Foolproof oob axis victory?
There must be an earlier thread about this; it’s too simple a concept. How do the Allies counter a full Axis commitment to one side of the board?
If Axis is going for a European victory, Japan can drop 24 inf, 8 art, 8 mech, 9 tanks, and 1 AA gun on Samara on J6 for a J7 attack with up to 30 planes. Germany and Italy can reinforce that stack on G7 by going south through Stalingrad and with their airforce. Let Japan use up all of its airforce killing ~40-50 troops depending on Allied planes. It telegraphs pretty loudly that America is able to commit to the Atlantic, but can he do anything in time on a J4 DOW?
If Axis is going for a Pacific victory, let Germany take out India.
G1 buy all mobile. Leave Bulgaria for Italy
I1 all mobile
J1 2 trans, 2 subs, screw the IC. Start moving 11 ground troops south so that they make it to Shan or Siam by J5
G2 all mobile again just for assurances/ backup reserves
I2 as many mobile as you have transports. Take Greece
J2 2 more trans, 1 CV, 1 dd. Take FIC
G3 buy planes. Stack mobiles in Greece. Take Spain & Sweden if convenient.
I3 all planes. Take Turkey
J3 IC on FIC. DOW. Take Malaysia and as many of the DEI as you can.
G4-6/I4-6 Germany and Italy leapfrog each other. If UK doesn’t expend enough of its stack to prevent an Italian can opener, Germany will take India G6. If UK does, Germany will still take West India in time to give Japanese planes somewhere to land for a J6 attack.
J4 buy 3 guys on FIC. Land 12-14 troops in Western or Northern Australia. You should have a large enough navy to protect your trans.
J5 bring those trans back to Malaysia ready to shuttle another stack of 14. Australian invasion moves one step closer to Sydney; enough planes land on the continent.
J6 take Sydney. Take India if need be or reinforce/retake Hong Kong, Shanghai, Philippines or whatever circumstances dictate.
Anything that Germany and Italy are doing besides 100% commitment towards Pacific should be directed towards making a credible European victory threat only to distract America. How can the Allies possibly counter this?
cheese strats are surprisingly easy to counter. USA can reinforce Russia with bombers if Japan doesn’t feel like expanding to its usual 70 ipc self. EAST USA to SCOTLAND to Russia DONE. Russia safe.
So America throws in 17 fodder hits before J7 attack and another 6 before G8. That doesn’t sound like enough considering Russia is already under enough pressure to survive head to head with Germany before Japan whittles its stack by 40. And neither Germany nor Japan is on much of a deadline if America is spending all its cash on bomber fodder.
Japan doesn’t have to commit until J5. Until then, it can always swing its stack south against China and then India. A slow start, sure, but that’s affordable considering America’s slow start. Point is, I’m not sure America can commit to sending 23 bombers to Moscow lest Japan get too strong. Because Japan can still take islands during all this.
At any rate, the European victory was just me +musing out loud. The Pacific strategy was the one that I had thought out. See any overt flaws in it?
larrymarx last edited by
The Argentine Tango
A3: Divert one transport from seazone 10 to take Chile. Continue building fleet and moving it to Hawaii to threaten Japan and force them to defend.
A4: Build a naval base and minor IC in Chile. Take Argentina. Keep massing fleet in the north. Make sure you’ve got at least two transports.
A5: Build three transports into seazone 66 and another minor IC in Argentina. Move your fleet down to Queensland including the original transport from A3.
A6: Build two transports, four ground units out of South America. Start seizing money islands. The three transports from A5 move to Queensland and your fleet, which should be stronger than the IJN, moves forward.
A7+: Make sure America takes back the Philippines before Japan can slip in a victory by taking Hawaii. Send over ground or naval units from South America as needed. Land in undefended coastal territories. Start sending transports back to South America to get a shuck going.
Calcutta has fallen but the Americans have developed a stronger supply chain to shuck ground units over to Asia. The Axis have established their dominance of mainland Asia, but they will not win in the Pacific due to America’s strong naval presence and Japan’s reduced income.
In Europe, Germany has probably refocused on Russia. The game starts to look normal again, except the Axis has very little momentum in Europe and the Americans are doing the tango in the Pacific.
If axis activate neutrals - Afghanistan becomes a critical corridor that allows allies to move planes from Moscow to Calcutta in one turn.
It also makes it easier to bring in mech/arm
Your plan leaves Russia with 4 turns to get built up, as I read it. We’ve allowed this to happen for various reasons (like a neutral violation gambit), and it isn’t pretty. R1, it has nothing. R4, its an actual power. If Germany is looking to fight away from the critical path (America, Africa, Asia), I think you will find that the Russian NO for taking German territory is devastating. An undamaged R4 can get 50+$.
If you are going for a VC KO, America isn’t going to just watch you take Sydney. Unless you bring 2 Grand Fleets, how are you going to cross Australia without letting the USA have a crack at destroying you? And if you bring 2 Grand Fleets, they just attack SZ 6 / Iwo instead. J4, you’re out of time and your VC invasion just got started. And, the ##s of ground troops being landed in this plan would mean zero threat to China and Russia.
If Anzac plays games and buys power units, then it is pretty easy to kill. That’s not true if they play conservatively and turtle up–if they do that then Japan will need carrier based planes and bombardments to dislodge them, which means moving into the US sights.
USA bombers are the easiest counter to all Europe cheese strategies. 1) cannon fodder factor 2) can attack tanks produced in ukraine or karelia or ground units that might sneak past russia for income, 1 bomber bombing minor ics is effective as well.
There you go. Yeah you can laugh at 6-10 bombers as cannon fodder, yet behind those bombers will be a bunch of fighters from uk and russia. imagine killing 3 fighters, easy peezy, now 6 bomber and 3 fighter, not so easy now is it?
This is a break or bust strategy; no ecomonic strangulation or attrition of forces. Yes, a VC KO before Allies become too large is the goal.
But am I underestimating the size of the fleet America can bring to bear in the first few rounds? By my count, neither America nor Japan can attack each other’s fleet off the coast of Australia on round 4. Because yes taamvan, the entire fleet will be there save for maybe a blocker or two, assuming America is stacking off of Queensland or Carolines. I don’t care how threatened SZ 6 is, so long as Japan is safe, because after round 4, any units I produce will not be in play. And Japan is easy to keep safe.
I like the Argentine tango (1st time I’ve heard of it) for its ability to shuttle ground troops to DEI and south Asia w/o requiring a force at Hawaii to defend the transport corridor. But I think it gets rolling too late. It can only bring an extra 2 guys to Sydney for a J6 or 8 guys for a J7 attack. Let’s let Germany take care of India on G7. That means that 2nd round of transports - 14 ground troops can be dropped off in either southern Australia or Queensland (Allies can’t defend both) for a J7 attack on Sydney.
I also dont care about threatening China or Russia after round 4. The stack of ground troops working its way south to get picked up for the 2nd round of transports should be enough to keep China at bay long enough to keep Hong Kong safe (from them at least). So just keep enough planes defending Manchuria long enough to prevent the Amur stack from beginning its march on Shanghai before round 4.
Taamvan, if I’m going for a Pacific victory, I don’t care how strong Russia is on round 4. I dont even care if Berlin and Rome both fall on round 5 other than for matters of pride. Gargantua, that Afghani corridor is an important point in late game. But how many Allied planes are you imagining will be in Moscow beginning of turn 5 to get to India on 6 before Germany’s attack on 7? Germany will have 30-35 mobiles plus lots of planes. India, if it only buys inf and never moved any away towards Mideast or China, on a J3 DOW, can amass quite the stack of 40 something fodder by G7 (ignoring for the moment that can Germany can attack on G6 if India doesnt use about 10 of those to prevent an Italian can opener). Considering the distribution curve of Germany’s attack, I estimate that UK/Russia would have to get more than a dozen planes into India to make it close to a fair fight.
Cow, I fully appreciate the effectiveness of fodder, even expensive and weak fodder. But you’re talking about putting in 2 dozen hits to counter a strategy that puts in an extra 4 dozen hits.
All the objections posted are assuming that Allies are aware of the Axis strategy and prepare to counter it by fully committing to one side of the board. But Axis doesnt have to commit to either strategy until round 4. They’ll have a slow start if they divert, sure. But so will the Allies by pursuing a less than optimal course. E.g. When Allies think Axis is rushing a Pac victory, if UK/Russia are only producing fighters early to get them to India on time, Germany can always turn its stack of mobiles north after securing oilfields. When they presume a Crussia and America is buying only bombers to land in Moscow, Japan can always decide to turn its stack on China and move onto Burma without much American intervention forcing it to defend its seas.
If you want to know if your Pacific strategy is foolproof, there’s no alternative to play-testing.
If you use tripleA, I’d invite you to play-by-forum and you can try it out.
Thanks for the response, I think I understand the plan better. It is all or nothing to grab your VCs and Europe can collapse. Any plan that is so all-or-nothing is usually flawed (similar to why our Kill USA First plans go wrong–they are good on paper but there is always some flaw in the plan that is only exposed through the playout or small considerations/mistakes), but this one seems pretty good.
Assuming the Allies don’t react optimally as some of your scenarios suggest, I suppose the general weakness in the plan is that if the USA can cross SZ 6 or the North Pacific in general, they would stymy your win by taking HK, Philippines, or Shanghai at the brink of your VC victory (you address this in your J6 subpoint, but you have to play the early game conservatively with this in mind and your economy never booms). UKPAC does what it pleases but no matter how it plays it wont be able to stand against Germany and unless they know your gambit, they won’t move everything to prepare to take back a China VC on UK6.
Another thing I like about your idea is that the Japan play would encourage the USA to guard Australia rather than get big navy and cross up north. Once Japan lands that monster force the plan would be clear and the USA could try and flood in some defensive fighters but that would only be effective if they knew from US 3 that Sydney was do-or-die for your plan. And ANZAC might have a ton of guys, but not if they didn’t see it coming.
Taamvan, you’re correct that holding onto the other VC’s is the tough part, particularly the Philippines. Hopefully Germany and Italy will have enough mobile units left to thwart China, but I don’t know. On J3 you should certainly build a second IC on Shanghai or Shantung, building fodder to keep China wary of your airforce, and position those ground troops in Kwangsi, Kiangsi, and Anhwe in order to reclaim any territories that America troops have landed on. Philippines is a different matter, and it may require IJN defeating the American fleet. Luckily, the Luftwaffe will be nearby ready to soften it up, preventing America from choosing carrier capital hits if it wants its fighters defending in the Japanese attack. If Germany is prevented from taking India until G7, it can still land its planes on Shan, which, with an AB, can attack SZ 35 so that Japan can retake Philippines on J8.
But that’s the iffiest part of the whole plan - too many variables by midgame and it needs playtesting. Wheatbeer, I’d love to try this out one the TripleA forum (if the timing of my debut didn’t announce this strategy) but I don’t have regular internet access. I will try it in person against my routine adversary, but only after having tried a few other strategies I’ve concocted, since I know he at least won’t be able to counter this and we’ll have to experiment with house rules afterwards. In the meantime, I invite anyone else to try it out and let me know how it goes.
I have won before by having Germany march down to India, but not through Turkey. Push the Russians back to Moscow then go down the middle east. The Allies think you are going for Egypt, and maybe you are. You make more money this way than attacking neutrals. Do it just right and the allies spend mountains of cash defending Egypt, but then you turn left at Persia while Japan intimidates Hawaii.
Plausible but all cheesey gambits, the clock starts to run out on you as soon as the enemy figures out what you are doing. If your enemy has seen the gambit before, they will know what you are up to and will figure out a loophole.
To repeat what Cow was mooing, USA bombers can go to New Zealand then calcutta in 2 turns.