@Stough said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
@trulpen Again, I’m new so my ideas are probably wonky. After three test plays, all using a Sea Lion Variant (btw, I only think Sea Lion is good if you want to get Italy into the game. Britain has to respond to it in some measure and that gives Italy a chance), I think a G-1 DOW looks pretty good.
You can nuke 7 Russians and start the border squabbles that attrit Russia, while close to home.
Buy 3Art and 6 inf in round 1, (maybe a destroyer or sub) and then a bunch.
Place a sub in Russias convoy zone on rd 1 and keep occupying that thing to deny Russia the 5ipc’s.
I think your advice to buy a crap ton of wagons (mech) in round 2 is very sound. Followed by a mix of fast movers in rd 3-4 and some bombers.
It seems fairly simple to leverage Russia with a strong push. Use the Luftwaffe to full advantage and get either Nov or Ukraine or both.
I’m not sure nailing Moscow is even necessary. Just push them back, hurt their economy and anaconda them to death, while dealing with US/UK.
Anyhow, lots of big talk from me. I’ll be play testing Germany without a Sea Lion for the next three games. We’ll see what headaches the Brits can bring without a Sea Lion. The US will be spending about 2/3 of their budget on Germany.
BTW. What fighter is sent to Tobruk?
Fig from Slovakia. Going there after hitting Yugo.
I would never support an early Sea Lion, unless something exceptional happened. Early is something like before turn 6.
Conquering Moscow might not be a necessity, but if it can be done it’s a top priority. Getting Russia out of play and all that extra income is worth tons.
@CaptainNapalm Rulebook says (P1940.2, page 37): “Japan may not end the movement of its sea units within 2 sea zones of the United States’ mainland territories (Western United States and Alaska).”
So the territories serve as starting point to count 2 SZ - that means that Japan is allowed to enter SZ 26.
Besides, Japan cannot be neutral, as it starts being at war with China. It is just not at war with USA. Only USA and SU start the game being neutral powers.
@WindowWasher Great advice.
I’m on my 3rd play test; each one using a Sea Lion feint and a J-1.
Ignoring the litany of tactical errors I am making… in my second game I did indeed force Japan to build a Navy, but it didn’t matter. It was a great game though- lasted forever. It ended up with Armageddon in the Oil States- the 3rd battle of Megido with Liepzig thrown in to boot. ( The Axis could have won it earlier but wanted to see what would happen f I retreated with Russia all the way to the ME).
For game three, I tried an iterating Tactic in the Pac. I bought 2 planes a round for the US and flew them down to Queensland. ANZAC played possum bough a few men and a fighter and saved some money. Meanwhile hovering with the 16 Russians in Amur. After Japan took the Money islands in J2, I attacked Korea/Manchuria in R3. Japan devastated those Russians in J3, but it pulled enough of their resources to allow ANZAC to build an airbase in Western Australia and have enough stuff their to hold it AND Queensland. Next turn, there will be 5 more fighters in India.
So those Russians delayed India for a turn and in so doing may have secured it for a long while.
The bad news is that Alexandira has been a disaster for the Allies, so it looks like they will lose anyhow. (the Germans are just rolling like gods in the Sea every game- they are 3 for 3 in taking out SZ 101 and 96; Taranto was a disaster for the UK and the Italians took Alex on I3; I’m waiting for R4 for Germany-Russia to start scrapping.- it’s an interesting game)
Anyhow, my point is, it seems if one can get Jpan to ping pong a bit, you can secure Australia and get a strong force in India to boot, just buying fighters and 2 inf (for Hawaii), and timing the R attack with the Air base in W. Australia.
In other words, I’m starting to learn how important the mobility of an Air Force is. I’m still so used to just buying a crap ton of infantry.
@CHILDREN Thanks for designing and sharing these setup charts. I wonder if you have them in a white background. The black background consumes too much of my black ink. Or, would you know other alternative setup charts with a lighter background? Many thanks.
@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:
The consensus here is that UK should either buy 6 infantry or 1 fighter, or 2 fighters and 1-2 men/arty. That’s still not enough stuff to stop Germany esp later on the the game so that’s just the obligatory 1st turn UK buy.
My friends would get pretty mad at me if I forfeited the game on turn 1. I can’t say I’ve never whined about getting diced or making a bad move, but I’d play out at least 4 turns just to make it fair to them. Think about good you feel when you get amazing luck and get to stomp on the competition–you should let them do that too even when the stomp-ee is you.
Once all their stuff is together and they have 2 transports, they have a variety of things they can do. Yes, that fleet is still vulnerable but now UK has to spend turns 2-4 being wary of Egypt and the MIddle East/Middle Earth zone being threatened. You can’t build in peace and consolidate your position. Really, the kicker is what I said originally–Italy is a gigantic liability to Germany if its weak and Germany has to divert planes and soliders to protect rome rather than having Rome as a helper. The US can easily take Rome with a 4-turn-build fleet and the German player would divert mobility units to SItaly (infantry are too slow to get there and Northern Italy’s stack is weak as well cutting off the lines of communication).
Once America is in SZ 91, the writing is on the wall for the Italian Fleet and Capital anyways, unless Germany does something about that. Its more about buying time with Italy, and getting that can opener ready so that Russia falls before Italy does.
It is precisely because of that (have to forfait a game that is screwed from UK1 up) that i was looking for alternatives for taranto. But the experience shows that either on UK2 or UK3 you still end up with a big (sea) battle against italian air and navy in a kind of taranto2.0. off course the rest of the board also looks a bit diffrent. Once again yes in 90% of the games taranto will work out, but in the 10% it doesn’t (dices can be cruel) it is almost a game over.
An argument pro Gibastion is the fact that sea lion becomes nearly impssible for germany (on the condition you keep your UK fleet and fighters intact until UK2.
An other plan i have ben playing with is to save the UK carrier in the red sea, and built a BB in south africa on UK2 and a carrier in india on UK1 (when no j1 DOW). Thus combining those two fleets you are almost equal in size as the japanese navy (2 BB and 2 carriers versus 2BB and 3 carriers).
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Beating J1:
I have seen an increasing number of top players focused on KGF with ANZAC turtling for much of the game. It truly is hard for Japan to capture Australia or Hawaii with just a little bit of USA assistance. Fighters are such a great unit since they provide so much protection on defense, can threaten fleets with a few sacrificial subs, and can strafe ground units. Never underestimate the strafe against Japan as ground units are so precious. Often I will sacrifice USA planes for Japan infantry. A 1:2 exchange can still be a strategic victory for the United States.
I think, when japan consolidates his navy and transports around Carolines on J1 (no DOW) then buying a tpt with anzac is not a good idea. Even when japan DOW on J2 or J3 while slowly building up around carolines, anzac might fall easier than you think. I always thought anzac was very to take in the early game, but buying to much fleet in the beginnin with japan around carolines opens the door to an early invasion.
For the most part it was kind of just a playtest since he did the Taranto Raid as well with both strategies being put into the ditch after Afrika Korps. (btw to simplify things, all Afrika Korps is is Germany taking 3 transports, a BB, CV, Cruiser and Sub to the Med to protect the Italian fleet until it can protect itself, then conquer the ME and Egypt and win the game and sit on the throne on the doorstep to Moscow
Take Persia UK1
Anzac Fighters to Java Z1
Buy/Stack defense for Z because the road home is about to get cut
If any planes survive Taranto, keep them flexible so they can fly to or near india within 1 turn
Try not to let China die buy time
Rebuild a small fleet in the Red sea it can also go both ways
Bide your time
Japan can’t blindly rush India without watching its back–it takes really skillful play to manage more than 1 factory and defend SZ 6. If 2 Japan CV go south, the US can overwhelm Japan. If Japan starts the war too early, or ramps too many factories, it cannot build against the USA
I have moved the follow up discussion about Loading Transports in Hostile Seazones in the Classic Editon to the Classic-Category:
Well if you play with new players you kinda need a way to let them play their game while also learning them the game. Which is a fine balance.
Is this an optimal strategy absolutely not.
Does this give the US something to do that could be usefull, sort off.
Though it might be better to send them via canada -> UK and then have the uk protect the transports near the UK. it gives a double chuck but since its historicaly accurate and gives them the option to attack germany earlier. And you have to lead them even less, just say something like lets do it like they did in the war, move US troops to UK and then strike.
IF you are experienced and playing with new players expect to lose and just see the game as a fun time hanging out with friends where the game happens to be present.
Although I have taken to passing on the SZ37 attack in a J1. The bombers are highly useful for attacking Yunnan and facilitate keeping an infantry out of the attack, although if you think 17% to lose a plane is something I can’t imagine you doing that. Also, losing the Cruiser may not be worth as much as the UK BB.
I would really like to here the communities take on this subject. Praises and criticisms. I realize I’m late to the ball, but here I am and I’ excited about getting into this game.
Here is my take.
This board and map are great.
I love the hugeness of it; this thing is just massive.
The geography and how that effects play was very well thought out. Africa is squashed down abut as much as possible and there is more room available in Europe as one could have reasonably made without completely distorting the world map. The point being , the map still looks like the world while still being able to provide effective space for game play- that is a tough balance to achieve.
The idea of making the Himalayas and Sahara impassible was inspired. Of course they are impassible to large armies. If the Axis want to do damage to the British Empire in Sub Saharan Africa, they need to either turn the corner at Alexandria or win the Atlantic or Indian Oceans.
The neutral spaces are very well done. More on that when I review the Neutral Countries.
But the main thing the map gets right is what it’s supposed to get right, it provides the right geometry to promote good game play. Their are major regions and regions within those regions and each set has its own keys to being manipulated for offense and defense. That makes for interesting game play.
Even better, I haven’t found any rinky dink ways of manipulating the geography in ways that don’t feel true to the intent of the game/WW2. The space in the Pacific is an obstacle. The Space of Russia is an obstacle. As they both should be. The benefit from gaining Scandinavia is big, but its not a game changer. The Far East or the Black Sea can’t be used as some unanticipated flanking move. One doesn’t want to be tied down to replaying WW2 as accurately as possible, but one doesn’t want to completely break with reality either.
Every game I play I learn new things about this board. I’ve played 4 intensive games with myself and am still feel like I am a long long ways from mastering the geography of this board. That is a good thing.
Certainly there are things I could quibble about.
The names for the Chinese Provinces could be better. In that , as someone who lives in China, I would prefer the proper current Pinyin names for them, A westerner defiantly made this game. But I understand they are trying to keep with the Pre 1949 feel for the region and using the terms the west used back then; so ok.
Having Kazakistan so far south is a bit weird.
There are times where I wish certain spaces were larger; I’m looking at you Bessarabia and SZ110. But most of my spatial problems stem from my style of game play which is still rooted in monolithic stacks of enormous proportions which worked well in the Axis and Allies of old.
Which brings me to my biggest opinion about this board. This board is infinitely superior to the previous incarnations of Axis and Allies.
This is a very good and interesting game and it starts with the map.
What are your thoughts?
It looks like you are reflecting to Revised or older rulesets.
Significant changes have been established since then. The current AA rules have been incorporated with the 1940 2nd. ed. rulesets as well as with 1942, 2nd Edition.
So what you don’t find in the rules is not in the rules, indeed.
Please ask if anything in the current rulesets is unclear to you.
Basicaly during combat you have to demonstrate that there is a legal way to land.
During combat there is no requirement anymore you can take away carriers first as the fighters are already there. There is no check during the combat rounds only during combat move and non combat move there is a check if the move is valid.
During non combat you have to land as many of your planes as you can. So you must move a carrier to pick up surviving planes if that is possible.
@Billbob Hellllllooooo Billybob. Welcome to the club. Once you go global very hard to go Europe or Pacific. It’s just too damn fun. Plenty of info here and many members who have decades of experience in this game. So if you have any questions just ask away. Enjoy a great game.