Topics created by JLord

This is an easy one. Let the Allies pick out the Axis advanteges and let the Axis pick the Allied advanteges. I bet they both will find the crapy ones of equil value.

-LT04

With no Bids G1 I buy a carrier, tranny, and 5 guys.  Carrier and tranny go in the Baltic. Land 2 existing fighters on carrier NCM after they make their attacks. Forces UK to buy land forces because I can use the carrier to bring an extra 2 fighters towards a UK main land attack plus 2 extra land pieces via G1 tranny purchase. If not 2 trannies helps to pound northern Russia or retake Norway.  I invite the UK to attack my navy with a carrier/2 fighters sitting in the water or take Norway. Germ fleet is big enough to destroy UK fleet if they move closer to attack Norway before turn 3 with no additional Germ Naval purchases. I use MED fleet/Bomber/Fighter to attack Egypt killing UK Destroyer in process to start into Africa. If you dont take egypt UK can bring India Fleet into MED UK1. Thats bad news.  Kill UK BB SZ13 using SZ8 Germ sub as fodder and 3 fighters. 5 guys get placed for G2 transport movements, 4 in Berlin 5th in Southern Europe. To address the original question I think the channel dash is a real bad Idea. It allows the UK to destroy German Navy turn 1 and link up its India-MED navy. If US and UK have free passage to Berlin with their Navies its over soon for Germany.

Yea, but odds are you are not going to do both unless you think you can win both.

Besides, it really isn’t very difficult to take out 2 submarines, a transport and a destroyer.  Even if Germany puts 2 fighters and a carrier in there, you can just use the Americans to hit them and then come in next round with England for a shore invasion of Germany, E. Europe or Karelia.  Or just forgo an invasion and stack troops from England into Norway after the battle.  No rule that you cannot move troops into a formerly enemy held sea zone and land them into friendly territory after a battle during non-combat.

Yea, I was thinking of a Battleship/Aircraft Carrier R1 Build with Germany.  Maybe an 8 IPC bid for a second Transport in SZ 5.

As for invading England, really wasn’t thinking along those lines.  I was thinking of a fleet big enough to stop any Navy from building up by the allies so 100% of Germany can go for Russia leaving W. Europe and S. Europe and Africa mostly undefended.

@jsp4563:

My personal preference is for the UK to buy 1AC, 1DD placed in sz6 along with the fighters, the BB & Tp from sz2, and the russian sub. Land the Canadian tank in UK.  Follow that up with US reinforcements (2inf, 1art, 1tnk, 1fgt, 1bmb).  If Germany has his BB & TP in sz13 move the US DD to sz12. In order for germany to carry out “Operation Sea Lion” he has to destroy the sz6 fleet.  To fight through that fleet he will have to divert air units he was going to use during the landing and will probably loose some of the transports.  If he does still attack UK he will be opposed by the combined UK/US ground & air forces.  Doubtful he will prevail.

It’s not just a question of preventing Sea Lion, it’s a question of preventing Sea Lion while maintaining a good position, yes?

Given those moves, the Germans can then attack using Baltic navy and air to wipe out the UK fleet without losing most of its air force in the process.  If the Germans can neutralize the Allies in the Atlantic until they take Moscow, Sea Lion is not so important.  And if the Germans keep most of their air while killing the Allied Atlantic fleet early, the Germans can build even more fighters to threaten the Atlantic.  The Allies have to build new escorts and new transports, which all takes time.  Plus, if the Germans kill a couple of UK fighters, that is going to make a difference in the Indian and Norway fronts.

I assume that the Germans built navy (transports or carrier) and that the UK did not attack, as 1) a carrier build supposes fighters, 2) the battle outcome is not favorable for the UK if Germany builds 3 transports.  Even 2 transports, maybe, 3) this thread is about Sea Lion anyways.

Transport, 2 sub, destroyer, carrier, 5 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 27, count 11.  Or perhaps more, depending on what Germany built; perhaps it built no carrier, but built two-three transports.  I think 5 German transports is a very BAD move, but given those moves you listed, it could actually turn out quite well for Germany given the naval battle.  Even this assumes that the Germans lost a fighter by the end of the turn, which is by NO MEANS CERTAIN without very risky play by Russia or lucky play by Russia.  The attack force is much more powerful with

3-4 transport, 2 sub, destroyer, 6 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 29, count 13-14

vs

1 transport, 1 sub, 1 destroyer, 1 carrier, 1 battleship, 2 fighters, defense 21, count 8.

The German Mediterranean fleet retreats to support shot against Caucasus and/or Africa, and the US DD can only unite with a new UK build.

@JLord:

I thought the generally accepted rules of bidding were that you couldn’t place more than one unit in the same territory?  Anyways, that is the rule we would follow.  And the thing is, if Allies put 12 IPC somehwere, the Axis will place their bid next and can presumably counter whatever the allies do.

Yeah, it’s also generally accepted that you don’t give a bid to the Allies.

I figured you were doing your own thing, you know?

As America, unless I’m in a KJF strat, I’ll let Japan take Hawaii.  It’s not worth diverting 14 IPC minimum to reclaim it. (Transport, 2 Infantry.  Wiser would be to divert more since odds are Japan landed with 2 infantry.)

If Russia puts 4 INF on Caucuses in R1, and amphib is out.

What I wrote abvoe was for a single INF left in Caucuses.

Also, that does NOT preclude an Egypt attack, expecially with ANY bid to Africa.  Skip the DD in SZ15 and jsut use Balkans FIG, 2 INF and 1 ARM from Libya.  Still a 70% clear and 60% win.  And if the Ukraine FIG is still alive for the battle it is an 89% win.

@Cobert:

So the best way to counter the Australia IC is to b**** out?

Gotcha.

No really though, I understand.  Thats kind of a good strategy for any nation though, just a bit hard to execute because Japan is spread out through islands.

Mm hm.

Australia is an awesome naval base that gives the Allies a great deal of freedom in the Pacific.  But either US or the UK must come to the fight with some naval units.  While they build naval units, Japan and Germany press the attack on Russia.

Japan’s position degrades very quickly after Australia gets going, but it is almost impossible for the Allies to capture Japan itself.  Far before Japan is in any real danger (with a stack of infantry and fighters on it), Germany and Japan should be able to make Russia fall.  From that point, it’s really Japan and Germany vs. UK and US.  In a 9 VC game, that means that Germany and Japan together have a deathgrip on 8 VCs (all in Europe and mainland Asia, probably including India, Karelia, and Moscow), but have probably lost the Phillipine Islands.

Since Japan cannot be broken, and Germany cannot be broken, the victory should go to the Axis, with a navy and air force fueled by Russian IPCs, and a positional advantage that allows Germany to threaten London itself as well as threatening Africa and Brazil with only minimal IPCs invested.

Of course, the Allies are not locked into defending Australia, but any IPCs spent there are IPCs not used elsewhere in those important early turns.

Yes you can, so long as the sea zone you are moving into AFTER you pass through the combat cleared sea zone is either vacant of enemy naval units, or those units consist ONLY of submerged subs.

@ncscswitch:

That is what my DAAK record shows…

lol srsly?

Actually, no one had superfortresses.  The only real NA ever used was Russian Winter and Fortress Europe…the rest were forgotten since no one ever played with them.

Meanwhile, if you can scare Japan into SZ 61 or destroy him, you have effectively contained the Jap fleet.  IF you can tkae SZ 60 even if Japan isn’t there, and hold it, you have contained Japan.  (At least you’ve removed their largest production facility.)

Japan is very flimsy.  Ask anyone who’s worked on a KJF strat.  One or two bad moves with Japan and Japan is neutrallized.  One or 20 bad moves with America and at worst Russia has fallen.

USA                        UK                                    RUSSIA

AXIS AND ALLIES REVISED GAME BOARD

GERMANY                        JAPAN

-face to face to your opponents

Granted.  But at least it isn’t BMB, FIG, 2 SS vs SS, Trn, BB. 🙂

well with what I stated Below.

The US is making 40-44 a turn. Japan is making 34-38 a turn and already outnumbered. I don’t need anymore trns… The trns were there because Fleet A was suppose to WIN… but under favorable odds to win instead got crushed…

in this scenario Japan cannot fight ship to ship with the States. Especially If i just build lets say 5 subs a turn… mix some fgts eventually of course.

And Yeah UK is matching Germany unit for unit in the battle on the western-front.

@CrazyStraw:

Howdy.

I hadn’t weighed in on this thread, but I just got a story to tell.

Yesterday I played a game against a good player.  It was time-limited.

No joke, in a 5 round game I built 9tra 1car with Germany.

And it WON the game for me!

It was ridiculous!

It was absurd!

It was outrageous!

It was sublime…

So German boats can be good.  That would have been excessive in 99% of the games I’ve played, but yesterday it was exactly enough to get the job done.  Simple lesson: the Baltic is important.

I begin to see the value in LL / No Luck games and in non-time limited games.

My entire strategies in my tournament game had to change because of a time limit.  It caused a waste of two turns because I forgot to take into account that there was a time limit in each round.  (not a round limit, that would have been easy to work with, but a time limit.)

needless to say, I’m never making that mistake again!

To get the maximum defense in the London on Round 2

1. The Russians should have landed their fighters in Moscow on their first turn. They can both land in London on Russia 2. The sub on Russia 2 can go block a med navy by going to SZ12
2. The UK can build 5 inf 3 arm (30 IPCs), which provides maximum ground fodder under the restriction of mobilization and cash, and also land the tank from W. Canada to UK
3. The US can land 2 inf 1 art 1 arm in London through SZ8 on their first go, plus the fighter/bomber from E. US

There is absolutely nothing the Germans can do to stop this massive build-up, except possibly bombing the UK for 6 IPCs.

In the best case scenario for the Germans, they build 5 transports on G1, send their Med fleet westwards, bomb UK for 6 IPCs, and have all aircraft in range of London. But the Med fleet cannot attack London because of the Russian sub in SZ12, so the maximum force they can bring against London is 6 inf 6 tanks 6 fighter 1 bomber (5 built transports + 1 original in Baltic).

The defending force is a composite of the following: 2 inf 1 art 1 arm 2 fig 1 bomb 1 aa originally in London, + 8 inf from build assuming only 24 to spend from a perfect bombing, +1 tank from W. Canada, + 2 fighters from Russia, + 1 fighter 1 bomber 2 inf 1 art 1 arm from US, for a total of 12 inf 2 art 3 tank 5 fighter 2 bomber 1 aa.

In that perfect scenario for the Germans with a perfect bombing, they have right about 1% chance of winning.

Alternately a naval build by the UK like 1 car + 1 dest can deter a German landing, but the UK navy will be destroyed and you’d better hope some transports didn’t get through because the UK doesn’t have the bulk of its land forces ready.

Offhand I’d say I’d just try to knock out the Russian navy straight away with your BB + tran + 4 fighters + bomber. Clearing those Russian fighters, combined with no Russian land purchase, puts Russia in defense mode on the following turns. Of course you are giving up Africa very quickly and the UK will have an extra BB to play with in the med and stuff, which makes a German naval purchase hard to justify, but you’ve shocked the Russians out of their key units to trade territories.