Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Andy1984
    A
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 0
    • Posts 21
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Andy1984

    @Andy1984

    0
    Reputation
    16
    Profile views
    21
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online
    Age 24

    Andy1984 Unfollow Follow

    Latest posts made by Andy1984

    • RE: Japan Basic Strategies, Concepts and Ideas

      As Fenian says, I’ve seen a US sub-based fleet and heavy bombers (positioned on an island) which effectively deadzoned the Pacific. It was the ultimate US-defense fleet, since my Japanese fleet simply couldn’t reach and destroy this fleet (although the Japanese economy was way bigger than the US-economy).

      Given in a Pacific situation however (and that is what this thread was all about): it is in the Japanese intrest to build alot of subs to ‘deadzone’ the Pacific, thus defending the Japanese islands. (Considering Japan is spearheading in Asia and not planning an invasion into the US)
      I’m not sure whether a Japanese Pacific defense with subs is any good (since you can’t cover all your islands). To an American player however the massivly relying on subs is of little value, since he should be the one conquering the Japanese-held islands. (I haven’t seen a situation where the US controlled the Pacific and the game wasn’t clearly over).

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: NOT ONE STEP BACK!!!

      @atarihuana:

      what do you du turn 2 when 8 inf, 2art, 6 arm + air can reach KAR if GErmany sets it up?

      you can have there 9 inf, art, 3 arm. so germany gets a superior attack. if you land allied planes, all the better for Germany cuz Russia gets less money.

      From what I can remember, I haven’t been forced as the SU to effectivly give up Leningrad on SU2. Sometimes I manage to take out part of the German armor (slowing their advance and giving me a third turn), sometimes I’ve been able to build up a pretty huge stack in Archangel while I retreated from Karelia (which denies Germany to effectivly take and hold Leningrad, thus giving them the bonus once).
      In another case, you might build a Russian fighter on SU2 (and place it in Karelia!) to boost your defense. If you don’t feel this will do the trick, consider sending in the UK fighter (hoping there is still at least one in reach). Even if sending in this fighter costs you your NO once or twice, it will still be worth it as long as you keep Karelia.

      Needless to say I agree fully on the importance of Leningrad: keeping it as the SU for as long as possible is definitly worth it.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: How does everyone feel about the new transport rules?

      I like them. Right now you can force Japan/US to keep their transports with their main fleet or these transports will be destroyed. In the original game, I’ve seen countless of expensive fighters being destroyed by transports that shouldn’t have the **** to set sail all on their own anyway.

      About the ‘fleet fodder’-idea: wouldn’t destroyers with their defense of 2 serve better for this purpose than an only slightly cheaper transport?

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: Persia Staging ground Idea

      Any idea what the defense of Caucasus would look like? (As well as what game you’re playing?)

      In my experience, I’ve been running really low on troops in the early game as the SU. I’ve hardly found out how other players seemed to be capable to send in forces to China or (in your case) Persia. Especially in 1941 I’ve placed my armor more than once in Russia in order not to get it slaughtered should Germany attack Karelia or any other province. For as Germany, I’d be really happy to take out the initial armor the SU gets.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: DJKGKJ

      @Unknown:

      I see some of the points made.  It would be interesting to actually see the math of, say, 4xCA 4XDD v 4xBB.  I would think the 8 ships would have the advantage even with the free hits.  But then… how often do you ever actually have 4 BBs in a single battle?  There are usually only 1 or 2 present at most.  I’ll stick with my CA/DD for now, the math from that battle calculator some of you seem to have would be interesting though and might change my mind.

      I’ve seen stacks of BB in the Pacific, both American and Japanese. Since Japan and the US should have a really nice income after several turns, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise. In the few games I played lately, Japan owned between 8 and 12 BB. Sometimes they were put in a single fleet to match an opposing US fleet. Sometimes they sailed off to the Mediteranean to harass the smaller UK-fleets. Sometimes they were used to smash the Indian IC. Battleships are extremely difficult to take out when you have naval superiority and are useful to perform other tasks besides just guarding your Japanese mainland. Therefore building them en masse seems a sound strategy to me (and my opponents).

      I may actually have been understimating the free hit a little, but you are understimating the flexibility of 2 ships v 1 ship.  Your 4 BB navies would mean my equavilant CA/DD navy would have so many ships that I could be strong in multiple locations on the map.  The big naval battles are staged into by both sides, you know when they are coming and they don’t come often.  At all other times, having twice as many ships is a pretty big advantage.

      What other times are you talking about? When I engage as Japan a US-fleet, I want to keep my entire fleet in a single sea-zone, and so does the US. Imho, there should only be one single large battle to decide the fate of the entire Pacific. In between two major naval battles, destroyers and cruisers aren’t of much use anyways, as opposed to the highly versatile BB.

      Having said all this, I agree with you cruisers and destroyers can easily make up the bulk of your navy at another theatre (e.g. the UK and Italian fleets), since these nations don’t have the gargantuesk resources US and Japan have, and since especially the UK might want to have alot of cruisers for offshorebombardment purposes. Therefore your statement probably is correct when it adresses the European fleets (given fleets aren’t destroyed by massive airforce). But in the Pacific, having to face gigantic fleet, I wouldn’t bet too much on destroyers or cruisers (although I do use subs and destroyers as cannon fodder in combination with BB).

      I really didn’t mean to start such a debate with that final little comment, and you guys might very well be right about that although I still have my doubts… I had been hoping people might actually comment on my favorite US strategy, I thought people might find it interesting since it is so far removed from the very valid KGF strategy that is usually being discussed.

      To me, your overal strategy seems pretty sound, for it is balanced and indeed far removed from the sometimes ‘experimental’ strategies that appeared lately. In the games I’ve played, I too deployed US-forces in Africa to a minimal extent, while going almost all-out against Japan. About the KGF-strategy: it is indeed surprisingly often discussed, but I wonder if it is used as often as it is discussed.
      It is here however, your text is quite confusing. You speak of using Okinawa as a US-bomberbase against Japan in the early game. How are you, in only a couple of turns, capable to outbuild the Japanese navy, manage to build a fleet that does not get wiped out by Japanese fighters and fleet and conquer Okinawa? (And then I didn’t even mention the bombers that still have to be built.) Are you using bombers to attack fleets in the Pacific? (And if so: doesn’t this weaken the defensive stats of the US-fleet to much?) In the games I’ve played so far, Japan has always gained naval superiority in the early game against the US. I agree with you regaining these NO’s is of the highest importance to the US, if she doesn’t want to have the same fate as the UK-Empire, but doing so is a slow and often painful process.
      For if Japan keeps her fleet in the East-Pacific in the first few turns (which she should once she destroyed several major US-ships imho), I see no other way for the US-player to try to slowly outbuild this Japanese fleet. Hence the build-up in BB. Using Okinawa as a bomberbase was - in the games I’ve played - only a way to finish off Japan in the late-game.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: Axis ignore Eurasia Plan

      @kendrick
      I was commenting wodan’s ideas.

      Your strat seems pretty sound at first sight.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: Axis ignore Eurasia Plan

      Ok, now suppose you’d be capable to take the US succesfully. At what costs would it be achieved? If you needed to build up during two or three turns (and have to pull back ground-forces and fighters), the eastern front is completely lost imo. This is because you have no airforce left. Any counterattack you plan vs the SU, will be done by armor, which leaves them vulnerable to a counteroffensive. You might be capable to take out the US, but lose Germany herself. China will be invincible and the UK-powerhouse thanks to their empire gargantuesk.

      Therefore even if you managed to take and hold the US, Germany would be confined to the Americas at best. You now find yourself in a situation where: the US is down, both SU and UK have all (or almost all) their NO’s. Germany and Italy will probably be lost or find themselves confined to Western Europe/Germany at best (losing a NO and having only 10 unit-production-capacity).

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: Germany should build 10 units a turn

      I fully support the German focus on ground forces. But you don’t have to train 10 inf on G1 to do so. How about sending half your German army (supported by Italian groundforces) to Ukrain and building a factory there as soon as possible? That would give you the opportunity to:

      • train infantry at your eastern frontier
      • have the much needed extra production capacity for Germany (imagine a Germany crashing out 12 ground units/turn)
      • it would virtually secure your positions against the SU, giving you your second NO

      The main advantages of a factory in Ukrain is however: it’s safe. There’s no way the UK can hope to take over that one (contrary to IC’s in France or Poland).

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: Building Italian fleet - is there a point?

      Last game, I build transports as Italy. I figured my Italian navy was going down anyway if UK really pushed, so I wanted to get as many infantry towards N-Africa as possible. I ended up with a total of three transports (all sunk of course), and a pretty vast stack of 10+ inf in N-Africa. Add a bomber and one or two fighters, and the US/UK-forces are in for a hard time in Africa. The NO they completed, added to Italian support in Europe.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      A
      Andy1984
    • RE: Subs are awesome

      @wodan46:

      @Bluestroke:

      Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
      On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
      by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s.  Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.

      I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs.  Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.

      A minor US fleet, with two or three BB, one or two destroyers and a transport would be a pain to take out. Besides: I believe the Japanese aim is not to defend Japan, but to dominate the entire Pacific (with Japan herself not even threatened).

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      A
      Andy1984