• @Alair:

    Looks like I’m the Montgomery of the forum :)

    Well, the way I always play the Axis is I think of the game in terms of keeping my initial production.  There are some things where if you lose them, you can’t afford to rebuild them.  I would include most of the German airforce like this.

    So really, if you lose a ton of production points worth of materials to gain a short term advantage … what have you really gained?

    The allies can afford to throw away production since they’re so rich at the beginning, so they can throw stuff away to slow the advance, I don’t think throwing away production will work against a good allies opponents.

    When I played I took my German units out of Africa and just tried to hold England with Italian troops.  Then I focused on blowing the English navy out of the waters… if England keeps it’s fleet and can attack all along the coast, I think it’s over for Germany.  Africa, you can lose it and still win the game so it worked for me.  I haven’t played enough to comment on whether this will always work though, we’ll see.

    Alair, I understand what you are saying (and going by your action report, you are right  :wink: ), but even though I understand (and agree) , I also find myself often succesful with the Axis by going in agressive, losing units, but definitely winning territory.

    Sure, the Axis will lose many of their initial units, but so do the Allies.
    And the allies have the problem, that they will always have to cross the sea to reinforce.
    Something which they can´t when they have no money.

    And guess where that money went? It went to the Axis by their aggressive opening, and is now spent on a reinforced Luftwaffe and fleet, that just took out all allied ships.


  • Yea, I see what you’re saying.  It might be baggage from the original AA I’m bringing with me into the anniversary version, where I should be looking at it as a completely new game so I don’t cloud my judgement.

    With that being said, I relooked at the situation with Egypt.

    Taking Egypt on G1 is a bad idea, much less weakening an attack somewhere else to do it.

    If I was playing England I’d counterattack with 2 from Trans-Jordan and an infantry and artillery from India.  If you do take Egypt, even with using all the material available, you’ll lose it E1.

    My Australian fleet would then move to SZ 39 in the noncombat round…. and I would produce an industrial complex on India.

    Japan has 0% chance of taking it on J1.

    If Japan moves aggressively to take india on J2, I’d move an infantry and artillery from Australia to India, and produce on India as defensively as possible.

    India should stand barring Japan dumping everything possible into taking it.

    Anyways…

    On E1, England retakes it.

    On G2, I don’t believe they’ll have a counter attack to retake Egypt.  It depends on airforce placement… there’s a good chance Germany will have fighters on Morrocco… but even then, with a really aggressive Germany, you won’t have much airforce left anyways.  I’m undecided on whether to build an industrial complex in South Africa or not… that’s what I’d always do in the original AA.  It would depend on what else was going on… if Germany looked intent on Africa in G1 I would, depending on how the G1 fleet battles went.


  • Alair, two errors in your judgement.

    It’s not Germany objective to take Egypt on G1. It’s objective is to clear the fighter (killing all units). On Italy 1 you can then walk in and hold Egypt until the allies arrive at Morocco later in the game.

    Also on J1 you can’t take India, true, but you seem to forget that Japan moves before UK!!! So you build that IC on UK1, it’s gone by J2 even before you produced one single unit in it.  :wink:


  • @Alair:

    Taking Egypt on G1 is a bad idea, much less weakening an attack somewhere else to do it.

    If I was playing England I’d counterattack with 2 from Trans-Jordan and an infantry and artillery from India.  If you do take Egypt, even with using all the material available, you’ll lose it E1.

    This is both erroneous and beside the point.

    Japan playing before UK permits the Japanese to sink the dest+trans combo off of India with a fighter (50% chance of sinking both, or 2, with a 95%).

    This limits UK counter attack to the bomber from England and the two inf in Trans Jordan, which the Germans would welcome, even if they stand lose it with the average material they will have left in Egypt after their maximum attack (1 tank).

    Such a counter attack would mean the bomber is not being used elsewhere, like to sink the baltic navy. In addtion, when the bomber is forced to land in Trans Jordan, it dies when the Italians attack it.

    The absence of the Trans Jordan inf would make India fall easier, putting somewhat more pressure on Russia from Japan.

    Destroying the British fighter in Egypt is an obvious and large plus.


  • You’re right, Japan does go before England, but I don’t see Japan knocking out the fleet off India.

    You’re talking about what can be done, vs what most people would do.  It would require moving the aircraft carrier to SZ 37 to hit the destroyer with any fighters.  If Japan did move their fleet to off Burma then I’d adapt to defending against a KEF strategy and play aggressively with the US to move against Japan.  That looks like it would be a ‘take out India’ strategy with Japan which would be successful, but you’d be cash poor focusing on India vs taking territories or sinking the American fleet so there is a tradeoff.

    I’ve read a couple of battle reports, but I’ve never seen Japan their fleet to that sea zone.  Japan has a lot to do J1, I don’t see it as high priority to take out that fleet.

    Another thing, when E1 counterattacks and takes Egypt back, if I1 attacks with everything they have they could take Egypt back, but I don’t think they’d be walking in, they would take heavy casualties…  If England moved their bomber to south Africa E1 then they could throw that in to the African battles.  Then, with the transport there could be another counterattack E2 using the transport and bomber, but it would depend on how the dice went.


  • @Alair:

    You’re right, Japan does go before England, but I don’t see Japan knocking out the fleet off India.

    You’re talking about what can be done, vs what most people would do.

    No, I am talking about what should be done. What most people do is not relevant.

    It would require moving the aircraft carrier to SZ 37 to hit the destroyer with any fighters.  If Japan did move their fleet to off Burma then I’d adapt to defending against a KEF strategy and play aggressively with the US to move against Japan.  That looks like it would be a ‘take out India’ strategy with Japan which would be successful, but you’d be cash poor focusing on India vs taking territories or sinking the American fleet so there is a tradeoff.

    I am afraid this is also incorrect. You can take east indies and borneo, destroy most of china,sink the USA battleship, sink the west coast dest+trans, sink the phillipines fleet, blow up burma and kwangtun, and destroy the indian fleet. All of this quite cleanly and simply.

    I’ve read a couple of battle reports, but I’ve never seen Japan their fleet to that sea zone.  Japan has a lot to do J1, I don’t see it as high priority to take out that fleet.

    Another thing, when E1 counterattacks and takes Egypt back, if I1 attacks with everything they have they could take Egypt back, but I don’t think they’d be walking in, they would take heavy casualties…  If England moved their bomber to south Africa E1 then they could throw that in to the African battles.  Then, with the transport there could be another counterattack E2 using the transport and bomber, but it would depend on how the dice went.

    Again, all of this depends on Japan not sinking the Indian fleet. You say they have too much to do. I suggest they can achieve just about everything if they want to. Have a look at the board.


  • Interesting discussion, I certainly agree Gibraltar fleet (sz12) and Egypt is a go for Germany. Japan WILL start-off very strong and I’ve found that a South African IC is the only safe place to build an IC for UK. You HAVE TO have Africa at least in part as UK or your production will be measly. So the only other option to a South Africa IC is a maximized Africa attack by USA.

    For Germany:
    sz12-> attack with 2 subs and 1 ftr
    Egypt-> attack with 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 1 bmb
    Then use Italian navy to take Egypt+Transjordan and help out vs. Caucasus.

    For Allies:
    Either:
    South Africa IC+invasions of Scandinavia by UK, USA focus on Italy+bombers-> both D-day after Africa/Italy secure.
    or
    All-out US attack on Africa+Italy, UK focus on bombers + D-day.

    I haven’t seen an India IC defended yet so I’m not sure about that!


  • @Alair:

    You’re right, Japan does go before England, but I don’t see Japan knocking out the fleet off India.

    You’re talking about what can be done, vs what most people would do.  It would require moving the aircraft carrier to SZ 37 to hit the destroyer with any fighters.  If Japan did move their fleet to off Burma then I’d adapt to defending against a KEF strategy and play aggressively with the US to move against Japan.  That looks like it would be a ‘take out India’ strategy with Japan which would be successful, but you’d be cash poor focusing on India vs taking territories or sinking the American fleet so there is a tradeoff.

    I’ve read a couple of battle reports, but I’ve never seen Japan their fleet to that sea zone.  Japan has a lot to do J1, I don’t see it as high priority to take out that fleet.

    Another thing, when E1 counterattacks and takes Egypt back, if I1 attacks with everything they have they could take Egypt back, but I don’t think they’d be walking in, they would take heavy casualties…  If England moved their bomber to south Africa E1 then they could throw that in to the African battles.  Then, with the transport there could be another counterattack E2 using the transport and bomber, but it would depend on how the dice went.

    If there is one thing that any decent Japanese player will always do is kill that DD+trn for the coast of India!! All other attacks can be ignored, but that one is a clear must. I would walk away straight from the game if I would be Germany and my axis partner would not attack those ships……


  • No, killing the chinese fighter is the most important. You cannot rebuy it etc etc …


  • Actually from a tactical point of view those ships are more important. However it’s a moot point, since both the ships and the ftr will die on J1.


  • @rockrobinoff:

    A UK bomber+fighter+cruiser+destroyer versus an Italian battleship+2 cruisers is about a 55% UK win  (netting a transport as well) and 65% to kill just the warships…

    Our group noticed this too.

    @rockrobinoff:

    …The only problem with option a is that it fails 25% of the time. Not a brilliant prospect, especially if you are better than your opponent, and hope to grind out a long and sure win.

    But we concluded the probability of actually losing the fleet in this case is only 15.125 per cent (65% x 25%).  Although I am new to A&A:50, my experience with A&A games is that playing too cautiously can be folly.  Sometimes you have to give your opponent a fifteen per cent chance for a lucky break - often a much better chance than that.  If you wait only for plays with more than an 85 per cant success rate, you’re probably never going to grind anything out.  It would be like playing Texas Hold 'em and waiting for pocket aces.

    Furthermore, if you are so much better than your opponent that you don’t even want to give them a 15 per cent shot, you can probably win even if they do sink the Mediterranean fleet (should they even make that play).

    That said, although I think 84.875 per cent is enough to make option a sound, a higher probability would of course be better.  Italian fleet aside, I’m not sure how much worse attacking sea zone twelve is versus your next best option.  Basically, I recommend you attack Egypt no matter what, but that you don’t sacrifice much for sea zone twelve.  If you think sea zone twelve is almost as good a target as sea zones two or nine anyway, go for it!


  • Well, the Allies are strong, it’s just about how to crush the Axis…

    Here’s what I’m going to try next game;

    R1, move 4 infantry from Caucaus to Persia.
    (counterattack the foolish Germans if they attacked Karelia in G1)
    Japan goes…
    E1, move the 2 fighters and infanty and tank to Karelia.
    E1, build IC on India (still haven’t decided about Africa)
    R2, move 4 infantry from Persia to India.
    J2 … if they attack India they will lose (I think)
    E2, build stuff on India.

    Next I’m sure people will say I’ll lose Caucaus if I do that G2, well… I don’t think so…

    Karelia will be safe with the extra English 2 fighters, infantry and tank.
    Caucaus will have 6 infantry on it (2 from Kazakh and 4 production) for G2, I think it will hold, if not then Russia will be able to counterattack, and will still have the tank from England helping out in Karelia if they had to counterattack a Karelia G1 move.

    Ta-dah!  All is right in the world, the allies should fare better now.

    I want to test it out.


  • @Alair:

    Well, the Allies are strong, it’s just about how to crush the Axis…

    Here’s what I’m going to try next game;

    R1, move 4 infantry from Caucaus to Persia.
    (counterattack the foolish Germans if they attacked Karelia in G1)
    Japan goes…
    E1, move the 2 fighters and infanty and tank to Karelia.
    E1, build IC on India (still haven’t decided about Africa)
    R2, move 4 infantry from Persia to India.
    J2 … if they attack India they will lose (I think)
    E2, build stuff on India.

    Yeah, I considered that strategy too for UK and Russia. The extra 4 infantry from Russia will not be enough however if Japan commits fully to the attack on India.

    Japan’s India invasion force on J2 could consist of:

    9 infantry
    1 artillery
    4 fighters
    1 tank
    1 cruiser (off shore bombardment)

    That’s from memory though so don’t hold me to that. I’d have to re-examine the board to be sure.

    If I’m playing UK I like the idea of an Indian IC but pulling it off is tough. I think you can build an Australian IC (on E2) after Japan takes India however. Japan would likely have to pull it’s entire invasion army off India to have a shot at capturing Australia reinforced by American fighters on J3.


  • This discussion has gone from the Med to the Pacific!  :)

    Anyone ever contemplate a Russian bomber R1?

    Keeps Japan honest with having to protect a transport (only) grab in east indies
    or projects power into Manchuria in conjunction with a 7 inf stack in buryatia.


  • @allies_fly:

    Anyone ever contemplate a Russian bomber R1?

    Soviets should buy 1 figh for both R1 and R2, so I guess you can spend 2 more IPCs for a bomber instead. I prefer convert 1 inf into a tank, but that’s a matter of tastes

  • Moderator

    Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

    Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
    Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
    Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

    You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don’t think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.


  • I think I prefer secure z2 and z12, but agreed, killing all is powerful. A thing about z6: if germans kill the dd but uk makes 1 hit, I think I would kill the cruiser, becuase the sub cannot be hit by aircraft (or course, It would be needed rolling z12 first for being sure of this). A alive sub in z6 makes any naval purchase with UK1 very dangerous.

    Oh, long range aircraft can give you a additional fig. Then, you could try kill everything, or even making a try in z10


  • @DarthMaximus:

    Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

    Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
    Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
    Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

    You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don’t think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.

    If you open like that in every Axis game I don’t see one getting high up in a ladder. In other words, it’s fun to try but don’t expect consistent good results. SZ9 and SZ 12 are risky, plus I do think this messes up Egypt since you can’t bring the bmb in to Egypt like this.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

    Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
    Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
    Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

    You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don’t think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.

    Assuming you get good dice


  • and what about using the german ca from Sz5 to take out the dd in Sz6, that leaves you with an extra fighter for Sz12

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 3
  • 34
  • 20
  • 44
  • 17
  • 4
  • 124
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts