Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Excellent First Turn Options for UK


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @bcclark7:

    I have heard you mention that a turn 3 IC in India is a better move. If you can’t hold India with an IC and troop buildup against Japan, then how could you hold it without an IC there? It seems that by turn 3 when you want to build an IC there in India, Japan will already be in control of it. I am really glad I started getting into these forums. Another question……If you build your IC in S. Africa it seems that the whole goal would be to maintain the status quo at the beginning of the game by keeping the majority of Africa in British hands. If you wish to expand your IPC income, where do you attempt to do that? It seems with this strategy you can only maintain your income, not expand it. I understand that the UK is more of a supporting player. Is it safe to say that simply holding Africa and harassing the Axis is all you can really want out of the UK?

    That’s the point.  If you HAVE India on Round 3, then you can put up a complex there.  I can see a few instances where India is free at the start of England’s turn.

    1)  England ran away and put 5 fighters, bomber, AA Gun and Fighter in Persia on round 1, allowing them to liberate India on UK 2.  If Japan does not take it hard, or have forces ready, he may let you keep it for a turn instead of diverting forces from his main attacks, thus India is free on UK 3 for a complex.

    2)  England stacked India and Japan, seeing no complex there on Rounds 1 and 2, decided it wasn’t worth the hassell to take it out at that moment.

    3)  Russia blitzes a tank from Caucasus with a fighter to support, kills the defending infantry and liberating the land allowing England to put a complex in there on round 3.

    Now, the 3rd variant is the one I typically see most often.  It comes when Persia is a nightmare for Japan and so Japan goes north and central instead of south and central routes.  This, sometimes, leaves him light on units in Fr. Indo China and invites a complex in India as an option.  I should note that the R3 complex in India really needs to be set up with the American navy re-entering the Pacific on that round as well.  In fact, I think you should decide on UK 1 if you are going to attempt it since you may want to re-allocate some finances from transports/armies to navy for America if you are going to try it.


    The S. African complex, on the other hand, does more then maintain the status quo.  It prevents Germany and Japan from ever really having a good chance at Africa, saves a lot of resources for both America and England, but it also allows England to plant some navy down there if they want too, or just spit a couple of tanks a round out and run them up to the middle east and into Asia as well, if you want too.

    Remember, I am all about the options, I like to be flexible and unpredictable.



  • Bunnies P Wrath….

    I love how you assume someone is an idiot for having different ideas than you. You assume that Japan and Germany will just automatically move units to certain areas, or build factories in certain places. You also are unable to factor in the part of the game in which you as a human measure the abilities and personalities of your opponents to aid in your decision making process. This article was to simpy offer some ideas on how to make India a more viable option to build an IC. Throwing down a large force filled with fighters into India on turn 1 is a huge deterrent to Japan, who could easily gain more income with less loss by attacking elsewhere.  Overall I would have to say your strategies are weak, and you have zero social skills. I have tried to be polite, but you really are pathetic. This forum has a great potential for us to share ideas in a polite way to further our expertise at a similar hobby. When people like you are incapable of offering constructive criticism tactfully, it really lowers the value of this forum.



  • Francis Marion?  But in Colorado?

    You are about 1500 miles too far west, and about 5000 feet too high in elevation for the Swamp Fox…

    Or are you Alumni?



  • Just a history dork my friend. Francis Marion is one of my favorite Revolutionary war figures.



  • @Francis:

    Bunnies P Wrath….

    I love how you assume someone is an idiot for having different ideas than you. You assume that Japan and Germany will just automatically move units to certain areas, or build factories in certain places. You also are unable to factor in the part of the game in which you as a human measure the abilities and personalities of your opponents to aid in your decision making process. This article was to simpy offer some ideas on how to make India a more viable option to build an IC. Throwing down a large force filled with fighters into India on turn 1 is a huge deterrent to Japan, who could easily gain more income with less loss by attacking elsewhere.  Overall I would have to say your strategies are weak, and you have zero social skills. I have tried to be polite, but you really are pathetic. This forum has a great potential for us to share ideas in a polite way to further our expertise at a similar hobby. When people like you are incapable of offering constructive criticism tactfully, it really lowers the value of this forum.

    Ouch.



  • @Francis:

    Bunnies P Wrath….

    I love how you assume someone is an idiot for having different ideas than you.

    Yes, I bashed the original poster.  But any time I see someone try to say their non-backed up opinion is somehow an “absolute truth” - when saying it is an “article”, for example, and when I see someone purport to be OPENING MY EYES to some UNKNOWN VISTA, well - they had better deliver on their promise.  Do YOU think the original poster indeed accomplished those lofty goals?

    Honestly.

    Having spit fire (after a fashion), I am ready and willing to receive replies in turn - provided, for God’s sake, that they have some LOGIC and REASON to those arguments.  Which I will not say you have or have not done; I will leave you to make your own conclusions as to that.

    You assume that Japan and Germany will just automatically move units to certain areas, or build factories in certain places.

    Naturally.  I assume Japan and Germany will both do the RIGHT things.  One of the things I bash other people for is assuming their opponents are going to be idiots and do the WRONG thing.  I assume my opponents are going to do the RIGHT thing.

    If you would be so kind as to POINT OUT THE PARTICULARS of what you think will NOT happen, I would be happy to discuss the controversial point with you, as I encourage critical thought!  But I note that you have not done this yet.

    You also are unable to factor in the part of the game in which you as a human measure the abilities and personalities of your opponents to aid in your decision making process.

    My standing assumption is to think that my opponents will do what is best for them.  Sometimes they will do it in ways that I did not initially anticipate, like building 2 German fighters plus infantry on G1.  But I at no time think my opponent is going to be an idiot or do something stupid just because he has done that stupid thing the last six games. Perhaps you think this a flaw in my playing style.  I think of it as a strength.

    If that’s not what you were talking about, then just what WERE you talking about?

    This article was to simpy offer some ideas on how to make India a more viable option to build an IC. Throwing down a large force filled with fighters into India on turn 1 is a huge deterrent to Japan, who could easily gain more income with less loss by attacking elsewhere.

    As far as throwing forces into India on UK1, the question is not what immediate effect it has on the locale.  The question is what effect the moves have on the overall game.  If you indeed consider India’s 3 IPC to compare favorably to Africa’s 6 plus easily claimable IPCs, and if you think the initial UK buildup can easily outrace the J3 fighter/bomber/2 battleship bombard/transported ground unit push, to the point that UK is actually sending reinforcements from Calcutta to Russia as specified in the original post then I think I admire your boldness in such an assertion.

    “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.” eh?  Well, perhaps . . .

    Overall I would have to say your strategies are weak, and you have zero social skills. I have tried to be polite, but you really are pathetic. This forum has a great potential for us to share ideas in a polite way to further our expertise at a similar hobby. When people like you are incapable of offering constructive criticism tactfully, it really lowers the value of this forum.

    If you’ve ever worked for a living, you should understand and respect the value of work.  I do not say you HAVE NOT worked for a living, but let me say that calling that initial effort an “article” that would “be beyond anything in my Axis and Allies experience” is, I think an incredible insult to anyone that has ever undertaken the effort of seriously explaining the game.

    For you to say that that initial effort was indeed worthy of praise makes me think that what you are looking for is not “constructive criticism” but something else entirely.  Group hugs maybe.  Now note I don’t have anything AGAINST group hugs.  But if you want a group hug, say you want a group hug.  Don’t say you want constructive criticism.

    As far as your proposed effort to be polite - lad, save it for someone who cares, or someone who believes you, or both.  Frankly, I don’t buy your holier-than-thou bit; you’re right down here in the trenches with me, although you seem to have rather a large stick up your arse that could stand removing.

    “Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.” eh?  lol.

    But I claim no victory in this sad state of affairs.

    The role of the court jester is not “to win”.



  • I agree that in posting strategies you should plan for your opponents to do the right thing. The right thing isn’t always the same thing in each game. Sometimes you have to be somewhat reactionary to the person who goes before you. My biggest issue with you is you take this way too seriously. It was not as though I tried to add an extra book to the bible. This was my first time ever posting to axisandallies.org and yes, I probably could have done better by not calling it an article. If my initial language promised too much, I’m sorry. I do hope you understand that not everyone who reads these forums are experts like yourself. I refer a lot of friends who are first-time gamers here to get some ideas on what they can do during games. I doubt the first few times you played axis and allies you had perfect strategy. Beginners do creative things. Maybe you should create an axisandalliesfornoobs.org so I don’t waste your time. Thanks for the hug, I wanted one all along.



  • On building ICs first turn

    Assuming NA Colonial Garrison

    India:
    1a. Gone J3, even with Colonial Garrison, it´s just that you have to take it out before they try something funny.
    1b. Should taking it out not be possible (Optimal allied cooperation). Sink the fleet (building up both land forces and fleet with three production slots IS impossible) and start bleeding them dry in FIC trading back and forth.
    2. Germany blitzes Africa uncontested
    3. Sea Lion Invitation
    4. If the allies really manage to hold it the incredible amount of troops needed will be missing elsewhere.

    Egypt:
    1. Lost G1
    2. Traded back and forth for about 2 turns, if Indian fleet survives J1 ( It will not in this case, i would certainly love to wrap the complex up for my axis buddy in exchange for two zeros and a carrier of mine, bonus: Indian Ocean becomes Mare Nostrum)
    3. G3 it´s german- peroid

    Persia:
    1. Never played it- it´s 1IPC- you´re serious???

    Australia:
    1. Far, far away
    2. Without american fleet support useless
    3. Very costy for Japan to take, the hawaiian fighter is enough to seal the deal first turn
    4. If played carefully with a fleet unification UK1 and later with the US at the Solomons (T3 UK moves in first) there will be a respectable defensive fleet to cover US island grab.
    5. Very costy to implement. I played it once and bought two fighters UK1 to fill a US carrier.
    But this also means US may affort pacific buildup (more ships!) and/or sinkiang complex.

    South Africa:
    0. I see this most often
    1. Keeps UK IPC in Africa loss bearable
    2. It´s a lure. Any german forces send out to take it are out of position for anything useful the turns to come. For japan it´s costy as well because of transport capacity and less pressure on Russia, their forces are delayed 2 turns)
    3. It´s cheap to refill. Two units means inf art UK1 (the cheapest way to kill a blitzing tank), maybe two tanks UK2. Anyway you´ll only spend between 6 and 10 IPCs.



  • @xenon:

    On building ICs first turn

    Assuming NA Colonial Garrison

    Dangerous, dangerous assumption, me lad.  Colonial Garrison means 3 more units in India at end of UK1.  That is pretty magnificent for the Allies.  Let us not even SUPPOSE other NAs for the moment given how game-breaking they are.

    India:
    1a. Gone J3, even with Colonial Garrison, it´s just that you have to take it out before they try something funny.

    At end of UK1 with Colonial Garrison you have 6 inf on India (Assume UK1 sees recapture of Anglo-Egypt).  That means Russia may well not have to divert forces although it probably will.  There will be 1 UK bomber in range, and a fair chance of 2 London fighters in Russia. (options - 2 London fighters plus UK bomber may have attacked Baltic fleet anticipated loss of UK fighters at least.  UK bomber and fighter may have landed in Africa after helping reclaim Anglo-Egypt, allowing Germany to attack with 1 bomber 1-2 fighter (probably 1 fighter) G2.)  Regardless, there’s a good chance UK has some hitting power.

    Taking out the Jap transport at Kwangtung may or may not happen.  If it happens, UK’s fleet in the area is diminished.  If it doesn’t happen, Japan has more power initially.

    Scenario A:  Japan Doesn’t Go After India Like a Rabid Hamburger Eating Weasel at Burger King

    On J1 you have 2 inf in French Indochina, 3 inf in Kwangtung, 2 inf in Manchuria.  Japan will almost certainly want to nab China to eliminate the US fighter.  For various reasons that I will not now go into, I think 1-2 fighters the most you will see in action in China.  To attain local superiority of force, Japan will want to send most of its mainland infantry into China on J1.

    If Japan has 2 transports on J1, you’ll see four units (one a tank) into Asia.  (The tank is dangerous because although it probably lands in Burytia or Manchuria, it can head south quickly and join China infantry.)

    Regardless, on UK2, you see 9 infantry at India plus possibly more air with subsequent buildup.  On J2 you see perhaps 8 inf 1 tank 2 fighter in position to move into French Indochina (not India) assuming abandoning of China  (4 inf from China, 1 tank dropped into Asia on J1, 4 infantry dropped into Asia on J2.  This is the more generous assumption for Japan as I assume the J2 tank drop (J1 build 3 transport 1 tank) is north, and the tank heads south on J3.)  On J3 you see, then, 8 inf 1 tank 5 fighter 1 bomber in position at French Indochina to attack UK India with 12 infantry 2 fighter 1 AA gun.  This is not a great fight for Japan given that AA gun.  Not BAD perhaps, but 3 UK infantry less would certainly make a big difference, and 3 UK infantry is what UK can have in place on UK1 assuming Colonial Garrison.  Colonial Garrison is quite an NA that changes the local superiority of force mechanic in India for a long time.  (Panzerblitz is pretty sweet too, but . . .  I digress.)

    This makes REASONABLE assumptions, but you can still see the nasty uphill battle Japan has.  Given the possibility of UK not retaking Anglo-Egypt (especially with fleet consolidation in the Indian Ocean) and the time and possibility of Russian infantry (not a lot, just 2 or 3) joining the defense, Japan has a tough fight on its hands, especially if the Allies do NOT bleed out India to attack French Indochina but just sit there putting 3-4 infantry there a turn (occasional Russian reinforcement)  There’s all sorts of wacky things that happen with a KJF plan with a strong US Pacific fleet and possibly a Sinkiang IC too and you have to start really worrying about that J4 (about the same time you have to worry about seriously cracking India) when the US1 Pacific fleet that went US2 at Solomons and US3 to points west.  Sure you can hold at French Indochina with infantry and send tanks in through Yakut/China.  But it’s still an interesting game.

    Scenario B:  Japan makes Sweet Sweet Fighter Love to India J1:

    Sometimes Japan will do stuff like put 2 infantry in French Indochina for the bid.  (There’s a school of thought that holds German Africa bids are important allowing up to 6 ground units plus air to hit Anglo-Egypt on G1, but I think a French Indochina bid viable).  With that comes the possibility of threatening a J1 take of India, possibly followed by J2 industrial complex, followed by J5-7 contest of Africa depending on Allied forces there.  With less German units headed to Africa, there’s more in Europe, and early Allied landing at Algeria can’t contest with the flexibility Japan has in landing anywhere along the African coast (although it takes a while for Japan to really be in position to drop units into Africa hence the J5-7 instead of J4 drop of J3 produced units from India to Africa - Japan just doesn’t want to bleed out Asia that early to grab Africa)

    But anyways - even assuming NO Japan build, depending on the Kwangtung transport surviving, you have either 2 inf 4 fig 1 bomber or 4 inf 4 fig 1 bomber in range and with a bid 6 inf 4 fig 1 bomber in range.  Let us say that UK decided to retreat its forces consolidating fleet southwest or west-southwest of Australia.  (significant difference)  You may see the UK fighter on India, you may not, but you still have to contend with 6 inf 1 AA gun on India.  Without a hell of a lot of infantry fodder, that battle gets REAL nasty REAL fast if that UK AA gun hits even 1 fighter - God forbid it should hit 2, especially for an amphibious assault with no retreat.

    And that’s making assumptions on the Allied move - it could be that instead you’ll face 7 inf 1 tank 1 AA gun (If there’s just one German tank at Anglo-Egypt in a case in which there was no German bid, you might see the Trans-Jordan infantry plus up to 1 UK fighter from Indian Ocean plus 1 UK bomber attacking Anglo-Egypt to prevent German blitz through Africa.  So the Persia infantry joins the 3 infantry at India plus the newly produced 3 infantry at the UK Colonial Garrison IC plus possible Russian tank which is admittedly bad for the Allies, but makes for interesting dice at India.

    Sweet sweet fighter love is a big problem for Japan because of the risk to fighters.

    Note - in both Scenario A and Scenario B, I do not mention the fact that after a Japanese capture of India, Japan can start producing units at India the very next turn with the industrial complex already in place.  That’s a BIG bonus for Japan.  Given all the discouraging things I described, it sounds like maybe Japan should hardly even go after India.  But that is NOT my opinion.  I think the Allied cost of defending India is very much as xenon posted.  Given a United States Pacific fleet buildup, though, the Allies still have a very playable game.

    Personally, I prefer the less flashy and exciting but more reliable (IMHO) KGF.  Note I say IMHO.  That means, first, I’m a ho.  Second, I mean that it is my opinion that KGF is more reliable, but I can see entirely good and clear reasons to pursue KJF - including to a great deal personal preference.

    1b. Should taking it out not be possible (Optimal allied cooperation). Sink the fleet (building up both land forces and fleet with three production slots IS impossible) and start bleeding them dry in FIC trading back and forth.
    2. Germany blitzes Africa uncontested
    3. Sea Lion Invitation
    4. If the allies really manage to hold it the incredible amount of troops needed will be missing elsewhere.

    Yep.  Agreed - mostly.  (“They come at night . . . mostly . . .”)

    That is, I think that if you DO see an Indian IC, you WILL see a KJF, you WILL see a US Pacific fleet, you WILL see the UK trying to unite with the US fleet, you WILL see India-Sinkiang-fleet-air-navy shenanigans.  I’m REALLY not even remotely as much of a fan of KJF as Cmdr. Jennifer is, but you do see some exciting games for KJF.

    Egypt:
    1. Lost G1
    2. Traded back and forth for about 2 turns, if Indian fleet survives J1 ( It will not in this case, i would certainly love to wrap the complex up for my axis buddy in exchange for two zeros and a carrier of mine, bonus: Indian Ocean becomes Mare Nostrum)
    3. G3 it´s german- peroid

    Ya total agree.  UK1 IC at Egypt?  ROMMEL LOLZ!

    Persia:
    1. Never played it- it´s 1IPC- you´re serious???

    I take insanity very seriously!

    But no, no . . . Persia IS the key.  Once Japan claims India, it can pump out three more units a turn, but once Japan claims Persia, it has access to Kazakh (otherwise well guarded) and Caucasus.  Those are big, big gains for Japan.

    I don’t think I would go so far as to put an IC at Persia, but I can see WHY it’s considered, given its importance and its proximity to easy reinforcements from Caucasus and given that Russian recapture means UK production capability next round.

    Australia:
    1. Far, far away
    2. Without american fleet support useless
    3. Very costy for Japan to take, the hawaiian fighter is enough to seal the deal first turn
    4. If played carefully with a fleet unification UK1 and later with the US at the Solomons (T3 UK moves in first) there will be a respectable defensive fleet to cover US island grab.
    5. Very costy to implement. I played it once and bought two fighters UK1 to fill a US carrier.
    But this also means US may affort pacific buildup (more ships!) and/or sinkiang complex.

    In many ways yes.  I think you DO see that American fleet support - why put a UK IC at Australia if you weren’t counting on US defensive reinforcements?  But if you see a UK IC at Australia, you see a LOTTA pressure on India and the Japanese fleet moving to prevent UK/US fleet unification.

    To be clear, I don’t think it GREAT for the Allies to pop an IC in Australia, at least any more so than any other Allied plan.  But I also don’t think it necessarily HORRIBLE either . . .

    South Africa:
    0. I see this most often
    1. Keeps UK IPC in Africa loss bearable
    2. It´s a lure. Any german forces send out to take it are out of position for anything useful the turns to come. For japan it´s costy as well because of transport capacity and less pressure on Russia, their forces are delayed 2 turns)
    3. It´s cheap to refill. Two units means inf art UK1 (the cheapest way to kill a blitzing tank), maybe two tanks UK2. Anyway you´ll only spend between 6 and 10 IPCs.

    OK, this is my personal opinion only.  Once again - SOMETIMES I say “you will see this and that”.  Sometimes I say “I think you will see this and that and I think this and that about it.”  When I say the first, I am pretty darn sure of myself.  When I say the second, I have some opinions, but I think the trial far from over.

    My personal opinion - and you will note, I say personal opinion - is that the UK South African IC sucks if your allies are good.  It is my opinion that if the Allies work in concert that a UK South African IC is a waste of IPCs.  I cite various things to support my case, including

    1. the need to maintain UK fleet elements in the Indian Ocean that is far from US reinforcement to make a case for India, the impossibility of maintaining that navy in that position (and the Japs will head in that direction on J2) meaning quick loss of Africa

    2. The more immediate 2 transport build at London allowing 4 units to be ferried to Algeria or Archangel with US naval escorts; Algeria being less useful at holding Africa, but Archangel far more useful at defending Russia, a key territory.

    3)  The possibility that US can build expensive tanks to blitz through Africa reclaiming it from Germany quickly means a South African IC may not be necessary

    4)  The constant drain on producing South African units, and the J8+ serious threat on the African coast that forces UK to stay put at South Africa (moving out through Africa weakens the S. African position so Japan may capture it with transports stationed east of Anglo-Egypt.  It is a LONG time before Japan is really in position to do this, but once Japan has transports in position, UK can no longer afford to spread through Africa, as spread units will be wiped by Japan infantry, fighters, and tanks.  UK WILL retreat to South Africa, and although 4-5 infantry can hold South Africa quite well, that’s a 15 IPC industrial complex and 12-15 IPC of units not used elsewhere - and note that Japan can still dump to Rhodesia (Kenya for you TripleA buffs) to force either more UK defensive builds at a time at which Russia is threatened, OR UK abandonment of South Africa, which means a Japanese DEATHGRIP on Africa.  (The only thing that prevents the deathgrip is US reinforcements landing at Algeria or perhaps elsewhere in Africa, and if you had that level of commitment, I think it would have been better to go with 2 UK transports anyways!)

    Now, this is NOT to say that a IC at South Africa is a BAD idea.  In fact, I think if you have no confidence in your allies (US and Russia), that an IC at South Africa is the BEST way to protect UK territories in the region.  My opinion is that Russia stands a good chance of falling in the meantime, but in some games, that is perfectly acceptable to the UK player (i.e. when there are individual winners, and the UK player doesn’t mind Germany and Japan finishing ahead as they’re on the other team, and the UK player can claim best overall performance based on territory IPC value gained in proportion to initial territory IPC value, or some such conditions).

    Given a US Pacific fleet build to aid the UK IC, I think the Allies have a playable game, especially with the time advantage gained with Colonial Garrison.  I do not say, or think, it is necessarily a SUPERIOR game to a KGF, though.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    A)  We are not assuming any national advantages.  If you want to discuss UK 1 IC in India with Colonial Garrison, may I recommend starting a new thread?

    B)  I disagree, the South African IC is priceless.  It prevents Germany from getting Africa and stops Japan from getting Africa.  It liberates far more units, both in builds as well as starting units, by not tying up your fleets allowing you to move to Russia’s aid much faster which in turn hurts Germany even more.

    If played right, there will be no Japan 8 turn, let alone a Japan 8 threat to Africa!



  • Bunnies p Wrath….

    Excellent response. This was the kind of expert advice I was seeking when I started this thread. I think you really have excellent opinions , and when you express them in a professional manner, they are so much more appreciated. I want to apologize for speaking in anger and haste to you earlier in the week. I was somewhat unprepared for the level of expertise in this forum, and therefore did not self-critique enough before I posted. Cmdr Jennifer, as always you have offered reliable and tactful advice. IMHO the UK can marshall a very formidable force if they choose to put an IC in India. However, I am now leaning more towards Cmdr Jennifers idea to put an IC in S. Africa. My goal by putting an IC in S.Africa is to get Germany to over-commit to taking africa, and therefore putting less troops on the eastern front. By the time they are ready to take Russia there will be such a large stack of infantry there it will be nearly impossible to do it. I offer a truce bunnies…let’s try to work together and be civil to improve each others game play.



  • @Francis:

    However, I am now leaning more towards Cmdr Jennifers idea to put an IC in S. Africa. My goal by putting an IC in S.Africa is to get Germany to over-commit to taking africa, and therefore putting less troops on the eastern front. By the time they are ready to take Russia there will be such a large stack of infantry there it will be nearly impossible to do it. I offer a truce bunnies…let’s try to work together and be civil to improve each others game play.

    ()_()
    (o.O)

    Hey, yeah, let’s all be friends.

    I don’t think Germany should respond to a South Africa IC by bleeding out Europe to reinforce Africa.  I think that’s a REAL big mistake that Germany should just know better than to do; Germany doesn’t have enough units in Europe to bleed Europe and maintain a front against Russia.  I mean, yeah, if Germany DOES it, great, wonderful.  But you can’t MAKE Germany do it, and if Germany DOESN’T do it and G2 tank blitz through Africa and G3 blitzes back to Anglo-Egypt, well, it’s trouble.  UK can compensate, but I think it ends with UK eventually building expensive air/navy units at Anglo-Egypt or building ground that can’t go anywhere.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    BTW, I missed it before in your last uber post, Bunnies, thanks for the props on the excitement on KJF, and recognizing I have some experience to draw on when I talk.

    If Germany forsakes taking Africa because of the complex in S. Africa,then the complex has paid for itself.  If Germany bleeds out trying to keep a foothold on Africa then the complex pays for itself in reduced German presence.

    However, the interesting thing really isn’t Germany, it’s what that complex can do to Japan. wink


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 27
  • 10
  • 27
  • 19
  • 20
  • 17
  • 55
  • 38
I Will Never Grow Up Games

33
Online

13.2k
Users

33.4k
Topics

1.3m
Posts