• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Usually, if Berlin falls, it falls to a very light Allied force.

    Usually, when Moscow falls, it falls to a massive stack of Axis forces with both Germany and Japan massed around Moscow.

    I’d rather have Moscow then Berlin.  I can retake Berlin easily.  It’s much harder to retake Moscow.


  • It’s true that Berlin is usually only taken with a few Allied units.  But if the Allies have done their work properly, they already control Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and various other European countries.  Japan doesn’t need a lot of stuff to retake Berlin, but Japan can’t match the 10 units a turn (soon 16 a turn with S. Eur) plus UK infantry from London.

    UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.  There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.  There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.

    You’re dead wrong mister.  :-)

    USSR/Japan beats UK/US/Germany in most cases. Here’s why:

    1. Multinationality. UK/US will largely share the ipcs, that is a drawback when it comes to advancing. An attacking force of 30 inf, 30 arm is better than a 2-punch with 15 inf, 15 arm. It’s favorable in terms of trading territory, but the important factor is taking and holding territory.

    2. Logistics. Japan has direct access by land to Africa, that means the allies will either have to surrender Africa or engage in a massive campaign in Africa at the expense of the eastern front. Doing so also means Japan at any point can shift their front from Europe to Africa taking out any troops left behind in Africa. An allied extraction will take time unless they have a million transports available.

    3. Fleet. Japan is better suited for naval warfare. The ipc islands are closer to Japan than they are to the US and with a larger income controlling the pacific should not prove difficult. In any battle for the med Japan is also favored, they build directly at caucasus bordering ukraine/balkans. Quite handy for adding support shots when trading. They also threaten s.eur and w.eur and any allied african troops.


  • I think ALOT depends on what survives after Russia/Germany has fallen as well as who has what… Does US have Southern?  Does Japan have Caucasus …
    Where is the Japanese fleet?

    Too many variables to make any statement that is beyond mere conjecture…


  • Hey guys,

    When playing as the allies I have found that you best bet is to (In order) use Russia to create a dead zone with germany brining there front to a halt.

    As UK they have a two part goal:

    1. build a IC in India to give Japan hell in Asia as a method to delay there foothold on the mainland.
    2. Build a IC in S Africa this will be used to keep Germany from holding Africa by sending two tanks every turn to the front.

    As the US build an Atlantic navy sending troop to Norway or to Africa to aid you Allies.

    The key to win as the Axis is to expand rapidly. So as an Ally all you have to do is keep them contained until the US can send the death blow in Germany or Japan.

  • 2007 AAR League

    UK with 3 IC’s ??! blasphemy

  • 2007 AAR League

    Personally? I hate building ICs.  Only exception is Japan because you have to.


  • @losttribe04:

    As UK they have a two part goal:

    1. build a IC in India to give Japan hell in Asia as a method to delay there foothold on the mainland.
    2. Build a IC in S Africa this will be used to keep Germany from holding Africa by sending two tanks every turn to the front.

    Is it just me?  Or does every Japan player think “Oh cool!, they built me an IC in India.” when the UK dropps an IC in India when the Allies are not going KJF?  :wink:

    It is well documented here in the forums that India can easily fall to Japan within a round or two if Japan really wants it. (see the talk about how 8 Victory City Win Condition gives the advantage to the Axis)  Also, I would think (I don’t know for certain) that building another IC in Africa would detract from your ability to protect the India IC and London.  I find it hard to believe that India can defend herself from Japan with no support from the other Allies.

    A question:  In the games where this worked very well, what was Japan doing?


  • Picture the board in your mind for a moment.  Basically, you have Japan’s starting 30 IPC, plus USSR’s 24 IPC.  The Allies will have UK’s 30, US’s 42, and Germany’s 40.  That’s 54 vs 112.

    Japan will be up China/Ssinkiang for 4.  They will also be up, say, India, Persia, Transjordan, Australia, New Guinea, and Madagascar, for 10 more (I think).  That’s still 68 vs 98.  I anticipate that the Allies should control the Mediterranean very quickly.  Even if the Axis control most of the rest of Africa, it is very difficult for Japan/Russia to maintain that control, considering that the Allies can ship in a gigantic load of infantry every turn.  (The Allies should have at LEAST 8 transports, capable of shipping in 16 units a turn.  Although I think those 8 transports would be far more likely to be used long term to continue transporting units to the European front).

    The start should see the Allies with a transport-heavy Atlantic fleet, and considerable forces in Germany/Southern Europe, while the Axis will have a considerable Pacific fleet with considerable forces in Moscow.  I agree entirely with your point about multinationality, but I think that it is the Allies that still have the advantage of fighting the defensive battle, with a very difficult to crack Germany, London, and Washington (or Los Angeles).

    IF the Japan player has a gigantic load of tanks and air that can be sent west very rapidly, to seriously contest control of Eastern Europe/Ukraine, I can see that the Axis would have good chances of winning.  However, I think that if the Japan player cannot secure that quick advantage, that the Allies can fight off the Axis quite easily.

    The fact of the matter is that Japan will have Russia and Caucasus for 12 units producable, with extended supply lines (3 more from India), while UK and US will have Germany and Southern Europe, which are capable of 16 units per turn.  But UK/US will ALSO have a transport chain that should let the Allies drop 24 units a turn into Europe.  Japan’s transport chains will be much longer, and Japan cannot successfully prosecute a fight in which there are short transport chains (even attacking Western US is probably impractical due to the ability of the Allied player to drop 10 infantry plus fighters there given only a single turn of notice).

    Short version:  All IMHO:  The Allies can’t be beat down quickly.  They have shorter supply chains.  They can sit back and get more IPCs than the Axis.  The key IPC-producing Allied territories are not easily vulnerable to attack.  On the other hand, the Axis have no key territories that they can attack, they have very long supply chains, and they cannot outproduce the Allies on the European front without blowing a big fat wad on industrial complexes.

    @Sankt:

    @newpaintbrush:

    UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.  There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.

    You’re dead wrong mister.  :-)

    USSR/Japan beats UK/US/Germany in most cases. Here’s why:

    1. Multinationality. UK/US will largely share the ipcs, that is a drawback when it comes to advancing. An attacking force of 30 inf, 30 arm is better than a 2-punch with 15 inf, 15 arm. It’s favorable in terms of trading territory, but the important factor is taking and holding territory.

    2. Logistics. Japan has direct access by land to Africa, that means the allies will either have to surrender Africa or engage in a massive campaign in Africa at the expense of the eastern front. Doing so also means Japan at any point can shift their front from Europe to Africa taking out any troops left behind in Africa. An allied extraction will take time unless they have a million transports available.

    3. Fleet. Japan is better suited for naval warfare. The ipc islands are closer to Japan than they are to the US and with a larger income controlling the pacific should not prove difficult. In any battle for the med Japan is also favored, they build directly at caucasus bordering ukraine/balkans. Quite handy for adding support shots when trading. They also threaten s.eur and w.eur and any allied african troops.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Picture the board in your mind for a moment.  Basically, you have Japan’s starting 30 IPC, plus USSR’s 24 IPC.  The Allies will have UK’s 30, US’s 42, and Germany’s 40.  That’s 54 vs 112.

    Short version:  All IMHO:  The Allies can’t be beat down quickly.  They have shorter supply chains.  They can sit back and get more IPCs than the Axis.  The key IPC-producing Allied territories are not easily vulnerable to attack.  On the other hand, the Axis have no key territories that they can attack, they have very long supply chains, and they cannot outproduce the Allies on the European front without blowing a big fat wad on industrial complexes.

    The assumption was that Moscow was taken with a relatively large stack of armor, while Berlin was only taken lightly. Allow for some variances here, but naturally if Japan takes with 4 arm and Berlin is taken with 20 arm we’re looking at an entirely different situation.

    Japan is at 81 the way I see it, pacific islands, eastern coast of africa and trading karelia/belo/ukraine. The allies are at 92 trading the same 3 territories. That’s a conservative measure. Most likely Japan will be able to stack either karelia or ukraine, trading norway and possibly e.eur or balkans as well. I disagree with you with regards to the battle for Africa, as a minimum Japan will hold s.afr, kenya, iea, egypt. They’re directly adjacent to the strategically important sz34.

    To repeat what I said about logistics: the axis have much easier access to africa, sure the allies can ship lots of units to africa where Japan in response takes more land in europe. At any point that stack of arm can turn around through caucasus and push into africa. Now, are the allies going to ship even more units? If they don’t start shipping preemptively they will fall behind in the arms race and the units there will be stuck and cornered. If they ship en masse they are still stuck in africa and the Jap tanks can turn around and gain more ground in europe. 2 rounds is all you need to shift 80 armor from ukraine to egypt. The allies will need a pretty hefty fleet to match that.

    I also disprove of the allies controlling the med, any fleet there is doing no good. They are better off shipping units from uk/e.us to algeria than shipping from s.eur/w.eur to libya. Japan can sit tight in sz16 and get their support shots at balkans, adding subs/bbs as necessary. The allies are forced to stack w.eur and s.eur to deter landings. Many places to defend, few to attack.


  • @Sankt:

    The assumption was that Moscow was taken with a relatively large stack of armor, while Berlin was only taken lightly. Allow for some variances here, but naturally if Japan takes with 4 arm and Berlin is taken with 20 arm we’re looking at an entirely different situation.

    Japan is at 81 the way I see it, pacific islands, eastern coast of africa and trading karelia/belo/ukraine. The allies are at 92 trading the same 3 territories. That’s a conservative measure. Most likely Japan will be able to stack either karelia or ukraine, trading norway and possibly e.eur or balkans as well. I disagree with you with regards to the battle for Africa, as a minimum Japan will hold s.afr, kenya, iea, egypt. They’re directly adjacent to the strategically important sz34.

    To repeat what I said about logistics: the axis have much easier access to africa, sure the allies can ship lots of units to africa where Japan in response takes more land in europe. At any point that stack of arm can turn around through caucasus and push into africa. Now, are the allies going to ship even more units? If they don’t start shipping preemptively they will fall behind in the arms race and the units there will be stuck and cornered. If they ship en masse they are still stuck in africa and the Jap tanks can turn around and gain more ground in europe. 2 rounds is all you need to shift 80 armor from ukraine to egypt. The allies will need a pretty hefty fleet to match that.

    I also disprove of the allies controlling the med, any fleet there is doing no good. They are better off shipping units from uk/e.us to algeria than shipping from s.eur/w.eur to libya. Japan can sit tight in sz16 and get their support shots at balkans, adding subs/bbs as necessary. The allies are forced to stack w.eur and s.eur to deter landings. Many places to defend, few to attack.

    “The assumption was that Moscow was taken with a relatively large stack of armor, while Berlin was only taken lightly. Allow for some variances here, but naturally if Japan takes with 4 arm and Berlin is taken with 20 arm we’re looking at an entirely different situation.”

    Well, yes, clearly if Japan takes Moscow with 4 tanks and US takes Berlin with 20 tanks, it is an entirely different situation.  But that is NOT what I anticipate happening.  What I anticipate is more like Japan captures Moscow with around 12 tanks intact, with Allied control of at least Germany, Eastern Europe, and one of either Western or Southern Europe.  Assuming that UK captured Germany on the UK turn and Japan captured Russia on Japan’s turn (best case scenario for Axis; US control of Germany is pretty horrible), then on the turn followng the Japanese capture of Russia, you will have around 14 infantry 4 tanks in Germany, PLUS an additional five or six infantry, around one per territory, scattered throughout Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Western Europe, etc. etc.  Japan can only capture ONE territory per turn on the way to Berlin.  Assuming that Japan has another ten tanks in the pipeline, that is 22 tanks into West Russia, then Ukraine, then Germany.  But that is two more turns during which the Allies can reinfore Germany, so you have 22 Japanese tanks plus 6 Jap fighters plus 1 Jap bomber against 34 infantry 4 tanks 6 fighters AA gun, plus assorted; and please note that “assorted” can quite easily be up to 12 additional US infantry, particularly if the US has control of Southern Europe.  Given those odds, the Japanese cannot prevail.  But I think that you had rather a different scenario in mind (see bottom).

    “They are better off shipping units from uk/e.us to algeria”

    The one thing the Allies shouldn’t do is leave their navy shuttling things around the Atlantic.  You agree that transports are valuable fodder, yes?  The Allies should have around 10 transports (I usually actually have 12+, 5-6 for UK and 6-8 for US).  So instead of using those transports to slowly shuttle infantry from Eastern US, those transports can be used as escorts for carriers, so the Allies can choke the Japanese islands off.  The Japanese fleet is very difficult to sink, but the Allied fleet is just about frickin impossible.  (Assuming the Allies bring some carriers)

    As far as the Allies controlling the Mediterranean, I never said that the Mediterranean SHOULD be the long term goal of the Allies.  I actually believe that the Allies should run a holding action in Europe, while prosecuting a major naval battle against Japan.  The Mediterranean is simply the best way to utilize the Allied Atlantic fleet - or so I believe.  (In cruising through the Mediterranean rather than retreating towards Panama and Western US, the Allies can secure at least the north of Africa, and quickly lend a credible threat against India, and soon, hook up with Pacific fleet elements to take the South Pacific.  (The last is essential, because the Allies must reinforce their fleet, or lose it).

    When you say “80 armor from Ukraine to Egypt”, I think that we’re CLEARLY thinking about rather different games.  I really can’t picture a situation in which either side would control 80 tanks . . .

    Although we have some different opinions regarding the fine points, I think the major difference is that I believe that the Allies, given a lost Berlin and lost Moscow, should be able to quickly supplement their position with transported and produced infantry for the eventual stallout win; I think that the Allies will contain Japan near or around West Russia, and that the Allies will attack the South Pacific to get the distinct IPC edge.  If I understand you correctly, I think that you believe that the Japanese will have a lot of tanks that will allow the Japanese to realistically threaten Berlin very quickly, at least contesting Eastern Europe and/or Ukraine, forcing the Allies to do nothing but defend while Japan gets a deathgrip on Africa for the distinct IPC edge.

    “USSR/Japan beats UK/US/Germany in most cases”

    Well, I think that although we can both agree that the Allies won’t take Berlin by a gigantic load, and that Japan may well take Moscow by quite a bit, we DISAGREE on the AMOUNT by which the Allies will take, and by which the Axis will take.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Well, I think that although we can both agree that the Allies won’t take Berlin by a gigantic load, and that Japan may well take Moscow by quite a bit, we DISAGREE on the AMOUNT by which the Allies will take, and by which the Axis will take.

    Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

    There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34. The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

    Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.


  • @Sankt:

    Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

    Exactly how I see it as well.

    There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

    Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

    The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

    It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

    Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

    I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 11
  • 17
  • 47
  • 41
  • 29
  • 25
  • 15
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

48

Online

17.2k

Users

39.5k

Topics

1.7m

Posts