i disagree viking because your strategy suggests that it doesnt matter whether england knows sealion is coming or not, it will work no matter what. This is just flat out wrong. if its clear what germany is doing, Russia goes on the offensive and sends planes to England, america sends fighters and troops to england and england just pumps infantry. Germany even if you save your money for two turns and you get 80 bucks that may be 10 transports, but they have no cover of anykind, bombers or even fighters could attack them. And lets say they arent attacked they have the capability of carrying 20 guys or 10 guys and 10 tanks, britain could have pumped out 24 infantry by then plus what they start out with. Plus russian planes and american troops and planes, and even with germany’s air force aiding it would take incredibly bad rolls for Britain to lose this battle
Latest posts made by AlliedFront
RE: Can you win in 3 turns?
RE: Aircraft carriers
I find that the only game ive ever use an aircraft carrier in is a game when i was the Germans attacking US. It was a game we were just playing out for fun because ihad already taken Moscow and UK. I think, in general for Europe the land mass is too close together to really warrant the use of an aircraft carrier.
But Pacific is another story
RE: Do you find the game balanced?
I would like to start out by saying that i find the game quite balanced, luck in rolls, tactics, teamwork seem to be what makes the difference in the game for the victory :).
Saying that, i would think that if you have an extremely competent German player, you’d have to have other equally competent players for each allied position (or if your playing 1v1 just one obviously) for there to be a good game. My first turns as the Germans go mostly like this (barring that nothing crazy happens). I usually do all i can do to kill British ships in the Atlantic and Med, after all the Brits have the big navy and it will take them at least two turns to have a navy capable of standing up to anything with much force. I dont attack Americans for two reasons 1. they can replace their losses with ease, and it only sets them back a turn (plus they have to buy a navy anyway so it really doesnt put a dent into any plans. 2. attacking the Americans draws ships away from possible targets in Canada or near west side of England. But me, my friends, and my dad who i play with the most, have found that although the initial sub attacks are very important, it is nearly impossible to hold onto the seas if you want to win in Russia. At least the Atlantic anyway. The Med should be held at all costs, if the allies get at the Med sea, they are capable of litterally landing in any direction, all of which belong to you… thats alot to defend against. Plus, your other factory is there, and if the Allies make you buy units to protect it, thats more infantry that wont be used to attack Moscow, and worse case scenario, the Americans take North Italy. They hold it. Game over.
So like i said in the Med sea i do what ever it takes to secure everything there from sea attack for as many turns as possible, I also do my best to take Malta and Gibraltar. (Malta being the much more important of the two). Then i invade Libya, moving the Tunisia force down, maybe even send the North Italy fighter for air support, with those forces and with Malta gone (hopefully) the Egyptian forces will have a tough slogg to take Libya. And if they do, just pop some guys down to reinforce, the British cant afford to lose those pieces right away, you can. And from that piont launch off towards the rich oil fileds of the middle east, all the time reinforcing with troops so they can come up Russia’s preverbial butt hole.
Then the most important of maneuverings, the Eastern Front. There is a variety of ways people choose to go at this, but i think the way i like best is to head towards Stalingrad, while harrasing or attacking straight into BeloRussia, also taking Ukraine to the best of my ability. Doing this ideally would be done witht the least amount of tanks possible, savign them in the back ranks for counter attacks or further thrusts into Russia (which ever is necessary). I think the drive towards Stalingrad and the mere harrasing of other Russian troops farther north is a good strategy because it for one gets you closer to the eventual capture of a factory that is badly needed for the Germans. It also cuts off any attempts that might be made by the Russians to reinforce africa, and it gets your african troops on a path to reinforce they offensive. Stalingrad also has the least infantry defences around it. There are downsides, one of the major ones being that Stalingrad is the farthest away from Germany, making it diffucult to reinforce. Leningrad is a good one to try and seize quickly, but it is also the ones that the Russians will most expect an attack, it will be the most defended and most hard fought for. Really all you need against Leningrad to keep it heavily defended, and thus its defenders unable to help the rest of the motherland, is the infantry from Norway and Finland, with some shuttled up from Germany, and a turn buy of tanks in Poland. Those tanks are also in position to blitz in to Ukraine if needed, but they’ll be most useful to keep Leningrad in check.
Well, that went on longer then i thought it would :lol: but those are my basic steps for what to do on Germany’s first turn. I’m not saying its unbeatable, most plans that are plugged as that arent, thats just the way i do it.
RE: Strategic Withdrawal for Germany
Germany’s units in West Russia are vulnerable, but then again so is the American carrier in Pearl Harbor. There are units that are vulnerable, but then again if no units were vulnerable for attack, what kind of game would it be?
So i guess the point im trying to make is that i dont think the Germans should be allowed any addition advantages like withdrawls or anything like that, at least if this ability is allowed to them it should be allowed to everyone. I’ve always thought that a defensive retreat option would be cool, it would take a lot of tinkering i suppose, but cool none the less.
anyway thanks for reading.
RE: Making UK more exciting
I think a strong argument can be said for the fact that Britain already is one of the most exciting countries to play. After all, there the only country that is able to participate in practically any important battle. Fighters to Moscow, capturing Africa, landing in France, defending India, island hopping from Australia, fighting subs, invading Italy… I mean Britain is pretty awesome as if :).
P.S if you couldnt tell they’re my favorite country to play.
RE: Aircraft carriers
the only use for a carrier i can see is for two purposes, one for allies and one for germans.
Allies to help retake Africa (because once you have africa you dont really need an AC for Med, and England is there for Northern Europe)
Germans to eventually take America or Canada, one of the places to help you just get a foot hold with some fighter support, Iceland is there for the bombers.
RE: What about that unnamed red island in the Baltic Sea?
Well if your going to think of it like that, then the moment you take your units off any territory then it would mean that you have NONE there at all, which if your Germans would be bad news because the Guerilla or Partisan forces would immediatelly retake it. So when a territory has no units on it, but is still claimed by a specific country i think of it as that country has garrison troops there but none of actual combat effectivness
Thats just how i rationalize it… (America actually did have troops stationed in Iceland during the war, it was there that a US destroyer engaged a German U-Boat, neither was sank and the report was made so close to Germany’s declaration of war that it is hardly made notice of)
favorite country in A&A Europe
What is your favorite country in European theatre game I havent seen one of these posts for Europe so lets go for it!!!
Personally my favorite is Great Britain because they have the ability to chip and chide away at the Geramans in many places. Plus i think the fighting in Africa and Malta is some of the most important early game action of the entire game, and i believe it takes quite a skilled British player to come out of it with the Middleeast colonies intact. Plus i think its Great Britains job to help the United States hold on onto any invasions into France or Italy (or vice versa) so their almost always involved in the great amphibious landings. England’s and America’s actions are almost always inseperably linked and that linkage or cooperation is often what either spells victory or defeat. Anyway, whats your favorite country and why?
" We will fight them on the Beaches, we will fight them in the fields…," Winston Churchill
RE: How long do your Games Last?
The longest two games ive ever played were both A&A Europe, one was the first time i had gotten the game i think it lasted 7 hours maybe…
The second time i was playing my dad (games between me and him are much more evenly matched) and the game lasted several days, playing six hours one day and three another, so a total of nine.
RE: A&AP Not To Popular At This Forum?
Well personally my favorite theatre in history was Europe, i think its very interesting (dont get me wrong i think Pacific was really interesting as well but its just personal interest i suppose) so i tend to enjoy Europe more. Plus there are a couple of reasons i think Europe is a better game, it has one more player, it has the african oil money, it has Soviet Patriotic War (the Soviets are so cool) and it has the convoys.
However, I suppose it just boils down to personal prefernce because Japan is an equally complicated game.
I think the most evident reason why some people dont like Pacific is because in reality it is a two person game (yes i realize you have the OPTION of playing three people) it just seems like more of a duel to the death, not a three way match.