Isnt the game just broken if USA builds a major factory in Norway?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    All this about subs and factory bombing is way easier said than done.

    First of all, subs are no deterrant to an American air force. Air units cannot be hit by a sub, so if the US takes 4-5 bombers and a destroyer in against your fleet of subs, they are going to get smashed in 1 or 2 turns. Plus, subs are offensive weapons. They roll like crap on defense. Their ideal operation would have them be as out of range of the enemy as possible but be able to attack on your own turn. Or like Larry said, have them as a blockade force in the Baltic area.

    However, the Americans don’t need to build ships in the Baltic to screw Germany over. In fact, they typically don’t build ships there in my experience. A major factory in Norway can pump out as many infantry and tanks as they want and ferry them straight into Soviet territories for a sweep into Poland and then Germany. A fleet of subs might dissuade direct building of American ships in the Baltic, but it won’t solve the problem.

    I would say that all of these alternatives that have been proposed are wishful thinking. Germany cannot build tons of subs and win the war. Germany cannot fortify France, reinforce Norway, build a navy and even play standoff with Russia, let alone attack them… It is totally impossible.

    I don’t know yet what an ideal German strategy would be. But a High Seas fleet cannot be the answer. Germany must really pick and choose where to send thier forces. This may include Italy supporting Germany’s objectives and Japan coming to save the day… Germany will not win the war alone. But because GErmany is the most dangerous, the Allies will naturally gang up on her.


  • Germany can only fight a US factory with either a large fleet or her own factory in Russia blocking the movement of land units into Russia.

    I don’t know the solution either, but if they ever hold Norway and do this the counter must be ready at that time or Germany is done.


  • Do you think building all subs would have worked better had you not gotten within range of those USA bombers?  If you take out London and Scotland, then your fleet is safe from bombers in SZ 109.  I suppose the USA could then try to lure you out by sending some of its fleet out towards you but then you should respond by only sending enough to have slightly better odds.  Of course, Italy and Japan have to be doing their part too to harass the USA.

    The bomber strike actually happened after America had reclaimed Britain, and the bombers took off from Gibraltar. My first submarine build was on turn four, and by that time the Americans were already knocking with a huge fleet that I couldn’t have taken on without a few more turns of builds. When I was planning the strategy, I knew I was going to give up Britain, but I failed to realize how easily he could hit my surface fleet, thus preventing any naval blocks. I’m not sure what else I could have done besides invest more into my surface fleet, or devote turn 3 to submarine buys as well as turns 4 and 5.

    Ultimately I think the strategy should not have been employed under the set of circumstances I faced this game. America completely ignored Japan and poured everything into Europe. Also, rather than trying to defend Britain, the UK threw 3 fighters, 1 tac, a destroyer and an aircraft carrier at my German Navy of 1 CV, 1 BB (damaged), 1CA, 1SS and 2FIG. I actually set that battle up to tempt him with odds that were only slightly in my favor, and he took the bait, losing everything but killing all my units except the BB. The lack of aircraft made Sealion that much easier, but I should have realized that with virtually no navy, I wasn’t really set up for a naval defense strategy anymore. I should have simply started pumping infantry and artillery from turn 3 onwards. The flanking maneuver against Russia worked, the Italian conquest of Africa worked, and Japan was up to 72 ipc/turn by the time we threw in the towel. If I had done what I should have, I think we could have pulled a win, Norway IC or not.

    Russia was about to be reduced to 8 IPC/turn, but they had stacks and stacks in Moscow. Rather than going all in for Moscow, I think Japan could have started cranking out an invasion force, forcing the US to spend IPCs in North America, which was undefended. That would be the natural consequence of ignoring the Pacific theater, and it would also prevent them from getting overly aggressive with the units they pumped from any Norway factory. The idea would have been to force their hand in North America right around the time they were about to have enough land units in Europe to break down the German and Italian stacks. A combined Panama seizure / polar express might have worked for that purpose.

    The way to win the game, assuming I still held at least Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw and Leningrad, would have been for Japan to just take care of business and knock out the remaining VCs. They are in position to retake Cairo and Stalingrad if the Axis lose them. The only question is whether Germany or Italy will implode before they do it.

    I don’t know yet what an ideal German strategy would be. But a High Seas fleet cannot be the answer.

    I think it still could be the answer, but only when the right circumstances present themselves.


  • @hobo:

    I’ve only played one game and it became very apparent that the game is seriously broken.  In aa50, it was still possible to win with either side even if the allies concentrated entirely on one axis.  In aag40 however, some of the rules are seriously broken and need to be adjusted for the “global” game.

    1. ports are fine in the pacific, but in europe, it’s a disaster for the axis.  There is no way the axis can prevent a large US naval stack with 5 or more transports sitting on the atlantic side of gibraltar.  With air on carriers and bombers in uk, the US could strike anywhere in france, norway, or either german or italian capitals with a stack that could be as large as 20 units very early.

    2. japan can’t do enough against north america to prevent the US from going all out kgf by moving all their naval units to europe.  They can be annoying but the US income is too large and the building base too high on continental US to seriously threaten taking w. US.  It would also mean giving up china and the rest of asia to put in a serious enough of an attempt on w. US which means japan’s income is just too small.

    3. as discussed here, once the US takes norway, it’s over.  Germany would have to spend too much just to defend their homeland which doesn’t leave enough to do anything against ussr if that player is half way competent.  10 ground units with a stack of air every turn means germany gets picked apart pretty fast.  With the US strike force starting off at gibraltar, it’s impossible for the axis to defend everything with both their homelands are at risk.  Building a major complex in norway first doesn’t help since germany isn’t exactly rolling in dough.  The only way to even make any attempt of holding norway is by giving up any assault on ussr but people can see what would happen there eventually.

    4. unlike aa50 where japan can eventually get strong enough and advance quickly enough to actually help germany, aag40 board is too large for japan to do anything to help against kgf.  Anyone looking at the unit counts can see it starts to go downhill for the axis very quickly.  There’s too big of a gap in incomes.

    The only thing I can see possibly offsetting these factors are victory cities.  I haven’t lookated at it closely enough, but I guess if victory cities for the axis were set low enough, it might be possible for them to win that way if japan can take out all of asia before germany gets crushed.

    This is ridiculous, you played one game bro.


  • In Europe, it appears that Germany can take Moscow and 8 cities before the U.S. gets involved. Its no guarantee, but its a game.  I realize Russia gets 9 extra IPCs in Global, which is 18 extra infantry in Moscow by turn 6. But in reality its only 1 more infantry than the 2 free ones they would normally get. Germany may still seize Moscow if its only 6 extra units.

    Can the Japanese air force fly to Europe by turn 8 to sweep the sea of ships? 28 planes can hit a 10 stack in Norway and clear it in 1 combat round while only losing 3-4 planes. Eventually you will run out of air units, but how many rounds will that buy you? If the U.S. is focused on Europe, seems like you won’t need them in the Pacific.

    Just a thought.


  • @JamesAleman:

    In Europe, it appears that Germany can take Moscow and 8 cities before the U.S. gets involved. Its no guarantee, but its a game.  I realize Russia gets 9 extra IPCs in Global, which is 18 extra infantry in Moscow by turn 6. But in reality its only 1 more infantry than the 2 free ones they would normally get. Germany may still seize Moscow if its only 6 extra units.

    Can the Japanese air force fly to Europe by turn 8 to sweep the sea of ships? 28 planes can hit a 10 stack in Norway and clear it in 1 combat round while only losing 3-4 planes. Eventually you will run out of air units, but how many rounds will that buy you? If the U.S. is focused on Europe, seems like you won’t need them in the Pacific.

    Just a thought.

    1. I love how 28 planes survive until J6 and their absence in the pacific isn’t taken advantage of
    2. Larry’s latest setup changes remove 9 of those planes


  • We played a game of Global this weekend.  We made it a rule that new factories could only be built on originally controlled territories.  Captured major factories become minor.  Captured minor factories were removed.  US has enough IPC’s that it should have to transport.  Besides, Sherman Tanks rolling out of Oslo?  How realistic is that?

    Otherwise, I agree with IL.  US factory in Norway is high probability lights out.


  • @BlueIguana:

    We played a game of Global this weekend.  We made it a rule that new factories could only be built on originally controlled territories.  Captured major factories become minor.  Captured minor factories were removed.  US has enough IPC’s that it should have to transport.  Besides, Sherman Tanks rolling out of Oslo?  How realistic is that?

    Otherwise, I agree with IL.  US factory in Norway is high probability lights out.

    DId you also apply it to the Chinese territories that have Chinese roundels printed on them but start under Japanese rule?


  • Do you think that if Japan moves fast and crushes India it can beat the allies to Moscow or will they be too late?


  • @13thguardsriflediv:

    @BlueIguana:

    We played a game of Global this weekend.  We made it a rule that new factories could only be built on originally controlled territories.  Captured major factories become minor.  Captured minor factories were removed.  US has enough IPC’s that it should have to transport.  Besides, Sherman Tanks rolling out of Oslo?  How realistic is that?

    Otherwise, I agree with IL.  US factory in Norway is high probability lights out.

    DId you also apply it to the Chinese territories that have Chinese roundels printed on them but start under Japanese rule?

    13th Guard,

    Yes, those were considered original Japanese territories since they were held at the beginning of the Game.

  • Customizer

    Just to recap my own long standing house rules re factories:

    No new factories ANYWHERE.

    No use of captured factories EVER.

    The only possible exception is the Soviet factory to the south of the Urals; even this should arguably be in place in 1940 as an industrial complex, though it is generally accepted that the movement of military production facilities here from area evacuated from the Western USSR made it what we could accept as an industrial complex for A&A purposes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankograd

    I’d start with a factory in Kiev (West Ukraine) and give the (when at war with G/I) Russian player the option to dismantle it and move it to the Novosibirsk tt, which should have 2 IPCs.

    To balance this, a player can place purchased infantry in any home tt up to the value of that tt.  This allows, for example, the UK to place infantry in India (India is not industrial and should not have a factory), or Japan to raise them in Siam, a more realistic reflection of troop recruitment in non-industrialised areas.

    The removal of captured minors seems a little drastic, though I assume that, for example, the  Paris factory is never removed however many times it is captured and recaptured.


  • @JamesAleman:

    In Europe, it appears that Germany can take Moscow and 8 cities before the U.S. gets involved. Its no guarantee, but its a game.  I realize Russia gets 9 extra IPCs in Global, which is 18 extra infantry in Moscow by turn 6. But in reality its only 1 more infantry than the 2 free ones they would normally get. Germany may still seize Moscow if its only 6 extra units.

    Can the Japanese air force fly to Europe by turn 8 to sweep the sea of ships? 28 planes can hit a 10 stack in Norway and clear it in 1 combat round while only losing 3-4 planes. Eventually you will run out of air units, but how many rounds will that buy you? If the U.S. is focused on Europe, seems like you won’t need them in the Pacific.

    Just a thought.

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    1. I love how 28 planes survive until J6 and their absence in the pacific isn’t taken advantage of
    2. Larry’s latest setup changes remove 9 of those planes

    1. 28 planes is what they start with OOB and yes conservative attacks could see most of them alive, and I said “if the U.S. is focused on Europe” meaning you won’t need all of them there, obviously it might slow Japan down if moved too early, but mid game its less likely you will need them (after you have India) especially if the U.S. is spending in Europe only (an assumption). Its probably silly if you only get 15 planes there, as that will have no impact on a fleet or stack of 10 units. (sarcasm)

    2. This thread is regarding AAG40 and does not specify which set up people are using, to the best of my knowledge, Larry’s revision is still a work in progress and if that statement is correct, not official yet.  I apologize as my idea to counter a “game ending” territory capture is completely silly and has no merit if you only have 19 planes to throw at 10 units or a fleet. (sarcasm)

    I’m sorry, I won’t try to refute that the axis are completely helpless from a given strategy being employed against them. Feel free to surrender immediately if you have or are about to capture 14 victory cities but the U.S. has landed that turn in Norway.

    Maybe its silly to throw planes away, and I would agree, but if the game was “over” in your mind unless you “do” something, then it “could” buy you time. It was just a suggestion. Lack of posted suggestions would lend merit to this threads premise that the game was “broken”. Meaning your decisions in game are irrelevant to the outcome. I’ll try to make more certain statements and avoid the use of words like maybe, seems, may, can or how when posted ideas in my future posts.

    Also, in regards to a U.S. Norway, I have seen a game in which the German player chose to take Norway 3 turns after the landing by redirecting the Moscow stack. Russia is likely defensive vs a Germany kill Russia first. If Japan is successful in Asia, perhaps letting Japan take Moscow would work. Perhaps, or perhaps there is nothing the axis can do. Its up to you to decide.


  • @larrymarx:

    Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?

    The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London.

    Uhh If Germany takes London it’s also game over.  Another part of the game I don’t believe has been play tested enough with the initial setup.  It doesn’t take too much luck for Germany to take out UK since it has literally 3 turns to do so.


  • @hobo:

    @larrymarx:

    Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?

    The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London.

    Uhh If Germany takes London it’s also game over.  Another part of the game I don’t believe has been play tested enough with the initial setup.  It doesn’t take too much luck for Germany to take out UK since it has literally 3 turns to do so.

    It’s not game over. US can easily liberate London unless Germany ignores Russia


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @hobo:

    @larrymarx:

    Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?

    The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London.

    Uhh If Germany takes London it’s also game over.  Another part of the game I don’t believe has been play tested enough with the initial setup.  It doesn’t take too much luck for Germany to take out UK since it has literally 3 turns to do so.

    It’s not game over. US can easily liberate London unless Germany ignores Russia

    Agreed.  It most definitely is NOT over.  Look at my Sealion thread in the PBF games with jim10.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    Still… I am thinking a USA IC in Norway signals the beginning of the end for Deutschland. Even if the US pays only token attention to Japan, if Germany is boxed and kept from advancing… the Axis lose.


  • If US ignores Japan then Japan should build a ton of tranports and shuck the US - not a wee raid, but a maximum build shuck. Try defending Norway AND San Francisco…


  • Lets keep some perspective here.  US can only take territory on turn 4 if the axis want it that way.  So turn 5 they build the factory, turn 6 it starts producing units.

    Sorry I’m not seeing it.  I can’t see how they can take and hold it by then against a decent german player.  And if the allies are throwing the kitchen sink in the north, then Italy gets to roam free in the middle east.  It could be a powerful strat, but I don’t see it being overpowered.  No more so than gunning for Italy hardcore.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @bugoo:

    Lets keep some perspective here.  US can only take territory on turn 4 if the axis want it that way.  So turn 5 they build the factory, turn 6 it starts producing units.

    Sorry I’m not seeing it.  I can’t see how they can take and hold it by then against a decent german player.  And if the allies are throwing the kitchen sink in the north, then Italy gets to roam free in the middle east.  It could be a powerful strat, but I don’t see it being overpowered.  No more so than gunning for Italy hardcore.

    The only person who needs to throw the sink in at Norway is the US. Britain can focus wherever she pleases or wherever is helpful. If the US doesn’t enter the war until turn 4 then that means India will like wise be a fortress and can likely send some help to the Middle East. And even if the US isn’t in the war until turn 4, they’ll be ready to go with a factory in Norway and hit the ground running. Considering that Germany will generally not attack the USSR until turn 3… welll then, there is plenty of time for a factory to be useful. Germany cannot take Moscow by turn 5. They can barely take Leningrad or Stalingrad by that time. The war should be no where near over by turn 5.


  • I saw the Norway Factory option the first time I looked at the map and read the rules.
    It is a powerfull strategy, but I agree with some of the things that are said here even though I don’t think that it’s necessarily a gamebreaker.
    It might be best to disallow the US to build a factory there.  Or at least only allow them a minor one.

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 28
  • 6
  • 9
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 13
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts