regains combat strengt. I played about 6 games in the 41 scenario, and both sides had equal wins.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I think that Russia building infantry in Round 1 is asking for problems.  You have no ability to take land.  If you send that armor to Karelia and you didn't buy any, Germany's basically free to stack the front lines iwth armor all day long because odds are, each one is going to take out 2 infantry if you attack them.


Just my opinion of the original post on that aspect.



Next aspect:  America cannot ignore Japan.  If they do, japan will come knock on California's door and as if Mr. Roosevelt can come out and play.

[Count_Zeppelin]

I think that Russia building infantry in Round 1 is asking for problems.  You have no ability to take land.  If you send that armor to Karelia and you didn't buy any, Germany's basically free to stack the front lines iwth armor all day long because odds are, each one is going to take out 2 infantry if you attack them.


Just my opinion of the original post on that aspect.



Next aspect:  America cannot ignore Japan.  If they do, japan will come knock on California's door and as if Mr. Roosevelt can come out and play.

I  basically agree with the above said.

Russia building only infantry in round 1 is asking for problems -
Russia has to develop offensive capabilities as well as retain the advantages of numerical solid defense - what IMHO calls for a mixed infantry-artillery-tank buy. I also like aircraft, but i belive that mobile (tank-) forces wich can conquer territories have a better early- and mid-game payof than aircraft.

America cannot ignore Japan -
I believe that japan should never try to attack the american continent - it just is not economical and there is no gain in it. Better conquer all the islands and force the american to invest in expensive naval units. The USA do not have to be afraid of some land units landed in alaska. Thats units transported in expensive transports occupying expensive fleet operation time only to be destroyed by cheap US land forces and aircraft the US will have to build to deal with the japanese navy anyway - killing of landed units is just not a problem. I prefer taking every british IP island and mainland territory.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

One should also note that W. Canada is no longer connected to the Ocean north of Alaska, making defense there harder for America. (You have to fly over Alaska to get there, pretty much kills your bombers in England being able to attack!)

As for Japan, I did not mean to imply they would TAKE W. USA, just come knocking on the door. (Basically taking Hawaii and threatening to invade.  Pretty much forces USA to build SOMETHING in W. USA.)


BTW, why do people forget that Poland is worth 3 IPC?  You can easily build a factory there to produce more ground units to the front, either southern front or northern front and if you are bombed, the MAX you can take is 6 IPC, not 12 like in France (which also is FARTHER from the front than Poland and thus, a lesser place to put a complex in my mind.)

Basically, Karelia is fine, but it's so far from Caucasus it doesn't help much there.  Poland, while it costs you 15 IPC to make the complex, 6 IPC to put a gun on it (preferably with radar as well, min 5 IPC there) it allows you to immediately dump units into the Russian front and it's pretty much immune from attack until Germany is losing the war anyway.

[Ó Ruanaidh]

Poland is also only one territory away from Germany, and unlike France, has only a coast on the Baltic. So is it worth 15 IPC's simply to save one move? I don't think so, whereas in France, one could build ships in three different sea zones and maintain a link with North Africa. Even if that means throwing one or two units across every now and again, England will have to deal with that, and it will most likely ignore France anyway, if there is a large build-up and AA gun. I think If I were Germany and going to place an IC anywhere, it would be in France. Not to mention that's a perfect spot to lauch a U-boat war from, as the British cannot simply bottle ships put out here up in the Baltic.

What I think is that the German player should decide right away whether he is going for an all out "destroy Russia ASAP" strategy, or if he is going to go for a strategy of fighting Russia mostly, but also harassing the U.K. and supporting Italy. The U.K. and U.S. can long be distracted by the war at sea, and the war in Africa, perhaps enough to let Germany destroy Russia. I myself would go for the latter strategy, as I hate seeing games where England goes about sailing freely with 2 destroyers and 10 transports, with nothing to oppose them, with subs coming out of the Bay of Biscay every now and again then the British will have to spend more to convoy their transports, and to defend their pricey capital ships, which a lucky sneak attack can destroy real quickly. So it's a test to see who spends more, either Germany, by building a factory and subs, or the U.K., by building counters to the subs, and sending more units to Africa.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Benefits of a Polish Industrial Complex:

Russia is only 3 spaces away
Karelia is only 2 spaces away
Caucasus is only 3 spaces away

If the complex is bombed, it cannot take more than 6 IPC in damage, unlike France which can take 12.

The complex is almost unimpeachable.  France could fall to massive allied landings.  If the allies have the strength to take Poland, they'll take Germany instead.



Yes, the draw back is only SZ 5 to build in.  Then again, why are you building navies???

[Ó Ruanaidh]

I should hardly use the word "navies" still less fleets. Just cheap ships every now and again that cannot be immediately neutralized by Perfidious Albion. Essentially, it is in Germany's best interests to keep at least some ships afloat. That way the Americans and English cannot sail about where-ever they please and have to spend precious ICP's on counters to sink Germany's subs or destroyers. I hardly advocate building Battleships or carriers, though a cruiser every now and again can't hurt. I guess it all depends on what type of player you are, the type of players your opponents are, and the particular situation you are in relative to the game.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

America and England are going to bloody well float whereever they want too.  Absolutely nothing you can do about this.

If you are facing 7 cruisers and a Battleship with England, you might want to plop down a destroyer each round.  Outside of that, you shouldn't even think about navy with Germany until Russia is defeated and your planes have cleared the North Atlantic of all hostile ships, IMHO.

[Uncle_Joe]

7 Cruisers and a Battleship?! Again, I guess we are just playing COMPLETELY different scales of games. Our games NEVER last long enough for England to build that up (unless they are being stupid and building nothing else, anyways). Brit fleets in our games are usually a CV, maybe a BB, and a few CAs/DDs depending on whether Germany is building planes en masse or not.

I would be REALLY curious to see some AARs for any online games played. I know everyone ends up falling into some form of 'group think' but I can only conclude that our games look nothing like some of the games I see folks posting various builds for.

FWIW, we dont play out to the bitter end of game. So if the Axis are defeated, we dont drag it out and wait for the huge fleets. I guess to put it simply, while the game is still competitive, we never see fleets the size of those I've seen posted here. Our games are usually very fast moving and no one really has time or resources to sit back and pile on the ships.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I only mentioned it because U505 has blown every penny England has ever had on getting 7 Cruisers for his Battleship so he can have 8 Shore Bombardments each time he lands.

It's an okay tactic I guess, but I'd rather have 7 bombers myself.

[Ó Ruanaidh]

And you could completely counter that strategy with but one destroyer or Sub, negating the shore bombardment of all those ships. To let the allies sail about where-ever they desire is foolish in my opinion. As they can take advantage of every situation, moving troops anywhere faster than you, and even prop up the Russians at the last second from the sea. Also, I've successfully used weak ships as bait. In the game I played tonight I used a destroyer based of France to bring two British ships (both cruisers) close to the shore, where one was sunk by the destroyer and the other by aircraft my next turn. Also, keeping at least one transport around forces the British to keep some troops in the U.K. itself, as when I'm England, I can usually empty the British Isles of all my troops without having to worry at all, since the people who play Germany, like you, concentrate solely on the destruction of Russia, and I therefore have freedom of action everywhere and anywhere I choose. It all depends on your style though I suppose, if taking Russia out quick while neglecting the sea works for you, then go for it, but I always see it as chancey that Germany will knock Russia out before the U.K./U.S. can bring large forces across the sea without hinderance, with all those uninterrupted shore bombardments.