New Allied Strategies for Anniversary Edition

[Guest]

Italy is actually NOT adjacent to Germany on the map… go look at it closely… should make things very interesting for attacking Italy.

[shermantank]

Are you sure? It looks like it to me.

[Guest]

@shermantank:

Are you sure? It looks like it to me.

Positive.  If you are a member of BBG, view this image:

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/362552?size=original

Basically, Italy and the Balkans (?) share a border that meets south of Switzerland, which is impassable, and is connected to France on the Western side.  Switzerland blocks Germany and Italy, permanently.

Anyone else ever notice that Germany always seems to be more eastern in the Axis and Allies games than it was historically?  Germany is always to the east of Denmark… wasn’t Denmark connected to the North edge of Central Germany?  Europe got it right, at least.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Attacking Italy (Southern) Europe was an option in the basic game - just not a clever option.

Italy is quite protected (from what I have seen of the map) - Italy being a separate player is a bonus to Germany - startegic bombing italy does NOT hurt German resources…

But I know too less of Triple A to decide exactly what to do…

[Guest]

@timerover51:

My apologies, Rakeman

But um, FYI, I am pretty sure anyone 3/4ths Germanic was considered German by the Nazis, but people without 3 generations of purity couldn’t join the SS.  So, I don’t think that you would be considered an untermensch.  Heck, many half-Jews served in the military, even in “safe” positions like officers, not just grunt work.

[Adlertag]

Agree, that was a bad joke, lets keep this un-political

[shermantank]

True. We don’t need to hear that racist garbage on this website.

[Guest]

@Richter:

Attacking Italy (Southern) Europe was an option in the basic game - just not a clever option.

Italy is quite protected (from what I have seen of the map) - Italy being a separate player is a bonus to Germany - startegic bombing italy does NOT hurt German resources…

But I know too less of Triple A to decide exactly what to do…

My comment with respect to Strategic Bombing was on using Italy as a base for bombers to attack Germany.  This was actually done during the war to split and avoid German air defenses.  I am assuming with the change in Strategic Bombing rules that the German player will place an AA gun in both Northern Europe and France to reduce the effects of bomber attack.  Attacking from Italy would avoid this.  However, if Italy can be persuaded to change sides, then an Allied attack on the Rumanian oil fields might be a viable option.

However, the ability of the Allies to attack Italy is constrained by the very limited US production capacity.  In actuality, during WW2 the US mounted a major offensive in the Pacific against Japan, mounted a strategic bombing campaign against Germany while building up the mass of forces for the D-Day invasion, and fought a major campaign in the Mediterranean Theater, all at the same time.  That is not possible in the game as it appears presently.

Also unknown is if there are any limitations to the number of Axis troops in Libya.  The port capacity of Tripoli put a cap on the number of troops that could be supported, the number diminishing steadily the farther from Tripoli they were.  It does not appear that there is a separate area for Cyrenaica.

[03321]

@timerover51:

My comment with respect to Strategic Bombing was on using Italy as a base for bombers to attack Germany.  This was actually done during the war to split and avoid German air defenses.  I am assuming with the change in Strategic Bombing rules that the German player will place an AA gun in both Northern Europe and France to reduce the effects of bomber attack.  Attacking from Italy would avoid this.  However, if Italy can be persuaded to change sides, then an Allied attack on the Rumanian oil fields might be a viable option.

It’s still 3 moves from UK to Germany through the SZ 6 - SZ 5 - Germany route, so bombers wouldn’t care about AA in France and NW Eur.  If the Allies can attack Romania from Italy then USSR probably already controls it.

@timerover51:

Also unknown is if there are any limitations to the number of Axis troops in Libya.  The port capacity of Tripoli put a cap on the number of troops that could be supported, the number diminishing steadily the farther from Tripoli they were.  It does not appear that there is a separate area for Cyrenaica.

There are no other limitations for # of units anywhere in the game based on supply or any other factor (20 inf/planes on a tiny pacific island) so why would there be one for Axis in Libya?  I’m pretty sure we can say almost positively that there is no rule for limited Axis troops anywhere in Africa.

[Guest]

If there are no limitations on the number of troops in the rules, then house rules will be used to limit them.  Also, I will probably divide Libya into Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, or maybe Egypt into Egypt proper and the Western Desert to provide some strategic depth, possibly both and set different limits for Axis and Allied troops in each area.  The restriction on Alllied troops west of the Libyan-Egypt border would be negated by Allied command of the sea, allowing them to resupply troops along the coast via the Inshore Squadron.  Without this, I can see Egypt being a easy win for the Axis, with the Mid East disappearing to the Axis in short order.  From the initial set up, the game does appear to be biased against the Allied players.  With respect to naval forces the imbalance is pretty severe. Against good Axis players, I would say the Allies do not have much of a chance.

[03321]

@timerover51:

Against good Axis players, I would say the Allies do not have much of a chance.

Or you could just leave the game balanced as is and split the good players between sides as intended. Your choice, of course, I know you want the game to be “balanced” so that even sides would produce an Ally victory every game, and then proclaim that it still isn’t balanced because your good Axis players beat your poor Allied players.

[Guest]

@03321:

@timerover51:

Against good Axis players, I would say the Allies do not have much of a chance.

Or you could just leave the game balanced as is and split the good players between sides as intended. Your choice, of course, I know you want the game to be “balanced” so that even sides would produce an Ally victory every game, and then proclaim that it still isn’t balanced because your good Axis players beat your poor Allied players.

I prefer to see the Axis annihilated, totally and utterly destroyed.

[Guest]

It is a game.

I prefer to have the side I am playing WIN.

[Romulus]

@timerover51:

@03321:

@timerover51:

Against good Axis players, I would say the Allies do not have much of a chance.

Or you could just leave the game balanced as is and split the good players between sides as intended. Your choice, of course, I know you want the game to be “balanced” so that even sides would produce an Ally victory every game, and then proclaim that it still isn’t balanced because your good Axis players beat your poor Allied players.

I prefer to see the Axis annihilated, totally and utterly destroyed.

Then, try to read some strategic articles, I recommend the Strategic Essays of Don Rae, first of all the Infantry Push Mechanic, to learn how the Allies can win almost every game they play, for the Classic version.
For Revised there are a lot of interesting articles on this website that you may read to improve your game as Allies.
For Anniversary give some time and there will be also articles to be read.
Do not give up, try again and you will able to win!

[shermantank]

@ncscswitch:

It is a game.

I prefer to have the side I am playing WIN.

Amen to that one.

[Guest]

Excellent, we are in agreement then.  I prefer the side that I play to win as well, and I never play the Axis.  Nor do I have any qualms about stacking the deck in the Allies favor.  A US-only Atomic Bomb tech would be nice as well, similar to the one in Xeno Games Pacific at War.  Death to the Axis!

[variant]

@timerover51:

I prefer to see the Axis annihilated, totally and utterly destroyed.

Better get a black marker and start blacking out the Axis then.

@timerover51:

Excellent, we are in agreement then.  I prefer the side that I play to win as well, and I never play the Axis.  Nor do I have any qualms about stacking the deck in the Allies favor.  A US-only Atomic Bomb tech would be nice as well, similar to the one in Xeno Games Pacific at War.  Death to the Axis!

Why do I get the feeling that you have no friends that play Axis & Allies?

[Richter von Manthofen]

@timerover51:

@Richter:

Attacking Italy (Southern) Europe was an option in the basic game - just not a clever option.

Italy is quite protected (from what I have seen of the map) - Italy being a separate player is a bonus to Germany - startegic bombing italy does NOT hurt German resources…

But I know too less of Triple A to decide exactly what to do…

My comment with respect to Strategic Bombing was on using Italy as a base for bombers to attack Germany.  This was actually done during the war to split and avoid German air defenses.  I am assuming with the change in Strategic Bombing rules that the German player will place an AA gun in both Northern Europe and France to reduce the effects of bomber attack.  Attacking from Italy would avoid this.  However, if Italy can be persuaded to change sides, then an Allied attack on the Rumanian oil fields might be a viable option.

However, the ability of the Allies to attack Italy is constrained by the very limited US production capacity.  In actuality, during WW2 the US mounted a major offensive in the Pacific against Japan, mounted a strategic bombing campaign against Germany while building up the mass of forces for the D-Day invasion, and fought a major campaign in the Mediterranean Theater, all at the same time.  That is not possible in the game as it appears presently.

Also unknown is if there are any limitations to the number of Axis troops in Libya.  The port capacity of Tripoli put a cap on the number of troops that could be supported, the number diminishing steadily the farther from Tripoli they were.  It does not appear that there is a separate area for Cyrenaica.

If you implement production levels into the game you would have also to implement troop quality, Equipment quality morale and a million other things - some favoring the Allies, some the Axis.

Regarding the three front war (Pacific - West Europe - Africa) : not only the US had to do this quite all major powers had to do it. Sure the US did produce MOST war equipment, but without the help of others the US alone would NOT have won… - despite production supremacy

If Germany and Russia were at peace (stupid decision to attack the red while still at war with the brits) an invasion to Europe would probably have failed - you can bring only SOOO many troops with ships - if the enemy has enough reserves he can push back the enemy into the water with ease…

T am not convinced that the US won the war in Africa and Italy.

Key factor in the med was the British carrier of Malta, the presence of a strong Royal navy to contain Italy and shipping to Africa - both factors are missing in the setup of this game (AAE has malta and as avid brit player its my first duty to hold Malta at ALL COSTS)

…err… rant and anti US mod off …

(Sorry but I can’t stand if the Efforts of the Brits - at war 1939-1945 - and the Russians - summer 1941-1945 - are forgotten to easily - The US played a great and vital part in the war, but they were not alone)

This game is an abstraction and I want to play both sides and WIN with both sides…

BTW the idea of splitting Africa into MORE territories sounds great (Morocco Algeria Tunesia Libya Cyrenaica)

I do NOt think the idea of limiting the number of units in certain territories is a good one. - Those territories represent huge stretches of land… - you would have to limit the pacific islands to an inf+plane - then ;)

The Allies can limit the number of Axis units in NA just the way they did in the real world - sink the transports - kill off the Axis…  :evil:

[Guest]

My apologies, I did not mean to slight the British efforts in North Africa in the least.  I am well aware of the fact that the British did most of the fighting in the Tunisian Campaign and all of the fighting in the Western Desert and Libyan campaigns.  The limitation on Axis troops in North Africa is based on the problems actually encountered by the Axis with respect to supply.  Tripoli was the best port available, with Benghazi and Tobruk as poor seconds.  The farther from Tripoli the Axis went, the fewer the number of troops that could be supported.  There does not appear to be a location for Malta on the board, which limits how much damage the British can do quickly to the Italian Navy.  The Royal Navy is severely reduced in comparison to the Italian Navy, being sacrificed on the altar of Play Balance.

Drawing the analogy of small islands in the Pacific having no restrictions is incorrect.  Given the massive investment by the Allies into amphibious equipment, supplying an island in the Pacific posed few problems.  Guadalcanal was a special case, but even that supported a force in excess of two divisions, and a good-sized air force.  If the Italians or Germans could have afforded the same investment, supplying the forces in North Africa would have been much easier, and larger forces could have been deployed.  The Germans and the Italians had nothing to compare to the DUKW or the Amphibious Tractor Cargo Carrier, nor the LST, all of immense importance to Alllied logistics.  Tripoli was rated at 45,000 tons per month for cargo handling, although it was pushed to handle more than that.  A strip of beach, one thousand yards long, with adequate amphibious equipment, could easily handle 1500 tons per day, or 45,000 tons per month.  As a former logistics officer, that is the MINIMUM monthly tonnage that I would guarantee.  I would anticipate being able to supply much more than that.  That is with WW2 amphibious equipment.  Therefore, no Pacific island really would have problems with a unit limitation, unless you are talking a a very large number of units, considerably more than the Axis actually deployed to North Africa.  The fact that a much larger Axis force could be supported following the seizure of Bizerta from the French was a combination of several factors.  Larger port with more capacity, shorter voyage from Italy, much shorter distances with North Africa, making much lessor demands on fuel as cargo, and the shorter distances meaning that the same number of trucks could hual much more cargo.  Bizerta would not have helped Rommel that much, as it was considerably farther away from his front than Tripoli.  If supply factors in North Africa are not considered in the Anniversary edition of the game, then they must be considered if a Mediterranean versoin of Axis and Allies is produced.

[Imperious Leader]

This thread is only strategies for AA50. Its not History or house rules.