Discussing AARE

@Bean:

Also just curious Axis Roll, what do you think is the best method of dealing with a lot of German subs in the waters? Obviously the UK alone will take too long to deal with it, which just about forces the US to put some heavy investment into the Atlantic early on.

You don’t necessarioly need DDs to go after subs.  I’ve always been of the mind set that subs are effective sub killers in Enhanced.
Also, Russia should be pushing hard on those less-than-maximum German ground units.

Radar is certainly a very effective counter to the Wolf pack Germany strategy.

@Bean:

And also, how does one fight effectively on two fronts? I’ve read a lot of things about how AARE is global, but it seems to me that splitting actions as the Allies is just as bad as in AAR, because each Axis power appears to be more able than ever to deal with a half-a** effort. Also I read something about naval action in every AARE game in the Pacific, but it seems detrimental to the US to put anything there unless it plans on winning.

The allies primary early game goal is to keep playing.  They may need to make some costly sacrifices to avoid a quick 10 VC axis grab.  However, the Axis can play a longer game effectively too.  The key for the allies is to recognize the Axis intentions.  Are they goign for a quick game or setting up for a longer one.

There are 6 VCs within ‘easy’ reach for Japan, but Germany really has only 5 that are within ‘easy reach’, Moscow or London are much harder to attain.  These facts alone point out the importance of some sort of allied support in the pacific… wether that’s to HOLD a VC or to take it back (READ USA to the rescue)

Cousin_Joe (Enhanced creator) once gave me some excellent advice about revised that speak to it’s global characteristics.  You focus on a theatre and win that first, winning several theatres will win you the war.  So US could assist in the battle of the atlantic while building enough fleet to hold the IJN at bay, and then return their main focus on the Pacific once UK has built enough navy to control the atlantic.

I don’t understand how Radar NA is an effective Submarine Counter.

The only thing I can think of is the reduction in price of Combined Arms, but then it is Combined Arms that helps you kill submarines, NOT Radar.

Anyway, Sub on Sub is good, but slow.  Subs+Destroyer on Subs is good however.  But then, what does England and America do with the extra submarines?

@Cmdr:

I don’t understand how Radar NA is an effective Submarine Counter.

The only thing I can think of is the reduction in price of Combined Arms, but then it is Combined Arms that helps you kill submarines, NOT Radar.

Why else would you take radar?
I guess for Jet power, but the cheap combined arms REALLY helps UK to win the batttle of the Atlantic.

You get better sub detection with your DDs, and a floating AA gun in your BB, that… oh, shoots at a 2 with Radar.  tough for the German 1-2 punch (sub/planes) to sink that UK fleet.

And then once you’ve removed the sub threat, you can do offshores.

And to shoot down V2 rockets 33% of the time, and to assist in defending Australia, and for the free AA Gun to use with Rockets, etc.

@Bean:

Curiously, that doesn’t seem a whole lot different than the way some players to it in AAR. For instance, Darth Maximus is a fan of first using the US to control the Atlantic/Atlantic, then switching to a massive Pacific Navy in AAR. I agree it can be more rewarding in AARE due to the victory cities the Allies can reclaim in the Pacific as well as convoy raiding Japan, but I think AARE is still very AAR in the core sense that you do have to focus on winning one theater before moving on to the next, it’s not global in the sense that you can split your efforts down the middle and expect to win.

Well if Japan is controlling the pacific AND Germany is forcing the issue in the Atlantic, I would get the atlantic under control first as you have help to do that.  USA can go toe-to-toe with Japan on their own if the atlantic doesn’t need US assitance.

In the absence of these extremes, it is BEST if USA does go evenly on both coasts, IMHO.  Delaying would allow a Japan trying to do both asia mainland push AND control the Pacific time to accomplish both objectives.  Going only against Japan reduces a key allied advantage in the atlantic: D-Day.  The allies may need to grab that one VC to stave off an Axis victory.

A simple rule stating that any US State that falls to Japan without being immediately liberated by America becomes a default victory for the Axis would force the game into two theaters.

(State, as in not China or Sinkiang or Brazil.  I’m thinking Hawaii or Alaska here really, but W. USA would be even worse public relations wise.)

American people are wusses, they don’t want to be hurt.  They’da surrendered if California or Hawaii was invaded. (Alaska was, but common, it was the Aleutians, not Juno or Anchorage or something!)

@Cmdr:

A simple rule stating that any US State that falls to Japan without being immediately liberated by America becomes a default victory for the Axis would force the game into two theaters.

one territory and the Axis wins?

Sorry that won’t work
Japan can easily take and hold hawaii J2

there’s plenty of reason to have to fight in the Pacific.
A wisely played Germany as well as an expansive Japan can prove that the Allies have erred by ignoring the pacific.

It’s not that hard to do.

You don’t think America can build enough to liberate Hawaii by round 2?

I mean, the best Enhanced Games i’ve had with the allies was ignoring the pacific and letting japan take Hawaii, Australia and India because all I have to do is stop Germany from getting Karelia or Caucasus and that’s actually very easy with some of the exploits.

@Cmdr:

You don’t think America can build enough to liberate Hawaii by round 2?

No, I think Japan can put too much on hawaii WITH so much naval power that USA could not take out both on US2.

@Cmdr:

I mean, the best Enhanced Games i’ve had with the allies was ignoring the pacific and letting japan take Hawaii, Australia and India because all I have to do is stop Germany from getting Karelia or Caucasus and that’s actually very easy with some of the exploits.

Germany is not being played correctly then.  They may need some Japanese assistance to help them take and hold the 4th VC, but it most certainly can be done.

I dunno.  With Russian Rail you can easily see 30 infantry, 15 tanks flying back and forth between Karelia and Caucasus making any attack on either all but impossible with Germany, especially if England and America are firing off economic attacks with heavy bombers and rockets or just bombarding the heck out of Europe with stacks of destroyers.

@Cmdr:

…or just bombarding the heck out of Europe with stacks of destroyers.

:wink:

@tekkyy:

@Cmdr:

…or just bombarding the heck out of Europe with stacks of destroyers.

:wink:

One way to minimize this is to give up western and just take it back every turn with an inf or two.  Germany still gets the money.

@Cmdr:

I dunno.  With Russian Rail you can easily see 30 infantry, 15 tanks flying back and forth between Karelia and Caucasus making any attack on either all but impossible with Germany, especially if England and America are firing off economic attacks with heavy bombers and rockets or just bombarding the heck out of Europe with stacks of destroyers.

Japan is not doing her job right then if Russia can move at will and not have to worry about the moscow/caucasus back door pressure.

Remember Japan has been ignored… they have to play so that they CAN NOT be ignored.

@axis_roll:

One way to minimize this is to give up western and just take it back every turn with an inf or two.  Germany still gets the money.

Western Europe is the standard game right?

The uber destroyer offshore bombardment strategy involves hitting Germany, Eastern Europe or whatever the stack happens to be right?

Turn 5 US might have 20 destroyers.
Is that 10 infantry?

@tekkyy:

@axis_roll:

One way to minimize this is to give up western and just take it back every turn with an inf or two.  Germany still gets the money.

Western Europe is the standard game right?

The uber destroyer offshore bombardment strategy involves hitting Germany, Eastern Europe or whatever the stack happens to be right?

Turn 5 US might have 20 destroyers.
Is that 10 infantry?

Even at a reasonable assumption of 4 DD’s every turns (no respecting Japanese player would let USA have more than 35-37 / turn), that’s 4 turns to get to 20+ ( I know they start with 2), PLUS it’s 3 turns to get to SZ5.

I would HOPE Japan can get after Moscow/Caucasus by the 7th round.

Plus if I EVER see this strat again I would do something (Read NA selection) totally different that would put the huge screws to this whole game plan.

Love to hear what that is, Axis.  Mainly cause I need something in my arsenal to work against it.

However, I think you are discounting the damage done by a lot.

In 5 Rounds America can have 6 DDs Round 1, +4 DDs Round 2, + 3 DDs Round 3 + 3 DD’s Round 4 + 3 DD’s Round 5 for a total of 19 DDs, that’s assuming no Naval Industry advantage and using the “change” to buy the combined arms technology. (16 IPC if you have tech investment, max 24 if you do not, maybe less if England also has it before you get it, so 12-18 IPC with shared tech)

That’s 20 Destroyers at 3, 1 Battleship at 4.  Granted, 6 of them are not yet in range ON turn 5 for use, so that’s 14@3 1@4 hitting the stacks in Europe and definitely enough to keep your fleet separate.  (What player is sending 6 fighters and a bomber after 14 destroyers with or without transports and battleships!?!?!)

That’s just from America!  So figure you lose 8 infantry with that somewhere in Europe.  -24 IPC for the cost of 3 IPC (since you have to land SOMETHING to use bombard, right?)

If England’s doing it too, you might expect 4 destroyers on round 1 (Royal Navy + 3 Destroyers) and 2 each additional round with change, again, going to combined arms technology.  So on round 5 you’d have a total of 1 battleship + 12 destroyers (10 in range to bombard ON England’s 5th round.)  That’s another 6 infantry from your stack killed for another -18 IPC at the cost of 3 IPC.

So far, Germany’s been hit for 42 IPC in damage and the allies have lost 6 IPC in damage.

What kind of pressure will Germany be able to sustain at that rate on Russia?  How much more pressure can Russia bring to bear on Japan?

And, if you get really wicked, who says the allies won’t add SBRs with their two bombers until they are knocked out of the skies with AA Fire?  That’s another 7 IPC damage per round on average between the two nations (3.5 from England, 3.5 from America.)  Now Germany’s down 49 IPC and that’s not including units lost trading with Russia who’s flying infantry and tanks around with Russian Rail to prevent the fall of it’s Victory Cities.

I’m not being sarcastic.  I really, REALLY want to know what the Axis response is!  I’ve tried Wolfpacks and then going heavy navy, but that drags even more money away preventing me from stopping Russia and thus the Russians get up to E. Europe on a consistent basis.

IMHO, if UK does the same, they shouldn’t go all out or that’s a problem.  Germany can drop a sub and reduce UK’s ability to economically hurt Germany to only $8 in Germany/EEU.

That is an idea, just putting 1 submarine in SZ 5 would stop England’s bombardments, but not America’s.

@Cmdr:

That is an idea, just putting 1 submarine in SZ 5 would stop England’s bombardments, but not America’s.

yes, that’s what I said, slows UK DD’s… if they were to fail to detect, US could be stopped too… and perhaps for only $7 if you take wolfpacks.