If Germany buys all naval on G2, then US isn’t going to have a UK to launch bombers from.
Otherwise Germany’s just kinda dicking around in the North Sea.
well usa bombers are to protect uk. they fly into london to defend. if japan postpones declaring war so usa cannot fly bombers into london… then usa did his job.
I was just stating that sinking Germany’s naval with US bombers probably won’t happen, barring bad German planning.
And though I agree a J2 attack is usually better for Japan than a J3 attack, J3 is still very workable. I think you may underestimate its plausibility a wee bit. Delaying until J3 is hardly a death sentence for Japan.
it is not a death sentence, but it does make VCs really hard for him. and taking 5 islands on j3 puts transports at risk, much needed transports.
Absolutely.
With J2 you can take a couple islands in your initial attack, and take the rest on J3. Much safer for those transports and doesn’t require much in the way of expensive blocking. J3 either requires you go slow - painful to do - or to have a couple of your transports be slightly vulnerable. I agree with that completely.
Once those islands are taken you end up in a similar situation, except that China will be slightly weaker and India will have a few more infantry than J2. It’s still quite viable, I would say.
Back on topic, Russia’s counter-strategy is dependent on how Germany is attacking.
If Germany’s moving fast with loads of mechs/armor, you’re not going to have much in the way of counter-attacking opportunities, as each time Germany moves forward a space, they’ll still be getting reinforcements. Turtling is usually a better option, since once Germany finally reaches Moscow, he’ll find that those expensive mechs are no better than infantry for actual combat.
40 IPCs of mech = 30 IPCs of infantry once the dice start rolling.
And 10 infantry on defense beat 10 infantry on offense. So an offense made of mobile units gets very expensive.
It’ll take some time for Germany to get some actual offensive equipment in place. Throw in some allied fighters and Germany’ll be frustrated by how the fastest method isn’t always the most effective method.
If Germany’s going infantry/artillery heavy, then the land game gets much more interesting. Russia can actually position its forces to make Germany slow down and wait for reinforcements. Thus artillery or occassionally armor can be a very good buy in this case.
I still believe larry harris forgot to give russia a few infantry
For G3 Barb we see heavy art buys for Germany early on (try to have more art then German inf), followed by mech/tank buys so they can catch up to make the big finally in Moscow. During the battle as you lose your German inf (in the first round), your mech take their place rolling 2’s in the 2nd round keeping up the pace of your attack.
The problem is that you tip your hat to the UK with heavy ground buys from the beginning and Italy will pay the price.
I know this tread is how to def against Barb, but what Germany does dictates that.
If your planning Barb, are most ppl still buying a carrier G1 just to keep UK honest and keep your options open?
Are you attacking G2, or G3?
Are you dropping a major or minor in Romania G1 (G2)? Maybe an IC on W Poland?
Do you go E Poland when you attack (supper stack), or Bess (Bess is closer to Ukraine, but do you have enough troops in a G2 attack).
Do you generally have Italy involved in Barb to clear/grab tt ahead of your German stack?
@Cow:
I still believe larry harris forgot to give russia a few infantry
Much of Alpha+3 was to strengthen Germany for Barb IMO (even Alpha+2 saw Germany get a bunch of units in Berlin so Barb was more on track)
Then because Germany was given more power, (2nd bmr, and France was made weaker) the UK needed some help to deter Sea Lion. Now that Sea Lion is generally very costly to the Germans, and not a sure thing (unless UK falls asleep at the helm) Barb is the more viable strat. I’m not ready to say Russia needs more units, but the allies defiantly need to make their presence known. They must make landings to force German buys away from the East, or give direct help to the Soviets through ground units punching up through the Mid East, and/or air fling in to def strong holds.
The last few games we’ve played have seen the US build all most exclusive Europe the first 3 turns (gets UK up to par). Japan is pushing the allies around in the Pac early on, but a couple turns of straight US buys on the Pac side seem to hold them to a controllable monster. Just what we’ve seen over the last couple games, these things tend to work themselves out over time.
@WILD:
…
The last few games we’ve played have seen the US build all most exclusive Europe the first 3 turns (gets UK up to par). Japan is pushing the allies around in the Pac early on, but a couple turns of straight US buys on the Pac side seem to hold them to a controllable monster…
If USA does not buy anything in the Pacific for 3 rounds I believe japan will win the game for axis.
@WILD:
…
The last few games we’ve played have seen the US build all most exclusive Europe the first 3 turns (gets UK up to par). Japan is pushing the allies around in the Pac early on, but a couple turns of straight US buys on the Pac side seem to hold them to a controllable monster…If USA does not buy anything in the Pacific for 3 rounds I believe japan will win the game for axis.
The issue with the US going Europe early is that once you have landed, you will need constant resupply or face losing the ground you just obtained. Of course a single landing in Africa can turn the tides against Italy’s advance there.
Once you are engaged fully in Europe, its VERY hard to keep the momentum rolling if you have to stop to build fleets for 2 - 3 rounds to stop Hawaii/Sydney from falling.
It makes more sense to build your CV, BB and Aircraft early on as the US and stage them in the Pacific waiting to pick off a Japanese fleet.
To date, the best move I’ve seen is US builds of SS in the Pacific with Bombers over the top of them. You basically suicide yourself to sink the Jap fleet which cripples Japan in the Pacific. Thats about the only way I can see a US1-3 build in Europe followed by 10 SS builds staged 1 space out of range of Jap fleets and utilizing Bombers to keep Japan away from the VC win.
US builds of SS in the Pacific with Bombers over the top of them.
Subs and bombers are immune to kamikazes too.
Kamikaze’s are a sideshow anyways.
Statistically 2 hits, all on non-essential units.
The only time I consider them dangerous, is when they roll at carriers, who must be in the zone for landing.
OK Kamikazes aren’t a huge thing but every bit helps. In the right situation I could imagine a scenario where USA clears a sea zone with subs and bombers, then NCMs in the surface ships. Then on their turn UK or ANZAC lands ground troops off a transport. Since the American surface warships are not involved in the amphibious assault the kamikazes still can’t strike. I think that would even be true if the ANZACs unload from an American transport. So with that you could liberate Philippines, kwangtung, Kiangsu and not have to worry about the kamikazes at all.
kamikazes are there to stop bombardments. 
also protects japan in multiple seazones at the same time.
Has anyone ever tried to send some russian tanks/mobile Inf to the japanese/Chines front, to kill the precious japanese ground forces and to give the US the possibility to get involved into europe earlier without loosing the game to japan?
I think of the starting russian tanks and mobile wit additional first round buy of maybe 2 tanks 2 mobile inf.
I guess, those 8 units won`t tip the tide on the european front, but could be a damn thorn in the japanese side. Loosing valuable, hard to replace japanese ground forces would help the allies in the pacific, the Us could start to send forces to the atlantic to support the offense of the brits.
Any comment?
usually you just end up killing singles.
Got to be honest, subs and bombers are my europe strategy for usa. All I do is convoy with subs, normandy southern france and italy.
It is an awesome strategy. I need bombers to protect london early on anyway. atlantic is way cheaper that way and you get to reinforce russia with the bombers once germany passes up on sea lion, it is most baller of a strategy. like all you need to do is buy 3 subs usa 2 or 3 then 3 more subs for the next two rounds (1 normandy 2 southern france and 6-9 subs for sz 97).
as long as you got 3 bombers there to match what he can scramble… you good to go because if he buys a dd against your subs then you only lose sub casualties and your bombers hit fighters.
~
Still not sure why russia only starts with 2 tanks, Russia had as many tanks as germany in the real war… I thought. In any case the lack of attack power for russians begs for a few russian infantry to turn into armor units. I would like to see a few ruskies turning into tanks. That is a game balance change I would like to see, especially since people are still sea lion crazy it seems, might give a russian player some confidence in attacking german territories.
Russia had many more tanks starting out in 1941 than Germany. (Just like France and UK did in 1940)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=172970
Some were obsolete and most were poorly led. In any event, I agree that Larry needs to beef up the USSR. Maybe 6 more infantry scattered around central Asia.
well if gertaly goes for fully moscow, than moscow should fall. it would have been really absurd (regarding game balance) if moscow didnt fall even after axis went 100% for that goal:
keep in mind moscow down doesnt mean game s won by axis. still gotta grab egy and hold on to france for a win.
a 100% moscow strategy usually ends up with a strong middle east with uk factories and an ita convoy zoned to stone age. plus after japs are caged usa can to invest heavily in atlantic.
so we got some races up here, which will happen faster, usa caging japs/uk turning middle east into a fortress or ger grabbing moscow. if u take ger grabbing moscow out of this equation u r basically saying axis cant win in europe.
this 3-way rave makes a really balanced game imho. so no need for beefing up ussr.
ps for karl7: historical facts do really come behind game balance. ie if this was a complete historical game axis wouldnt stanc a chance.
ah screw more units, just turn a couple russian inf into armor units, should be fine.
