• TripleA

    yeah and allies usually lost in the old +3 , barring any crazy dice. You had to like charge for rome or germany with russia and be crazy and hope for the best. The hell man.


  • the fight in the Medi is too one sided.

    Either Italy becomes a real monster (in the 40s) or gets screwed and becomes useless.
    This is a big flaw in the game (UK and Italy becomes boring nation to play), but works for balance purposes.

    To who said Italy always lost battles, that’s not true, we had our victories too. They’re not very well publicized tho’.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Alsch91:

    I don’t follow that logic, Cow.

    And in other versions, Taranto was a weaker strategy because Sealion was stronger than the currently impotent strategy that it is.  So it is very possible for Taranto to not be done and have the game still be balanced.
    And really it made Italy and UK way more fun, since you had to actually fight one another for every territory, waiting for the green gorilla to arrive from the west.  UK simply stomping all over Italy before their first turn gets old when it is the uncontestedly standard move.
    Taranto always/Barbarossa always gets boring if you ask me.

    This is a good point.  It seems very difficult to achieve the right balance.  In OOB, Sea Lion was essentially the only good strategy for Germany, and that got boring quickly.  The goal when balancing Global ought to be making both Barbarossa and Sea Lion viable (with Barbarossa perhaps a bit more viable).

    But even in Alpha 3.9, if Germany is in position to Sea Lion, Taranto could be a mistake.  Especially if the G1 naval battles went well for Axis.  It would definitely be a shame if Sea Lion has been weakened to the point where United Kingdom should always attack Tarranto.  But I’m skeptical whether that’s actually the case.  It seems to me that Tarranto is only advisable in cases where the Sea Lion threat is weak or non-existent.

  • TripleA

    haha, because people aren’t buying all infantry or 6 inf 1 fighter for uk round 1. Also helps if usa buys a couple bomber to fly in (that way if germ does go through with sea lion it will most likely cause pacific to be postponed by japan).

    longer the japs wait to DOW the harder taking anzac and uk pac becomes. uk 2 and anzac 2 you can dow on japan if you want, just keep in mind usa loses combat but still gets to collect his NO / war money USA 3 (sometimes japan will dow on USA just to get phil out of the way). Depends really, but typically pacific is really weak when japan puts off war for so long.
    ~
    Way I see it, if I got to buy all infantry or 6 inf and a fighter when I am uk, then I should be screwed with italy… that is balance right there.

    In global it is very rare to see uk drop a bunch of men on europe, unlike aa50.


  • [quote author=Vance link=topic=27485.msg968367#msg968367 date=1338653564]
    Beg Germany to help you.
    [/quote]
    Well most of the time Germany doesnt help much. Just 1 inf and 1 tank, Italy does fine by itself most of the time. Sometimes takes over the middle east and southern Russia.

  • TripleA

    if italy gets the middle east, allies lose unless japan is not pulling his weight.


  • [quote author=Zhukov44 link=topic=27485.msg968458#msg968458 date=1338680429]
    But even in Alpha 3.9, if Germany is in position to Sea Lion, Taranto could be a mistake.  Especially if the G1 naval battles went well for Axis.  It would definitely be a shame if Sea Lion has been weakened to the point where United Kingdom should always attack Tarranto.  But I’m skeptical whether that’s actually the case.  It seems to me that Tarranto is only advisable in cases where the Sea Lion threat is weak or non-existent.
    [/quote]

    imho sealion is already weak enough to a point where uk should awlays attack taranto. if uk skips taranto than denying ita getting egy/middle east is almost impossible, which combined with an optimal barbarossa means gg.

    so I do taranto in uk1 regardless of g1. pays back on the long run even if ger captures london in g3

    [quote author=soulfein link=topic=27513.msg970119#msg970119 date=1339000786]
    usually a g3 london is kinda good-ish for axis, while a g4 london is almost a gg.

    the biggest factor why sealion is a bad move for axis is that after a proper usa response (bmbrs), japs cant dow till london s captured, which most of the time (-if not always) means no pac victory for axis. so japs play gets really restricted. might be the only occasion where going heavy into siberia with japs is a more optimal move than going for india.

    the general outcome also depends on a number of minor factors:

    -can ita grab egy before (or at the same round) usa gets a stack in sz91? with london gone it s almost impossible for uk to send reinforcements to egy + relatively later involvement of ussr means it will take a longer time for ussr to get involved in africa.

    -how long can ussr stack romania? romania is the usual optimal base for ussr stack, trading slovakia/yugoslavia plus dispatching some guys to bulg for greece and albania means, after a successful sealion, ger will find itself outproduced by ussr.

    -how lucky was ger in london? having a lucky attacks with many land units left means ger can remove ussr from eastern europe. many air left further means ger can probably delay usa fleet london for 1 or 2 more rounds.

    -is iraq italian or russian soil? a 9 ipc territory plus enables pressure on cau or egy. no further need to emphasize its importance imho.

    with all those things said, I really think sealion is a very “specialized” option for axis, which must be only used with in depth analysis of the board, even it s possible for ger to take london in g3.

    so in return, uk doesnt have to solely turn london into a fortress to deny a selion. depending on overall situation, with careful management, making ger grab london can be a game-winner move for allies on the long run.
    [/quote]

    ps: copy-pasting your own post is kinda lame, anyone know if I can get a link to a single post (instead of the whole topic)?

    ps2: based on my fail quote + empireman s fail quote above, I assume there is something wrong with “quote”?


  • Quotes are being worked on.

    oh and it’s “sealion”


  • [quote author=Imperious Leader link=topic=27485.msg970132#msg970132 date=1339002536]
    Quotes are being worked on.

    oh and it’s “sealion”
    [/quote]

    u grammer nazi :)


  • so italy is MEANT to get convoyed out of the game, eh?

    if the nazis spend their resources preventing this (hitting the s. france fleet, hitting sz91, etc.), what happens then? if a screwed italy is prerequisite to effective allied play then i’d say the allies need more work.

    now spending these many early strikes against UK fleet may be costly, but italy in the mid east is a big prob.  a slow march on moscow, plus italy running around africa/mid east seems like a big allied distraction.

    at least japan gets a run at VC

    at best, US dont respond properly and USSR falls before waves of German and Italian troops


  • Hi Guy. Are you saying Germany should go all out to help Italy including hitting the Cruiser in SZ91  and the French in SZ93 as Garg has said? Might be the only way, but then which UK Home Fleet do we not attack?


  • I can’t think of a good reason to hit 93 on G1.
    The cost of 1-2 planes isn’t worth the benefit of removing 2 comparatively useless ships that Italy can kill by itself while losing only around 1 sub.
    Killing that 110 death fleet is way more important to both Germany and Italy.

    If alive, it swings down to 92 on UK1, joining with the Med fleet.  At that point say goodbye to Italy doing anything for the rest of the game.  And UK doesn’t have to suicide any fighters into 97.

    Buying naval (CV + 2 TT) to threaten Sealion is by far the most beneficial thing you can do for Italy.  If UK insists on hitting 97, you take London for cheap.  It’s not nearly as powerful as in other versions, but Sealion is still possible.  It’s practically guarenteed if UK wants to leave only one of its fighters on London.


  • I have not succeeded with Sealion and had Italy neutered in my last few games, so am open to different ideas. I am an old stick in the mud and G1, whatever game, sink UK fleet. It hurts to contemplate another opener, but thought some had suggested not attacking Channel fleet. I  believe the Med is the key to European  victory and for all my good intentions have not saved Italy since OOB.Equally,  If I gave France to Italy to finish, might not need to attack SZs 91 or 93 with Germany,  as Italy could buy 3 ships to replace losses. Still planning.

  • TripleA

    just rush russia like everyone else. It takes at least 10-15 air units to fly in to save it. Hell if it bothers you so much just have japan industrial bomb it for you with 6 bombers.


  • Thanks, but I rarely replace lost Air units and do not buy Bombers. Japan always has its hands full as it is without spending to help Germany. My friends and I have never been  keen on SBR. We are ground sloggers at heart!


  • In my opinion the key to victory with the Axis is not any rush to capitol strategy, but playing the economic game.

    Rush Russia and make him put everything in Moscow, get Caucasus/Middle East/Stalingrad.

    If you succesfully get Novgorod, Volgograd, Caucasus and let’s say 2 out of 3 middle east you’re getting: 24 IPCs out of NOs alone, around 20 IPCs in Russian territories, plus Germany’s base 45 IPCs you get almost 90 IPCs.
    Meanwhile Japan should get 60 IPCs with a conservative strategy, can even achieve 70.

    This means Axis is scoring 160IPCs/turn (I’m purposely ignoring Italy)
    vs
    USA = 70
    UK = 35
    UKP = 2 IPCs (yeah, 2)
    Anzac = 15
    China = ?
    Russia = 20ish (in the event that they took all african territories but you took back Iraq)


  • You are right: economic parity is the key. Will say it( and mean it!)am not doing Sealion again. Will do Russia on 2, but that means not buying a Carrier. Has to be 3 transports and a Destroyer and then UK will call my bluff again and I am left thinking is Sealion worth a shot.
    Catch 22 come to mind!


  • I try to lure the UK into attacking my G1 purchase of a SS, DD and CV that I place in SZ112 and merge with the CR and TT.  My G2 and G3 purchases include 2-3 SS each round and really puts the UK on the defensive by having to purchase DD for the first couple of rounds or face Convoys in SZ109.

    This generally buys Italy the time it needs to secure NO’s and take Egypt.

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    I am of the opinion that the best way to help Italy out is to get Southern France with Germany. It doesnt take much out of your attack off the top (Just a couple of mechs and a tank or tac) and it allows you to help italy out all game. This can include taking Gib, mopping up Egy, or just sheltering Italian transports.

    You get a big return on investment for the axis by helping Italy out.


  • I take Southern France, but  never build there although I mean to. Spendo do you not buy transports to even have an option of a Sealion then? Interesting. You also  an budget for 2 Subs, because you do not buy transports I suppose. When do you hit Russia?

Suggested Topics

  • 43
  • 5
  • 17
  • 19
  • 13
  • 12
  • 10
  • 6
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

39

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts