• -USA builds IC in Brazil

    -UK builds IC in eastern Canada

    -Amass large land forces and transports with battleships and cruisers at both areas

    -US moves troops to Africa(already occupied by US in my game)

    -US invades Italy, with bombardment support

    -On Uk’s turn, the combined canadian and UK forces, perhaps even extra forces from US, do a D-Day invasion on France, again with naval support

    -Russian forces attack Germany

    Could this work? Are there any major/minor flaws? I came up with this overnight and haven’t tested it so please tell me if this could work.


  • @jmlport98:

    -USA builds IC in Brazil

    -UK builds IC in eastern Canada

    -Amass large land forces and transports with battleships and cruisers at both areas

    -US moves troops to Africa(already occupied by US in my game)

    -US invades Italy, with bombardment support

    -On Uk’s turn, the combined canadian and UK forces, perhaps even extra forces from US, do a D-Day invasion on France, again with naval support

    -Russian forces attack Germany

    Could this work? Are there any major/minor flaws? I came up with this overnight and haven’t tested it so please tell me if this could work.

    Well I’m still fairly new to the game but I’ll tell you what I think.

    First of all I get confused sometimes on versions.  I have the 1942 version but there is no italy, I’ve seen versions with italy, but to my knowledge 1942 wasnt’ one of them.

    However, if this is your strategy for the version I am thinking of I think you could do the same thing but easier.

    Building the IC’s in brazil and canada does not seem prudent to me.  You’d need lots of transports, and if you need to have those transports anyway, I don’t think you could spend more IPC on ground units in Britain or Eastern US that you couldn’t just place them all in those territories and transport them from there.  You can move 2 seazones from US to africa just as easily as you can move from brazil to africa (but you’d be closer to the combined allied navy)  And with UK you don’t even have to move your transports, they can just chill out below britain and you can transport 10 units per turn. Furthermore with this setup I think you’d need a smaller atlantic navy than what you were proposing.  As for invading itally, I don’t know if this is a version difference or if you mean bringing in transports and invading from where itally is located geographically on the board.  In the version I"m talking about I think you’re better off just dropping all UK and US troops in Western europe to prevent them from taking it back.

    Anytime you come up with a new strategy do not try to add anything to it.  In fact see how much you can take away.
    K
    I
    S
    S

    -guppers-

  • '12

    I think you need to remember the enemy gets a vote in what happens and probably won’t co-operate.


  • So your dog comes to you with a chewed up and drooled over sock.  Then it gives you a cheerful bark.  You can almost picture it asking “Are there any major/minor flaws?”

    It’s not really that there is a major or minor flaw, per se.  It’s just that the whole thing is wrong.

    At your skill level, it would be better for you to study some articles, and read the reasons for why other players chose to or chose not to do particular actions, than to try to come up with new stuff on your own.

    Even if those other players have faulty reasoning, understanding why their reasoning is flawed will help you become a stronger player.  If those players have good reasoning then all the better.

    My comments -

    1.  Don’t build battleships or cruisers, because they are not worth their cost.

    For example, 36 PUs buys you a carrier and two fighters (and a bit left over) or three cruisers.  The carrier/fighters have stronger defense, the fighters can be sent to help defend key ground territories, and the fighters can be used for repeated rounds of attack against either land or sea territories.  Carrier/fighter combinations are even more useful because friendly powers can land fighters on your carriers, so you can get a very impressive combined defense without having to foot the entire PU bill by a single power. On the other hand, if you’re trying to use cruisers, the cruisers can’t be used to help defend ground, the cruisers only fire once on ground territories, and even then only when you are unloading three ground units for your three cruisers, plus you can’t combine friendly forces with the same power and speed that you can as if you built a carrier.

    Or 40 PUs buys you a carrier and two fighters (and a submarine or two infantry) or two battleships.  The carrier/fighters have all the points listed above, and the battleships all the weaknesses described above.  About the only thing the battleships are good for is hitting and running, or hitting and winning a major decisive sea battle.  But if you hit and run with a battleship, if your opponent has any sort of skill, that will leave the battleship in range of your opponent’s counterattack, and the expensive battleship will die.  As far as winning a major decisive sea battle, your opponent should never let that happen.  Why would your opponent stand there and let you punch him / her in the face?

    If you’re very skilled, then you may find UNUSUAL circumstances in which building battleships and/or cruisers is correct. But believe me when I say that given your posts so far, I am sure there is no way you are near that level.  How do you know when building battleships and/or cruisers is correct?  When you KNOW.  If you have any question at all about whether or not building a battleship or a cruiser is a good idea, first, it almost certainly isn’t a good idea, and second, you’re probably not skilled enough yet to be qualified to make that sort of decision on your own.  When you KNOW, you will KNOW.  (What’s funny is some players think they KNOW, when they don’t have a clue.)

    For Spring 1942, you had best stick with the basics.  That is, one or two destroyers, carriers, fighters, and transports for your navy.  Avoid naval battles if at all possible; build subs if you cannot avoid it.  For ground, use mostly infantry and tanks, and a FEW artillery, and do NOT let your opponent destroy your tanks if you can at all help it.  If you constantly bleed tanks, you will bleed yourself dry.

    2.  Don’t build industrial complexes with the Allies.  Industrial complexes are expensive, and they don’t fight.  You need to apply pressure early, and industrial complexes do not help you do that.

    There is ONE exception that can come up in a fair number of games, and there are exceptions that can come up in extremely particular situations, but by the time you know how to identify exceptions, you won’t need to ask what those exceptions are.  Again, you will KNOW.

    Last comment - you’re talking about a strategy that applies to a game that you’re already in the middle of

    already occupied by US in my game

    .  You don’t describe any of the important areas of the map in this or your other thread, nor do you describe the exact disposition of forces.  It is completely useless to attempt to advise someone with such limited information.  It’s like your going to a garage and asking them for advice because “my car doesn’t go”.  They ask you if you’ve changed the oil, if you have gas in your car, if there’s air in your tires, but all you have is “my car doesn’t go”.  It’s the same thing.  If you don’t give someone the information they need to help you, it’s not going to happen.

    I’m guessing what happened / is happening is you pretty much trashed your chances in the game you’re playing; you have some vague ideas that you need advice because you feel pretty lost.  But really, you’re so lost you can’t even clearly describe exactly what the situation is, nor can you identify the key points that are going badly for you.  That doesn’t speak well for your chances, but if you really want advice that might be useful, get a digital picture of the board and post the .jpg, or better yet, recreate it on TripleA and post the .tsvg.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    believe me when I say

    I do. :)

    I think this all comes down to the fact that well… JMLPORT98 is 13 years old.

    Just keep fighting son,  hit em with everything you got, everywhere you got, until you’re dead.  And try to learn from your mistakes one at a time.  Like NOT losing transports, or NOT attacking Norway with enough, etc, etc, etc.


  • @Gargantua:

    believe me when I say

    I do. :)

    I think this all comes down to the fact that well… JMLPORT98 is 13 years old.

    Just keep fighting son,  hit em with everything you got, everywhere you got, until you’re dead.  And try to learn from your mistakes one at a time.  Like NOT losing transports, or NOT attacking Norway with enough, etc, etc, etc.

    If JMLPORT98 was a 48 year old three star general with 12 years of Axis and Allies experience, I would have said the same.  You’re good or you’re not.  Age and supposed experience are besides the point.

    Intelligence, interest, and ability to benefit from experience are what determine one’s caliber of play.  Age has little to do with it.  I see no particular reason why a 13 year old cannot play at top caliber.

    As far as leaning from “experience” - Take a bright person of any age with zero baking knowledge. Give them eggs, flour, vanilla extract, baking powder, salt, sugar, strawberries, butter, chocolate, and a fully equipped kitchen, and leave them alone for four weeks.  You are NOT going to get a nicely baked strawberry and chocolate cake.

    In a couple years, maybe.

    But if you want whoever it is to be able to bake a cake in, say, a week or so, best thing is to get them a cookbook and someone that can answer some practical questions.

    Granted, most people don’t like a structured approach and would rather just have a good time throwing flour around in the kitchen.  Which is perfectly fine if that’s how you like to have fun, apart from a few health and safety violations.  But if you want to have fun baking a cake (instead of speculating about how to bake a cake while throwing flour around), you need a different approach.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Ah but Bunnies P Wrath, you have forgotten one thing!

    Monkey See Monkey Do!

    Thus the premise of your metaphor regarding the kitchen is incomplete!  To a point even YOU must appreciate.  :)

    Nature is the mother of all invention and learning, and the nature of Axis and Allies - is that you don’t play it by yourself.  Thus,  there is no COOKING in the dark ALONE by yourself.  So you are not making a strawberry cake, with NO experience.

    You are in a COOK OFF.  Against someone more experienced, or learned, or totally brand new  and you are there to compete against them, and  so long as your mound of  goo, looks more like a strawberry cake then theirs, YOU WIN.  The recipe is provided in the rules under the section “How to win the game”.    Everything else, is just how many cakes you have tried to make.

    Some are natural learners,  some benefit from teachers, some benefit from fretting like fools on a stage.  To each their own.

    I will say however that you are correct.  If someone says “The oven won’t go”  Thier chances of success are less than dim, unless they can improve thier ability to communicate their difficulties proficiently.


  • What Bunnies lacks in tact and politeness, he makes up for with accuracy.
    JML98, do not ask for strategy ideas mid-game without a complete description (picture) of your game. Just lose and learn.

    Garg, I played A&A against myself several times in my teens. We didn’t know about the internet in the early 90’s, and I didn’t have a computer anyway. I lived 5 miles out of town, so couldn’t play with my friends very often. Actually learned a lot of the basics of A&A back in the day, and learned a lot by studying my own moves from my opponent’s point of view.

    If JML98s’ opponents are on the same level as him, I bet they’re having a GREAT time. If not, then he needs to play several games against himself.

    PS Why do so many people identify their ages by putting the year of their birth in their ID? Never made sense to me. (I was not born in '01, btw)

  • '12

    Gamerman makes good points.  By not describing the game state, you can’t expect anybody to offer meaningful specific help.  I also feel one can learn a great deal by playing against themselves, as long as they are not playing ‘the perfect victim’ so your pet strategy works.  It’s like your buddy the local karate ‘expert’ who instructs somebody in how to attack him with a knife.  “See, hold the knife up real high like and come down with it like you are an elephant swinging his trunk.”  Then when the karate expert comes close, the guy with the knife just punches him in the throat and walks away.

    If you actually make the best moves for the country given the current state, you can learn a lot.  You may not develop many long term plans, but at least you can learn to react to immediate and near immediate threats.  As you get better, you stop reacting to the enemy and make him react to you.  Obviously, you don’t know what you don’t know so you have to play in the real world a few times and get spanked to learn.

    The question that  jmlport98 should be asking himself is, what would I do to stop somebody else from winning with that strategy as the axis.


  • My current game is:

    -Russia is all but destroyed, with attacks from Japan and Germany the only Russian units left are an infantry in Archangel and a submarine stationed in England. The my opponent refrains from attacking Archangel, I have a transport from England waiting to evacuate him

    -France has been taken by England with a significant US and UK force there, southern Europe(Italy) has no forces but I do not own it

    -Asia is mostly owned by Axis powers, but their forces are spread thin

    -US and UK navy dominates the Atlantic, there is only a German transport left

    -The pacific is dominated by Japan, but I am building a US force to combat that


  • I can’t see myself wasting any more time on jmplort98 without seeing a fing picture of the fing game.

    blah blah dominate blah destroyed blah blah vague blah significant blah.

    Fine here’s some advice.  It’s such good advice.

    @jmlport98:

    My current game is:

    -Russia is all but destroyed, with attacks from Japan and Germany the only Russian units left are an infantry in Archangel and a submarine stationed in England. The my opponent refrains from attacking Archangel, I have a transport from England waiting to evacuate him

    You don’t need to evacuate Archangel.  Just use that unit to control access to Moscow.  Because Russia is “all but destroyed” it is not destroyed, therefore Moscow is safe.

    -France has been taken by England with a significant US and UK force there, southern Europe(Italy) has no forces but I do not own it

    Well since it’s so significant on the next turn you soften up Berlin with UK.  Then on US turn, capture Germany and Southern Europe.  Now US can pump out sixteen ground units a turn.  Obviously you will have no problems following this advice since your force is so “significant.”

    -Asia is mostly owned by Axis powers, but their forces are spread thin

    Well apparently Russia is also garbage, but at least Moscow is safe.  Just continue to defend Moscow, which shouldn’t be hard.  After US is pumping out sixteen ground a turn in Europe, you can use that to push Japan out of Asia.

    -US and UK navy dominates the Atlantic, there is only a German transport left

    So kill the transport.  Then use your fleet to dominate the Pacific.  Obviously there should be no problems with that because Germany is about to fall, and Japan is stalled against Moscow.

    -The pacific is dominated by Japan, but I am building a US force to combat that

    Of course, because you’re already safely about to control Berlin and Rome with US.

    I fail to even understand why you would ask for advice with such an obviously great position.  I guess you are trolling.  troll lol lol


  • Holy sh*t you are an a$$hole…

    When I mean the Soviets are destroyed, I mean that they are all but destroyed. Archangel is the only territory I have left, Moscow has been taken.

    Here are 3 pictures:

    http://imgur.com/2HaJR,HIioS,VGQvu


  • @jmlport98:

    Holy sh*t you are an a$$hole…

    When I mean the Soviets are destroyed, I mean that they are all but destroyed. Archangel is the only territory I have left, Moscow has been taken.

    Here are 3 pictures:

    imgurDOTcom/2HaJR,HIioS,VGQvu

    (wont let me post links)

    You say you want help from others.  They tell you what’s needed - a picture of the game state or far better description.  You completely ignored what they said.  Go through the thread and see how many people said the exact same thing; nobody understands what the heck is going on in your game because your description sucks.

    Which is understandable if it’s the first time you’re posting, but people are TELLING you they need more description, and you’re just coming out with the same vague stuff again and again.  Multiple threads. You may not like what I wrote in the last post, but being polite sure as hell wasn’t working.  Obviously being rude doesn’t work either because you STILL haven’t put up any pictures.

    But you ALMOST made an attempt to actually put up some pictures, for the first time ever.  So maybe I should be even more rude, make a conscious effort at it.

    I notice you still haven’t put up any pictures or links to pictures.

    I wonder if you actually think “imgurDOTcom/2HaJR,HIioS,VGQvu  (wont let me post links)” is some sort of reasonable response to requests for information.  At least I had the politeness to be straightforward.  Your way of being rude is to completely ignore what people are asking of you, which I think is a hell of a lot worse.


  • Fixed  :mrgreen:

    If you still can’t see it you might want to get your eyesight checked.


  • @jmlport98:

    Fixed  :mrgreen:

    It looks like Russia controls Russia in that picture.  Those fuzzy brownish red things; sure seems to be a few of them on Moscow.

    Fuzzy a** pictures will not do. What is needed is a complete and comprehensive picture; people need to be able to look at the map and tell EXACTLY what is where.  Not “oh, you have mayyyyybe 3 infantry in Berlin and some air”, but "you have exactly seven infantry, two artillery, four tanks, three fighters, one bomber on Berlin, and so on and so forth for every single territory on the map.  That means a LOT of high quality digital pictures, or putting the game state on TripleA or Abattlemap.

    My advice - get TripleA now now now.  Download and open the v4 map, edit the game file to reflect your current game, post the .tsvg (the save game file).  Players that can read the .tsvg will be able to give you completely specific advice, down to the movement of your last infantry.

    If I am understanding the fuzzy things correctly, you should forget about the Pacific (except for a bit of defense) and finish beating the crap out of Berlin.  Exactly how this may be accomplished will have to wait for a .tsvg file.


  • Weirdly, those fuzzy brownish red things from picture 1 appear to be fuzzy black things in picture 2.  (shrug)

    Efficient supply chains -

    Say you have two infantry on Eastern Canada, two newly built infantry on Eastern US, one transport at Western Europe, and one transport at Eastern Canada.  Take the empty transport at Western Europe, and move it to Eastern Canada.  Take the transport at Eastern Canada, load the infantry, move it to Western Europe, and unload the infantry.

    Now in noncombat move the two infantry from Eastern US to Eastern Canada.  On unit placement, place two new infantry in Eastern US.

    Another variation is -

    Just like before, but now you have two infantry on London also, and your Eastern Canada transport is now northwest of London.  You take the Western Europe transport, load the infantry from London, and dump it to Western Europe.  You take the transport northwest of London, pick up the infantry from East Canada, and dump to London.  This is less efficient in terms of movement, but is more flexible.  In the previous variation, you’re dumping to Western Europe, period.  In this variation, you can move the infantry on London to Karelia/Archangel/Norway/Eastern Europe/Germany/Western Europe.

    At this point, Japan should be heading to Australia and Africa to finish choking off the Allied income, and pushing hard and fast to help Germany in Europe.  The Axis basically have to control all the victory cities except London, Washington, and Western US, but once they do that after the end of a US turn, it’s over.  Looks like Japan isn’t doing that.  Lucky you.

    Germany will be running back west from Moscow; I can’t imagine any player would be so bad as to ignore what was going on in Western Europe, so you probably can’t hope for it.  You will have a little time in which to build an offense.  Once German reinforcements reach Berlin, it will be so much harder to get anywhere with the game.  For Axis to win, Germany will have to push you out of Western Europe, which you can make very difficult by putting loads of units there.  But you can’t just load up on infantry; you need to try to build an invasion threat against Berlin, probably by UK attacking first and hopefully weakening Berlin, then US finishing Berlin off.  Either way, efficient UK and US supply chains will be crucial.

    If Western Europe can hold a couple turns, the game could turn into a draw-ish game, with Germany unable to invade London because of the fat Allied fleet, US building enough to hold off the Axis from capturing Western or Eastern US, and Germany unable to crack the combined UK/US defense on Western Europe.  But this will fail once the Japanese get to doing something.

    Your best chance to win is to crack Berlin before Germany can reinforce it enough.

    If you can’t quite manage that, you could try to fortify Western Europe to prevent the Axis from winning, and hope the Axis screw up and don’t pressure you with Japan fast and hard.  If the Axis screw around long enough, you might have the chance to do something.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Is it just me?  Or are there NO CONTROL markers on that board?

    Trick your opponent into thinking several territories are still yours, even if they’re not, because you’ve all been to lazy to put the counters down!

  • '12

    At the very least, use battlemap and upload a map file to show us the exact board state.  The AC’s look freaking HUGE on that board, they are big enough to act as a causeway between EUS and WEu.  I have better than 20/20 eyesight, was just tested last year.  That picture is fuzzy as heck, really hard to make out exactly what land units are where.

    It looks like Japan has 8 Infantry sitting on the islands.  Considering most of the Jap fleet is sitting around looking pretty in Hawaii/Midway area it shows a lack of efficient utilization of assets.

    With such a poor picture and lack of effort in setting up the game state I’m surprised anybody bothered to reply at all.  Those who did reply  have more patience and are better peeps than I.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 2
  • 3
  • 16
  • 7
  • 6
  • 25
  • 13
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts