First Game – What have I learned?

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I am posting this not so much as to boor everyone else with the thoughts of a novice, but to record what I thought I discovered in my first game of 1942.2 and next I will capture in a response to myself what I pick up from reading the various posts on this Board.  As one or two may have noticed I am sad enough to conduct a debate with myself.  In fact after all these years I may just have found someone who agrees with me?  :roll:

    I decided to play my first game before I read all the advice and expertise here, as it will now mean far more to me.

    I came at 42.2 with some experience of 41.  Clearly 42.2 is on a much bigger scale and ideal when you have all day to commit to it.  I can see why some of those used to 42 found 41 unsatisfactory, but having done it the other way around, here are the key differences I note from one game:

    •   Artillery is a very valuable additional unit and played a big part.
    •   AAA and Cruisers less so.
    •   Significant increase in IPCs meant a willingness to risk loss of units and so more general attrition and less strategic focus.
    •   Germany’s access to a production centre in southern Europe, the number of IPCs in Africa and the UK’s limited production capacity in India (plus the need to transit an additional territory, Persia, to reach Africa) dramatically altered the shape of the game.
    •   This turned the UK into the weak link among the Allies.  Egypt went in G1, closing the Suez Canal and turning the Med into a G “lake”.
    •   India was lost to J in turn 4.
    •   By contrast, R held its own on the eastern front, causing G some problems, swapping Leningrad with G a number of times.  R will have been aided in this by an initial G focus on Africa.  That all changed when in turn 4 G built a production centre in the Middle East and J broke through in Siberia.
    •   The problem of getting the US involved seems no easier in 42.2.  With the Allied loss of Leningrad and Calcutta, the US’s need to hold onto Honolulu lead to losing the Battle of Midway.  I imagine I allowed the vulnerability of Honolulu to distract the US from sufficient effort to support the UK & R earlier in the game, as it tried to catch up with J’s naval strength.  The strategic crux of the game may instead be to deliver that support to UK & R before J captures Honolulu?
    •   As a result the Axis won in turn 6.  That suggests I have got a lot to learn about how best to play the Allies!  😮

    No doubt I did lots wrong, but look forward to reading how the UK can best hold Africa and the USA get itself involved.  🙂

    Cheers
    PP

  • Sponsor

    Hey Private Panic,

    Looks like we will be learning this game together, my first match is Saturday March 28th… only difference is I’m coming at it from 1940 instead of 1941.

    Remember, you can talk to yourself all you want as long as you let us listen in.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Hah hah!

    I seem to have been very relaxed about showing my weaknesses as an allied commander don’t I!  I have no doubt that you will fare better with your first game!

    Cheers
    PP

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    My head is brimming with ideas this morning!  Such as:

    • Forget Honolulu & Calcutta.  UK fighters into Leningrad.  US fighters into Siberia.  (Need to check the board.) US Pacific fleet into the Atlantic and forces into Africa.  More use of bombers, which can feel like an expensive luxury in 1940.

    I might let my excitement get the better of me and try some of these out before reading other’s posts ….

    Cheers
    PP

  • Sponsor

    I’m playing the Allies my first game, and I was thinking the same thing about American fighters to Siberia. I haven’t looked at the board yet, but if the US keep an empty aircraft carrier off San Francisco… 2 new fighters can be placed on it giving them a better range to reach a safe Soviet far east territory on their way to Moscow. But like I said… haven’t looked at the board yet this morning.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    That’s right: you need to remember there is no movement bonus, so Fts are better off on s Carrier, not in the US.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Hey Young Grasshopper and wittman

    The Carrier is great until J blows it out of the water!  That needs naval defence units.  That sucks the US into a naval build war.  That drags resources away from the European theatre.  That loses the game.  Or perhaps it was just the allied commander?

    Looking forward to the game I now have with wittman.  He’ll sort me out!

    Cheers
    PP

  • Sponsor

    @Private:

    Hey Young Grasshopper and wittman

    The Carrier is great until J blows it out of the water!� � That needs naval defence units.� � That sucks the US into a naval build war.� � That drags resources away from the European theatre.� � That loses the game.� � Or perhaps it was just the allied commander?

    Looking forward to the game I now have with wittman.� � He’ll sort me out!

    Cheers
    PP

    The empty carrier will allow 2 American fighters to reach Moscow in 2 rounds instead of 3. Sure the Carrier will need naval support for defense, just like the Soviet far east will need Russian infantry support for defense while the American fighters make a stop over and fuel up for their next flight to Moscow. I think the US can do all this as well as make 2 or 3 small landings in Africa, and the 2 fighters each round will be adding resourses to the European theater. If the Americans can provide the fighter defense for Moscow, than maybe the UK can focus on the Med and build a fleet off London that can stand up to the German air force. One thing is for sure… the Russians need allied fighters in Moscow IMO, that part hasn’t seemed to change from Classic edition.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I knew it was just the allied commander!


  • USSR holding its own on the Eastern front for a while is most likely due to German success in Africa. It is a very hard balancing act to do well in both and you generally have to focus on one, or in your case have Japan also create pressure on the USSR.

  • '17 '16

    @Private:

    Hey Young Grasshopper and wittman

    **The Carrier is great until J blows it out of the water! ** That needs naval defence units.  That sucks the US into a naval build war.  That drags resources away from the European theatre.  That loses the game.  Or perhaps it was just the allied commander?

    Looking forward to the game I now have with wittman.  He’ll sort me out!

    Cheers
    PP

    If Japan goes full blown on Hawaii with 1 Cruiser and 1 Carrier, it is a must for USA to counter-strike with Battleship and every planes around.
    (I should add, keep your US sub, and submerge before being taken as casualty.)
    Japan cannot afford to loose this carrier and the odds of the counter-strike are really on the US side.

  • Sponsor

    Good point BM, but how common is a Pearl Habour strike in this game? I would assume that players low on the strategy ladder playing players who are equally low on the strategy ladder whould not see Pearl Horbour in their first few games. If the Japanese player eventually sees value in it after the US abuse their home front position and prove it to be successful, than I can see an experienced Japan player hitting Pearl Harbour to disrupt what the Americans want to do. Regardless, I agree that a strong counter force in case Japan goes for Hawaii is extreamly important, but if it doesn’t happen J1, I’m sending my Bomber to London for SBRs and naval can openers.

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    Good point BM, but how common is a Pearl Harbour strike in this game? I would assume that players low on the strategy ladder playing players who are equally low on the strategy ladder would not see Pearl Harbour in their first few games. If the Japanese player eventually sees value in it after the US abuse their home front position and prove it to be successful, than I can see an experienced Japan player hitting Pearl Harbour to disrupt what the Americans want to do. Regardless, I agree that a strong counter force in case Japan goes for Hawaii is extreamly important, but if it doesn’t happen J1, I’m sending my Bomber to London for SBRs and naval can openers.

    I believe an inexperience japanese player will go full blown on Hawaii.
    But the experienced ones will go with a so called “Pearl Harbour Light” and won’t expose their precious Carrier against US counter-strike.

    "Pearl Harbour Light" roster:
    1 Submarine
    1 Cruiser
    1 Fighter (Can land in Wake Island or come back to Carrier)
    1 Fg from Tokyo (must be taken amongst the first casualties, because if it survives, must bring the Carrier in the Hawaiian SZ)
    1 Strat Bomber from Tokyo (Must land on Wake Island).

    "Pearl Harbour Rookie" roster (not to be done):
    1 Submarine
    1 Cruiser
    1 Carrier
    1 Fighter (Land on Carrier)
    1 Fg from Tokyo (Must land on Carrier).

  • Sponsor

    Great insight, thanks for that.

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    Great insight, thanks for that.

    My pleasure,
    😄

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @greenmustang21:

    USSR holding its own on the Eastern front for a while is most likely due to German success in Africa. It is a very hard balancing act to do well in both and you generally have to focus on one, or in your case have Japan also create pressure on the USSR.

    Thanks greenmustang - so do you have G typically go for Russia or Africa first?  It probably depends on what R do?

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @Baron:

    @Young:

    Good point BM, but how common is a Pearl Harbour strike in this game? I would assume that players low on the strategy ladder playing players who are equally low on the strategy ladder would not see Pearl Harbour in their first few games. If the Japanese player eventually sees value in it after the US abuse their home front position and prove it to be successful, than I can see an experienced Japan player hitting Pearl Harbour to disrupt what the Americans want to do. Regardless, I agree that a strong counter force in case Japan goes for Hawaii is extreamly important, but if it doesn’t happen J1, I’m sending my Bomber to London for SBRs and naval can openers.

    I believe an inexperience japanese player will go full blown on Hawaii.
    But the experienced ones will go with a so called “Pearl Harbour Light” and won’t expose their precious Carrier against US counter-strike.

    "Pearl Harbour Light" roster:
    1 Submarine
    1 Cruiser
    1 Fighter (Can land in Wake Island or come back to Carrier)
    1 Fg from Tokyo (must be taken amongst the first casualties, because if it survives, must bring the Carrier in the Hawaiian SZ)
    1 Strat Bomber from Tokyo (Must land on Wake Island).

    "Pearl Harbour Rookie" roster (not to be done):
    1 Submarine
    1 Cruiser
    1 Carrier
    1 Fighter (Land on Carrier)
    1 Fg from Tokyo (Must land on Carrier).

    Thanks BM.  As a rookie, the only reason I can think of for J going for Pearl Harbour is to suck the US into a counter-strike that puts their fleet within hitting distance, even if the US only strafes.  Have I got it right?  :?

  • '19 '18 '17 '16 '15

    I tried a few Pearl Harbour Light before.  Japan does have some advantage on this, although this could be screwed on bad dice.

    I think there are some value of this approach in certain circumstance.  One case is when you know Germany started with a good opening against Russia and you want to slow down US’s assistance to Atlantic by screwing their Navy force (Some players would like shifting all Navy towards Atlantic for full KGF).  On average dice US won’t be able to counter-strike back the remaining J force effectively.

    But if you go for Pearl Harbor Rookie your Japan Navy would have danger to lose them all.  In this case Japan’s Pacific control would be in bigger risk.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @innohub:

    I tried a few Pearl Harbour Light before.�  Japan does have some advantage on this, although this could be screwed on bad dice.

    I think there are some value of this approach in certain circumstance.�  One case is when you know Germany started with a good opening against Russia and you want to slow down US’s assistance to Atlantic by screwing their Navy force (Some players would like shifting all Navy towards Atlantic for full KGF).�  On average dice US won’t be able to counter-strike back the remaining J force effectively.� Â

    But if you go for Pearl Harbor Rookie your Japan Navy would have danger to lose them all.�  In this case Japan’s Pacific control would be in bigger risk.� Â

    Thanks innohub.   🙂  My 1941 games and 1942 game have all entailed J consolidating a naval force that leaves the US no chance, but I can certainly now see the value of distracting the US in certain circumstances.  My US default has been to shift the US navy through the Panama canal as I cannot see anything else to do with them and it helps with KGF, which seems the only way to go.  Would I allow a J Pearl Harbour gambit to distract me from this course?  I don’t know - although an earlier post in this thread from me considered the loss of Honolulu to be acceptable in the interests of R survival and KGF.  Perhaps more experience will teach me to be less sanguine?

    Cheers
    PP

  • '17 '16

    @innohub:

    I tried a few Pearl Harbour Light before.  Japan does have some advantage on this, although this could be screwed on bad dice.

    I think there are some value of this approach in certain circumstance.  One case is when you know Germany started with a good opening against Russia and you want to slow down US’s assistance to Atlantic by screwing their Navy force (Some players would like shifting all Navy towards Atlantic for full KGF).  **On average dice US won’t be able to counter-strike back the remaining J force effectively.  **

    But if you go for Pearl Harbor Rookie your Japan Navy would have danger to lose them all.  In this case Japan’s Pacific control would be in bigger risk.

    Pearl Harbour attack like Rookie, even with the best luck for Japan (keeping all Japanese’s units on the previous combat, destroying all US’ Sub, DD, Carrier and Fg), gives the US counter-strike this advantageous odds:
    2 Fgs, 1 Bomber, 1 DD, 1 Battleship vs 1 Sub, 1 Cruiser, 2 Fgs, 1 Carrier

    Overall %*: A. survives: 75.3% D. survives: 18.6% No one survives: 6.1%
    http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=1&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=1&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=2&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=&dCru=1&dCar=1&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    And Japan cannot rebuilt as fast as USA.
    So, the issue for Japan is to destroy the US Carrier without compromising to much units against US in favor of keeping an heavier presence along Coastal Asia and India.

    This thread is also about this issue.
    Pearl Harbor attack feasible?
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28136.msg998635#msg998635

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    PP is an idiot! 😮

    I have started my second game and realised that my memory of the board set up was wrong. Because in 1941 as J I always go for Pearl Harbour, but in my first 1942.2 game I did not, my head had convinced itself that there were no US naval at Pearl Harbour and so interpreted your suggestion as being to set up a force that will invite a US counter-strike.

    Doh!

    Anyway, I did Pearl Harbour light as suggested and it worked a treat. 15 attack + 5 units (hit points?) vs 8 defense + 3 units is good odds. It does leave the J cruiser there to be taken if the US delays either naval or air movement to the European theatre. That delay could prove an Axis victory in itself.

    Not sure why I didn’t in my first game. Must have used the J bomber and fighters to support attacks on the Asian mainland, which do feel like a priority. We’ll see how this game pans out …

    Thanks for persevering with your contributions on this point despite my incomprehension. 🙂

    Cheers
    PP

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Well – despite giving everyone a perfect excuse not to respond following my report on my first game, some very kind web forum colleagues were good enough to let me have their thoughts.  Perhaps this posting will offer a conclusion to the thread. 😄

    I have attempted to connect with all your ideas and I hope to show that by this summary.  Again played solo in an effort to be a reasonable opponent by the Battle of Britain on 24th May.

    Does the Allied win suggest I am learning anything?

    • In Europe R1 did W Russia again but terrible dice rolls lead to a significant cost despite the huge strike advantage.  That sucked G1 into an immediate focus on a counter-attack in R.  G1 tried to do too much, achieving half decent odds on all combats, but not sufficiently to get everything its own way.  Succeeded with retaking W Russia, Egypt, wiping out the US N Atlantic fleet, but failed to destroy the UK N Atlantic fleet. This was to cost G dear. UK1 took Norway and sent a fighter to Leningrad.  The fighter reinforcement idea came from Black Elk in a 1941 Strategy thread I started – so thanks mate!  🙂
    • In Asia, in J1 R lost the first of its eastern provinces, which soon interrupted the supply of US fighters. The UK attempted to maximise its India build each turn (as in my previous game) to delay J advances.  Calcutta fell in J5. I wonder whether that 1 move delay compared to the first game was due to the Pearl Harbour gambit in J1?  Sorry to be still unsure on this one BM & innohub, despite the easy victory. 😐
    • US1 was about replacing its Atlantic fleet and moving the Pacific fleet in that direction.  I seem to be stuck in that mindset and have not discovered a way to maintain a carrier off California for fighter movement, as suggested by YG and wittman  :roll:, although did have a carrier off the east coast.  Moved the Chinese fighter to Stalingrad.  By US2 their forces had reached N Africa (so saving the continent for the UK). 🙂
    • Western Europe was lost by G in UK5 and swapped hands a number of times thereafter.  The UK was eventually able to withstand G attacks and build a production centre, from which point Berlin was doomed. 🙂
    • With UK expansion in Scandinavia (including the recapture of Leningrad at one point) and the UK/US battling it out with G in W Europe, R began to take G’s eastern provinces. But Stalingrad was first lost by R in J6. The game became a race by the Allies to kill G and by J to kill R. :evil:
    • Moscow was lost on J10, despite the US fleet moving back to the Pacific in an attempt to divert J’s attentions, perhaps because R expended too much materiel on exchanging Stalingrad.  Berlin was not taken till UK11, despite the UK having a production centre in W Europe and the US in Italy. 😞
    • J11 took Leningrad and US11 Honolulu.  But now an Allied victory was certain I think due to IPC dominance.  Other than regaining Alaska from a J invasion and keeping the US Pacific fleet within nuisance distance, Allied strategy was to get R back into the game, recovering Leningrad UK 12. 🙂
    • Although J13 saw the recapture of Leningrad and Honolulu their forces were seriously depleted while the Allies got stronger.  Axis surrendered, although they could have kept it going for a few turns more. 😄

    Some initial thoughts:

    • G should ensure sufficient early focus on the N Atlantic and restrict other ambitions accordingly.
    • The Allied victory was hard fought despite the G failure against UK N Atlantic.  I need to learn some more if I am going to achieve it without that G error. 😢 UK & US attempts to take Berlin took 5 moves.  Not sure why!
    • The UK would benefit from additional production capacity in the east, perhaps using Egypt, if defended with a R fighter to help.  Or Indochina, which was captured UK2, but immediately retaken, so unlikely.
    • J reaching R asap may be the key to this game?  So the J1 Pearl Harbour gambit will depend on G’s success in the N Atlantic.  If G are successful then a delay to the US fleet’s movement is probably very worthwhile. 😐

    Still loving this game  🙂 and still expecting to be thrashed by wittman!  😉

    Cheers
    PP

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    And so you should!

    Am looking forward, at last, to sitting around a table  with 3 or 4 other people. Been years.

  • Sponsor

    Loose lips sink ships… LOL

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Let us know how your first game goes YG.  If you are the Allies and win in less than 13 moves I will want to know the reason why! 😄

    wittman - don’t count your chickens ……  😛

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 14
  • 2
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 34
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

44
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts