• '19 '17 '16

    Thinking some more about all this with the calculator, it’s inconceivable that an invasion force could survive in SZ123 off Iceland G2 with a J1 DOW if there was a sizeable naval buy G1. Unless there are a huge number of survivors from the Royal Navy UK1. Which tends to suggest the option of going full Atlantic - San Francisco navy can take down Gibraltar US2. With a US3 invasion of Norway. Given that allows the US to take responsibility for attacking the Kriegsmarine, I’m thinking if a UK(Eur) buy of 2-3SB. By UK4 you can be attacking West Germany with 2-4 SBs and therefore weakening it fairly significantly.


  • Simon, I agree with you as the Germans just taking everything of value and leaving Moscow alone.

    I was suggesting that its pretty boring playing Red Turtle.  At least this way you can have some fun and go out swinging instead of huddling in buildings hoping the TAC and SB don’t hit the one you’re in while the Panzers roll through the streets.

    Of course, a few artillery may be valuable to beef up the INF you start with.  I don’t doubt you could optimize better than all ARM.

    However, the ARM could dance away from sloppy German play (or GASP an allied can-opener of their own) and create their own issues if they get through the German lines because now the Germans have to spend to address (hopefully) Allied landings and the Russians racing to Berlin.

    Side note:

    What happens if your capital is lost and you sack someone else’s?  Do you collect their IPC but are unable to spend it until liberated or does it all just go into the bank?

    Be interesting to take a gambit move to trade Moscow and at the last moment race away from the Germans for a 1, 2, 3 punch of Russia, US and then UK to liberate Europe.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Spendo02:

    Side note:

    What happens if your capital is lost and you sack someone else’s?  Do you collect their IPC but are unable to spend it until liberated or does it all just go into the bank?

    On black letter law: yes, you keep it but can’t spend it unless I’m missing something.

    I don’t think this scenario was contemplated under the rules.

    What happens if UK conquers a capital? Do they get to chose which economy to send the income to or is it governed by the map they take it on?


  • UK capital sack income is determined by which side of the map it’s on. G40 is just Europe + Pacific put together, so in case of doubt, play it exactly as you would on the map in question.

    I’m pretty sure this scenario was contemplated, as it’s not all that terribly rare at all.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I was referring to the scenario of a capital-less nation conquering someone else’s capital which I doubt was contemplated. Or if it was, they thought it required no special handling.


  • @simon33:

    I was referring to the scenario of a capital-less nation conquering someone else’s capital which I doubt was contemplated. Or if it was, they thought it required no special handling.

    Yes I was addressing that scenario. That’s a scenario which is so common throughout A&A that I would be flabbergasted if the lack of special handling was an oversight. Even in the original game that happened all the time: Moscow falling to Japan the turn before Russia conquers Berlin (as the 3rd attack in a 1-2-3 with UK and US) was a typical endgame outcome in Classic. As far as I’m aware, none of the rules related to capital capture mechanics have changed since then.

  • '19 '17 '16

    Not in my games - they’re normally called before that happens.

  • '17 '16

    This might help. Pg.21 of Europe 40 2se. under capturing an liberating capitals 2nd paragraph last sentence and I quote “You collect these IPC’s even if your own capital is in enemy hands.” unquote.

  • '19 '17 '16

    My game as Allies is underway.

    Interesting move was no DOW by Japan. With my full Atlantic move, which I stupidly persisted with US2, the Allies were significantly weakened.

    Moscow has been re-captured but is unlikely to hold on. USSR troops made no difference in China - had to run back to defend the capital. Stretched a little too far in the Finish peninsular but it’s a good base for strategic bombing of Germany.

    Japan is quite weak but has 3/4 money islands and a decent income. Looks like they’ll struggle to hold on in China, most of which is in Chinese hands. Sumatra has 6inf 3Ftr (ANZAC) on it! Isn’t going down any time soon.

    Paris is looking like being liberated. Italy is looking like it will be isolated and have no production from convoy disruption with the US in the Med. Will no doubt ultimately fall.

    Kriegsmarine is looking strong with 15 subs + a handful of surface ships.

    Brazillian was executed ANZAC2, landing ANZAC3. With no Japanese DOW, that extra transport wasn’t needed for income producing reasons.

    I would say that the Axis are ahead, 0 bid.

    Other interesting deviation from standard was a J1 big attack on Amur which trapped the 18 starting eastern inf in Sakha - 19 inf + 2AAA could not defend in Buryatia.


  • Thoughts on Russia - deviating somewhat from the all Armor build (but liking the aggressiveness!) - against a solid Axis player, you know one of two outcomes is coming for Mother Russia:

    • Stand and die, forcing Germany to use up a great deal of expensive material.
    • Move off Moscow, forcing Germany to chase you until you can join with other allies and make a stand.

    Either way the capital will fall, so if you know it, why not plan for it? I like the idea of a modified version - more Artillery and Infantry, but still making mobile purchases for the long game - some Mech and some Armor. Perhaps ending around 12 and 12?

    You can still have a stack of 50 + mixed units (infantry/artillery/AA) to fall back to the middle east, while a joyous band of roving Mech, Armor, and Air power roam the countryside, attacking much smaller groups of Japanese units in China for example, or making their way to reinforce/retake India, whatever.

    I’ve done it in a few games - much more fun for Russia. I’m not saying it means victory, just way more fun and flexibility - a wild card to be used opportunistically  :evil:


  • @Stalingradski:

    Thoughts on Russia - deviating somewhat from the all Armor build (but liking the aggressiveness!) - against a solid Axis player, you know one of two outcomes is coming for Mother Russia:

    • Stand and die, forcing Germany to use up a great deal of expensive material.
    • Move off Moscow, forcing Germany to chase you until you can join with other allies and make a stand.

    Either way the capital will fall, so if you know it, why not plan for it? I like the idea of a modified version - more Artillery and Infantry, but still making mobile purchases for the long game - some Mech and some Armor. Perhaps ending around 12 and 12?

    You can still have a stack of 50 + mixed units (infantry/artillery/AA) to fall back to the middle east, while a joyous band of roving Mech, Armor, and Air power roam the countryside, attacking much smaller groups of Japanese units in China for example, or making their way to reinforce/retake India, whatever.

    I’ve done it in a few games - much more fun for Russia. I’m not saying it means victory, just way more fun and flexibility - a wild card to be used opportunistically  :evil:

    If your plan is a mobile evacuation, it doesn’t really make sense to purchase ART unless you intend to smash it against the German stack WITH the ARM.

    If anything, you may be better served purchasing 3 ARM for every MEC so that you can race around in Asia like you suggest.

    Japan sure would be pissed with 20+ ARM and 10 MEC roving around in China turning all Japan’s gains on its head in a matter of two or three rounds while enabling the Chinese to reinforce you.

    Of course, the Germans can simply DOW on China and chase you around themselves which may end up being the equivalent of losing 2/3 to 3/4 of its units trying to take a fully defending Moscow anyways.

    But, you’re right.  At least it keeps things interesting for the Russians.  Unless, of course, you are content buying max INF and drinking a ton of beer waiting to roll a whole bunch of dice in a few hours.


  • I hear you re: artillery - but for me, it has a lot to do with maintaining the versatility to do multiple things. If Germany has some bad luck at some point somewhere else, having a rugged bunch of ground forces could be important. And if you’re not investing in air at all (which I don’t with Russia), artillery are one of the few ways to generate offense in small spot battles when your back is against the wall and you have to take out smaller stacks of axis troops.

    I’m just one that likes to stay in position to not be forced into any one particular strategy… try to keep as many options open for as long as humanly possible  :wink:

    And yes, a big Russian stack of 20 - 25 mobile units and some air is not to be lightly reckoned with! But if you choose for Russia to play this way, UK has to do an excellent job securing VCs and getting large groups of infantry to hold the line in the middle of the board… and in the Pacific the US and Anzac have to be keeping and holding the DEI and winning the attrition war.

  • '19 '17 '16

    In case anyone is interested, here’s my thoughts on where I lost this game:

    Lots of German troops moved into Belarus, which weren’t enough on their own to take down the Ukraine force, but combined with air and mobile troops, did (in my judgement) cut off the direct via Bryansk route back to Moscow. This led to the first sack of Moscow. It would have lasted another turn otherwise, and another round of troop buys would have required a further pause from Germany. A schoolboy error, it seems.

    Some mobile units would have returned to Ukraine to save it but they were 3 squares away in Northwest Persia when sitting in the Caucusus would have done just as well.

    In general, I had an insufficient attack as Russia to threaten the German spearhead enough.

    I delayed strat bombing on Germany/West Germany to take down Africa, buying a 3 mobile units in South Africa instead of another strat bomber… I think this was a mistake. The Ex-taranto bomber focused on bombing North Italy. This effort was largely wasteful. Could have landed in Tunisia/Algeria UK2 and bombed Normanby, returning to London UK3.

    Dubious decisions from Axis:

    • No scramble applied against a Max (3 fighter) Taranto raid.
    • No strategic bombing on London, in spite of the thinning of the potential interceptors.
    • No take down of the UK cruiser in SZ91 on G1
    • Took down the UK fleet in SZ109 in preference to SZ110 - also got unlucky in SZ111.

    EDIT: A few things I’ll change up next time:

    • USSR1 buy of 6 art (Leningrad & Kiev) and 2 Tanks (Stalingrad). one tank to Turkmenistan (needs to be done here to claim Persia USSR2 and use the 2 inf gained attacking Iraq.)
    • USSR2 one tank to Turkmenistan - way to Persia via Eastern Persia can be cleared UK1 by West Indian troop.
    • US Philippines fighter won’t attempt static defence.
    • More strat boming
    • ANZAC can reinforce Java from NT without a J1 DOW. With a J2 DOW, they can use the troops to land on Dutch New Guinea but it might be better to use a transport bought ANZAC1.

    Things which I liked:

    • Strongly holding Sumatra - I mean, what else is that transport going to do but ferry troops around the islands and why not hold one island rather than lose 3? Blocks the Japanese NO. (I’m sure some will strongly disagree here but ANZAC took down the other islands even though they couldn’t hold them).
    • Mobile troops in UK Pac make it hard to build factories too near Yunnan, even though that wasn’t a big problem here. And tanks also have good hitting power.
    • US landing on Amur although this hasn’t been tried properly yet.
    • Tobruk crush. Although this is pretty risky because if the Naval combat goes bad, so does the battle.
    • Strategic bombing. Needed to be more of this. 4 US/UK Strat bombers are probably an absolute minimum. The fifth can hit Normanby or France. Doesn’t seem so important to have it escorted.
  • '17 '16 Customizer

    @simon33:

    Kriegsmarine is looking strong with 15 subs + a handful of surface ships.

    What?!  :-o Seems to me that if Germany bought that many subs…then she doesn’t have near enough land units to successfully take Russia. I’ve never played a game where anybody wasted that kind of income on subs. Curious indeed.


  • Ya  if  US UK are not building a navy in Europe and Russia not played right.


  • I’ve purchased 10 SS at once with Germany before, but only after Russia had fallen and the Allies were relatively weak on Navy in the Atlantic.

    The intent was to suicide them against the fleet to sink or cripple most if not all of their warships.  Even the appearance of that was enough to delay them risking their still maneuvering fleets in Europe for a turn which bought me time to swing to the Middle East while making additional defensive purchases for Europe.

    I ended up needing a 1-2 punch from the Italian Navy (who grew to collecting 35+ IPC at one point), but the entire Allied Fleet was at the bottom of the Atlantic and my opponent resigned.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Maddog77:

    @simon33:

    Kriegsmarine is looking strong with 15 subs + a handful of surface ships.

    What?!  :-o Seems to me that if Germany bought that many subs…then she doesn’t have near enough land units to successfully take Russia. I’ve never played a game where anybody wasted that kind of income on subs. Curious indeed.

    It was a sea denial strategy - deny the Atlantic to the US.

    Russia fell to pretty much starting units, believe it or not. Got outflanked with half its army caught in Kiev.

  • '19 '17 '16

    After playing as allies again, a couple more updates:

    • British Mechanised units in Yunnan are awesome - used them to claim back Malaya a couple of times. The obvious counter to this is to land on Shan State also, but that means more transports needed and greater distraction from the money islands. The mechanised units are also useful for reclaiming unguarded territories. I tend to think these mobile units make building an IC in Kwangtung ill advised. I guess the other side of the coin is that it may make it mandatory.
    • Soviet Mechanised units in Yunnan are largely wasteful; although could become useful if a blocker is put down in Shan State.
    • ANZAC navy can do more to threaten SZ37 off Malaya and Japanese navies around the money islands. Subs in SZ54 (Qld) have awesome reach.
    • US landing on Amur with one transport was far too weak. Even with two soviet planes and all ground troops, was taken down before moving. You’d need 3+ TT I reckon.
    • Soviet Finish force was taken down with the help of some mobile units from Leningrad that I didn’t see. This led to the US being thrown off Norway. Gotta watch that one I guess!
    • USSR taking down the middle east ASAP was an absolute boon. 7 extra production from turn 3 (2 on turn 2) with a G2 DOW helped keep the USSR going.

  • About the ANZAC landing in Brazil - I think it’s a bit risky, since you’re using valuable transports that could be used to claim the money islands (If there is not much Japanese influence) and I usually find that by around turn 3 ANZAC’s main priority is to simply defend their own borders and sea zones as the Japanese usually make a push for the money islands. I think taking and building a minor IC in Brazil would stretch ANZAC a bit too much.

    Note - this is from my experience only. Please feel free to contradict me.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I’ve never gotten so far as to build an IC on Brazil - just using the TT and inf in the Med is useful to a certain degree.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 5
  • 46
  • 26
  • 4
  • 18
  • 10
  • 21
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts