Essay on a German Strategy

@Fabius:

Hello everybody this is my first message, I’m an Italian player of A&A and I would like to know your impressions on this KJF strategy.

First Round:
UK: purchase 2 transport 1 Inf 1 Arm and attacks Norway with 2 Inf 1 Arm 1 Artillery (assuming Germany uses his Atlantic Submarine with the fighters to destroy the Brits Battelship in Med). Uk destroyer goes from India to S59 and destroy the Jap transport. Uk moves his South African Inf to Kenya (assuming Germany destroyed Brits in Angloegypt) and Persian Inf to India.
Uk also moves the Indian Fleet in S30 and also the Australian Fleet.
Uk also moves one armor from East Canada to Alaska, and one Inf from West Canada to Alaska.

What do you think?

I think I’m either going to take London or destroy your North Sea fleet on G2.

Also, an IC in Alaska doesn’t seem a good use of ipcs–-why not buy an extra AC with that cash or consider a Sink IC?  In the strat you describe Japan is going to get rich on mainland ICs which will allow them to buy air to resist the dual fleet threat.

You definitely need the AC in a move to SZ3.  Otherwise UK can destroy you with just their AF.  If they have a BB to absorb damage, you could lose the Baltic Fleet potentially w/o loss to UK.

On the Japan 1 move…

First off, add a bid of 5-9 for the Axis to even the odds.

Then build 1 IC, 2 TRN as Japan on J1.  That gets you SEVEN units to Asia on J2, 9 if the SZ59 TRN miraculously survives…

Also, if you can take India, FIC is a better place for your first IC, if not then MANCHURIA, not KWANG.

I would like to thank everbody for their input on this topic. I think I am gonna give a try in my next game.

@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.

My opening German move to attack UK fleet is ussually kinda like this (the availability of my fighters depends on russian player of course…)

Sub z8 attacks z2 along with Bomber from germany, fighter norway.  (a bit risky move i know…)

Battleship z14 to z 13 along fighter from france

Transport z 14 to z 15 along fighter from balkans,

What i buy is situated to the actions of the russian player, but either i go a battle ship and 3 tanks, or 8 tanks or 6 tanks and a transport to put in italy…  Option on 4 tanks and a transport (italy) and a destroyer (baltic sea) have crosed my mind…

Any thoughts?

Mayhem, we too play with NAs. Actually we did two games in a row with all NAs. On the first game, Germany bought 1 AC and 3 subs on G1. That left him with very little ground force but he just held his cocoon and on G2 built just INF and ART to compensate. In the end, Axis won the game and the subs made the Allies loose at least 60 IPC through the course of the game (which wasn’t very long, maybe 7 turns). Plus the allies were always threatened by a mighty fleet of 1 AC, 1 DD, 5 subs (attacking on 3s), and 2 trannies (one of which was built later on) plus all german air force.

In our second game, Germany made a G1 purchase of 1 AC and 8 INF. Every turn thereafter Germany purchased 1-2 subs. The end results was the same, an Axis victory, but it was a lot safer against Russia with the additionnal 8 INF on G1.

No matter if you play with NA or not, a G1 buy of an AC is HIGHLY recommended.

This discussion has brought a few more things to mind.  If the Axis player can stand to last that long, what do you guys believe is the best way to move in on Japan?  I know tri and nc started discussing it a little bit.  I personally would establish IC’s with UK on Asian mainland as soon as it is obvious that Japan cannot capture them.  Then, if Russia’s economy is still low, I generally use them for SBR’s considering the time and money needed for a tran and troop buildup in the Pacific is simply too much for the Russians; unless they are in control of Berlin and the majority of Europe.  As the US I will generally start building up trannies with inf and arm with air and naval support.  If Allied naval power allows, an island hopping strategy is another good way to put a joke hold on Japan, while also eliminating any reinforcements to Tokyo.

Another question, which could quite possibly be a stupid one considering the good amount of years that I’ve played this game is, “Can a nation have negative income?”  Of course, my initial response is no but this would be an interesting house rule.  For instance, if the nation’s economy is -3, it must take away 1 inf a turn until restored.  This may give the SBR privelage even more power than it already posesses but it could be interesting to try once.