Axis victory

[ronrye]

When you all play as the Axis and win, which side usually has the victory? How many people have won in the pacific?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I generally win in the Pacific because America freaks out about London falling and races over to Europe hoping to stop Germany from winning.  (Thus nothing is there to stop Japan from winning.)

[munchie19]

I've played Axis a few times and found my aggressive strategy is very effective, I can probably recall about three or four victories out of five or six games I've played as Axis.

[knp7765]

Usually, in our Axis won games, it is Germany winning after grabbing all the Russian cities with Italy grabbing Cairo.  However, there have been a couple of games where Japan pulled off the win, and it's usually because of what Commander Jennifer said, USA freaking out over London falling and pouring too much into the Atlantic leaving Japan to go hog wild in the Pacific.
We had one game a few months ago where the Allies just couldn't get their act together and the Axis won on BOTH boards.  Germany/Italy captured 8 VCs on one round.  Then on the round that you play to give the Allies a chance to liberate a VC, Japan got it's 6th VC on the Pacific side.  (Germany also captured London that round, making 9 VCs on the Europe side)

[ronrye]

So is there a good way to balance US between the two boards or is it better to go primarily for just one side? If you want to liberate London, could you purchase accordingly and then just build enough subs/des in the Pacific to defend Honolulu and Sydney so that Japan couldn't get victory?

[ronrye]

I generally win in the Pacific because America freaks out about London falling and races over to Europe hoping to stop Germany from winning.  (Thus nothing is there to stop Japan from winning.)

So, US races over because Germany is dominating in Europe? (where London is out, Russia is in trouble, and Italy holds Egypt). So, essentially Japan gets the victory because Germany is about to get victory?

[ronrye]

I've played Axis a few times and found my aggressive strategy is very effective, I can probably recall about three or four victories out of five or six games I've played as Axis.

Did you get victory from the 8 vcs in Europe or the 6 vcs in the Pacific?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I generally win in the Pacific because America freaks out about London falling and races over to Europe hoping to stop Germany from winning.  (Thus nothing is there to stop Japan from winning.)

So, US races over because Germany is dominating in Europe? (where London is out, Russia is in trouble, and Italy holds Egypt). So, essentially Japan gets the victory because Germany is about to get victory?

Not what I said.  I said that I usually win with Japan if America freaks out about London falling (perhaps because they saw 10 transports for Germany 2 and thus put 6 warships in SZ 101 instead) in such a case they have sufficiently hampered themselves so as to allow me better than normal odds of getting and holding 6 VCs on the Pacific board.  That is, better than average, not better than any other game in the history of Axis and Allies, nor am I saying this is true 100% of the time - if it was, then it would be broken, right? 

[knp7765]

So is there a good way to balance US between the two boards or is it better to go primarily for just one side? If you want to liberate London, could you purchase accordingly and then just build enough subs/des in the Pacific to defend Honolulu and Sydney so that Japan couldn't get victory?

I have found it is usually better for the Allies if the US goes primarily one side or the other.  In fact, I find if US goes after Japan first really hard and can more or less neutralize them early enough (don't have to actually take Tokyo, just sink the navy and corner them on Japan), there is usually enough time for US to make a decent presence in Europe before Germany/Italy gets the 8 VCs.

I have also found that when US tries splitting up it's resources between both theaters, they end up with not enough on either side to make a difference.  They may slow the Axis down, but not defeat them.  Meanwhile, Germany gains ground in Russia and Japan gains ground in China and India.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

So is there a good way to balance US between the two boards or is it better to go primarily for just one side? If you want to liberate London, could you purchase accordingly and then just build enough subs/des in the Pacific to defend Honolulu and Sydney so that Japan couldn't get victory?

I have found it is usually better for the Allies if the US goes primarily one side or the other.  In fact, I find if US goes after Japan first really hard and can more or less neutralize them early enough (don't have to actually take Tokyo, just sink the navy and corner them on Japan), there is usually enough time for US to make a decent presence in Europe before Germany/Italy gets the 8 VCs.

I have also found that when US tries splitting up it's resources between both theaters, they end up with not enough on either side to make a difference.  They may slow the Axis down, but not defeat them.  Meanwhile, Germany gains ground in Russia and Japan gains ground in China and India.

I concur.

[ronrye]

So is there a good way to balance US between the two boards or is it better to go primarily for just one side? If you want to liberate London, could you purchase accordingly and then just build enough subs/des in the Pacific to defend Honolulu and Sydney so that Japan couldn't get victory?

I have found it is usually better for the Allies if the US goes primarily one side or the other.  In fact, I find if US goes after Japan first really hard and can more or less neutralize them early enough (don't have to actually take Tokyo, just sink the navy and corner them on Japan), there is usually enough time for US to make a decent presence in Europe before Germany/Italy gets the 8 VCs.

I have also found that when US tries splitting up it's resources between both theaters, they end up with not enough on either side to make a difference.  They may slow the Axis down, but not defeat them.  Meanwhile, Germany gains ground in Russia and Japan gains ground in China and India.

Hmmmm. How many rounds does it take for US to corner Japan, and when can they make a presence is the Atlantic? Maybe when I play as the axis I'm just not playing against great players, because in my games it would not be possible for US to corner Japan and then go and make a difference in Europe, because victory comes for the axis before US has any chance of that. For example, in my last game as Germany, I decided to try sea lion for the first time, and it went SO much better than what I was planning on (and it wasn't just luck). I had plenty of units on London for when the US would come around. Then I moved over to Russia and I burst through their front lines--Russia went from a big threat (as it was holding the three border countries in Germany) to a threat Germany could stop two or maybe even three times over. This was just the beginning of round 5, which I don't think is enough time for US to do its work in the Pacific and then move over to the Atlantic to liberate London or capture back Egypt or hold Rome for a round.

(BTW, Jenn, it was because of my previous games where I dominate as the axis that I was assuming Germany owned London, Italy held Egypt, and Russia was in trouble).

I would have thought that after I went for Sealion that Russia would have been able to pound into Germany a whole lot more than it did. Any thoughts?

[knp7765]

Well, yeah, a lot depends on the playing caliber of your opponents.  If your Russian player doesn't work his defense well, then Germany will probably push through and grab Moscow faster than they normally would.  If your England player doesn't properly protect London, like maybe putting too much in the Med against the Italians or even trying to rebuild the fleet instead of troops/planes for London's defense, Sealion could happen for Germany way easier than it should.

Basically, I am referring to games between players of somewhat equal experience/talent.  If the Pacific Allies can manage to keep Calcutta out of Japanese hands and the US spends wisely in the Pacific, mainly warship and aircraft purchases, then Japan could possibly be cornered on their island by round 6-8 or so.  UK India has to defend Calcutta as much as possible because once Japan gets it, it is unlikely to be liberated.  However, once UK successfully defends Calcutta against a Japanese invasion, then it is more likely that the threat will be over and Japan will start getting pushed back.  Any Japanese forces in the area will simply be too weak to make another attempt, and they will probably be VERY short on land units anyway.

Then, with the powerful US Navy coming into the scene, Japan will start losing ships that it can't easily replace.  Meanwhile the USA CAN replace it's naval losses much easier.  China and UK will start making headway on the mainland, driving Japan further and further back to the coast.  ANZAC will be hitting any smaller targets.  Before long, most of the Japanese navy will be depleted and the US will have a large fleet right in SZ 6 convoy raiding Japan into the poorhouse.

Also, I wouldn't bother getting too many transports, men and tanks/art for USA.  Let ANZAC take all the islands from Japan and the Brits and Chinese (and maybe even Russians) take the mainland territories.  USA's job is to kill that ��� Navy then surround Japan.  If UK and Russia are done right, Germany/Italy won't yet have their needed VCs and the US can start sending troops to Europe in a big way.  Once US gets a large force in Europe, or better yet takes Rome, Germany will be doomed.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

First off, there is no possible way to stop a G3 sea lion under the current incarnation of the rules (as of 1/3/2012).  What is debatably is whether or not this means Russia is unstopable.  I say no, I say you can still easily contain and push the Russians back, it's only a matter of if America can stop you from winning before you do win.  I justify this with the fact you still have 13 transports, that's a bloody aweful mess of units you can land in Russia each round and something Russia has to consider before sending armies into the Balkans and without whole armies in the Balkans, they're not holding them against Italy.

[Alsch91]

That's a very good point, Jen.

The counter-weight to Sealion is a stronger Russia, and one that is on the offense quickly.
And with the altered Russian NO, that Russia can get even larger.
However, people often forget to keep in mind that Russia's infrastructure is not designed to support a sustained offense.
They only have 2 minor ICs in range to make much of a difference, while the Axis have 3 Major ICs in the area that are more than capable of pumping infantry to push Russia out.

Even if Russia is making ~48 a turn while Germany is making ~60 a turn, Germany will be able to push Russia out much quicklier than those numbers suggest because of those differences in production capacity.

And Germany's complete naval supremacy after a successful Sealion prevents a strong Russia from advancing further than they'd be able to otherwise.

So even though Russia does have an advantage initially, it does go away quickly.  That's the issue that determines the balance in a Sealion game.

[knp7765]

I wasn't saying that Sealion wouldn't happen or that Germany wouldn't be successful at it.  I was saying that depending on what the UK player does, it could be rather hard for Germany, requiring them to use a lot of resources, or it could even be easy, requiring Germany to use less to take London and therefore have more to start out against the Russians.

I have seen games where Germany went for Sealion and the Brits defended so well that while Germany captured London, they used up a lot of ground forces and even lost a lot of their air force in doing it.  Also, the naval investment is pretty big too.  A carrier and 10-12 transports isn't cheap and isn't as likely to help against Russia.  Yes, you could use them to amphibious assault Leningrad, but if you lose a lot of land units taking England, you will have to buy that much more to refill those transports.  What's happening on the eastern border during this?  It just could be that in taking London, Germany could end up in a sorry state against Russia.

I have also seen games where UK made the wrong choices, like investing too much in Africa or trying to rebuild the fleet, and Germany ends up pulling off a Sealion with only 4 or 5 transports and their air force.  In this case, Germany will still have a lot of stuff to throw at Russia and have all of England's money to boot.

Of course, a lot depends on the roll of the dice.  Unless you use low-luck that is.