@dictatorcj

Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.

@afterword I like to put a IC in Burma and move troops down to FIC. I like to force a response from the Allies either with a IC in India by the UK or Russia moving to support. Anything that takes money or troops away from Europe helps.

@squirecam said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@squirecam

I’d much rather have transports moving troops directly into Lenningrad then worrying about tanks. Moscow is going to fall once they are deprived of enough IPC. Or, I’ll never get there because I’m defending and letting Japan win.

I absolutely agree with this. This is how the German player should take Leningrad. Obviously with troops bordering leningrad as well like from Finland/Belarussia as well as the Baltic states. And granted it doesn’t take a huge navy to protect 3 transports givertake. Like I said, unless theres a detail I’m missing, Leningrad won’t win you the war, but it’ll substantially put the war effort in your favor as Germany, and frankly taking Leningrad should be Germany’s #1 priority to begin with, regardless of the 1941 or 1942 setup, and I would expect a proper Soviet player to take immediate actions to protecting Leningrad as if it’s more important than Moscow, and if the Soviet player thinks retreating from Leningrad is a good idea then you’ve just basically won the game.

But all in all, this is of me going by the idea that the Soviet Player knows what they’re doing, and knows how to take immediate steps to fighting off the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Like I said, I dont disagree that Germany shouldn’t have a navy say in the Baltic Sea to protect the territories bordering it as well as the transports but no way in hell will they be building a large enough navy to take on the every growing size of the British and American navy. (Yes, I’ve done a 42’ scenario with a buddy of mine and as the allies both America and Britain had possession of atleast 2 aircraft carriers filled with fighters and a battleships).

Hense why the only way Germany will be able to so said “Walk up to Moscow and then take Caucusus” is through tanks and blitzkreig. it’s what they were designed to do, move fast and move efficiently across terrain

@woodstock said in Can the Allies win in 1942?:

“How long can Russia hold out on it’s own against Germany?”

Quite a while. In fact, Russia can hold out for so long they’ll have taken Berlin. Yup, I’m being serious when I say that, a proper USSR player can hold out against Germany, and Italy, push them back all the way to Rome and Berlin and win the war all together. What I’m saying may seem WAY too overstretched and I dont blame u for thinking that. But I sure as hell did it in the 42’ setup. And after doing it, it made me see the obvious.

The Soviets can’t ‘hold out’ until the allies arrive. By turns 7-9 the Soviets will have needed to shift the tides, and be on the offensive towards Berlin, whether the allies have landed or not.

As much as I’d like to think that America and the British have some huge major important factor in this, they really don’t. The entirety of the war effort all rests on the brains and brawns of the player playing the Soviet Union, granted that’s not to say the U.K and the U.S can’t help a brother out, I’m just saying this so called Soviets hold out until “Round 4, 5 or 6” is pretty baloney. Because the that’s pretty much the time when America and the U.K should be SETTING UP to land in mainland Europe, and they still won’t do it for another good 3-4 turns.

Something that one of my favorite Axis and Allies youtubers said, GeneralHandGrenade, spoke of the fact that as the allies (America specifically) There is no short cheap way to win the war for the allies, landing on turn 3-4 is WAY too early for either, frankly a properly played game as the allies could genuinly go on till’ round 11 or 12.

And if any player can’t seem to hold out against the Germans and Italians in the 1942 setup then they’re playing the Soviet Union wrong, and you should probably hand off the role to somebody else, because the player playing the USSR kinda needs to know how to play the game, and play it well.

(i know this is old, I dont even think you’re gonna see this but I was born in the early 2000’s so I wasn’t around for the forums)

I also did something like this on 42 2E, and worked. A bit risky but worth the fun doing this as an alternative start.

@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

@PizzaPete said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

Anyone here ever try putting a Japan IC in East Indies Round 1?

YES! That was the first reply in this thread

@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

@Soviet-Steamroller said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

1) where to put my IC? (F.I.C. or Burma directly under UK’s nose?).

East Indies. It produces 4 units per turn, you’ll have a navy nearby in SZ35 after J1 (for a J2 build of a tpt and 2 inf, perhaps AAA if the allies get cute with a USA bomber in australia

A decent UK player would probably put an IC in India in response but also could muster 1 inf from Persia and 2 Fighters (Egypt & Australia). On my J2 i would be facing 4 inf, 2 fighters and 1 AA!

Well don’t I look like an idiot, lol. My bad.

Hi, I know this is an old topic, but I’m curious if everyone still thinks 6 is a good bid for the allies, and if so, are you playing with the national objectives enabled?

I play with the objectives, and we usually do a bid of 9-12 for the allies.

Welcome to the forum, Nate 13.

Amphibious assault movement occurs during the Combat Move phase. So you must bring transports already loaded to SZ 14.

When the sea battle occurs, Combat Move phase is already over. There is no way to add another Combat Move then.

Bridging from Italy during Combat Move phase would have been allowed, if SZ 14 had been friendly, then.

Balance issues… Dardanelles should always be closed… NOs favor the Axis, hands down.

Something not in the rules, but a very simple House rule our group uses for both balance and just plain fun…

90% of the time, Japan nukes the Flying Tigers in China on turn 1 before the Allies get to make a single move with them. They are basically placed in a “please kill me” position.

Our group always allows the Allied player the choice to place the Flying Tigers anywhere they want within China on the initial setup… it’s a very minor concession both for play balance and strategic fun.

Also, I get where you’re coming from about the lost IPCs from both Chinese territories and the territories the Chinese take, but I believe that an Indian IC can become Japan’s biggest problem, so I suppose I see taking India as worth some sacrifice.

But yes, I see that it’s not exactly “Happy Japan.” More like “safe from Chinese and Britain but otherwise status quo Japan.”

That’s my concern too, but if the USA distracts Japan, then Britain should be able to send tanks to the Caucuses reasonably quickly.

The way I play Germany, the Germans tend to have a large airforce to destroy any Allied navy in the Atlantic. If the Germans do squander their air force and don’t keep it up, then Britain would be able to use its IPCs to build a fleet to land in Norway or something.

The other thing is that this denies Germany/Italy the African IPCs, so it does help contain the Germans.

Hi all,

Is there a standard bid/bid range for the Anniversary 1942 scenario?  Or is it considered well-balanced enough that a bid is not normally needed?

In 1942 scenario, a Baltic navy is a viable option for Germany.  A carrier on G1 and a transport or two will enable Germany to do battle in Norway, Finland and Karelia.

Never underestimate the ability to use German planes to counter the Russian stacks of inf.  With German inf, art, and air, Germany can create their own dead zones to keep Russia from advancing.

In 1942, Germany attacks AFTER Russia.  This can be key as then Italian and Japanese ftrs can be used to cover German ground thrusts.  Assuming Japan can afford a ftr or two, but this may not always be the case as a USA pacific strategy is quite viable in 1942.

Keep reading in this thread for further discussions.  There are plenty of quality strategy posts here.

Test summary from TripleA, engine version: 1.7.0.1, time: 20:52:08

@axis_roll:

Part of the problem with the 1942 scenario is how strong Germany is.  She can grow quickly due to her large income base.  The needs of the European Theatre will dictate what USA can do in the Pacific.  As in the real war, Europe was the main target initially.

Yes I agree, most of my games I cannot ignore Europe as the US because Germany gets very powerful. However most of the time if I do go pacific I am always looking to sink Japanese fleets which just seems overwhelming but I will try your advice and position groups together near the islands and work on defence.

Appreciate the input guys.  🙂

Ok, so the Brits couldn’t roll to save their lives but I wouldn’t learn anything if I just kept blaming loses on my dice. Anyway, I built an IC in India first round, very effective for a KJF strategy (which I got caught up in). US did very well to liberate the UK IPCs in the south Pacific and during the post game talk Japan felt that losing that money hurt a lot. However, I am constantly reminded of how much the game board changes by the time America gets a turn and even at the end of the second round. I am convinced that the US above all must begin the game without a plan and be the most adaptable player. I had a small Uk fleet after G1, but I was very slow building it up as I became focused in India as the push on Japan with the entire US resources was going very well. The only problem was that Germany was free to roll on Russia. With support of around 9 allied fighters Russia was holding on and although UK landed troops in France during round 5, Germany destroyed my fleet with her air force (a battle in which I rolled very badly). With Germany at Russia’s door and no allied help coming from the west. my only chance was to capture Japan whom I had pushed back to Manchuria and Tokyo. Thats when I made a mistake and took the Philippines 1 round to early and in a desperate counter attack from her fleet and the fighters I failed to notice on the main land, the Japs wiped out my southern fleet without loosing large boats (he piled up on subs when he saw me coming). so with Russia surrounded and the American north fleet to small to take Tokyo. I had no choice but to surrender (I figured the Japs would have had more than enough time to recover before I could challenge again). Oh well, win some lose some. Other factors in the outcome was 1. Italy took Egypt without losing a single unit 2. Russia tried a small push back that only exposed them in the buffer zones 3. Japan built a factory in each of the first two rounds attracting all the allied focus 4. the US miscalculated some naval defense odds and finally Germany was collecting $43 by round 6. Some positives of the game was when two US bombers from England wiped out the German navy without a loss, and I rolled a 5 or a 6 for every UK bomber that raided for damage (which sounds about right considering thats what they were rolling all gmae) thanks for all the advice, I learned a lot. My next game is a complete 6 player war on March 5th, I will be playing the Japanese imperial forces. I will be here looking for help.

Thanks. I appreciate it

Same deal with AA42. Unfortunately, my AA50 odds calculator only allows battleships to be taken first.

the discussion has been 42, but has gone into strategy.

When AA50 first came out, 41 was new and unbroken ground.  Now that some time has passed, I think 42 is still the Axis and Allies setup to play, only with bigger board!  The addition of Italy for a 3 vs 3 game makes it balanced.  Short games still favor Axis and long games still favor Allies.  It’s how it should be.

Can’t wait for G40!!!

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Turn 1 buy for Germany: 1 carrier, 1 transport, 2 tanks, and 2 infantry.  Gives Germany a mobile amphibious attack force that dominates the Baltic.

I agree - that is a good buy.  I usually play with tech, so buy at least 1 less tank than that - a first round tech can be devastating!

@Cmdr:

I have to admit, I really enjoy the idea of closed dardenelles.  I like tech, but life is SOOOO much easier for Russia if Italy cannot attack them directly.

Perhaps, I guess, 1 allied player vs 3 axis players would also balance things.

I also like closed Dardenelles, but my group will never agree to it.  Allies have to make up for it by landing in France turn 1.  Yes, Italy retakes it, but it keeps Italy away from Russia, and with NOs, UK trades 3-6 IPCs for 11.

Imo, # of players makes no difference.  At least wit the people I play with, both Axis and Allies work very well together.  I’ve seen Italy do amazing things.  UK lands in Poland, Italy retakes Poland.

That suggestion is from Larry Harris, btw.  It really changes things for China

no bids.  42 is balanced.

@gamerman01:

@SAS:

You are right though that Advanced Artillery, War Bonds, and Radar have probably the least effect on the game.  (Those and Super Subs since there are few subs left on the board after the first couple turns unless you’re going after Japan heavily)

Whaaaa??  Radar is freaking awesome, even with Japan and USA!

I house rule war bonds - best of 2 dice.

Well, I suppose it depends upon how much SBRs are done and how much you move your AA around, because it does double your chances of taking out a plane. 🙂  In that case we can probably list War Bonds as the worst (arguably apparently) from Chart 1, followed closely by Advanced Artillery; and Super Subs as the worst from Chart 2 for lack of use, followed by Radar just by comparison to the other techs available on Chart 2 (LRA, HBs, Jets, Improved Shipyards), though I’m sure Germany would much rather have Radar than Improved Shipyards in most games given the chance. 😉  Anyway, none of this directly relates to artillery & Russia, so I’m done.  I will stop posting my silly opinions of tech after this post. 😄

No allied player can afford lose one turn. Italy might have some sense if you plan buy a AC or a BB, but for a naval buildup I’d prefer 1 fig, then the AC. Japan can afford wait one turn in 1941 scenario, but there is no point doing so