The fighter in Poland cannot hit Sea zone 8 however.
In Germany, it can not reach SZ8 either.
The fighter in Poland cannot hit Sea zone 8 however.
In Germany, it can not reach SZ8 either.
1 of the fighters from Baltic could land in Poland but I prefer it in Germany for hitting any Navy that comes to close.
The ftr in Poland can hit sz6 or 7 since you are going to be holding France. You could also hit E poland or baltic states with that ftr and land in France G2.
As far as Norway and Finland I do not think these are realistically defensible by Germany in the long run anyway. Besides they can always be regained after Karelia is taken. Think about it which would you rather give the UK 3 IPCs for Norway or 6 for France plus 5 more for gaining a National Objective. That is 11 IPCs to the UK anytime they take France!
OK, long range thinking. I can see your point. I still am not 100% agreeing with you that time is not on the allies side. USA buying tech every round has become our defacto standard. Along those lines, <almost>each round brings another tech.
One more thing allies_fly I am wondering if you are not carrying a bit of prior A&A baggage. Bombers are now the go to air unit.
2 things:
1). If what you say is so true, why doesn’t Germany buy the bomber G1?
2). Where did you get the inference that I have a ftr preference? I do not think I ever said this. Bombers are the air piece of choice, I 100% agree.</almost>
Can I ask why Germany doesn’t land their bomber in France on G1?
Also why land a ftr in Germany in NCM?
Wouldn’t Poland be better if you would like range out east?
What you have is definitely a very solid europe that should hold up for a while.
Although I think you are allowing a quick allied atlantic fleet to be bought and norway and finland to be lost forever after G1. Every thing is a trade off, and you might be comfortable with this trade off.
In most games of A&A, time is on the side of the allies. Defense is cheaper and more efficient, and the Axis has more military pieces to start with then the allies.
In other words, the axis should strike while the iron is hot (As a general rule). However, I think it’s even more of a pressing issues with the advent of the National Objectives in AA50. You are rewarded even more than the territory value by attacking specific areas/territories. Conversely, NOT achieving these could be construed as a penalty.
I am not saying a safe methodical approach for Germany can not work. But you are playing into the allies hands. I also think that this delay allows USA to not have to spend money in the atlanitc if they do not want to. A slowly expanding Germany would probably be relying on Japan to grow agressively. This is much easier to do without any US backdoor pressure. USA can spend cash to keep the japanese navy home…. limiting the Japanese expansion. Now BOTH theatres of war are at a more leisurely pace. Advantage Allies.
These are my humble initial thoughts. I will look into your specific moves next.
Thanks for posting this because I too have thought about this. I have had some success utilizing the heavy push and tank buys with Germany. Tanks are indeed very good for Germany as to cover the vast spaces that are now a part of the AA50 ETO. Also in this sense, you do not need too many inf to support a large force of tanks and planes.
It is the proper choice to make if the first round goes badly and why Egypt without the bomber is not as big a deal as some here would proclaim.
Depends on how many hits Germany gets trying to soften up Egypt. In a game we just played, Germany rolled over and died and scored NO hits with 2 inf, art and 2 tank as a part of the G1 attack.
This was indeed, quite bad. UK got 3 hits on retal to top ot off.
An anomoly, yes. That unlikely? I can see Germany only getting 1 hit often.
@Emperor:
@Emperor:
now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.
You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.
Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.
Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range: SCAREY STRONG
You missed my point. In AAR you could roll for the Tech you wanted so you could make a calculated decsion to get a specific tech that would completely change the game. Under the new rules you can’t. If you base your strategy on getting Long Range Air (or any tech for that matter), you’re gonna lose. Tech’s achieved are an enhancement to your overall might, but can rarely turn a loosing situation into a winning one.
But hey, to each his own. As i’ve said, i’ll only be playing games that include tech.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree.
Might I add: Tech can be a fun part of the game.
@Emperor:
now you have no Idea what Tech you’ll get if any, so tech is rarely a game changing proposition.
You can like tech or not or have issues with how it’s implemented or not but I do not think I can agree with the statement that tech is rarely a game changing proposition.
Add +2 to your planes range instantaneously will most certainly change a game.
Agree 100% with an earlier post by BigDog about Long Range: SCAREY STRONG
The majority of the games have been like that. There were one or two where it took a bit longer to tell. That is the real problem with A&A in general. Taking Russia out is pretty much the only reliable way to win for the Axis. If you do not do it in time then Germany gets stomped and Japan can do nothing else.
Same KGF/tank dash to Moscow game again?
I am holding out hope (still) it is not that.
I think if Italy sees a 3 bomber buy on UK1, they should just go and be the best little brother they can be and support Germany in Ukraine (in what ever capacity is needed: add units or offshore into caucasus)
With $36 spend on planes, there won’t be much bad door pressure on Germany.
Germany can also pull some units from africa on G2 to Bulgaria/ukraine/caucasus.
Maybe playing with Strategic Suggestions (National Objectives), then it makes sense to try for it. Otherwise, I think sinking UK shipping is more important since everyone has less money, so replacement costs are higher, making the Navy more worthwhile to sink.
@Cmdr:
I’m still trying to figure out a balance on what I can send to SZ 12 to make up for not sending the bomber that way I can send the bomber to Egypt. But honestly, you almost need all 4 fighters to take Karelia in round 1 or you may as well pass up taking it altogether.
Perhaps I haven’t read all the strategic posts, but you seem to be one of the very few who advocate a Karelia attack on G1.
Personally I think it is best to wait to G2.
But then I took a hard look at 41’ and realized that you HAVE to attack Egypt with Germany. And you can’t half a** it either. You have to bring the German bomber because the UK fighter MUST be detroyed even at the expense of the German bomber. The reason for this is because of the 3 bomber purchase by the UK that I’ve seen somebody else advocate.
……
So to answer the question: You don’t have to in 42’, but you must in 41’ and bring the bomber to make sure it’s done right.
So losing Anglo-Egypt round 1 dooms the axis?
@Imperious:
Its a mistake
it needs to wait till turn 2 because both Germany and Italy will be stronger compared to UK, and the air assets would be available to be used.
Germany needs to eliminate all the UK fleet fragments on G1 because its the only chance to do this and gain a huge IPC advantage in the trade. taking Egypt is peanuts compared to killing like 6 naval units on G1, which protects the italian and baltic fleet
I agree with you about the allied navy.
Do you sink every UK ship G1?
Including the DD and TPT off eastern Canada?
What G1 units attack what to accomplish this?
India, in conjunction with other allied moves like russian ground unit support/7 inf in bury R1 moving into Manchuria R2, as well as some US pacific naval pressure (subs, surface fleet) might be a very good move.
Recall that the IC can be a great delaying move. With the new rules too, once the allies decide to abandon the IC if Japanese pressure mounts that high, the IC can be disabled through bombing, so it’s not a totally ‘free’ IC as some have said about Indian IC’s in the past editions of this game (or even this one).
If you havent tried a US Pacific strat, I highly recommend trying it, especially if you are currently of the opinion that the Axis have an advantage in 41. Our experience is that its a very well balanced game and that honestly the pressure is on the Axis more than the Allies. And the key to that is to NOT do KGF with the US and keep Japan in check instead.
Without the NO’s, I think a pacific strat is very doable as Germany does not become too big too fast.
Subs are cheap and very offensive minded. Just don’t base any sort of ‘fleet’ mainly on them.
@Cmdr:
I don’t see ever playing without them since they are goals the allies have and the axis have anyway, as players, if not as nationally historical goals.
We opted not to bring the National Objectives into the game (or tech either) as we played our first few games.
The thought was to learn the base game and territories and see what can be done without modifications(tech) or ‘strategic suggestions’ as I like to think of National Objectives.
Once we get a few games under our belt and have committed to memory the new rules and territories, we’ll bring the N.O.'s into play first.
Still not sure about the tech aspect.
:?
where are the Russians going to park the bomber so it can hit Borneo? They would have to buy one in '41 and japan goes first in '42 so Buryatia may already be Japanese turf.
Yes, you buy one in 1941, put it in Caucasus. It can reach manchuria or borneo SZ, landing in australia. Note you also need the Russian 7 inf in buryatia too
sure, but that example wasn’t instant tech, right? just that the uk player left himself a bit open,
My apologies, I glossed over the G1 development of paratroopers.
Based on that achieved tech, UK either made a mistake or intentionally left a 50-50 battle knowing it could lose the game for Germany if London was not taken, but may not lose the game for the allies if london was lost.
I have yet to try this out, but thinking about the China situation I think this would be delay Japan enough to get China going.
1941:
On R1 move all ERuss inf to Buryatia (manuchia border) giving a total of 7 inf on the boarder, move Moscow tank east and purchase 1 fighter on R1. Move Yakut inf east. Inf in Eve N Okr and Novo head to China west most territory.So at the end of R1 there are 7 inf on manchuria boarder, making Japan think twice about an IC in Manchuria. They could still put it in Shanghi, but then can only produce 2 unit/turn instead of 3. Also
if Japan wants to attack that stack they will need to bring a sizeable force to destroy it, thereby diverting units from other more importatn J1 attacks. By leaving Soviet Far East open for invasion I am enticing Japan to go that way and waste time taking only 1 IPC per turn and drawing forces away from China.
I like the idea odf a russia bomber R1. Keeps borneo somewhat protected as a solo tpt would be lost. Plus the bomber can attack Manchuria with those 7 inf…. Japan would need to defend it or leave it empty.
Lots of units to keep Japan occupied.
… Just an example of how the luck of the dice in reference to technologies can really make your game!!!
Yuck!
Let’s play yahtzee!
Lots less set up, same luck