• Yesterday I went for the G1 AC + transport build on SZ14, after losing Norway to a R1 attack.

    It was a very interesting game. The UK/US had to make a large landing on Africa to counter the Axis landings, while Russia was again busy on India/Trans-Jordan and Germany was more busy fortifying W. Europe while sending the bare minimum to contest the Kar-Belo-Ukr line.
    The interesting thing is how Russia basically bled itself white dealing with all the threats. Eventually it failed to retake Karelia, which allowed for G to retake Norway and West Russia, and sacrificed its Med fleet for a large landing on Ukraine. After that, Caucasus felt on the next G turn and Japan reinforced it.


  • @Hobbes:

    @Col.Stauffenberg:

    2 rounds with no INF builds as Germany? What was RUS doing?

    Going after Japan.

    The expression  :roll: is somewhat rude in this case.
    But also . . . appropriate?  :|

    The problem with Germany attacking Russia is logistics - getting infantry to the front, while Russia’s newly produced infantry practically roll off the production line into battle.  Contesting the 2-3 IPC territories is profitable for Russia, allowing it to produce even more infantry for defense.

    The Russians attacking Japan is a triple whammy in my opinion.  First, the Russians now have to march infantry to the front, which takes a long time.  Second, the territories being fought over have relatively little value until you reach the 3 IPC territories on the coast.  Thirdly, by the time Russia hits the coast, Japan can crush any single pocket of resistance with a massive transport/air attack.  Simply, it is impossible for Russia to fight Japan singlehanded.

    In plain terms, you have to fight much harder for far fewer gains; gains which you cannot even retain.

    It’s my opinion that India/Trans-Jordan/Anglo-Egypt Sudan cannot be held if the Axis really want them.  In Hobbes’ recent post, he mentioned Russia going trying to hold India.  I say that was a mistake for Russia; Russia should have held most of its forces at West Russia.  Think of it this way - first, Russia has to get all its forces there, taking a load of time.  Second, if there’s a threat from Germany, Russia has to march all the way back, which takes another load of time.  Third, once Japan gets its transports going, it can threaten any number of territories.  Typical best IMO is two fleets of two transports each; one moving from French Indochina to Japan, the other moving from Japan to French Indochina, both taking units from Japan each turn.  If Russia HOLDS at India, Japan just smashes through China/Ssinkiang, and the Russian infantry is wasted.  If Russia ATTACKS from India, Japan just retasks some units and hits French Indochina hard, and with all the Jap forces in the area, that can be quite hard.  If Russia abandons India, Japan just marches in.

    Another whammy is all this fighting does not boost Russian IPCs.  Russian IPCs become Russian infantry, most cost-effective defensive units, useful immediately.  UK and US IPCs need to become air and navy first to protect transports to get cost-effective ground units.

    Re:  Moar carriers:

    Following R1 Norway attack with G1 carrier/transport I saw.  But G2 buy of 2 carriers and fighter?  Very interesting.


  • @Bunnies:

    Re:  Moar carriers:

    Following R1 Norway attack with G1 carrier/transport I saw.  But G2 buy of 2 carriers and fighter?  Very interesting.

    That’s one reason behind Russia going after Japan. I was hoping for it since I knew it would relieve pressure on Germany allowing it to build its army afterwards.


  • Mm.  I think you lucked out, Hobbes.  I can’t say for sure what the CORRECT counter to your G1 carrier/transport was, but it certainly wasn’t sending Russian forces to India and/or Anglo-Egypt Sudan and/or the Pacific coast.

    Hm, hm . . . . how to counter . . .

    But not to threadjack TOO much, how do readers feel about the G1 carrier/transport, as opposed to a G1 sub buy?

    I think they’re both very interesting.


  • Well as we all know, SUB are the ultimate attack unit, but they are way too weak on defense, and can’t serve as fodder against an air attack.

    So carrier for me. I’m thinking, since we’re discussing all navy G1 buy (I assume R1 did not take Norway):
    AC + DD to SZ 5.
    3 SUB in the Med.

    BB and TRN move to take Gibraltar, thus preventing the BB to be sunk. Yes, it leaves AES to UK for one more turn, but it’s worth it to save the BB (we’re talking about a G fleet after all). Also, this put the BB in position to join the Baltic fleet on G2 OR to attack an Indian UK fleet (AC loaded w/ FTR) w/ the 3 SUB on the next turn (if Indian troops reinforced AES). If there are no FTR on the AC, then 3 subs will get the job done alone. The TRN will ferry units to AES no matter what, and take it with no problem.

    This is as good a use of the SUB as I can think. If Indian UK fleet does something else, SUB insteab go toward W. EU. SO there: half the point spent on SUB on G1!


  • @Bunnies:

    Mm.  I think you lucked out, Hobbes.  I can’t say for sure what the CORRECT counter to your G1 carrier/transport was, but it certainly wasn’t sending Russian forces to India and/or Anglo-Egypt Sudan and/or the Pacific coast.

    Hm, hm . . . . how to counter . . .

    My strat would be to buy tons of inf with Rus and march them toward Ger. Maybe you wouldn’t take Berlin but you’d have a really good chance taking Italy or Norway. First few rounds you’d be making over 30 and Germany would be in the poor house or breaking even if Africa went great.


  • The point of the fleet is to delay UK/US invasion and make them spend on navy units. So the INF/ARM that Russia will bring won’t be supported by other Allied troops for a while longer. Also, the versatility the AC brings reduces the possibilities for the Allies.


  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    @Bunnies:

    Mm.  I think you lucked out, Hobbes.  I can’t say for sure what the CORRECT counter to your G1 carrier/transport was, but it certainly wasn’t sending Russian forces to India and/or Anglo-Egypt Sudan and/or the Pacific coast.

    Hm, hm . . . . how to counter . . .

    My strat would be to buy tons of inf with Rus and march them toward Ger. Maybe you wouldn’t take Berlin but you’d have a really good chance taking Italy or Norway. First few rounds you’d be making over 30 and Germany would be in the poor house or breaking even if Africa went great.

    Although I agree with the mass ground unit buy (perhaps I’d do some tanks), I don’t actually think an all infantry buy with Russia threatens Norway or, for goodness sakes, Italy.

    Germany can cut any attack against Norway off at Karelia - more importantly, the two transports in the Baltic combined with the fighters on the carrier mean a threat BOTH to London AND to Norway AND to Karelia.  True, if the German fleet moves off Western Europe, German fighters on carriers there can’t reach the front.  But at that doesn’t happen until G3.  G1 and G2 can still see German infantry and/or tank buys.

    My best guess is that Russia will have more infantry to throw at the German front, but that the German front isn’t really “threatened” - it’s inconvenienced, true, and Germany’s pushed back, but there is no REAL threat to Germany, particularly with UK/US staved off in the Atlantic.  (edit) - since units otherwise needed in Western Europe can be sent east.  Early can see 2 infantry and tanks in W. Europe, with later German infantry builds shuttled in to W Europe and tanks sent east.  Using tanks for defense in W Europe early allows German infantry to start marching east immediately.  What I think happens is - Russia does push forward for some early gains, but CANNOT take and hold Balkans and/or Eastern Europe; minmal G1/G2 ground buys plus Germany’s starting forces should be enough to force Russia to only trade territories there.  If Russia COMMITS all its ground units to holding a forward territory, I think Germany can hit back hard with air, tanks, its surviving starting units, and any G1 and G2 builds (at the least).

    Japan uses these first few turns to set up its transport fleet, then Germany starts pushing back against the Russian front.  With all the German air power, Germany can trade territory with Russia without having to commit its ground units.  Russia isn’t in the same boat.  True, Russia could BUILD an air force, but every air unit is awfully expensive, especially considering that both Germany and Japan should start pressing in.

    As far as Africa goes - well, that’s open to question.  My inclination if doing G1 carrier/transport would be to probably take Gibraltar with battleship/transport, build an additional destroyer at Southern Europe to stop UK1 destroyer/bomber attack on battleship, kill UK units at Anglo-Egypt Sudan with 2 air units.  MAYBE even add an additional transport at Southern Europe, which is awfully expensive, but it should be done on G1, I think, or not at all.  Anyways, I would not ignore Africa.

    I’ve seen successful Axis play that does ignore Africa, though.  Even if the Allies have a huge income, it doesn’t matter if they can’t make that income count.  Imagine having to use 10 IPC fighters to attack a stack of three 3 IPC infantry (infantry are cheaper and will still win), or 10 IPC fighters to defend against 5 IPC tanks (tanks are cheaper and will still win).  If Germany CAN control the Atlantic while Japan presses in from the east, it may be that the Axis will conquer Moscow before the Allies can bring their wealth to bear.

    Bleeding strength off to Africa was a problem in Revised too.  The German player was always best advised not to over-commit to Africa.

    So what’s best in this case?  I can’t say I know, but I think carrier/transport is very promising.  Then again, so are subs IMHO.


  • My intuition is against any naval Ger buys. As much a I respect Hobbes as one the greatest player I have played against, I think he was simply really lucky for his opposition going with Russia east. If german player spends that much on boats, imho Russia can kill him almost singlehandedly if really runs after him tough.

    While I agree that to find out the best strategy to deal with german naval buys is not trivial, i simply cannot be persuaded to belive that you will not miss the 42 IPCs on 3 ACs (that is 14 inf man!) on the ground. And if you have russia trading Eastern Europe and Balkans R3 with you, I doubt you find yourself in the shape you wanted to be in even if you make the normal progress in Africa.


  • we play with advantages on the 42 board, these advantages below created a game where German Subs where very effective and played a bigger role in the game.  we made our own collection from we found in house rules and from the previous A&A Revised game. 
    we choose advantages by row…. Row 1
    Russia - Russian Winter • must declare During Combat Movement. Inf. Attack on 2 & Defend On 3 (In 1st Cycles) WINTER lasts till start of next Russia’s next turn) WINTER ONLY AFFECTS FOLLOWING TERRITORIES: Russia, Evenki N.O., Novosibirsk, Kazakh, Caucasus, W. Russia, Archangel, Belo Russia, Karelia
    Germany - UBoat interdiction • during collect income phase for UK and USA -1 IPC for every 2 subs Outside Of SZ 5 & 16
    Britain - Radar • Your Anti-Aircraft Guns In Tan Territories Hit Air Units On a 2.
    Japan - Tokyo Express • Each Of Your Destroyers May Act As A Transport For 1 Infantry (Follow Rules Of Transports) DD acting as Transports Retain Anti Sub Abilities & get 1 Att. role on 1st Cycle Only if combat occurs in SZ of amphibious assault
    USA - Island Bases • When Moving Air Units - US May Treat Island Groups As Part Of SZ’s Containing Them.  ie. Ftr Can Fly From Hawaii To E. Indies (If Owned)

    point is i think a good way to up the factors of certain units in the game is with a good set of advantages but they must be balanced as to not give any side to much of an advantage

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 4
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 11
  • 13
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.1k

Users

39.4k

Topics

1.7m

Posts