German AA50 -41 strategy



  • against a battleship? how is this gonna win/ Suicide mission. Battleships do fire back against subs? or is their some trick?

    Hey, I mean the DD and TRS off Canada of course, I change my post for clarity!

    The idea not to attack that BB is trying to kill off: 1 CA, 3 DD, 1 TRS (43 IPCs) instead of 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TRS (35 IPCs). Then UK won’t be able to attack your subs with the RAF and you will get a turn or two to attack with your subs.

    Egypt is simple: it’s going to fall on Italy’s turn anyway and in the long run a German campaign in Africa is too much waste of resources, it should be an italian theater of war. I prefer using that BMB vs. the Royal Navy!



  • @Lynxes:

    Egypt is simple: it’s going to fall on Italy’s turn anyway and in the long run a German campaign in Africa is too much waste of resources, it should be an italian theater of war. I prefer using that BMB vs. the Royal Navy!

    Egypt will probably survive with anywhere from 1 fighter to 1 fighter, 1 tank, 1 art.  Regardless it means your German trans will be dead and Germany probably won’t be able to transport any unit to Africa for the rest of the game.  If he lives with just the tank+fighter, and ships 1inf, 1 art from India + 2 inf from TJ, you won’t take Egypt with Italy.  He could also move his bomber down, forcing you to keep your navy bottled in sz 14 on I1 to protect a transport if you build one (which I prob would).  And on UK2 he can transport the 2 inf from SAF to Egypt.  Not to mention that depending on how you move he could practically force you out of Africa with just UK troops that started in the area.  Even if he doesn’t, an Allied landing in Morocco will probably be happening in the first few turns, and if you haven’t taken Egypt solidly by then you can forget about Africa.

    It might seem like he’s leaving Japan alone, but if Japan goes hard @China and the Pacific, UK can probably build an India complex that won’t be threatened until like J3.  And I’d guess the US will be building some type of Pacific navy.



  • /03321

    Well, let’s see what will be the case on Italy1 when they make the jump versus Egypt. We assume my proposed attack and the survival of 1 ftr and 1 tank. Two scenarios:

    1. India reinforcement, 2 inf

    Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
    UK: 4 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 17

    Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 arm, 1 ftr.

    1. No india reinforcement:

    Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
    UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13

    Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.

    I doubt if UK actually can take 2 inf from India and build an IC, since then it won’t be defended. And I wouldn’t pour troops into India to be killed and lose India in the process. UK will fight Africa either from a South African IC or from landings in North or West Africa.

    So nr 2) is the probable scenario, and here Italy can afford to leave the BB outside of Italy and build a TRS safely and not fear attacks by that BMB, and still win the fight.

    I can’t see why Germany needs to get troops into Africa. This is an italian theater of war!



  • @Lynxes:

    1. India reinforcement, 2 inf

    Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
    UK: 4 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 17

    Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 arm, 1 ftr.

    Huh? How? 1st, only 2 ships can bombard because you’re only landing 2 ground troops.  2nd, the chances of taking Egypt with that attack are very small…if you hit 0/2 bombards it’s not gonna happen, 1/2 bombards gives a 13% chance to take, 2/2 bombards gives 37% chance to take…And I forgot to mention the UK can move his India destroyer through the Suez before i1 making bombardment impossible.

    @Lynxes:

    1. No india reinforcement:

    Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
    UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13

    Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.

    Again, only 2 can bombard, if 0 hit it’s again 37% to take, 1 hit = 69%, 2 hits = 93%.  So yes, in this case if UK does not ship units from India and does not move the destroyer through the Suez you should make that attack.  But that would be a bad move by UK.  If he will neither move the units from India to Egypt nor move the destroyer to prevent bombardment then he should move out of Egypt, either toward SAF (if he wants a SAF complex?) or toward India.  Or he could still reinforce TJ and then counter-attack Egypt on UK2 because your 4 ground troops won’t be able to hold it vs. what he can bring and you have no German troops to help defend it because you threw their trans away.

    @Lynxes:

    I doubt if UK actually can take 2 inf from India and build an IC, since then it won’t be defended. And I wouldn’t pour troops into India to be killed and lose India in the process. UK will fight Africa either from a South African IC or from landings in North or West Africa.

    So nr 2) is the probable scenario, and here Italy can afford to leave the BB outside of Italy and build a TRS safely and not fear attacks by that BMB, and still win the fight.

    I can’t see why Germany needs to get troops into Africa. This is an italian theater of war!

    1: As I said Japan might not even have anything to threaten India until J3, and then maybe not much.  By then UK can move troops back from Egypt to India if he held Italy off, and that 1 round of stalling is worth a lot.  With Japan having to deal with Russia in the north, China in the west, and the US probably building a decent Pacific navy, I’m not sure how heavy he can go after India.

    2: As I said, UK can bring the bomber down to the Mid-East on UK1, and then the BB+trans in sz 14 are threatened by fighter+bomber, good odds for UK.

    3: I agree that Italy is going to be focusing on Africa much more than Germany, but I do not agree that Germany should not care about reserving its Med. trans to move guys to Africa if need be.  If the battle for Africa goes poorly for Italy in the the 1st 1-2 rounds then a German trans moving a couple guys can really help in a theater where a small amount of troops means a lot more than a dense area like Europe.



  • /03321

    Ah, yes, you’re right about restricted shore bombardment, that makes these attacks slightly less strong.

    But, Japan moves before UK and I think destroying that Indian fleet will be a standard move. They have 2 ftrs on a CV outside of Formosa who can destroy the fleet easily.

    So, if Japan does it’s job you would have:

    Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 2 CA= 6 shore bombard, 16 attack.
    UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13

    Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.

    That German TRS will probably be a most debated subject… I actually thought of using it in the Black Sea. Maybe shielding it in the Central Med with the Italian fleet is a good move, but too defensive for my tastes. This is a balanced strategy I chose, in order to keep the subs alive a little longer. If you think the battle of the Atlantic is a waste of your energy, you should of course send that BMB vs. Egypt. But I think this is a mistake since UK will then gather the Royal Navy in one sea zone and it will be difficult to attack at that stage.



  • @Lynxes:

    But, Japan moves before UK and I think destroying that Indian fleet will be a standard move. They have 2 ftrs on a CV outside of Formosa who can destroy the fleet easily.

    A good point, but that move would mean shifting a carrier west, farther from the US Navy that will be threatening soon.  Also, if Japan designates 2 fighters for the India fleet it looks like it won’t make nearly as much leeway into China on J1.

    But again, that’s a fine move and if Japan takes out the trans UK will abandon Egypt before Italy has the chance to take it.  But in this situation UK has the chance of taking Egypt back on UK2 since Italy can only get 4 ground troops there, and UK can still shift their bomber down.  That would also open the door for more stalling once the SAf inf made their way north, with air cover to support their attack.  And by that time, with Italy alone concentrating pretty much everything on Egypt, the UK/US should be able to make a solid enough landing in Morocco to push east, and more or less seal off N. Africa.  This is the problem of not having any German Med. support, and seems to be a big problem to me.



  • @Lynxes:

    /03321

    Ah, yes, you’re right about restricted shore bombardment, that makes these attacks slightly less strong.

    But, Japan moves before UK and I think destroying that Indian fleet will be a standard move. They have 2 ftrs on a CV outside of Formosa who can destroy the fleet easily.

    So, if Japan does it’s job you would have:

    Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 2 CA= 6 shore bombard, 16 attack.
    UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13

    Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.

    That German TRS will probably be a most debated subject… I actually thought of using it in the Black Sea. Maybe shielding it in the Central Med with the Italian fleet is a good move, but too defensive for my tastes. This is a balanced strategy I chose, in order to keep the subs alive a little longer. If you think the battle of the Atlantic is a waste of your energy, you should of course send that BMB vs. Egypt. But I think this is a mistake since UK will then gather the Royal Navy in one sea zone and it will be difficult to attack at that stage.

    From looking at your post, Lynxes, it looks like you are assuming that you will play both Germany and Italy.  It this correct?  Or are you assuming that you are playing all of the Axis?  I am hoping that we see more multiplayer games, where 3 Axis players have to cooperate like the 3 Allied players do. Having the Axis being played by one player sort of defeats the purpose of adding Italy.

    As for your strategy.  When I look at the image on Boardgamegeek that everyone is assuming is the 1941 setup, the UK has 2 infantry, 1 armor, 1 artillery, and 1 fighter in Egypt.  I do not see the artillery included in your computations of force ratios.  How are you accounting for its absence?  Next, I see three British Infantry and 1 artillery in India, bringing 1 Infantry and the artillery to Egypt would still leave India with 2 infantry to defend it.  Since you are having the Japanese carrier attack the British Indian Ocean fleet, this may not be possible.  However, that means you are playing all of the Axis, and so much for a multiplayer game.  Personally, as an Allied Player, the more Japan commits to the west, the more I like it, as I will be coming at you from the east.  There were very good reasons in WW2 that the Japanese did not go further east into India.  The US being the main one.

    An alternative British response would be to take move the two infantry in TransJordan to Egypt, and reinforce that.  Then you are attacking 4 infantry, 1 armor, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, and maybe 1 bomber, with 3 infantry, 1 armor, and 1 fighter.  Even allowing for one round of bombardment, I suspect that you loose.  If you attack TransJordan with 1 infantry and 1 armor, they stop right there as it is an Amphibious Attack with no additional movement. Newly captured, so no fighter can land in support.  Then the British kill them on the next turn.  So, no Amphibious attack on TransJordan.

    With respect to the German transport, that is going to have to run to the Italian fleet on turn one, whichs pins down either your BB or a CA, probably the BB.  I doubt very much if any ships are going to be allowed to go from the Med to the Black Sea.  That did not happen in WW2, as the Turks kept the Straits closed to anything but commercial traffic.  If it does go there, it is a sitting duck for the first aircraft that overflys it.  Also, given the complete lack of destroyers by both the Germans and the Italians, a sub buy for the UK or the US on the first turn would pay very good dividends by posing an major threat to both the Italian and the small German fleet.  A US sub build on turn 1 puts a sub into the Med on turn 3.  Italy is going to have to build a DD, or have its Navy subject to unopposed sub attacks, first strike-submerge, first strike-submerge, and pray that the US does not get Super Subs as a tech early.  The more I look at the setup, the more I think that a good buy for the US on turn 1 is 3 subs, one East Coast, 2 West Coast.  No Italian or German destroyers, and it looks like 1 Japanese DD.  A sub commander’s dream.

    You are focusing an awful lot on your first turn. You need to be thinking about turns 2, 3, and 4.



  • @timerover51:

    Also, given the complete lack of destroyers by both the Germans and the Italians, a sub buy for the UK or the US on the first turn would pay very good dividends by posing an major threat to both the Italian and the small German fleet.  A US sub build on turn 1 puts a sub into the Med on turn 3.  Italy is going to have to build a DD, or have its Navy subject to unopposed sub attacks, first strike-submerge, first strike-submerge, and pray that the US does not get Super Subs as a tech early.  The more I look at the setup, the more I think that a good buy for the US on turn 1 is 3 subs, one East Coast, 2 West Coast.  No Italian or German destroyers, and it looks like 1 Japanese DD.  A sub commander’s dream.

    1 US Sub against Italy’s 1 BB and 2 CA? That is a bit suicidal: the Sub might get a hit but the BB will take it and 1 roll of 4 and 2 of 3 most likely will sink that sub.

    You are focusing an awful lot on your first turn. You need to be thinking about turns 2, 3, and 4.

    The actions taken on 1st turn will be crucial for the Axis won’t you agree? The usefulness of this topic is to try to determine the best/cost-effective attacks for G1. As for G2/G3/etc. that will depend a lot on the Allies reactions and assumptions on how they will react, many of which might not happen at all.



  • From looking at your post, Lynxes, it looks like you are assuming that you will play both Germany and Italy.  It this correct?  Or are you assuming that you are playing all of the Axis?  I am hoping that we see more multiplayer games, where 3 Axis players have to cooperate like the 3 Allied players do. Having the Axis being played by one player sort of defeats the purpose of adding Italy.

    Well, of course you might not agree but my ideas are usable as a kind of negotiation. Such as the German saying to the Italian player: if I strike the UK fleet west of Gibraltar and attack vs. Egypt, will you then support me in the Black Sea after you have taken Egypt? Or the Italian saying to the Japanese: I suggest you destroy that UK fleet off India, then you can send transports vs. Borneo and NEI without escort ships and we will be able to take Africa and India easier in the long run. Negotiations like these are things you do in the game to win it.

    As for your strategy.  When I look at the image on Boardgamegeek that everyone is assuming is the 1941 setup, the UK has 2 infantry, 1 armor, 1 artillery, and 1 fighter in Egypt.  I do not see the artillery included in your computations of force ratios.  How are you accounting for its absence?

    Go up the thread. I start with the German turn 1 attack on Egypt, which destroys 2 inf and 1 art on average.

    As for your other comments on Allied strategy, they sound good. Sub buys for US will be seen alot in the game. I still think you need a carrier and some other surface ships though, you need to DEFEND Hawaii to keep that VC from falling. Subs will then be good as a strike force.

    UK sending a bomber to Africa, that’s quite vulnerable. Also, sending an invading fleet to Morocco is dangerous in this game now that the Italian fleet is so strong. Maybe we will see a combination of South African IC and landings in West Africa to block the Axis advance, and then a later landing in Morocco to turn the scales when the UK and US have superior fleets after a few turns?

    But again, that’s a fine move and if Japan takes out the trans UK will abandon Egypt before Italy has the chance to take it.  But in this situation UK has the chance of taking Egypt back on UK2 since Italy can only get 4 ground troops there, and UK can still shift their bomber down.  That would also open the door for more stalling once the SAf inf made their way north, with air cover to support their attack.  And by that time, with Italy alone concentrating pretty much everything on Egypt, the UK/US should be able to make a solid enough landing in Morocco to push east, and more or less seal off N. Africa.  This is the problem of not having any German Med. support, and seems to be a big problem to me.

    /03321

    I’m sure the TRS in Med will be cherished by some German players, we will see when the game gets played more. I don’t think Egypt will hold the first turn though, and India will need every unit to survive if the Jap’s launches an assault on turn 2 or 3. The battle of Africa will be fought all over the continent, and I think this will be where the Italian units will be used mostly. It’s hard to combine two powers, and most games you will see the Germans fighting in Russia and the Italians in Africa. Remember the Italians will have 17 IPCs/ turn if they take Egypt and keep the Med free of enemy fleets, so they can keep two or three transports pumping units over the Med.



  • You are being somewhat optimistic about cooperation from the other Axis players.  Why should the German player loose those units in Africa if you are going to get the benefit?  How are you going to get ships into the Black Sea and still cover the Med?  He would be better off moving them to reinforce his attack in Russia.  As for the Japanese player, I will simply say again, the more he heads west, the easier it is for the US to kill Japan quickly.  The Japanese get no additional IPC for helping you in Africa.  Lastly, you are going to have to buy those additional transports, which means other things do not get purchased.

    As for Hobbes comment on the sub, quite simply, the Italian player is forced to keep his fleet concentrated then, which means that he is not going to be able to control the Med for the extra IPC.  And I was thinking about using the sub in conjunction with a bomber, in which case, it is likely that at least one Italian ship is sunk.  Italy cannot affort the IPC to build a replacement.



  • @timerover51:

    You are being somewhat optimistic about cooperation from the other Axis players.  Why should the German player loose those units in Africa if you are going to get the benefit?

    Because you win as a team, and if you’re playing with anyone intelligent they’ll understand that also and cooperate.  If Lynxes is playing Italy and Germany doesn’t think hitting Egypt on G1 is a good move (as I don’t really), then no Germany probably won’t hit Egypt and the attack there will be delayed for a round.  Any decent German player should see the importance of punching through Egypt so that either Germany or Italy can claim the easy IPCs south.

    Being optimistic about cooperation?  In Revised, I’m pretty sure that no matter whether it’s a multiplayer or 1v1 game UK will liberate Karelia more often than Russia.  And a UK player with someone else playing US/USSR, hitting a somewhat weakly defended W Europe knowing they wouldn’t take it, but also knowing that hitting it would force Germany to restock those infantry, taking pressure off Russia is certainly not being optimistic about cooperation.  I think that people will generally play with other people of their same skill-level, so whatever strategy Lynxes finds to be good, people he plays with will probably also find merits in it.  I think that expecting an opposing team to not communicate about moves before they make them would be optimistic…



  • Have you played much multiplayer games? I have seen great discussions between members of the same team. If both teammates are too stubborn, each one will do that he or she wants. In fact, is a funny stuff of FTF games  :-D, but if it’s so for 4, imagine 6 players games  😄 Coordination is not a sure thing, pal (thus 4 players games don’t need bid)

    You know, when I saw that my buddy, playing Germany, buys bbs, I simply think: Pharaoh buying navy with Germany again ! What matters? , if he gets toasted, I, as Japan, will be the first laughing  😄



  • I am not sure how many true multiplayer games that you have seen or been part of, but getting three people to cooperate is not the easiest thing in the world to do.  And that is with the existing games.  Adding the National Objectives to the mix is going to make cooperating that much harder for the Axis to do.  The benefits in IPC of the National Objectives, especially for Japan, is going to focus each country’s player on how best to get those, not on how best to win as a team.

    Unless the Axis players know each other and are used to working together, or one of the Axis players dominates the other two, I think that you are going to have a lot of “I do my thing, you do yours” games.



  • Since Gleemax came out, I’ve played tons of ‘true multiplayer’ games (edit: and to clarify, Gleemax obviously is an online site where the games I’m playing are with people I have never met before, and most of the time I don’t run into the same people from one game to another).  And in most, if not all of them, as long as I communicate with my teammate(s) we can generally come to some type of general agreement for the course of movement.  Every move of every turn does not need to be agreed upon.

    I’d think anyone seriously discussing strategy in this board is at least somewhat serious about the game strategically, right?  And those types of players will generally play with like-minded players.  Those strategic players will generally play with the scope of the entire war in mind, not just “oh, this british unit will hinder Italy but won’t do anything to me as Japan, so I’ll leave it alone”.

    If you’re playing the type of game where you aren’t really playing to win, just playing to have fun and laugh at each other when you screw up, even if it’s your teammate dooming you to a loss, then it seems you aren’t playing a very serious game strategically and that doesn’t really hold much weight in this discussion.  Certainly, the game should be fun for casual as well as not-so-casual players, since that’s how AA got where it is.  But when discussing 1st round moves in-depth in a thread as we are, the assumption should be that pretty much every player in the game is serious about winning, and has a good bit of A&A experience, and thus understands the big picture of how each player’s move impacts the entire war.

    Comments about “well your moves in Africa will depend on Italy (or Germany), so they’re invalid” are completely counterproductive to the purpose of this thread.

    @Funcioneta:

    (thus 4 players games don’t need bid)

    Really?  You should notify the 2v2 tournament going on a few sections down of this news.



  • @03321:

    @Funcioneta:

    (thus 4 players games don’t need bid)

    Really?  You should notify the 2v2 tournament going on a few sections down of this news.

    4 players games don’t need a bid. Coordination is more difficult for allies than for axis. I have played 2 years FTF 4 players games one time at week and axis still wins 50 % of times.

    5 players is even worst. I would not say than allies need a bid there, but surely any bid would imbalance the game favoring axis.

    Is not matter of “I don’t aid you because it don’t aid me”. It’s matter of “my plan is far better than yours” and “wait a moment! you said you would send your fleet to z12… what are you doing with that landing at Norway?” and the better is when you go to WC and when you back, your friend says you: “sorry, I have forgotten I had to send my UK figs to land on your USA’s AC. Now Japan toasted our Pacific fleet”  😄



  • Cooperation is needed for the both Axis and Allies to win. I usually play face to face Revised games, with other 3 or 4 friends, and we are quite able to cooperate because we see the benefits of cooperation.

    I have also played a lot of game on Gleemax, with different people each time and I agree with 03321. Chatting with teammates and reaching an agreement on the moves to be done is the minimum that it is done. The more is the cooperation the better are the results.

    Coming back on topic: given tha fact that A&A is a collaborative game the better strategy are usually the ones that involve cooperation. So to discuss a good strategy it have to be a cooperative one.

    I simply can not see the usefulness of observation like: German and Italy players will not cooperate. Japan will do what he want. Then they deserve to lose. Next time they will pay more attention to the coordination with his teammates improving his gaming ability.

    I do not see the interest in discussing strategies that do not involve cooperation, they are flawed from the begin.



  • @Romulus:

    I do not see the interest in discussing strategies that do not involve cooperation, they are flawed from the begin.

    nods

    If the other isn’t cooperating then you might win by going solo but if the other side is cooperating then you’ll most likely lose.

    Japan has a big benefit in helping G/I secure Africa: it forces the UK to choose between 2 enemies (making him react to Axis moves) rather than letting the UK taking the initiative on the Indian Ocean. Japan might not win IPCs directly but on the long run he’ll profit from it.



  • @Romulus:

    Cooperation is needed for the both Axis and Allies to win.

    True, but Allies need cooperation more than Axis, because Germany and Japan can operate alone in most cases. However, a mix of USA and UK fleets is needed both for KGF and KJF. And don’t forget monster-mixed stacks at Karelia , Caucasus or Russia.

    Anyway, maybe the word here is not “cooperation” but “coordination”. It’s true than any teammate will try cooperate, but an effective coordination is vital for Allies each turn, and for Axis only in a few cases.



  • Mmm… I am not english born (I am Italian and this is a bad thing for speaking english… in the best case I speak english-ian, english + italian  :-D) but I suppose that coordination should be a stronger way of cooperation.

    According to my dictionary:

    coordination = harmony, accord; working together

    cooperation = working together

    (so in the weaker form they are the same thing but coordination on average is a more strictly cooperation)

    English born people opinion will be appreciated here…  🙂

    However, I agree with you about Allies needing more cooperation, or even more coordination, to win.

    At same time Axis may benefits by cooperation. Axis coordination could be really a deadly thing.

    Sure, Axis may win also without cooperation/coordination, playing almost individually, but I am still convinced that the more efficient Strategy are those involving cooperation.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    stay on topic. Discuss strategy not the philosophy or epistemology of language semantics.



  • As you get a bonus for conquering Baltic, East Poland & Ukraine, it`s obvioius to attack all 3 territories. Karelia certainly is not a good idea as you need the airforce for something else.

    The biggest questin is really Egypt. With the bmb, you have a 61,3 % chance of taking it with arm, bmb (74,6 % to win). But in 19,4% you even loose and the UK-fgt survives and you certainly loose the trn. The trn can be whiped out in any case if UK sacrifices the bmb that lands in TRJ.

    What you gain by EGY is 2 IPC fot the territory and UK looses a bonus of 5 and the average gain is 4,7 IPC in unit (calculated with Revised price of bmb, so it`s even more).

    The opportunity costs are that you miss the bmb in other fights, that you have a 19,4% risk of loosing the trn “cheap” (with UK-fgt) and a certain 100% risk of loosing it anyway if UK desires.

    If you do not attack EGY, attacking cru, des at Azores is a must as otherwise your Italian fleet could be attacked by des, cru AZO + fgt EGY + bmb GBR which has a 53% chance of winning and therefore whiping out both the german and italian trn.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I think the idea is leaving Egypt and Karelia for G2 because it would not prove well enough in the exchange of new IPC if you ignore the other attacks while trying to get them both.Its pretty much either going after those two or all the rest and id rather get all the rest wiped off.



  • What about Germany taking Gibraltar on the first turn?  Then if Italy can take Egypt OR Transjordan, then he should get 21 or 22 IPC at the end of his first turn because of getting both of his 5 IPC bonuses.  Of course taking Egypt is much better, not only because of the IPC difference, but also because of taking away England’s bonus, but it may not be feasible on Italy’s first turn.  I realize that the UK bomber can take out the German tansport, but the tradeoff may be worth it, because Germany may hold Gibraltar until the end of the game.



  • @Bardoly:

    because Germany may hold Gibraltar until the end of the game.

    Sorry, this is complete nonsense. Gibraltar borders sz12 (AZO) in the new map and therefore it is easyly accessible for both UK and USA. You would loose it very quick!



  • @Atlantikwall:

    @Bardoly:

    because Germany may hold Gibraltar until the end of the game.

    Sorry, this is complete nonsense. Gibraltar borders sz12 (AZO) in the new map and therefore it is easyly accessible for both UK and USA. You would loose it very quick!

    I diagree with you.  I DO agree that it would not be too difficult for the Allies to take it back, but I think that it would be one of those things where there would always be something better to do than take back a 0 IPC territory.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 63
  • 24
  • 30
  • 98
  • 10
  • 1
  • 31
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

83
Online

14.2k
Users

34.6k
Topics

1.4m
Posts