Luftwaffe Strategy

  • Also, really good German players know how to use WE as a sucker bet.  When US & UK have bought some tanks and plan on dropping in Europe (Finland next turn), Germany buys all Infantry (Tanks stacked in EE) and under defends (1-2 inf) WE.  If the UK takes with US reinfocements, the either need to split the tanks off to Norway or put tank in WE for defense (assume UK = 3inf, 2 arm, US= 4 inf, 2 arm  Total defense= 11@d2.  Germany just bought 9 new infantry and left 5 others in Germ last term, has 10 tanks, With 14 inf, 10 arm, Germany rolls into WE and takes out all allied units and loses 6 inf.  Has eight inf and 10 arm to defend (so if UK/US attack again, Germany only looses inf).  Including the inf Germany left in WE the round before, it lost 7 inf (21 ipcs), Allies loose 8 inf, 4 arm (assume UK loses inf on attack) or 44 ipcs.

    This is why invading WE should only be done when there is a real strategic purpose (and good reason for US to have a few extra infantry in its loading zone for flexibility).  In your original set-up, the allies want to hit WE to kill plans.  As you counter that, the Allied counter is to land in Finland.  From there, US&UK can start taking over Russia’s deadzone duties and bleed some troops through caucuses and moscow to assist with Japan.

    With US pushing 8-10 land units and UK putting 6-8 land units into finland each turn, they will be crusing the axis.  Even with a stacked EE, you will never put any pressure on Karelia with a 2 fig build, because you will always be behind in the infantry count.

    I really see no way this can result in an axis win unless the Allies are completely mis-played.

  • Ran Superfleet again for a few rounds.

    Axis had a good start on the German side, Battleship lived, one submarine lived.   EE built up as much as is safe to do so.
    Ukraine taken. Libya consolidated.  Allies lost both bombers going after the battleship.  Trans jordan sent to reinforce asian front.  Africa attack is dicey, the battleship makes a tough choice, especially with three other boats to clear.
    ** clearing the BB may not be necessary in games where it survives, but Africa can easily go sideways.
    Round 1 German bomber usage is optional in RR,  it can target whatever it wants (including escorting the battlehip attack if you want to increase the odds that the German BB lives).  
    Took a chance on the sub, with diving thats 67% to clear it, no escape this time.

    Japan had a harder time dealing with the new configuration on the mainland, lost a plane clearing the fighter situation in Sinkiang.  (3 planes: 1 plane, had to finish it).  Pretty spread out at the end of it.   Transport ignored, creating problems in R2, not sure if the Japanese have an effective counter to the transport that can be applied.

    IndoChinaBurma taken by one brit, Sinkiang defender replaced.  Russian troop stack looking stronger with more units around it.  It will eventually be forced to disperse to cover the outskirts of Moscow, even if troops are out of position to challenge it directly.   Some Soviet tanks kept in range of both fronts, safe to do so at this time.   A little bit has to be diverted south, but not enough to matter.   Situation is a lot different when they just have to reach the Moscow border instead of posting a credible force there.  Soviets will either have to be posting infantry or they will be mobilizing more expensive units in short order.

    Without the TJ reinforcement and a strong opening roll, the Egyptian force is crushed.  Africa is a mop up at this point.  Two tanks and two infantry vs 1 infantry.   Axis now have a tank that can roll north to greater Asian region and still plenty to take a lot of points quickly in Africa.

    Allies stay with plan and go for the superfleet, just to see how it works out without Africa contested much.  They are locked into a R2 power play because Britain has already passed their buy.

    Japanese are still able to break through down the Mongolian path, despite getting weakened.  The allied fleet isn’t going to be dropping troops anywhere fast enough, even if ignored.   WE is accessable but not even close to fortifiable given the allied ground troop shortage.   By the time its worth thinking about, direct reinforcements from england to karalia are looking good, even if it involves a fleet split.

    When the Japanese break through the first time, they can be repelled, probably  Brits lose a fighter clearing a zone.

    ** Another strategic twist
    if British airpower gets destroyed or even diminished much, another option becomes available for the Axis that has to be taken into consideration by the Allies.

    An airstrike after the Russian turn can clear a buffer zone allowing a tank to blitz Moscow with Japanese air support.  If this happens, not only is Karalia under more stress, the Soviets absolutely have to place a fairly decent number of security forces in Moscow or bet the game on a marginal placement, changing dynamics further.  If the Soviets over commit to the eastern front, 7-8 aircraft can punch a pretty big hole or two, even flying over 2 AA guns.

    Problems can quickly multiply for the Allies if they wait to build the fleet, particularly with a strong German Round 1.
    Pretty sure that the Allies simply aren’t fast enough using this method.  Western Europe doesn’t need many troops.  Even if the allies skip the superfleet they are going to have to get a strong threat in play very early or find a way to decisively hold asia.

    The Japanese transport is in striking range of the West Coast USA on round 3, further slowing allied deployments.

    Allies will eventually be able to get their pipeline rolling strong, but its very likely going to be too little too late.  At least with Superfleet and a good axis opening round at sea.   I don’t think they will be able to effectively be able to ignore Africa.    Soviets still can’t crush the EE position even with some relatively aggressive buffer zone trades.  With air support the Axis have a lock on winning the exchange rate there.

    Round 3 I bought infantry with Germany, Just in case.  Should have gone with a mixed buy, can afford some tanks in that mix I think.   Allies just can’t bring much to bear that early using superfleet, at least not at any target that matters.

    Situation may be different if the Allies can keep a bomber in the air, but all of the uses you suggested for them are pretty high risk, so they are going to die fairly frequently without strategic modifications.  Fighters have better chances depending on what they have to clear.

    Asia is a bit thinner, but I don’t see the Soviets having much of a shot at that and the Eastern front at the same time.

    Japan seazone is out of reach unless the allies can conserve a bomber and get it safely to the area.  This can be done but at the expense of other high value targets.  The carrier and transports probably can hold it off anyhow, although it will limit Japanese mobility for a bit.

    Its not so much a question of misplayed allies in superfleet vs. luftwaffe, its a lack of timely options and logistical difficulties for the Soviets.  The Soviets have to allocate resources or get really lucky to be able to compete on both fronts.  Worst case, short of a total disaster, the Japanese can give up ground in Southern Asia and still present enough force to breakthrough somewhere.   Even more so if the Germans can hit a weakened Africa.  If Africa collapses against two tanks, German IPCs jump fast.  Both Axis powers running strong IPCs  is a problem for the allies no matter how you slice it.  The soviet IPC surplus doesn’t last very long in the face of that.  They just have too many points to defend.

    Some Allied relief arrives in R3 (small american contingent).  Brits can split fleet and add a few more, but that opens options for the Germans as well.  Depending on what it takes to clear the gap, the soviet defense force can be diminished by the luftwaffe.   Fighters are still scarce for the allies, even without casualties.  At most, there are six to cover the fleet, Karalia and Moscow, and this is in pure defense with no risks taken.  Something is probably going to be weaker than it needs to be when all is said and done.

    Granted this was with a fast start, but Africa is going to be tough to hold for the Brits without the TJ infantry, even then its not a great proposition for the Allies.  If the bomber tries to go into Libya its not going to be alive for long.

    Pretty sure Axis will win the game being played,  by round 4 they are closing in on an economic victory (which will likely translate to military victory) and the Allies are still trying to get rolling.  I don’t think I’ve made any serious Allied mistakes at this juncture, although the first round definitely had an impact.

    Currently I’m inclined to think that the Axis versatility and speed is enough to give them a reasonable shot at winning a decent percentage of games, but that may turn out to be way off base.  Haven’t ruled out a successful Allied superfleet/Norway strategy yet, just seeing some of the downsides at the moment.  Also very aware that you are seeing the upsides of this approach and you are obviously a solid player that has a lot of experience with allied strategy.

    Allies may be able to bring a big hammer if they play it right or get some good breaks, but I think they have more bases to cover than is easily accomplished.  They may or may not be able to win without getting a better grip on Africa. Might be as simple as taking a more defense oriented stance with the Soviets, although this has some drawbacks as well.

    Other potential allied counters (if superfleet doesn’t hold up):
    Brittain could set up to get troops into Karalia directly and have US do the fleet security work initially (variant). Another possible adjustment, if the required allied supply chain can’t be worked out is to have Brittain counter by building aircraft of their own to bolster the Soviets and/or set up an Asian counter-offensive, then move to a fleet strategy.  Slower might work.   Allies may be able to capitalize on the reluctance of the Germans to put their airforce in harms before it can be used in a decisive attack.   A two fleet strategy may work as well, despite potential fleet protection issues.  The Germans in EE will have a hard time covering both the Eastern front and Atlantic, due to range limitations and fighters are still out of replacement range if they get attritioned.   All of these are very different games, so I’m going to run a few more on this strat and see if I can improve the allied position decisively before I look at those.

    Ya, 3 IPC for neutral territory.  Japan can give up an infantry for the path from Mongolia in most cases.  Its one more route for the Allies to defend if they dont go all in on Asia and ignore the Pacific.  Depending on how asia plays out, it may be the best route as it allows consolidation from Soviet Lands, Chinese Lands and Manchuria.  There are games where they need the buffer, I don’t think most of these are going that direction.

  • Spacer,

    I think you are making poor choices with the allies that create the results you want.

    German boat priority (for attack by allies, assuming holding a round to build fleet):

    1: Med tran
    2: Baltic tran
    3: NOR Sub
    4: Med BB

    The Med tranny can take troops to Africa.  That is my biggest risk.  It takes a while for Japan to be able to afford to go after africa (R4/5), so I want to limit the German troops there so I don’t have to put troops there.  I would take the Egypt inf + arm and stack TJ inf.  Bom hits tranny and lands in TJ.  Brit figs hit either Baltic tran or Med BB (depending on how lucky I feel, probably go the safe route and hit the tranny).  one inf in Egypt,  move the Safr inf up.  Then see how you respond.  Do you take out the S afr inf with tanks only, splitting your force?  Do you attack Egypt because it is 2 ipcs? UK has some counter strike alternatives that are better than defending (Stupid tanks defend at a 2).

    Generally, I think you suffer from the novice habit (I had it too) of thinking about all of the things you can hit and trying to do all of them ( the need to use every unit every turn).  This game rewards patient game play.  A good rule of thumb is to figure out all of your possible targets, and then use the assets from the least important target to strengthen the more important.  You are normally better off hitting 2 targets hard (and suffering minimal losses) than hitting 4 targets and suffering significant losses.  Think your Japan moves.  If you hit just China and Pearl.  You will normally lose 1-2 inf and a sub.  How much do you typically lose in your multi-attack plan?  4 inf, sub, BB?  What could you do with those lost units in 4 turns?

    The other question you should always ask is, Will I be in a stronger position next round if I hold off (can I afford to hold off).

    This is how I set the Germ boat proirity above.  The Med tranny can take 2 units to Africa next turn (that will hurt me next turn and latter throught the whole game.  The UK Bom is the only unit in range.  I have to go after that tranny on UK1 with the Bom.  The Germ BB cant hurt me next turn (no targets in range).  The Germ sub (and maybe Bom) could hit the boats in the Eastern US seazone, so that is higher priority, but, the U can hit it with 2 figs (maybe BOm), so the UK doesnt need to go after it.

  • “On entrapping terrain move quickly” – Sun Tzu

    Its a speed based strategy.  Speed and position as opposed to a dig in and fight. This is required due to the emphasis on air power.  Everything else that happens is a result of that choice.

    The entire idea of the 2 fighter strategy is to disrupt the Allied war machine before it can get up to speed.  You already know that the Axis will lose a build up and slug it out type game.  Pretty much a foregone conclusion.

    Methodical play kills the Axis more often than not.  Karalia opening strike isn’t viable.  Defense isn’t ultimately viable (especially in no bid).  They have to capitalize on their early advantages before the Allies can get into position.   I’ve played a couple hundred games,  so I’m not a complete novice.

    Your adjusting the strat as you realize that hitting the Libya force is too costly.  Allies can’t afford to lose Africa, at least not that early.  The Axis may or may not be able to.  Will see when that happens.

    Allies could have recovered 2-3 IPCs by the time the game was decided/forced to long game, probably decided, had they moved on Africa.

    If I followed that you have
    Kenya 1 inf from SA
    Egypt 1 inf
    Syria  1 inf/1Bmb/1tank
    Nice trap positioning and a better play than any you’ve previously suggested.  Possibly an optimal play for that situation…  Makes Africa far riskier on the roughly 75% of the times that the bomber survives the transport run.  If it lives I might just retake the FEQ and possibly sending one tank to West Africa as well, inviting an allied landing. Then you have to  split your forces, make a low value attack, withdraw to Asia or consolidate and make a stand.  I have more options from the FEQ position.  If I felt I could afford to, I’d consider diverting a fighter to reinforce the Arena.  Depending on the outcome of Asia, round 2 might bring me an opportunity and incentive to soften you up from Burma, although I probably wouldn’t exercise that option.   Very situational.   Most likely it would buy you some time.

    I agree the battleship shouldn’t be the highest priority. The threat of the Battleship is actually fairly low.  However was working from statements you gave previously, where you stated you would hit it with both bombers, although may have missed a point of context.   Also was before the decision to wait for a R2 fleet was made, which does make a difference.

    Another advantage of the bomber position:
    It also means that I have to take the AC to Burma if I plan on sending any transports to that front.   If you send the US bomber west it means I am confined to the sea of Japan on my next turn.  Probably going to be their anyhow,  Fighters can be rotated in most cases.  I have to be a bit more cautious with my planes, but they are pretty much used to swing favorable battles already.

    Regarding IPC/Positional trades/Impact values

    Just hitting China and Pearl leaves the Sinkiang fighter.   Pearl is a minor target, just need to cripple the fleet.  But you have to make sure it goes down hard enough to make Japan safe, Atlantic considerations aside.

    Could use more force and get a higher chance at a decisive win, but its pretty decisive as is, doesn’t pull my aircraft out of position and gives me a strong opportunity get dominance in Asia early, rather than risk being bogged down (which costs more IPCs over the run, especially if they aren’t being traded, making it a full swing).

    Going heavier on pearl opens up the possibility of a complete fleet loss to a counterstrike and more importantly 2-3 vital aircraft at risk and severely out of tactical position.  I don’t see the advantages.  The AC has more practical utility than the BB for a country with a lot of starting fighters.

    Getting trapped in Asia is death for Japan, sooner or later.

    Simply put, the road to Moscow is a  higher value target than Pearl, by a great degree.  The Japanese Battleships are expensive but not particularly valuable.  They will probably never need to be replaced.   I take three targets out of the possible six with high force ratios.   Sinkiang is a retreat if necessary, but the goal is to trade 1-2 infantry for the 2 infantry and a fighter (+12 to 15 IPC) where it counts.

    If I choose to ignore Sinkiang for a round I’ve just set up either a massive roadblock which will be more expensive to take down later, or I’ve provided the allies with vital reinforcements.  Clearing out the defense in that zone also eliminates any chance for the US to put a heavily fortified factory into play between Japan and Russia in an attempt to buy time to develop the European theater.  Since the strategy involves a higher ratio of armor than normal, I can’t afford to get invoved in that situation.  Better to take it off the table immediately.

    There is an initial IPC trade in Asia, but the Axis have to reduce pressure on Europe, especially with the fragile opening buy.   The extra two infantry that die are easily made up for by the territorial gain.

    The answer to the will I be in a stronger position next turn if I hold off, is also similar.  Pretty much a game of delays favor the Allies, unless the Axis can get a very strong economic and positional advantage.  Given the starting buy that Germany makes, its even more important than usual.   The strategy hinges on selective aggression, positioning, flexibility and speed.    Where in other games Japan might try and march waves of infantry, they don’t have the luxury or the time to do so.

    As far as biasing the results to get the results I want, I disagree I’m exploring options and their impacts.  I’ve played the axis a lot more than the allies over the years, and more recently, so I have a better handle on their moves.  I was thinking that Syria was out of reach of the British bomber until I recounted through Algeria after reading your post, was thinking it had to land in FEQ/Algeria so I didn’t take a deep look at the landing options.  Also one of the main reasons I elected to stack in Libya instead of moving out immediately.   Just overlooked it.   In most of the games I’ve played using other strategies the Germans have a fighter in Africa and Egypt was a primary target.

    Actually, I don’t really care what the outcome is.  Its the sort of opening buy that immediately comes off as a rookie move, and something I decided a long time ago wouldn’t work.  Just looking at it with new eyes as it provides some tactical options for the Germans that wouldn’t normally be available, and I’m seeing some of the strengths and trying to determine if they outweigh the weaknesses.  Its also interesting because of the number of variants that can emerge.

    What I am seeing is that the Allies can’t take Berlin until turn 5 at the earliest, at least not without taking excessive chances. Turn 6 is probably more likely.   I’m seeing an opportunity for the Axis to secure Russia earlier and possibly secure Europe with a quick return trip.   If the axis can’t take Russia then that’s how it works out.  It either can be done at a high enough success rate or it can’t.  Actually I think it can be shut down one way or another, but until I’m certain of how and why, I’m going to continue to examine the situation.

    I do like the Africa Bomber to Syria play.  It limits Germany to just 1 or 2 extra IPCs, positions the bomber and knocks out the transport as well as setting up a strong counter attack at all points.   Good triple threat.  As far as the transport its as likely to use the black sea route as it is to use Africa.  Germany starts very thin on the Eastern front, not sure that it can justify sending two infantry during the second round, or even the third.  Still a high priority threat.

  • Started another one.  Japan off to a bad start on the Mainland.

    The Bombing run went well for the Allies and they are in the position you suggested.  Germany now has to get aggressive in Africa if the Axis are to have any chance.  Elects to tie commit a fighter from EE.  I’d probably only go this route if Germany had the luxury of parity, limited coastal threats, and needed to tie up the bomber.

    Africa Front:
    Fighter + 1 inf + 1 tank.  vs 1 inf in Egypt
    1 infantry to the FEQ (since allies didn’t take it, it works as a landing strip)
    Tank Rolls to the Belgian congo.  Germany now has 6 IPCs in Africa and the allies have some choices to make.
    Had Asia gone differently I would have stuck with the original plan and consilidated in the FEQ.  The allies will probably win Africa, but they don’t have it in the bag yet.

    They can either take 50/50 in egypt and take a high % shot at the tank in BC.  If it works they have a good chance of winning Africa for at least the short term.  Alternately they could kill Egypt with high probability and hold the bottleneck with the Infantry.

    If the bomber leaves the theater, they only have an effective option at Egypt and its got a fairly high cost if things go wrong.  Similarly, the Axis can only counter attack with the fighter in Egypt if they want to exit the fighter in R2.  They also have the option of sending one in and exiting one to get a momentary 2 fighter strike on Egypt if needed, but thats going to make them leaner in the Eastern front in R3.

    In Asia
    Pearl harbor crushed without casualties. 
    Sinkiang taken with one standing.
    China was a disaster (10% chance), with the Japanese losing all of their infantry, killing the defense but not being able to take the territory as it came down to infantry of fighter.  Going to be a tough round.  Forgot to hunt the transport in Australia (might or might not have anyhow), so the allies will be able to reinforce.  Since Manchuria was destroyed all available troops/air landed in Indo China.  AC, 2 ftrs and all transports now parked off the coast.

    The situation in Asia is a serious monkey wrench in the Axis plans.  Soviets have one or two tanks in Moscow and all of their standard placements.  The Brits have a bomber in Syria.  FIC and the surrounding sea have every available Japanese asset except the infantry in Sinkiang.

    Allies have a major edge at this point and a lot of options.


    Played into early round seven.

    Japan is able to regain the Asian mainland, relatively easily, despite the China disaster.   The allies don’t really have effective direct countermeasures available that can actually stop the offensive at this point.  The need for additional supporting troops on the mainland delays the movement of the Japanese coastal raider as well, so the US machine doesn’t suffer a significant interruption.

    The Japanese are however delayed by a full turn and weaker than usual when they are in position.  Their force and numbers are sufficient to regain the advantage, but it takes longer and costs more.   They marginally obtain three borders on Moscow, but there are enough forces nearby to deal with them, plug the gaps and still hold the capital easily. The Japanese may have done better if they’d abandoned Southern Asia and reinforce Manchuria, but that probably would have been shut down fairly easily and would have cost a lot of IPCs.  Might be possible, didn’t try it.

    Even with a smooth running pipeline, the Allies aren’t able to position a high odds attack setup in the early game, but have been able to maintain sufficient defenses.  However, time is on the allies side and they are able to get sufficient forces into Moscow, while preserving Karalia before the Japanese/German airstrike can be attempted.  Had that tank lane been opened successfully the Axis were still at a maximum of 10% of successfully executing a R5 strike against Moscow.

    By Turn six the Allies could have considered an offensive in EE for the first time.  A viable continental assault would also be an option in round 5, although not the best choice.  Berlin is relatively thin, but a low odds attack isn’t necessary at this juncture.  Within a couple of turns it will be a certainty for a decisive win on the Eastern front.   Since they have time and a high chance of throwing the game away if the attack is blown, the line maintains defensive advantage and a counter-offensive is begun against Japan.  By the end of the round, its clear that the Japanese earlier fighting and fairly high armor ratios are now working against them.  They will be driven back in short order if the Allies want to continue to press.

    Africa is basically a split decision for most of the game.  Could have gone either way, ended up with a German infantry standing.   Allies can reinforce first and lock it up.  Pearl Harbor went to the Japanese and they were able to stop the US fleet although it defended well and took out the sub and a battleship.  Asia is never secured strongle enough to consider a factory based offensive as they don’t have the ground troops or position to dig in deeply enough.

    The axis have a few more turns, but the writing is on the wall.  Their best chance would probably to have been to throw a longshot attack on round 3 with the Germans either at the superfleet, finland or more likely Karalia.   A low percentage proposition which would probably have lead to a quicker allied victory.

    Japanese have to be in position for a round 4 attack to win the race against the Allies.  The Axis may not have an effective contingency plan if the first round Japanese assault on Asia goes poorly.   The Australian transport may have been decisive in that instance, but the decision to pursue it has to be made before the Japanese execute their attacks.  Axis peaked at 76 IPCs as they were not able to secure Africa completely. Eastern Europe is a standoff situation, neither side can gain advantage early unless the Soviets are forced to defend Russia or either side tries to strafe.  If the Allies can prevent the Japanese from positioning or establishing a blitz situation or holding a border point, the Allies will win.

  • Spacer,

    Never meant to offend your knowledge of the game.  I have just been trying to look at your suggested G1 purchase as a strategy rather than a gambit.  A strategy means that you have a plan that will work against good to optimal responses without relying on luck.  A gambit is a ploy that requires sub-optimal response and/or lucky dice.

    Like your plane attack into Russia.  Germany uses most/all of its planes to open a tank path to Russia, but if UK has any inf in Karelia or tanks in Norway, UK can defend Moscow with those and its figs.  Even then, if Japan takes Moscow for a round (nice ipc boost, it has probably lost all/most of axis planes and moscow can be retaken next turn.  Unless Germ also in a position to hammer Karelia (and hold it and Germ capital) on its next turn, then Allies can rebound quickly.

    We have already corrected one flaw of the initial plan, stacking in EE rather than turning that into a deadzone (and giving Russia a 6 ipc swing against Germ).  One of the other issues that I think need to be addressed is the amount of ipcs UK has to build its super fleet.  I think the magic number is 58 (BB, AC, 2 trans).  Taking the tank to Libya helps, but I’m not certain it is optimal for your strat.  You should consider all your options with the Med fleet, planes, and Baltic fleet and think about the timing of a strat bombing of London.  Also, how many units do you really need in EE to hold off the Russians on R2 and R3.  Is the baltic trans better as foder in NOR, so you can use 2 figs to hit the Gib BB (and maybe take Bom on strat bombing to London).

    Your Jap pearl attaack is a real good plan for your strat.  You will never use the BBs again because you need everthing you can on Moscows doorstep on r4.  I think you should look again at how the heavy China attack allows you to have more units on R4.  I would use the island figs to hit the Inidan trans, land on AC off of FIC, land 2 inf there, land two inf in Manch Non com the planes to FIC.  UK can counter FIC or China.  If Russia takes Manchuria, great, because then you can hit it with 6 inf, tank, and planes on J2 (killing Russian inf).  J2 - You take Sink (probably abandoned) and India and cold hold both.  on J3 you have Yakut and SFE.  At that point, Russia should use ine inf on the boarder (to Moscow) rterritories.  and will need to start trading them with Japan.  Jap has a lot more planes, so it shoudl use less inf for this.

    The question is if Germ can make an attack on the super fleet to keep this a Germ and Jap vs. Russia battle?  Doing strat bombing (without an AA hit) should knock UK2 buying power down to 53 ipcs.  (that probably only results in one less trans).  I wonder if using the Med fleet to take out the sub is best on G1, with a follow-up to Western med (take Gib if necessary to protect the BB 9and hopefully trans is still alive) so that allies can’t hit it is a better complement.  Hopefully, this givesyou a BB and trans for the superfleet attack.  Remember, kill the trans and retreat, saving the planes for the Russian 1-2 is the goal.

  • @shaper:

    Japanese have to be in position for a round 4 attack to win the race against the Allies.  The Axis may not have an effective contingency plan if the first round Japanese assault on Asia goes poorly.  …  Axis peaked at 76 IPCs as they were not able to secure Africa completely. Eastern Europe is a standoff situation, neither side can gain advantage early unless the Soviets are forced to defend Russia or either side tries to strafe.  If the Allies can prevent the Japanese from positioning or establishing a blitz situation or holding a border point, the Allies will win.

    That’s pretty much a summary of any non-bid game.

    I want to test play this myself when I get some more time but I have a couple ideas on things the Allies could do which you might want to consider.

    1. As Germany purchased fighters instead of inf., what would happen if the Allies pursued a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy instead?  You can do a search on this topic if you are unsure of the general strategy of KJF.

    2. What if, instead of building an allied superfleet consisting of a BB, the allies built three transports instead?  The defensive potential (three dice rolling a one vs. one dice rolling a four) isn’t terribly different.  But this permits the allies to land more force more quickly to Karelia, or elsewhere…

    3. Such as Spain.  At a cost of only three ipcs, a placement of a few forces here (say on R2 or R3) now means the allies could bring much more to a WE attack on the following round.  To respond, does Germany strafe spain?  Build up WE at the cost to EE?  Consider the “rolling” defense, where Germany alternates holding WE and EE by tank moves (and purchased inf in Germany) from one to the other?  Granted this wouldn’t happen until later in the game when it would be hoped Japan is making serious inroads in Asia.

    4. What if, when Germany builds the planes then sinks the allied navy, the UK rolls for tech and builds bombers until the US builds a navy sufficiently large to hold the N. Sea?  Strategic bombing, especially if the UK gets Heavy bombers would starve the German war effort.  If the UK gets industrial technology, expect lots of UK infantry in the mid game…

    I also still think Russia is going to be able to take (and maybe even hold) EE (and I would consider doing so even at the cost of the Russian tanks especially if it takes out German planes), but I haven’t played this scenario out.

  • I agree that spain is a devastating split of german defenses.  I always thought that the neutral rules were ridiculous (3 ipcs to take a territory that doesn’t even defend itself) because it would have been unrealistic in the war.  I always played house rule of no invading neutrals.

    (If spain would have been invaded, they probably would have outright joined the Axis.  Not that it would have been a huge blow, but they had some battle-tested troops and pilots.)

  • Thanks, interesting variants and some maybe better, will take a look at that, in practice.  Next post has comments about the specific suggestions.

    Basically what I’ve been trying to determine, is if its a gambit or a viable strategy.   I’m inclined to think its viable in the sense that it gives the Axis a decent shot at winning.   If it can be easily shut down  consistently or the requisite require above average luck,  then its just a gambit.  I’m not sure yet that it can.  Both sides probably need tuning, will definitely look at your suggestions for modification.   Hopefully its at least a strategy… I’ve practically written a book on it so far 🙂

    Whether it ultimately is a winning strategy or not, I’m not sure.  Definitely a lot of variants and interesting dynamics going on and deeper than it looks at first glance. Probably could get very dangerous with a bid involved, whether it works without one, is maybe.   Regardless, more interesting than turtling.

    _[A short hit on Moscow is not an automatic game winner, but it can be very helpful and a good trade.[/i]

    I just wrapped up a 12 turn game that played out that way.   Soviet forces had to conced Karalia and everything it anchors.   The round 4 air attack was combined with a strafe on Karalia, further weakening the allied position… well I remember considering it at any rate, might have waited until the Soviets moved to retake Russia.   Between Karalia and Moscow, most of the allied planes went down in flames.

    Russia went with infantry from the start, as I was now aware that they had no real chance of doing more than maintaining defensive parity on the Eastern front.  This resulted in them having a few more pieces available to protect Moscow.

    Germany had a tough fight ahead of it, without the airpower.  Japan had a couple of aircraft left.  The bulk of the allied airforce went down with Moscow.   Japan took with what was available and tried to set up a secondary attack.

    Japan used the war spoils from its Russian hit to place two factories, one in Manchuria and one in FIC.  Prefere FIC and India but didn’t work in that game.  Factories produced armor and the ships kept bringing infantry across.   Germany was weakened and had to fend for itself.

    After Moscow fell it was anybody’s game.  Allies ended up winning, but it wasn’t even close to a sure thing.
    US hit western Europe as they couldn’t get Karalia yet.   Germany had to choose between driving back the invasion and turtling or turning up the heat on Asia.   They didn’t have quite enough to close the deal for the Japanese so went into homeland defense mode.  If I remember correctly they did strafe the Soviet stack at Moscow, to make it easier for Japans follow up.   They countered the invasion with mainland forces and started drawing down trying to hold both positions.

    Allies were able to get a grip on Karalia.  Japanese made a couple of runs at Russia but weren’t able to secure it.  
    Eventually Karalia/Moscow was reasonably secured (took a while and was in question quite a few times), and the Allies eventually got through on the weak side and were able to secure Western Europe.  The factory came online and Germany went down about the same time Japan finally broke through in Russia.

    Was quite interesting, and after the factory build, had no idea which side would win.  I’m certain it could have gone either way._


    I don’t think the tank clearing is a gambit, although its a potential tactic.

    Whether the Moscow plane strike is used depends on the Allied play at the border.  Most of the time, they won’t be used to clear a tank path, but its an additional option.  If the Allies overplay Asia then its a straightforward German assault at the weakpoint.    Japanese troop placement varies with the Allied response, but Manchuria seems to work better overall.  Mongolia is important in most runs and usually worth the 3IPC cost.

    The Japanese may need multiple roads, depending on what Brittain can land to stop it.  Usually its easier to just get the borders.    The entire Moscow airstrike thing is  a gamble, but so is any power move in a game, such as going after the fleet.  12-14 axis planes, with only brittain in between moves,  can drop a hammer on a pretty good size holding force.  If the forces in Moscow try and block access they have to be certain that they can get every one.  If even one route stays open, they will need enough troops to survive the air raid.  This means they need to send enough units to lock a victory over the course of two or three seperate battles.  These generally aren’t favorable trades for them.  They also have to cover any tank blitz routes.  US/UK can commit airpower to assist, but thats expensive as well and may make the fleet vulnerable.

    Japan can frequently open up more fronts than the Allies can safely shut down, even working quickly.  Been able to manage it most games.  Not saying that it can’t be stopped, but its not as easy as it seems.  Russia is going to be hard pressed to keep its tanks in reserve.

    The preferred use is to have Japan open multiple infantry fronts, likely holding at least one.  The tank is kept in reserve if possible, as it represents another access path.  Allies must react and close those gaps, possibly losing the balance against Germany.  Its actually pretty hard to stop from happening, at least without conceding Karalia to the Germans.

    In this particular game Japan chased down the British transport, and carried a fighter.  Actually lost the fighter, but the Japanese were able to make it work.  Bomber tried to finish the job unsuccessfully, could have been a major issue.  Transports stayed out of enemy air range; in the sea of Japan except the landing on the Soviet beaches on R2.

    Fleet Strike
    You may have something with chewing up the British Transports.  They can rebuild, but it buys time.  It also really weakens EE.  Worth exploring.  Been meaning to do that, but wanted to run the other a few times.  Was the original plan to just setup a favorable point exchange and get the groundtroops later.  After actually trying it got into this conversation and facing the superfleet, I started looking at the potentials in later usage of the luftwaffe.  Some good possibilities in creating a delay by knocking out the transports and withdrawing.

    Extremely risky move, could break either way significantly if there is a big swing in the opening roll.  Could leave crippled or could be facing a pretty even fight against whats left of the superfleet.  Easily as risky as trying to strafe in EE.  Still, all options are on the table.  One of those places where you want to see an average attack/defense or better on that first roll.  That said, if survivors make it they can always boost the Japanese efforts, even a couple could help.

    Heavy China
    I’ll look at heavy China, but I think it opens less fronts and will be easier to defend against when the perimeter is reached.  Also gives the allies 2 more infantry and a fighter  2/2/4 to the stack later to defend with and saves the Japanese three one point attackers.  Sinkiang also becomes another hole for the Allies to plug, they can’t really afford to let Japan keep it. Worth a look though, might be misreading the value of that approach as I haven’t tried that move for Japan in about fifteen years.  I agree Russia can’t hit Manchuria without getting massacred and losing valuable units they will need at the gates of Moscow.

    London Strat Bomb
    Strat Bombing London is risky, obviously, likely worth it if the British IPC count drops too far though, often enough.
    I think the bomber is a free agent.  Add that option to the list of choices:

    Stratbomb (83%) avg IPCs 3.5, but notably variable
    Try for the sub (66%) zero risk
    Hit the British transport in Canada – also affects british fleet total, (75%)
    Support an Egypt Strike (probably needs a fighter escort as well.  Could change Africa a lot. Lands in libya with the tank)
    Stratbomb Karalia (every unit there counts too)
    Support the Battleship Hit (Increases survival chance 10%, I think the bomber is the more valuable piece there)
    Support the Fleet strike in North Sea (moderately increases chance of two ships surviving, insulates fighters and increases chances of getting the fleet in one shot).
    Fly it to Manchuria (30% chance of being shot down) potentially useful in that theater.

    Moscow using infantry. 
    Pretty much what I’ve tried to do.  Usually the only viable option unless Asia goes really sideways for the Japanese.  Might be able to build a wall/counter attack source  in Novosibirsk, with some other troops, but I don’t think that works.  The picket helps, but Japan has a lot of ability to concentrate force.

    ya I’m happy with it.  For this strat anyhow.  If a battleship ends up surviving all the way thru Panama, it makes a nice boost to the US coast raider, increases the threat level on the West coast as well as giving it the ability to hop.
    The transport can also grab New Zealand and the abandoned Australia instead of the West coast or Venzuala.  If the battleship lives, Panama is another option for the transport to hit.  Creates another element that the allies have to track and respond to, if nothing else.  The BB isn’t a huge asset, even if it lives, but it will eventually get into play somewhere and might serve midgame fleet protection duties.

    The Med Move
    Western Med in 2, North Sea on 3.  This one is interesting and has interesting implications.

    Upside is that the allies have to consider that grouping a target, and its going to cost them some planes most likely, which will be in high demand in a couple of turns.  Allies could potentially commit a lot of airpower to this battlegroup.

    If ignored, might make Axis able to cripple the superfleet.

    Allies have less certainty about where the planes will strike, forces more fighters to protect the ships.  Significantly disrupts the allied supply chain into Russia.  Its late enough that an allied factory in finland isn’t an option, especially if the US is holding it.

    Ties up an infantryman in Gibralter.  Spain isn’t a likely allied target, so its stuck unless you pay its cost to get it out of there or hold out for the Japanese.  Spain is better left closed for the Axis as it tends to benefit the allies positionally.  Upshot is the infantry man there is dead unless the game takes a highly unexpected turn.

    Also less force in Africa which is already marginal and won’t get reinforcements until turn 3 at best, probably quite a bit later.  Puts a lot of IPCs in the hands of the allies that the Germans could be using; 26 points/turn swing for the whole continent, pretty important and midgame may hinge on that jump.  More luck needed in Africa, although the Brit bomber (if present) may decide it has more important things to do than chase down tanks.

    Allied BB 
    Don’t like this part of the plan.  Taking it down unsupported with fighters is probably going to cost you one, frequently its going to cost you both of them.  Don’t think its a good trade, potential disaster for a small unit battle.  Rather lose the bomber than a fighter anyhow, as defense outweighs range in this strat.  Germany can afford to lose one fighter, maybe. Losing two means without a very good exchange means they’ve wasted their first round buy.

    Fleet Strike
    Doing the fleet strike might or might not be a good trade for the loss of troops in EE.  Have to play it out to see.
    The balance on the Eastern front is situational, but it keeps the Soviets from putting too much into the Japanese and offers a secondary punch to secure Russia if it plays out well.

    EE stack
    I think the Germans need a very big stack there.  Every unit has to be responded too, if its not on the line, the Soviets can safely siphon troops towards Japan.  Its also may be the support force for Japan or present a direct threat to the Soviets if needed.  There’s a large stack of units that are fast enough and large enough to reach any of Germany’s holdings from that position.    If the Soviets go light on that front, the Axis could draw down, but I don’t think that benefits them particularly, except that it may let Germany place tanks in reserve protecting the Capitol better.  On the balance, I don’t think reducing the forces there is a particularly good plan without a very good reason.  Maybe, possibly to try and lure the Soviets out of position when Japan comes, but thats probably a weak ruse.

    Since new buys are probably going in Berlin, and South Europe is almost always safe.  The western front can’t get hit hard until turn 4 at the earliest.  A turn 3 strike should be easy to repell, but may also be optional, depending on the circumstances.  Even if lightly held, its a death trap for at least the first wave that lands, if Germany chooses to make it one.  Allies moving on Western Europe disrupts the Finland supply chain and changes the game dynamic quite a bit, favored the Axis when I tried it.  Later an allied position there  can be a problem, but since the big action should be on round 3 or 4, I don’t see a light hold as that much of a liability.  If done and responded to it displaces forces for both sides.  Given the overall situation for the allies, Finland seems to play much better.

    However with that in mind.  I’ve been expirimenting with using larger deadzone task forces.

    With the Luftwaffe giving air support the infantry tend to fare well and get a favorable exchange rate.  Obviously you can’t overextend doing this or leave your heavy units without too much fodder, unless you want to try and encourage  the soviets to overextend right before Japan hits them.

    If the soviets respond to the deadzone, they are taking a bigger risk per unit as the volatility is higher and they have limited air support.  They have to be careful not to over allocate, and increase the chances of being hit hard by a direct German Strike.  As the stack size increases the relative impact of the two Soviet fighters decreases and the exhange rate overall weakens for the Soviets.  If they have mixed builds, it strips away some of the shielding for the main stack.  The situation is more dangerous because the Germans negotiate a better exchange rate overall than the Soviets do and creates bleeding that can tip the balance.

    If they fail to take or choose to ignore  the deadzone then Germany gets a favorable IPC swing as well as gaining the potential to send a stack of tanks with a bit of infantry cover right next to Moscow.

    Obviously this could be very expensive and may require the Germans to open up EE significantly.  The upside should force a counter that doesn’t have the benefit of finland based units or sea units, possibly when the Soviets can least afford to do so.  May force the airforce back to Germany, where an airstrike has to cross a second AA gun to be exercised.  Obviously this isn’t a move to be taken lightly by Germany as it may set up Southern Europe to get taken as well as putting a large army of mostly tanks in peril and without aircover.  That said, it could be a good play in some circumstances.

    Germans have to be careful doing this so that they don’t make a strike on EE favorable.  A lot of how that works out depends on whether the soviets are making mixed force buys or strictly defensive buys and the overall force commitment situation.

    A US turn 2 factory would put tanks/airpower on the line faster and free up some transport slots for infantry, not sure whether its a good idea for the allies though in terms of the opportunity cost.  Another use would be that they could reinforce the superfleet if needed by using it as a shipyard.  Of course if f Karalia goes then the factory probably goes soon thereafter.


    Infantry hits the ground in round 1 because its already there and is probably needed.  Any tank bought in Round 1 can reach Moscow and presents a blitz option. Not sure that its justified, have been just buying the usual 2 trans, 3 infantry, but maybe is a good option.  Problem is that its a blind buy as asia hasn’t started yet.  Might try it at some point.

    Any round 2 tanks can provide some mop up ability and may be able to give a second wave at Moscow, especially if the Germans are in a position to mix it up in Karalia, of course they are also less boots on the ground and you very likely will need some infantry unless the Allies completely collapsed on the first round for some reason.

    Japanese usually want to buy a bomber in round 3, for additional punch as its the only unit that can reach the front line in one move.  The ground troops can be made up for later, the place will be swarming with them starting round 5 if the Moscow hit is successsful.  An additonal transport is another option.

    Infantry is favored over tanks because you need troops that can hold factories if you are planning on building them.  That and the tanks you are churning out later will need shock troops and position holders.  If you hit Moscow even once, you can likely build tank assembly lines later.  Japan should have enough transports to move infantry from Japan in the later portion of the game.  Replacement/additional air power might be worth considering instead of factories if Moscow goes down, but I’m leaning towards a tank funnel.  India and the FIC make a nice combination if Moscow is still being disputed.  India is close to Africa by tread and somewhat close to Germany.  India is also close to any existing allied forces, so don’t build there unless it can be held.

    If Japan had enough airpower to survive, a Bomber squadron and the existing fighters might be able to give the Axis another shot at a fleet strike and buy enough time for Germany.  Assuming it can get there before the Allies get a mainland factory of their own in Europe.

  • @SpartanJD01:

    I agree that spain is a devastating split of german defenses.  I always thought that the neutral rules were ridiculous (3 ipcs to take a territory that doesn’t even defend itself) because it would have been unrealistic in the war.  I always played house rule of no invading neutrals.

    (If spain would have been invaded, they probably would have outright joined the Axis.  Not that it would have been a huge blow, but they had some battle-tested troops and pilots.)

    I always figured the 3 IPC was the cost to mop up the national forces and get the local populace under control.  Not so much that it doesn’t defend itself, just that its defenses aren’t on scale or skill with the attacking troops.   Maybe the cost of paying off the locals to tolerate you having an army there if they are more amicable, possibly whatever costs are involved in getting them to “join your side”, not that they really have a choice…

    Most of the Neutral countries don’t matter much.  There are a few that do.   I like being able to invade them, open up the front, increases gameplay diversity.  I’ve also played house rules that just put a couple of troops on each of them.

    At any rate, two neutrals have a strong chance of getting dragged into the war in this strat.  Mongolia, almost always, just too convenient for merging attack lanes.  And Venzuala, just because it keeps the transport in range of the West coast and gives a shot to grab Brazil.

    221B Baker
    Responded to your post, got flagged as spam, no apparent reason?  Too many consecutive posts?
    Anyhow, will show when a Mod approves it.

    [EDIT 2]
    RE:  221B Baker Street
    This was a long post which I spent quite a bit of time thinking about and writing.  It still hasn’t been approved by the mods yet.  Not going to rewrite it.   I posted it as a seperate post because its long,  addressed a seperate post and systematically discussed each of the points made.   I’m assuming there is a consecutive post limit, but since its flagged for review the mods probably have a copy of it that they can approve and post.   Guess that its up to them. [/END EDIT]

  • @221B:

    That’s pretty much a summary of any non-bid game.

    I want to test play this myself when I get some more time but I have a couple ideas on things the Allies could do which you might want to consider.

    1. As Germany purchased fighters instead of inf., what would happen if the Allies pursued a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy instead?  You can do a search on this topic if you are unsure of the general strategy of KJF.

    2. What if, instead of building an allied superfleet consisting of a BB, the allies built three transports instead?  The defensive potential (three dice rolling a one vs. one dice rolling a four) isn’t terribly different.  But this permits the allies to land more force more quickly to Karelia, or elsewhere…

    3. Such as Spain.  At a cost of only three ipcs, a placement of a few forces here (say on R2 or R3) now means the allies could bring much more to a WE attack on the following round.  To respond, does Germany strafe spain?  Build up WE at the cost to EE?  Consider the “rolling” defense, where Germany alternates holding WE and EE by tank moves (and purchased inf in Germany) from one to the other?  Granted this wouldn’t happen until later in the game when it would be hoped Japan is making serious inroads in Asia.

    4. What if, when Germany builds the planes then sinks the allied navy, the UK rolls for tech and builds bombers until the US builds a navy sufficiently large to hold the N. Sea?  Strategic bombing, especially if the UK gets Heavy bombers would starve the German war effort.  If the UK gets industrial technology, expect lots of UK infantry in the mid game…

    I also still think Russia is going to be able to take (and maybe even hold) EE (and I would consider doing so even at the cost of the Russian tanks especially if it takes out German planes), but I haven’t played this scenario out.

    Considered it.  Normally tough to execute, at least for me, definitely don’t know the ins and outs of it.  I should study it more.  Just got wrapped up in exploring the superfleet KGF response.

    Been several instances where even a bit of presence in the Pacific would have been useful in disrupting the Japanese plans.  Just having a bomber in range is enough to possibly force the Japanese to hold back a fighter to protect the fleet.

    Even a more balanced response might work
    since the entire fleet doesnt need to be taken out, necessarily to slow down the Japanese.

    Post pearl harbor, particularly if its a close battle,  if the US moved into Hawaii and killed the fleet with the PacCoast battleship and some air support (since hawaii isn’t taken, per se) they could probably finish the job without too much damage.  A battleship a bomber, a temporary fighter escort and possibly a transport in range of Japan, could present a pretty serious pretty serious threat of disruption to the Japanese shipping lanes.

    Not sure if the fighter if the fighter is needed to guarantee the safety of an atlantic fleet though, and its definitely useful on the other side.  The bomber landing in Hawaii might be safe or at least costly to remove.

    Three transports
    thought about it during a couple of the games, but wanted to work out the details of the suggested  allied setup first.  Havent’ run the survival numbers, but I suspect it would be better.  Main advantage is speed of British deployments and flexibility.  Could be very good a bit later if the allies decided it was opportune to switch targets.  Also a side benefit in that would be easier to slip allied troops into Africa without disrupting the troop flow significantly.  The battleship is nice if for some reason the British absolutely have to split their fleet but want to make it somewhat expensive to do so,  maybe sending emergency replacements to Karalia, maybe deliberately trying to entice the Germans to hit it the ships.

    By the end of round 3 Japan has to be adjacent to Moscow, so they better be making inroads.

    In testing haven’t had much luck with a western based or dual front invasion.  Not to say that I executed it well or understood either sides strategy as well at that time.  I’m definitely better at keeping a steady flow of units going than I used to be, so it might work better.

    The problem with the allies splitting their fleet is that the Luftwaffe can crush individual task forces in one round, limiting return fire.  Allies can easily find themselves in a spot where either the Americans or the British are without a fleet if they aren’t careful, which creates issues for them.

    1 bomber and 7 fighters kills 4 ships/round on average and can easily get more without much statistical variation.  Small task forces are riskier though in some ways because they may force the Germans to bleed off air units if they aren’t lucky and lose some of the power in their knockout punch.

    If the fleets are split and the first fleet goes down fast, the second fleet stands a good chance of being shut down as well, which creates a major delay in allied deployment.  Germany will probably lose most/all of their airpower if it plays out like that, but their ground forces started strong and have been getting stronger while the allies were building ships.  Japan should have enough momentum going at this point to have the Russians under pressure at the minimum.

    If the Allies go for a western invasion they have a much harder time supporting the balance needed to keep the Soviets alive.  The Soviets are not on very sturdy ground even with a pipeline supporting their army and are going to have a hard time staying in the game long enough for the Allies to get Germany down and a strong enough force to stop whatever comes rolling out of Eurasia at them.

    Thats the theory anyways…
    but its based on minimal practical experience in that matchup, since this strats only been around for a few days, at least as a serious discussion, as far as I know.  The majority of the games I’ve played have been live play and they’ve been years ago, with a periodic immersion in the computer game when I get bored, but even thats been a while, seem to remember buying the cd a decade or so ago.  I pretty much have to sort things out as I go and relearn a lot of stuff.

    Strat bombing doesn’t gain much in general, at least until you get heavies.  I’ve got the game set to 2d HBs, but thats just a personal preference.  Always an option, as long as they’ve got enough infantry built to make the bomber stack look like target practice, although at this point the luftwaffe is probably toast.

    I think they might be building fighters just to keep Russia in the game as long as possible, also works good with supporting the US navy if they want.  Navy won’t need as much protection the second time its built, main problem is the opportunity cost in doing so.

    In general I’m not thinking about tech rolls too much and not using them in test games, just too much of a wildcard and I’ve got enough variable factors in this already.

    After I’ve got the strategy where I feel its solid, if that turns out to be the case… might turn out to be more of a gambit to catch someone by surprise,  don’t know yet, pretty sure it would crush someone that didn’t know about it on the first go around.  Couple pretty nasty surprises that the Axis can spring that would be difficult to spot if you hadn’t run into it before.  Anyhow, after I got it wired to my satisfaction then I’ll see how tech influences it.

    Hmm, Maybe.  Doesnt’ work on the calculator though, although you might  get an outside shot at Berlin if the Axis get careless.  Tried actually running the Eastern front battle at different stages, just to see how it played out.  Its pretty much a serious loss for whichever side attacks, at least if both sides are playing that front as heavily as they were when I was testing.

    Germany has enough infantry to absorb some damage and enough firepower to inflict a lot of casualties, regardless of which battle round.  Either side could win on a lucky dice run, of course.

    The biggest threat to the Axis is in letting the soviets get ahead far enough to try some kind of Crazy Ivan attack.  Its a bigger threat than anything the Western powers can throw.  The biggest advantage for the axis is if the Russians let the advantage flip to the axis side.  If you are running this strat you are watching that balance very very closely and doing your best not to screw it up.

    Eastern Europe has to be built heavily and early.  Units are pulled from Norway and Southern Europe and WE is lite.
    Mostly infantry is usually the second build, unless there’s a good reason not to.  With all the big units on the line, they need a buffer, the axis already have counterstrike power.  There is no naval threat to Berlin on R1 except whatever the Canada transport  and three airplanes can bring, if its not blockaded in the North Sea, which it is often. Western Europe has some threat level and is usually protected in R1, after round 2 and the infantry buffer is in place, its more vulnerable.

    The east stack is heavy and lately its been going to six/seven fighters as soon as safe to do so.  WE is still in counter attack range, if need be, the bomber is out of there early, especially if there aren’t any reasonable targets, but its going to be a bit before the Allies can mount a serious invasion that can entrench without being demolished.
    If the allies really want it, they can take it at a fairly low cost, holding its another issue.  Germany has a pretty big stack that can steamroll it if they need to, although it might cost them position.

    Since WE isn’t a real threat until round three or four, if Germany falls back and Russia pursues they will almost definitely forfiet Moscow. 
    If Russia splits forces, the Russians get crushed and then the Western powers, while Japan takes the remaining Soviets head on.    At least thats how I see it. 
    If its a diversion, it better be one strong enough to unbalance the defense in EE.

    Some fresh infantry, and airpower are going to hit it.  If I see it coming, the AA gun is in SE and the other is in East Europe so my aircraft can hit safely.  Pretty good chance they are already moved.  Might just move the SE one if the allies are low on bombers or can only land in Gibralter.  Depends on which side I think benefits from the WE AAgun the most.


    Its pretty complex as far as strats go, so its pretty easy for either side to make a serious mistake.  Lots of moving parts.  Even little things like the raider transport (assuming a pure KGF where it actually presents an unobstructed threat) can make a significant difference in the supply chain.  At times it is very possible for a piece or two to swing the Eastern front odds by several percentage points, particularly the fighters.  The Axis numbers can really take a big shift if the AA guns roll well.  If you try and crack the fleet, let me know how that shapes up.

    IF the axis screws up in Asia, or gets extremely bad dice in the North Sea they are in for an uphill fight.

    If they miss completely in the north sea and lose their casualty absorbers they may well be better off aborting the mission rather than take the damage (?)  Don’t know, its not highly probable and they can absorb one and still have a decent shot.  They lose a second fighter they are probably going to have to go into high risk mode and start taking some big chances.  If 3+ get blown out then they probably should have considered getting out while the getting was good.  Haven’t had to drop the attack yet, but it seems like it could be a rough ride.

    If Asia goes sideways, I’m pretty sure they have to go full force through Yakutsk and/or Mongolia. They really need to be in position to attack even if it means giving up ground elsewhere. If you find a way that they can buy time, that would be useful as well.

    Some allied strats might give them enough time where the Japanese could afford to attack on R5, but they can’t afford to do that against anything which effectively reinforces Karalia, as far as I can tell.

    I suppose its theoretically possible for Japan to try a R3 attack by going through Mongolia or maybe the army at Yakutsk.  R1 buy trans+tanks, R2 buy a bomber R3 win a 1% dice throw to survive the counterattack at the gates of moscow ….

    Anyhow, run it when you get a chance and see how it works out.  Curious about your impressions when you run it.
    If you run a different allied strat, let me know what adjustments were made and what the effects were.  If you see improvements to the strategy or something that will definitively stop it in its tracks, like to know as well.

  • That is a risky plan, but much must be risked. I like it. Better have some good defensive rolls in the eastern front.

    I play defense in the West, adding little as the game goes.

  • It agree, a useful phrase

  • @shaper I remember 1 game I played I had built subs and bombers with Germany and targeted British ships all the time and I had like 7 subs and 3 bombers the Japanese had 9 subs it is a must to have for both sides to have air force and subs and the axis were lucky on land against Russia so I had isolated Britain and closed I on Russia with the axis so a great victory for them it was the 1942 edition game we played

  • @shaper why not just develop a strategy to go after England instead of Russia much easier target in my opinion because Russia is to far I have seen England fall before in 1 game I played as the axis I took England with Germany then I took Russia with Germany the following turn had great luck that day probably my greatest game of axis and allies it was the 1986 classic version

Log in to reply

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 8
  • 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 15
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys