The US in the Pacific? NO WAY!!!

[the admiral]

When I am Japan, I generally do follow the conventional progression of killing US pacific fleet, getting as many men onto mainland via transports as possible, going after Russia in the east, etc., as described in the initial post. But as the game progresses and Japan enjoys the mid-game high income, I sometimes like to create a diversion for my German allies by taking Alaska. Last time, my enemy did not see what was coming, even after I had taken Alaska, and left the US west coast wide open. This will probably not happen for anyone else, but the diversion is the point. Right when the US and UK are getting their invasion in gear, they have to turn around and at least buy a bunch of men to garrison the west coast. Since so much of the Japanese navy generally survives the first turns anyway, this diversion is usually much cheaper for the Japs than for the allies. Just a thought on how the Japanese can use their total dominance of the pacific for some benefit to their axis allies.

[Yanny]

Use the Japaneese navy to capture South Africa, build an IC there, and procede to kick ass.

[Ansbach]

Bossk - the quandry you have is because everything you said is true! The US making a push towards Japan IS beneficial and it DOES provide relief to Russia. It’s not that going after Japan is a bad strategy - it’s just not nearly as good of a strategy as quickly crushing Germany. The US can split it’s forces in half and significantly harass both Germany and Japan, OR it can provide OVERWHELMING forces in Europe that Germany just can’t handle no matter what they try.

It’s the difference between the Allies winning 50% of the time and 95% of the time, which is why Candyman mentioned that it is actually more fun to send the US into the Pacific, as long as you don’t have to win the game to have fun.

[Ansbach]

A Kill Japan First (KJF) strategy is simply not viable, and it becomes obvious if you zoom out and look at the big picture somewhat abstractly:

The reason Kill Germany First (KGF) works is because all 3 Allied countries can devote 90% or more of their overall capability towards Germany. Ask any German player in a crush Germany game and he’ll be glad to tell you - he’s fighting a 3 on 1 battle and it ain’t fair!

This is simply not possible against Japan. The US can devote 90%, but if Russia devoted even 50% it would fall to Germany in a second, and the UK is too far away for 50% to even be an option - they would have to fight out of factories in India or Australia, severly limiting their capabilities.

A good way to visualize this is to think of a slider that you could adjust to represent your Allied strategy: all the way left is 100% vs. Germany, all the way right is 100% vs. Japan, and the middle is 50/50. The slider moves all the way to the left, but when you push it right you PHYSICALLY can’t move past the 50/50 mark!!

Ansbach

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-14 12:08 ]

[Yanny]

In short, Japan has the advantage of isolation, Germany has the exact opposite, Germany is surrounded.

[TM Moses VII]

If USA and UK can skillfully split up their resources between the two fronts, I can definitely see the strategy of going after Japan in the Pacific.

---

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-11 21:11 ]

[Yanny]

Yes, you could do it, but you won’t be as successful as a Germany first option.

[TM Moses VII]

I admit that the Germany first strategy is very sound and holds bearing to it. However, the main fault I see in it is that it requires a lot of wasted time. There is a turn between loading and unload, not to mention extra turns in order to build up. I feel that these forces would be better off spent actively doing something (ATB) – conquering territory, combat movement, ect.

This is where I see the viability of a Germany and Japan strategy that fluctuates depending where money is needed most. It offers the highest degree of versatility while pressuring both countries. If I can harass Japan’s southern flank enough by island hoping, I can entice them to counter attack. This effectively forces Japan to try and outspend the USA, something they can dearly afford near the beginning of the game. However, if the Japanese player ignores me, I can successfully prevent Japanese troop movements penetrating far in the Middle East or Africa. Another added benefit is that it leaves the Japanese merchant marine highly vulnerable; I can reach the Sea of Japan within two turns from Western USA.

Germany? The only real viable option for US and UK against Germany is Africa and less importantly, Western Europe. I base this on the fact that Germany in no ways can acquire Russia quickly. It takes at least three turns for Germany to reach Russia from Germany, and that is through Karelia. These supply lines will destroy Germany much like it did historically. Russia then is in an advantageous position by holding Karelia. If Germany tries to reach Russia through Ukraine and Caucasus, I can just as easily close this salient through Karelia and counterattack.

---

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 17:38 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 17:44 ]

[Guest]

Uh… you’re whole problem is that you’re attacking with the US poorly!!! Here is how you do it; buy troops in Eastern US, move them to Eastern Canada. The fleet stays in the North Sea and pops over to Eastern Canada, picks them up, and lands them in Norway or Western Europe - every turn.

[TM Moses VII]

Actually I think my USA playing skills are adequate. You brought up Eastern Canada as a staging point, which is a great idea considering I use it myself. However, you forget that the pause I’m referring to is after the transports unload, effectively ending their turn. Now a quick review of the game board also shows that the only avenue EC would work in is Algeria.

Algeria is vital to Allied victory in Africa and in the game. It follows the concepts of ATB, meaning that infantry and tanks will be actively battling and liberating territories within the next few turns. This is fundamental since the German player no longer has the advantage of reinforcing Africa a turn earlier. However, Norway offers none of the advantages of ATB. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely done to reinforce Russian positions. In no way can such a small American or British force defeat the single German force, as I rather spend my money on bombers.

By landing at Western Europe I can expect a German counterattack the following turn. Usually I will not commit to a Western Europe assault, as Germany will have large concentrations of troops and planes ready to defend and tanks with more infantry conveniently situated in Germany itself. Factor this in with the limitations of transports in battle (only 2 inf. or 1 arm to a land battle), and the battle becomes particular sided toward the defenders. In order for the Allies to have any hope of reclaiming Western Europe, a large transport fleet must be built with naval escorts, which will in turn cost even more money and turns loss during buildup.

There is another weakness toward the Eastern Canada strategy. That is the fact that it requires US troops to be stationed in Eastern Canada for at least on turn. This takes away from the early game where some players will want to get as many units into Africa or Norway as quickly as possible.

A look at the Pacific presents us with a different opportunity. All of the Japanese islands are weakly defended and hardly reinforced. This fact also takes away somewhat from supply line difficulties. If I can build one transport per turn with supporting infantry (14 IPCs) for the first few turns, then twice each turn, if I am lucky, I can conquer up to two islands before returning to Hawaii to refill. This also means I can use the Eastern Canada transports mode in Hawaii without suffering from lack of ATB.

[Guest]

Sorry, didn’t mean to attack your playing skills - I meant that you are not transporting your troops efficiently. I’ll explain:

Turn A - Buy 10 I
Turn B - Move first 10 to Eastern Canada, buy 10 more
Turn C - Move first 10 to Norway (or Western Europe, once you can take it), move second 10 to EC, buy 10 more.

Your 5 transports are in the North Sea. On Turn C, you move them to the Labrador Sea, pick up the 10 infantry, move back to the North Sea, and drop them off.

Repeat Turn C each turn, landing 10 I in Norway or WE each turn. The I in EC aren’t wasting time - they are moving towards the front each turn. The front is basically two spaces from Eastern US.

Turn A can usually be Turn 2 of the game, and from turn 4 onwards the US is dumping 10 infantry into the European Theatre every turn (until Japan tries to distract them for a turn).

[TM Moses VII]

I will take this time to test out the your strategy. Since I have seen this tactic used many times, I have come up with the appropriate answer. The problems with these strategies are that they require pinpoint accuracy and investment. You strategy calls for an initial investment of 100 IPCs (3 turns based on average US capita) with an upkeep of 30 IPCs per turn. 40 for the 5 transports, 10 for the first set of infantry, and 10 for the additional set. What else will you be doing the first three turns?

You mentioned Norway as the first landing point. In my previous topic I stated that Norway offers none of the advantages of ATB. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely to reinforce Russian positions. By the numbers a defending force of 7 infantry has a 50% of defeating 10 infantry - a net loss of 9 IPCs if both are destroyed. However, since the Eastern Front often amounts to stacks of 30 German infantry of more, this would require 43 infantry at 55% chance of victory. To pull off this maneuver would require 5 turns of IPC investment along with an additional 3 turns for movement purposes. Think of where Japan will be after eight turns.

Second is the invasion of Western Europe. Lets say you commit 1 bomber, 2 planes, and 10 infantry (the most you existing transports can handle) to the European invasion. Anticipating your attack, all the German player has to do to stop this is place a stack of 10 infantry, 2 planes with one preexisting AA gun to claim victory 80% of the time assuming you let your aircraft to fend for themselves.

Additional problems loom large. How will you manage to defend your 5 transports? As the German player I can launch a devastating assault of 4 fighters and 1 bomber to claim victory 98% of the time – 60% of the time I will lose only 1 fighter.

Another problem also arises: What about Hawaii? Will you counterattack at Hawaii or let the Japanese task force run rampant? By counterattacking at Hawaii, you seriously jeopardize losing 2 ftrs and 1 bomber. The loss of one or more such craft will be a huge blow to your infantry rush due to the lack of high supporting units. On the other hand, not invading Hawaii could end up just as worse. By doing so, you have allowed the Japanese player free access to ATB at Alaska, Hawaii, Australia, Western USA, Western Canada, and New Zealand. Most harmful of all is Alaska and Western USA. These two place an incredible burden on your timetable as it forces you to funnel units in order to stem with the Japanese tide.

The third issue with Japan is how to stop them before the reach critical mass. With all forces going to Germany, Japan can freely devote all its resources to Asia. Though Japan also suffers from supply line difficulties, it enjoys the benefit of having a huge air fleet at the beginning of the game.

[Ansbach]

TM Moses VII:

Although his numbers are off, the transport strategy Anon is talking about is key to understanding why the Allies can win 90% of games without some kind of house rule to fix the imbalance, such as bidding for Axis.

I’ll address your concerns one point at a time:

You strategy calls for an initial investment of 100 IPCs (3 turns based on average US capita) with an upkeep of 30 IPCs per turn. 40 for the 5 transports, 10 for the first set of infantry, and 10 for the additional set. What else will you be doing the first three turns?

Nothing. That’s the point - the key to a swift victory is ignoring Japan as much as possible and focusing completely on transporting troops to Germany. I’ll give you a typical purchasing scenario at the end of this post.

You mentioned Norway as the first landing point. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely to reinforce Russian positions…. Think of where Japan will be after eight turns.

‘Merely’ reinforcing Russian positions is how the Allies win 90% of games, and it’s why you can make bold statements such as Germany can NEVER take Karelia against a good Allied player. The key to the whole war is the battle between Germany and Russia on the eastern front, and with the US, UK, and Russia adding troops to Karelia every turn Germany can’t win. The big build up you are talking about will look something like this: Germany has 30 Inf in EE, Russia has 30 Inf in Karelia, the US has 20 Inf in Karelia, and the UK has 20 inf in Karelia. You are right to worry about Japan, though, because it is a race - you have to take Germany before they can take Russia. Unfortunately for the Axis, the Allies can win the race most of the time.

Second is the invasion of Western Europe…

First, let me assure you that nowhere in this strategy are there any risky attacks that don’t make tactical sense. The key to taking Western Europe is the one-two-three punch of UK/US/Russia (landing planes when there is enough infantry) before Germany takes it’s turn. That is the same key to taking EE and then Germany. It doesn’t matter if Germany takes WE back, because you can take it again the next round, repeating the cycle. Germany is forced to fight two fronts and EE will fall shortly thereafter.

Additional problems loom large. How will you manage to defend your 5 transports? As the German player I can launch a devastating assault of 4 fighters and 1 bomber to claim victory 98% of the time – 60% of the time I will lose only 1 fighter.

You assume there is no protection for the transports. Defending the transports is easy - the UK and your battleship protect them, see the build below. Launching the German air force into the Allied navy is suicide.

Another problem also arises: What about Hawaii? Will you counterattack at Hawaii or let the Japanese task force run rampant?

You don’t counterattack at Hawaii for the reasons you stated. Rush the Battleship through the Panama Canal to help protect the Atlantic fleet.

The hardest part of playing the US well is dealing with harassments by Japan with minimal interruption of your infantry chain. However, it it still pretty easy to do. How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens. I continue to place them in W-US from then on. You move the infantry to Western Canada, then Eastern Canada. This breaks the chain for one turn only, and from then on you have 10 infantry in W-US and WC every turn, which shuts down any minor Japanese threat.

The third issue with Japan is how to stop them before they reach critical mass. With all forces going to Germany, Japan can freely devote all its resources to Asia. Though Japan also suffers from supply line difficulties, it enjoys the benefit of having a huge air fleet at the beginning of the game.

This is a very good point, and why I keep saying it is a race. You don’t have to ‘stop’ Japan, you have to outpace them and knock out Germany, and then it’s 3 on 1 if Japan wants to even play it out. Russia just has to stall Japan until Germany falls. They can do it with the help of the Allies, because once the Allied troops are in Karelia Russia can focus more on Japan. Anything but a minor effort in the Pacific from Japan and Russia will never fall.

Builds vary depending on what rules you are using - here is a rough outline for the CD-ROM game:

US1 - build 2 transports and 3 infantry
US2 - build 1 transport, rest infantry
US3 - build 1 transport, rest infantry
US4 - build all infantry

The UK protects the US fleet with an Aircraft Carrie and a bunch of transports. Also, the US Battleship from Western USA will be on the US East coast on Turn 2 and in the North Sea on turn 3.

I don’t want to give too much away because half of the fun is developing the strategy yourself!

There’s a good reason why people who haven’t tried this strategy have a hard time accepting it. That is because on paper, a balanced strategy makes more sense, so all of your logic in defending a two theatre war is sound. But in actual practice, Crushing Germany turns out to be a much better strategy.

Think of it as a cheat in a video game, like “hey, watch this - instead of doing what you’re supposed to do, you can do this instead and win every time.”

If you do play the CD-Rom version, I’d be happy to meet with you (or anyone else who wants to learn) in the Zone and help you out. My e-mail address is jg2_ansbach@yahoo.com.

There is also an old set of articles at the website below that will help. They are a bit outdated with some of the new rules changes and stratagies, but the overall concept is still sound.

http://donsessays.freeservers.com/

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-14 12:12 ]

[Xi]

Iz havin sum trubl folwn sum o yorn diskushin! I downt know al dees abreffyashuns. I’m kinda new at writn al dis out. What’s ATF? Africa Takeback First? And what’s BFE (I think that was it.)?

[Xi]

SORRY! Just having some fun.
How about giving the long form after the initials the first time they are used in a forum?

[TM Moses VII]

It seems the more I play, the less I see Germany taking Karelia, nor should I think they should. No doubt, taking Karelia is great. This gives you a tremendous benefit since Russia is now force to defend its capital and neglect three Southern territories (9 IPCs). However, the amount of self-sacrifice this requires is enormous; often Germany can take Russia but lose out due to its inability to protect Germany itself.

Now, the German first strategy is nothing new. And I feel the best countermeasure Germany can put up against it is to go purely defensive instead of brash series of gambits. By resisting stubbornly, I can buy time not for myself, but time for Japan to reach critical mass. What this means is that Japan is in position where it dominates the Pacific, all of Asia excluding the Russian capital, and a strong foothold in Africa. I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game.

Now the strategy I intend to use puts pressure on both Germany and Japan. For Germany, I can consider myself successful if I can isolate them to Eastern Europe and westward. All avenues including North Africa, Norway, and Ukraine should be cut off. What this does is keeps Germany in a position where it is still formidable, but not strong enough to conduct any sort of offensive in the Russo-Prussia Front.

This policy leaves me with extra IPCs from a full-blown offensive that I think will be better used in the Pacific. What this does is contain Germany in Europe and prevent the Japanese from reaching critical mass. When this happens, a stalemate is achieved where the Allies can then use its superior economy and strategic bombing to ride it out.

You mentioned landing troops in Russia simply as a move to reinforce them. I would agree with you. If I see Russia in dire straits, then I will funnel troops that would be normally sent to Africa to relieve this burden. However, you 20/20 tactic calls for a little too much “excessive force” in my opinion. If I already know that the Germans will not be foolish enough to throw everything they have in a last ditch offensive to take Karelia, which would result in defeat 50% of the time, then I would better use my IPCs on the Pacific or on bombers (read post on Strategic Bombing).

Your Western Europe response is a little vague. But for all matters concerning, lets say for America you have 5 transports and for UK 5 transports with 1 fighter and 1 bomber committed to each battle. Now as the Axis player I can calculate the odds and find out for that if want an impenetrable fortress I can commit 15 infantry (45 IPCs) and two planes preexisting at the start of the game. For the first invasion I calculate that the Britain will lose 100% of the time with the Axis 83% losing between 2-7 infantry. I will use 5 infantry lost (21%) as the most likely candidate.

On America’s turn, she makes her invasion. Again the Axis will win 92% of the time. 70% of the time, Germany will lose between 3-8 infantry. I will use 5 infantry lost (13.3%) again as the most likely candidate. This means for all intensive purposes, the Allies would’ve wasted 60 IPCs on infantry (114 IPCs if you also factor in the aircraft), with the Germans at a scant 30 IPCs. This begs the question, where is Russia to land? On the following turn, I can replace most of my causalities.

#4, “You assume there is no protection for the transports.”

I assume that no protection for transports will be made since none have been mentioned in the previous topic.

#5, “Rush the Battleship through the Panama Canal to help protect the Atlantic fleet.”

How exactly am I able to rush my battleship in Western USA to the Atlantic? You mentioned going through the Panama Canal. Unless I am wrong (and please correct me if I am), the Panama Canal is considered two separate sea zones – the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean Sea. That would mean the furthest I could penetrate with my American battleship is from the E. Central Pacific to the Gulf of Panama. This offers me no strategic or movement advantage whatsoever compared to the Japanese fleet stationed at Hawaii and within striking distance. Without any supporting aircraft, the American fleet at Western USA is doomed.

#6, “How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens.”

By doing so, you are actually helping the Axis win. This in turn slows down your transport armada by one turn allowing Germany some breathing space since it now takes two turns for your infantry to reach Eastern Canada. As for Japan, the lost turn is hardly felt since I will usually threaten Western USA from Alaska. If USA takes the bait and places, I will load my troops from Alaska back onto the transports and proceed to unload at Manchuria. Then on the following turn, my transports are free to carry more infantry.

#7,

I can only assume with you get Germany first scenario that you’re going straight toward knocking Germany out of the game at all cost. Now if you are the one who also likes to focus a little on Japan (ie moving forces from Karelia to the Far East), then it is a move toward my camp.

#8, “I don’t want to give too much away because half of the fun is developing the strategy yourself!”

I can’t disagree with this. A big problem a see nowadays with veteran Axis and Allies players is the lack of innovation where it should be the other way around. Players seem to forget how powerful surprise is and making your opponent second-guess your actions. I’m sure if I revealed my Allied German-Japan strategy, appropriate countermeasures could also be preformed. However, since concepts of my strategy are based around ATB and VATB, I can always keep my opponent on his toes and unsure where I’ll strike next. :smile:

---

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-14 20:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-14 20:51 ]

[TM Moses VII]

Sorry Xi, I should really went more in depth in explaining ATB and its cousin VATB. Well ATB quite literally means, “Active Time Battle” with VATB representing “Variable Active Time Battle.” The background from ATB stems back from this gaming parlor my brother and I would go to. It is based on the theory of time management. If I am able to perform more actions than my opponent within a given set of time, then my chances of victory increases dramatically. VATB, however, is a much newer design that incorporates ATB into the economy. What it is saying is that if the battlefield changes dramatically than I am able to make the changes appropriately to match the new environment instead managing my economy in a paper-conformist attitude.

[Ansbach]

I can go back and forth explaining specific situations all day, and honestly, I don’t mind if I’m helping others improve their play. That’s one of the reasons I post on this board. However, don’t get distracted by small, individual tactics - keep your main focus on the overall strategy: the Allies can overwhelm Germany with pure numbers and there is NOTHING Germany can do about it! If you’re like me you will probably have to see it for yourself in action before you truly accept it. Then, if you’re really like me, after the first beating you will say “OK - now I know how to stop it” and try something else, and so on… and it will be several games later before you truly accept it. :smile:

There are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia, thereby increasing pressure against Germany: Catch-22. The common solution is to use house rules that bolster the Axis.

OK, here goes…

Now, the German first strategy is nothing new. And I feel the best countermeasure Germany can put up against it is to go purely defensive instead of brash series of gambits. By resisting stubbornly, I can buy time not for myself, but time for Japan to reach critical mass. What this means is that Japan is in position where it dominates the Pacific, all of Asia excluding the Russian capital, and a strong foothold in Africa. I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game.

That’s correct and you’re off to a good start - Germany has to play defensive until Japan takes Russia. (However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)

Now the strategy I intend to use puts pressure on both Germany and Japan. For Germany, I can consider myself successful if I can isolate them to Eastern Europe and westward. All avenues including North Africa, Norway, and Ukraine should be cut off. What this does is keeps Germany in a position where it is still formidable, but not strong enough to conduct any sort of offensive in the Russo-Prussia Front.

This policy leaves me with extra IPCs from a full-blown offensive that I think will be better used in the Pacific. What this does is contain Germany in Europe and prevent the Japanese from reaching critical mass. When this happens, a stalemate is achieved where the Allies can then use its superior economy and strategic bombing to ride it out.

Developing new strategies is great – maybe yours will be the breakthrough strategy that proves all of us wrong, and I don’t mean that sarcastically. I’m sure many of us would be interested in helping you flesh it out. Maybe you should start a thread with your ideas? If you do, be sure to put in your first post that you just want help developing the current strategy to it’s full potential – otherwise you will just get a bunch of people telling you not going Crush Germany is a huge mistake.

You mentioned landing troops in Russia simply as a move to reinforce them. I would agree with you. If I see Russia in dire straits, then I will funnel troops that would be normally sent to Africa to relieve this burden. However, you 20/20 tactic calls for a little too much “excessive force” in my opinion…

It’s the other way around - If you see Africa in dire straits, funnel troops that would normally be sent to Russia.

Allied troops in Russia do three things: they reinforce Karelia against Germany, they free up Russian infantry to be used vs. Japan, and they can take Eastern Europe. The game is won or lost in the battle for Eastern Europe, which means you can’t have excessive forces in Karelia – as soon as you do, you can take Eastern Europe (see below).

Your Western Europe response is a little vague… if I want an impenetrable fortress I can commit 15 infantry and two planes preexisting at the start of the game… Britain will lose 100% of the time…

Once again, let me assure you that there are no bad attacks in this strategy, and I mention this again to save you the effort you are spending in calculating battle odds for bad Allied attacks. Ignore the specific numbers and look at the concept instead.

15 infantry and 2 planes are a solid defense, and with those numbers Western Europe won’t be attacked. Trying to get those numbers while still protecting Germany and Eastern Europe at the same time is the difficult part. You also have to have 15 infantry and 2 planes in Germany to protect against the same assualt. Now look at Eastern Europe, and let’s say I have 30/15/15 R/UK/US infantry in Karelia. The UK can hit EE with 23 infantry (15+8 from the transport) and say, 1 tank, 1 bomber and 2 fighters. Then the US can hit EE with 25 infantry (15+10), 1 or 2 bombers, maybe a tank, and two fighters. Then the Russians can hit EE with 30 infantry, 3 tanks, and 2 planes. So now you get out the odds calculator and find out how many infantry and fighters you have to have to survive all three attacks, and then add that to the 30 infantry and 4 fighters in WE and G. You get the idea. But, like I said earlier - ignore the actual numbers themselves - you would be missing the point. They are just an example meant to convey the strategic concept, exact numbers would be impossible to determine until you get to that phase of the game anyway. The point is that Germany has to defend all three countries at once against odds that get worse every turn. Even if we leave Russia completely out of the picture (let’s say they are wrapped up in fighting Japan by this point), there are 18 new Allied infantry moving into Karelia each turn! As you can see it’s only a matter of time before the German player is forced to give up Eastern Europe and retreat to Germany. That only delays the inevitable, however – you will still have 18+ allied troops moving into Eastern Europe each turn.

How exactly am I able to rush my battleship in Western USA to the Atlantic? You mentioned going through the Panama Canal. Unless I am wrong (and please correct me if I am), the Panama Canal is considered two separate sea zones – the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean Sea. That would mean the furthest I could penetrate with my American battleship is from the E. Central Pacific to the Gulf of Panama. This offers me no strategic or movement advantage whatsoever compared to the Japanese fleet stationed at Hawaii and within striking distance. Without any supporting aircraft, the American fleet at Western USA is doomed.

US1 – Move the battleship to the Gulf of Panama.
US2 – Move the battleship to the USA Atlantic, protecting any transports purchased from a german bomber in WE.
US3 – Move the battleship to the North Sea, protecting the Allied fleet.

The US shouldn’t hit the Japanese fleet in Hawaii unless it is severely damaged from the previous battle, and even then it’s not a great idea. The only thing that is doomed is the American transport.

#6, “How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens.”

By doing so, you are actually helping the Axis win. This in turn slows down your transport armada by one turn allowing Germany some breathing space since it now takes two turns for your infantry to reach Eastern Canada. As for Japan, the lost turn is hardly felt since I will usually threaten Western USA from Alaska. If USA takes the bait and places, I will load my troops from Alaska back onto the transports and proceed to unload at Manchuria. Then on the following turn, my transports are free to carry more infantry.

That is the one turn gap I told you about. There is no ‘bait’ for the US to take – they HAVE to build in Western USA. It is a vital Japanese strategy. However, “helping the Axis to win” is an exaggeration - “giving Germany one more turn to live” is more accurate. One extra turn is not enough for the Axis; you have to distract the US elsewhere as well later in the game.

As for ATB/VATB - you would probably be interested in the Eight Maxims of Strategy by Hart, which apply to A&A very nicely. I will try to post them in a thread soon.

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-15 14:02 ]

[TM Moses VII]

I would love to discuss this subject matter for to the light of day. You remarked that I wouldn’t see the greatness of All Power to Germany, until I witnessed it myself. The problem is that I have, many, many times. All Power to Germany is not a new strategy or a very innovative one at that – nor does it mean instant victory. There is something to be said about coming up with you own unique playing style in a field dominated by norms. Now some people are content with consistency, so I really wouldn’t know.

Now you say that Germany can do nothing about an Allied invasion. I feel that this is untrue, as Germany can still accomplish a whole lot. On the first turn, Germany can hamper an Allied assault by UK through the total destruction of the navy. On the following turns, I can consolidate my gains in Africa as well as Eastern Europe. The mounting numbers superiority of the Allies does wreck havoc on Germany psychologically. However, if I can maintain control of Europe, then I still have a collectable income of 25 IPCs. On average I can still buy eight infantry per turn.

Now you said that there are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia. I really don’t understand what you mean by “few things,” either by sending planes to Germany or what? I always came to understand that the greatest way to help out Germany is by hurting Russia. So by increasing pressure on Russia, I am in fact relieving pressure from Germany by forcing Russia to defend her home boundaries. Now the way GGF (Get Germany First) sounds, I will constantly be forced to send troops to Europe no matter what. So would I continue sending forces against Germany even though Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia?

“(However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)”

In this quote you attacked my idea that Germany will hold Eastern European. However, if you had examined my quote a little harder, you would notice,”…I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game. “ See how I said keep the Allies “at” Eastern Europe. So I am assuming that the Allies will indeed retake Germany.

“Not going Crush Germany is a huge mistake.”

Again, I would agree with this, though my strategy takes things a little differently. Rather than risking huge causalities for victory, which was Russia strategy for much of the World War, I instead propose to let Germany to wither on the vine. Germany will still be crushed, but not until the proper preparations are made so that I don’t face a backlash from the Japanese when all my forces are stationed in Europe.

Regarding Western Europe, the reason why I used 5 transports was because that was what aforementioned post stated. I too believe in no poorly planned attacks by the Allies, but by striking Western Europe with such a limited task force, that is what I am expecting. Will that mean Western Europe won’t be liberated? I really don’t know. The reason why I used 15 infantry and 2 planes for Germany was to represent a worst-case scenario. Mind you Western Europe will still be defended, though to a different degree. There are still 4-5 planes Germany controls near the start of the game.

Now the defeat of Germany is inevitable. But the number of turns this would require is the winning difference for the Axis. I can derive this from the fact that if Germany falls, Japan still has a chance of winning if it takes Russia. Based on IPC count, Japan would function at a income at 56-65 IPCs and the Allies around 74-85 IPCs. Japan does have one great advantage though she doesn’t have to split its forces between two countries like UK and USA do.

The battleship movement is also slightly flawed. First, this movement expects that the Japanese fleet will not go after the American fleet the following turn. Second, this movement assumes that Japan cannot launch fighters from its aircraft carrier to intercept the battleship. Now normally at Hawaii I will lose 1-2 units. On the following turn, the Japanese fleet attacks to unprotected transport, while the battleship is attacked 2 fighters. The battle is in favor of the planes at 83%.

[Guest]

A few comments on what TM Moses VII said in the above post:

“The mounting numbers superiority of the Allies does wreck havoc on Germany psychologically. However, if I can maintain control of Europe, then I still have a collectable income of 25 IPCs. On average I can still buy eight infantry per turn. “

This is a great point. This really stresses the importance of Germany making smart decesions on how to distribute its forces and how many units should be used when trading territories with the Allies. Even if the Allies are out producing the German war effort and putting more guys on the EEu/Kar front, Germany can still put up a strong enough defense to stall the Allies long enough for Japan to take Russia.

“Regarding Western Europe, the reason why I used 5 transports was because that was what aforementioned post stated. I too believe in no poorly planned attacks by the Allies, but by striking Western Europe with such a limited task force, that is what I am expecting.”

Good point. However, as the Allies, it can be much safer to land in Spain first with both the UK and US. Next turn, WEu becomes a dead zone unless German pulls units from the EEu front. Many times this can be a much more viable tactic than an all out attack on WEu. The result is the same (opening two fronts in Europe) with less Allied casualties. If I understand your ATB theory, I think the Spain landing would be a good example in what it forces (or limits) the Germans to do in the next turn.

“I can derive this from the fact that if Germany falls, Japan still has a chance of winning if it takes Russia.”

Not sure that I agree with this. I think for the Axis to have a chance, it must take Moscow at least one turn before the either UK or US takes Germany. Otherwise the Allies have too much time to redeploy their troops and can start to build units in Europe to start helping the Russians push the Japs back.

“Based on IPC count, Japan would function at a income at 56-65 IPCs and the Allies around 74-85 IPCs. Japan does have one great advantage though she doesn’t have to split its forces between two countries like UK and USA do.”

With this IPC differencial, the Allies can let time do its damage to the Axis. Sure Japan would be stronger than any individual Ally, but the Allies can also split their forces and create multiple Japan fronts in which if Japan splits its forces, it no longer maintains the advantage you stated.

Regarding the US battleship:

“On the following turn, the Japanese fleet attacks to unprotected transport, while the battleship is attacked 2 fighters. The battle is in favor of the planes at 83%.”

One simple way to help the battleship survive is to send the E US TRN through the canal to help absorb a hit and make the odds more in the US favor. Thus, you would still use the WUS TRN as a blocker in the Mexico SZ and have a battleship and TRN in W Panama SZ. Now the best the Japs can do against the TRN/Battleship is send 2 fighters (if they both survived the Hawaii battle). Of course there are always “what if” things that could happen like the E US TRN needed in the UK SZ for defense or maybe it was lost if the Germans sent the Spain SUB against it (unlikely in most games). The problems with this scenerio is that so many things can happen before the US gets their first turn, but more times than not, the E US TRN can be sent to help the battleship. If Japan still goes after the remaining US navy in the Pacific, chances are that 1) both Jap fighters are dead, and 2) the other Jap units which attacked the Mexican SZ TRN are out of position for a couple of turns. Both are good results for the Allies.