• @Cow:

    I like the bomber buy g1. You could still do the old naval g1 buys… I am not a fan but whatever works for you. I don’t like carrier buys for germany

    The whole point of the carrier build is that you can take the fresh navy after you beat UK out and then have the ability to then attack US and/or support Italy in the med.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Caesar:

    @Cow:

    I like the bomber buy g1. You could still do the old naval g1 buys… I am not a fan but whatever works for you. I don’t like carrier buys for germany

    The whole point of the carrier build is that you can take the fresh navy after you beat UK out and then have the ability to then attack US and/or support Italy in the med.

    Germany doesn’t want to fight USA at all if it can manage that. It definitely doesn’t want to leave its own shores to fight USA.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    If Germany buys 2 transports, then UK should buy 6 infantry and 1 fighter.  Sending all 3 fighters to Taranto is probably overkill esp. because of how badly the mechanics work when all you have left is 2 fig 1 CV (since they just retreat and you die).      If you save 1, you have 3, which is plenty to keep fortress UK alive, 2 is also fine.

    After you buy this, on G2, you usually get bombed, and again on G3, so in our current game I have 20 damage, 1 armor 1 mech 5 AAA and 13-16 men or something like that?  UK is hard to take, though with some money, Germany could re-ramp that threat up–instead he headed to med to do an Africa Gambit.      Once you have those 25 or so “2s” on the UK, its not a cakewalk to take anymore, he needs to focus all his effort and money and ships to keep the threat engaged, which wastes his time.

    Unless Italy can come in, even a 2-wave Sea Lion doesn’t pull odds against the turtle.  If he continues to build up G3+ rather than coming into novogrod by sea or moving to SZ 91 (both places, he can STILL sea lion you from, as well as do other things) then you have to continue to repair and add more turtling.

    If Germany sets up for a true, G3 Seelowe, it is just an odds battle and UK has 2 entire buys 61 minus damage to get ready.    Even with every plane available, the odds aren’t in his favor—he has to throw everything at you just to kill the AAA then come in and hit with another round of troops on G4, its all his resources, Russia is rampaunt.

    The odds are pretty well playtested–if Germany is quite lucky no matter what UK did, he will win, with 1 tank and a few planes alive.    But he’s dead long game as USA and USSR demolish him.

    On the other hand, the odds are uninviting as UK is doing the optimal response, so he usually has to go to some Plan B (attack Russia by sea or take Gibraltar) which is clearly sub-optimal.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    Depends it adds 2 extra air units to a gibraltar attack.

    If you want to do that, why wouldn’t Italy take Morocco? Then you aren’t limited to two air units. Unless UK consolidate in SZ92 rather than Taranto, of course.


  • If you are doing Sea Lion, plan on defending Denmark….make sure it doesn’t fall by the US strike and have a counter strike ready

    Sometimes you may have to take Scotland 1st on turn 3 and strike London on turn 4 so make sure your transport loads are in place. My thoughts are you need 10 transports at the minimum

    Turn 2 is vital to convoy and SBR UK…if he did Toranto turn 1…great…then I will get London 100% of the time

  • TripleA

    OK. One of the older meta strategy was a later japan dow. G1 you buy carrier 2x transport or dd sub. Next up you take gibraltar, because usa is not at war and it is cake.  Then germany goes in to the medit sea and has middle east play.

  • TripleA

    The rise of kjf strategies is what most likely made carrier buys less frequent. Because Germany doesn’t end up using or needing it.


  • What does kjf stand for?


  • Kill Japan First. Strategy where the Allies focus a lot of their money on taking out Japan because they can be attacked from multiple angles to tie down Japanese supply lines.


  • Gotcha, its those TLA (three letter acronyms) that always mess me up.

  • '18 '17 '16

    WTF?

  • '19

    What does WTF means  :-o


  • @Sovietishcat:

    What does WTF means  :-o

    Whipping The Fuhrer !!! :-D

  • TripleA

    Now a days if I want to get wild, I buy bombers g1 and g2 to seriously blow away the middle East with air and Italy walks through it. If USA goes Europe italys 30 ipc bankroll holds up really well.

  • TripleA

    So you don’t see sea lion as a standard as much because uk can defend itself if it buys and doesn’t do anything silly like transport units off London… Usually uk picks up from east canada and can add to London if needed


  • Canada is really a huge pain for Germany because of that since Canada has about 4 sea zones they can deploy navy in. One of the reasons why I think Canada needs to be their own nation.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Cow:

    Usually uk picks up from east canada

    I don’t think that’s right. My standard move is to attack SZ106 with 2 subs, which prevents this from happening 90% of the time. Sure, the SZ109 TT could move there but that only works if you can sink the subs first.

    If somehow the SZ106 battle is lost or only one sub remains after G1, then it might make sense to hit it with the SZ109 DD, but only if it doesn’t have anything better to do, like sinking the Bismark.

    @Caesar:

    Canada is really a huge pain for Germany because of that since Canada has about 4 sea zones they can deploy navy in. One of the reasons why I think Canada needs to be their own nation.

    I don’t know that Canada as a separate nation plays that well. A separate economy might be ok though. There is a mod with the Canadian nation in it, which I’ve played once from the lobby. Although Canada does have the same virtue as France. It can be played quickly.


  • I never understood the logic of giving Canada there own roundels and then continue to press them into UK while giving ANZAC there own nation. Hence why I argue Canada should be played as its own.


  • @Caesar:

    I never understood the logic of giving Canada there won roundels and then continue to press them into UK while giving ANZAC there own nation. Hence why I argue Canada should be played as its own.

    I propose the counter argument that ANZAC should just be considered part of UK/Pacific and their IPC collected by the UK.

    Then again how would that effect game balance? If India could use all of ANZAC production in the defense of India?

    How would, lets say, diverting 5IPC to UK Canada and take that away from UK/Europe effect game balance.

    If you split all the UK Commonwealth countries into their own nations, own economies, then that dramatically effects the game.
    So you have.

    UK home island
    Canada
    India
    Anzac

    Now, on a historical level this might be a good move. Then again we are playing a game based on history so game mechanics over ride historical accuracy for game play and having fun.


  • Except that argument is pointless to me. Even if you cripple London by taking away Canada, the Axis regardless will have the advantage in the early game however the Allies will always win in the end due to having more numbers and a higher GDP.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 4
  • 14
  • 3
  • 27
  • 2
  • 10
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

26

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts