I know the US has some rules about not being at war but I am confused on one point. Can the Australian fighters land in Pearl Harbor to help defend it before US is at war or no? Thanks
Posts made by chompers
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
-
RE: Larry's alpha plus setup
I personally don’t agree with my buddy here as I find the idea could be very easily exploitable, especially with regards to a relatively early strike on SZ 6. Japan’s fleet would never be able to leave the home islands after the early game.
A slightly larger US starting fleet may be the way to go IMO.
-
RE: Latest ALPHA+ setup
Have to agree with Calvin here. My group never even tried to play the 6 VC Axis win in the Pacific because it looked waaaay too easy to achieve. We’ve had some good games playing with a 7 VC goal for the Pacific side. Of course all 3 games its actually been the EuroAxis that’ve won it.
-
RE: Larry's alpha plus setup
J1 usually sees a 2 transport 2 sub purchase, j2’s 1 carrier 2 transport 1 sub, j3 and onwards is primarily sub purchases with carriers for whatever planes you don’t need on the front lines. You use whatever subs you can spare to convoy raid Australia, kill off china’s stack with your starting land forces backed up by spare planes, and grab the money islands as well as those new NO islands with your 7 transports. Ground troops can get pretty sparse so you might have to mix in a couple infantry on J2 or J3 in order to make sure you have enough to staff your transports. Pacific UK ends up being the biggest problem normally, but if you bring your remaining army out of China after killing them and sit it in Yunan you can generally ward them off for a bit, especially if they’ve been stacking infantry and have sent some of their planes to Africa. If not, you may have to screen SZ 6 from the US for a turn in order to run some of your navy south to help defend your transports as you go island hoping. However, only the US’s starting navy plus its US1 build/ US2 pacific build are in a position to attack Japan when you declare war, so you can generally afford to get away with splitting the navy for a turn or two.
It’s important to remember that even if things start to get out of hand in Asia, you’re only really trying to buy time. Turn 9 or 10 should see Germany finish off Russia, possibly 11 or 12 if they run their Siberian inf back early on.
Still, only played 3 games so far so I certainly expect to find ways around this as the Allies.
-
RE: Larry's alpha plus setup
I’m finding heavy Jap spending on navy from turn 1 onwards is doing a great job of forcing the US to spend most if not all of its points in the Pacific in order to maintain naval parity. This puts the US in a dicey situation as if it tries to put anything significant into the Atlantic the Jap navy gets the upper hand in the Pacific and proceeds to go about laying waste to the US economy. A newly strengthened Germany makes great use of this stalling tactic by going ahead and wiping the floor with Russia while Italy takes and holds Cairo. Tough game for the Allies to win IMHO, but man it’s a heck of a lot more fun to play than OOB or original Alpha.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
If I have an US carrier with British fighters on it and I attack an enemy I know that the fighters can not roll attack dice in the combat. My question is can they be chosen as casualities or not when the enemy rolls his dice. Thanks
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
Quick question: As Germany, I sealioned and took UK. The US is now preparing to take it back. If the US land units in London and liberates UK, and then the following German turn I take it back, do I plunder the UK’s income again? Or does a UK turn have to go by first before I can plunder their IPC’s again?
-
RE: Larry's alpha plus setup
Testing this out in a game tonight. My gut’s telling me the Axis will be much more competitive now.
-
RE: Possible Changes from Larry
These changes are awesome. Gonna get to work on testing them out sometime this week.
-
RE: Recovering Italy after Taranto… Can it be done?
In my games Italy usually doesn’t have enough force to capture Egypt because the UK flies 3 fighters and a tac to Egypt via British Somaliland. Britain alone is enough to hold off Egypt indefinitely unless Germany does Sealion, and even then the supporting air force causes problems. Usually Italy can’t get anywhere at all by the time the US gets there.
This happened to me pretty much every non-alpha game I played, and there’s no chance a fleet-less Italy is going to take Egypt with that kind of air force sitting there. It’s one of the few reasons I like the alpha setup as there’s fewer planes for India to send to Africa.
-
RE: Not seeing it
Isn’t it logical to assume that as the Axis players learn how to play their side more effectively and are figuring out what they need to do to be competitive, the Allied players should be improving at the same time? I think the core of Maher’s argument is that amongst players of equal ability, the Allies win a very high percentage of the time. I haven’t really seen anything on here so far that really addresses that point.
-
RE: Not seeing it
You can have the best of both worlds with the US. Build up the fleet you’re going into Europe with in the Pacific, massing @ Hawaii… You force Japan to play somewhat defensively and thus slow down its early growth a little bit, and then when the time is right you build a Naval base @ SE Mexico or Central America and then its 2 turns of movement from Hawaii to Gibraltar. For extra laughs, wait till Germany is making headway into Russia and its stacks are far from home.
-
RE: Not seeing it
27 games played, 24 Allied wins to 3 Axis. I feel your pain. The US IPC’s are just too freakin high. I’m leaning in the direction of removing the naval base at Gibraltar or forbidding a Norway factory from deploying units directly into the Baltic.
-
RE: Illegal combat?
Not a stupid question at all, in fact it was wondering the same thing that lead me to these forums in the first place. You’re correct, that’s an illegal move since all combat moves must be declared simultaneously and at the point of declaring them the baltic still had Russian units in it blocking those extra German tanks.
-
RE: America in the Middle East
I’m guessing he did defensive UK buys his first two turns before building the IC UK3. Otherwise, good question.
-
RE: Operation Barbarossa 3.0
Yes, the allies can do that, but then japan is unchecked
That’s a pretty good trade-off IMHO. It’s not like those Indian planes stop Japan dead in its tracks or anything. You can also fly them back after you’ve finished off Italy’s African forces around turn 4 or so.
-
RE: Sea Lion revisited
True, which is why both games the German player abandoned UK after taking it. I think it’s absolutely a losing proposition to continue dumping points into the UK to hold it after taking it. They barely have enough IPCs to cover all their continental shores, let alone lock down the UK in addition.
-
RE: Sea Lion revisited
I agree about your point on the timing, hence the root of my question being was the G3 Sealion justifiable. I think accomplishing it on G2 is a win-win for Germany.
It bears worth noting that anywhere you drop that 22 unit stack is either open to counterattack from a Russian Belarus stack that should be large enough to wipe any combination those transports can drop off in a turn or has to bypass that stack to get anywhere valuable. Using the TRN fleet to move troops to the front faster is undeniably useful, but whether you can take advantage of this for more than one or two turns is questionable in the face of a decent number of US bombers.
I dunno, I guess I should rephrase my original statement a bit. I don’t necessarily think a G3 Sealion commitment will outright lose you the game as Axis. I’m more inclined to say it doesn’t put you in as good a position as a more Russia-centered approach.
-
RE: Sea Lion revisited
Well, the 9 Tr can be used against russia
True, however a medium sized Russian stack sitting in Belarus can make it pretty hard for you to do more than snatch Leningrad for a turn on G5. The Russian will be able to get away with splitting his stack between Belarus and Bryansk since the German army is smaller than his own by virtue of Sea Lion.
-
RE: Sea Lion revisited
So you’re saying that extra 60-90 IPC’s denied the Allies justifies Sealion? Or are you just disputing one of my supporting points?
I mean when you factor the 63 pts spend on transports which don’t have much use afterward, the 16 for the CV for which you also have very little use, and whatever casualties you suffer from the actual invasion it’s safe to say you just about break even for the whole operation, possibly with 15-20 total IPC swing to the Axis. Do you feel this is more profitable a strategy for Germany to pursue early game rather than focusing on Russia?