Posts made by KGrimB

The general consensus seems to be that when you are attempting to protect your transports carriers fighters and destroyers give the best returns for the income invested.

However in a large scale naval battle requiring full movement the attacking player is at a disadvantage because their carriers cannot take hits without sacrificing the planes they carry. Meanwhile the defender can assign hits to their carriers the same way they would with battleships and have their planes land in adjacent friendly islands.

So, when you need something to turn the tables in the Pacific and break the defensive arms race what is the most cost effective purchase?

I would argue submarines but I’m interested to know what you think.

Submarine - This is the best purchase. Because you need to spare your carriers you need units that can absorb casualties. Submarines are the cheapest naval units you can field and they have the same combat score as destroyers. They force the other player to buy destroyers to defend their fleet and they lose economically paying 8 for a 2 when you only pay 6.

Strategic bombers are consistent in damage, but do they out damage 2 submarines?

@simon33:

This is a pretty interesting idea. The bomber(s) could SBR FIC so Japan would need to station 2 fighters there.

It would work even better in Balanced Mod where the bombers would require the Japanese to stay together to prevent guerilla fighters being spawned all the time.

They could also bomb Stalingrad if that is in German hands.

I guess the main question is what do you do if it becomes clear Calcutta will fall regardless of the bombers?

If Calcutta will still fall then you can fly to either Queensland or Moscow or Egypt. India is the center of the board so you can really go wherever you’re needed from there.

This plan that I am suggesting is an allied response to a J1 declaration of war with Japan pursuing an India capture around J4-J6.

An issue I’m having in my games recently is that India is captured by Japan before the US can get significantly involved. This makes operations around Australia and Hawaii precarious because one slip and the axis win in the Pacific. Bombers have the greatest range and if you build 3-4 on US turn 1 they can arrive in Queensland US2 and then proceed to India on US3.

The bombers can threaten Japanese transports around the DEI on US3 while still arriving in India before J4. They can strike factories built on the mainland too if the attack is delayed. 5 bombers can also reasonably strike smaller Japanese positions buying more time for China and India, both of which seem to struggle to find opportunities to counterattack. In the same way that a stack of US bombers can limit the effectiveness of Sea Lion, I would suggest that the same amount can do work in the Pacific.

The bombers can provide enough units that would hinder the Japanese assault, but ultimately you would want to prevent it entirely. This plan requires very little commitment from the US player because it is all from starting units and turn 1 purchases. Against SBR and convoy raids, UK Pacific is going to lose attrition battles because it can’t muster the piece count necessary to win against a massive assault. The US cannot feasibly transport land units into this area due to existing Japanese airpower, but what it can do is safely funnel in units that can take hits while being moderately useful before the assault. If you were to hypothetically continue to build bombers on turn 2 then you could have 11 US bombers in Calcutta on J5, potentially fighters at that point too.

If the axis are rushing towards victory with a very formulaic assault than getting more units to those crucial battles seems like a good plan.

What do you think? I don’t think there is a big cost to this maneuver for the US and its ability to get involved in other areas of the board. These bombers in India can even reach Moscow if you feel they are needed somewhere else. The other allies seem to fall too quickly to all in attacks from the axis. Maybe the US should go all in on getting any kind of support directly to those areas.

@aequitas:

@simon33:

Wouldn’t the Luftwaffe smash your fleet? Or is your plan to use the Rome airbase to defend the fleet?

Two things i am assuming here:

� turn 4 the Luftwaffe is split.  Some are in Russia, some are either in Germany or Italy.
The German player may assume no bigger threat since the US build is lightly.

� UK needs to make effort to ensure a proper Invasion and Protection.

@SS:

@aequitas:

@Cow:

Step 1 buy naval
Step 2 buy bombers
Step 3 move naval and bombers in med sea/algeria
step 4 attack

Do it.

I am afraid it is not working :|

Too much German air ?

Cow’s steps aren’t supposed to be literally translated into turns. If you are trying out the idea you should use them as more of a guiding principle. First, you need transports to invade and naval to protect those transports. You need bombers to attack the factories in Italy that way once the Italians see you coming for them they cannot build defenses in time. You then need additional naval and bombers to either damage more factories, clear naval blockers, or protect yourself against enemy aircraft. Once these conditions have been met you can land in Rome relatively safe from Axis counterattack.

I think it would be a worthwhile idea during your bomber operations to strike at the factory in Western Germany. To support this I think a small landing in Sicily is also a good idea as a location for your bombers to threaten Axis industries.

You can also choke Italy’s income with submarines which the UK should be able to build 3 of over the course of the game without sacrificing too much. Furthermore, The US should be able to maintain a steady deployment of forces to Honolulu without compromising purchases in the Atlantic.

@AxisAndAllies1940:

Let’s say you’re Russia, facing the first turn of a major Barbarossa- including an Italian force to hit Bryansk. You need to keep those 20 pieces in the East to pressure Japan (even if only a little bit). What do you buy? Where’s the fine line between fortifying Moscow and buying time? I would assume it’s important to fortify Archangel for the UK fighter inflow, so I would probably stack Leningrad. Obviously, Moscow will need reinforcing. Other than that though, I’m not sure what you should build.

If Germany attacks Russia on the first turn than you need to get units to the frontline immediately. Mechanized infantry would be suitable here being able to be produced in Moscow and reach either the North or the South. You also need your own air support. Against an opponent with more airpower, more mechanized infantry, more tanks, and more income the last thing you want to do is get into an enormous dice rolling battle at your capital. If you stack Moscow well and delay a G6 attack, chances are Germany will be able to put in enough resources towards capturing your capital the following turn or the next after that. They will bomb you past your capacity to repair. You have to get aircraft because you need to kill as many German units as possible. Tanks are fantastic and should be purchased, however the best Russia games that you will have will be ones where you can kill a large stack of axis units and create a setback. If all of your powerful units are tanks and artillery they will be consumed in a counterattack. Aircraft can escape the danger zone and return to a factory in need of protection.

Mechanized infantry and aircraft can fight a defensive war on an enormous front giving you the option to not only defend your factories, but also project considerable counteroffensive pressure.

You can never buy time if you never attack. Russia has to attack Germany. You cannot win a retreating war and if you attempt to delay with blockers Italy will clean them up. You have to capture territory back from Germany without losing your ability to do it again. Try to purchase 1 aircraft every turn with Russia in your next game.

Germany has a lot of options in the early game with London, Russia, the Mediterranean, economic based strategies, bombers, and more. I might be a little narrow-minded here but all of the Japanese strategies feel like grab India and go from there. You could go after Russia and delay your Japanese attacks in the South Pacific, but it doesn’t grow your income very quickly.

Have any of you had success with alternative Japanese strategies in the same vein as German bombers or Med play? Japan has a lot of potential with all of their aircraft, but they often seem to land in the same territory. Thoughts?

@Caesar:

@KGrimB:

I know its probably not optimal, but I pretty much always build 6 inf and 1 fighter on London UK1. I always send some aircraft to the Mediterranean and with 60-70 ipcs on G2, Germany can attempt Sea Lion even if they may not have been originally considering it unless you have the defenses.

I would also agree against the factory in Egypt. It can be a little precarious early with nearby German air and I think that normally games where you have an option to build a factory in Egypt are games where the Mediterranean is already in the Allies’s favor. It doesn’t exactly create opportunities the same way a factory in Persia does. Just use transports with South Africa.

Sea Lion on G2 is foolish because ideally, Germany would need to buff its navy, build infantry, and transports so that shouldn’t be done until at least G3.

You misunderstand me. Sea Lion G3 is the most realistic because it is after you buy transports on G2, after SBR, and after T1 convoys. Germany evaluates early sea lion based on what London does turn 1.

With respect to the original question, I think a g1 Dow on Russia to bait UK into not defending for sea lion could work. However, you’re probably short 1-2 transports from strafing Yugoslavia, not hitting other parts of France, missing Russian wheat NO, and committing German aircraft to the eastern front or other riskier battles. Thus you exaggerate your existing problems because you give up all of the pros of G1 and take away units from that front just to get them stuck on an island with 1 VC instead of attacking a country with 3 VC.

It’s too much for one country. You would need to make sacrifices with Italy’s dreams in the Med. You can’t give them the help they need and they would have to spend on forces to delay Russia. They could attack London with their Bomber.

I think what would sell this plan and give Germany a better chance of baiting the UK would be a Japanese attack on Russia. If you bring America into the war you probably have no chance of winning in Europe. If you keep them out you get a better chance at London and Japan can draw some attention from Russia. Otherwise the Siberian infantry are probably garunteed arriving in Moscow and probably other Russian forces would occupy Iraq.

@Ichabod:

@KGrimB:

In your experience against the J1 DOW, do you move Chinese forces North or do you try to contest the Burma road as long as possible?

What do you do?

Normally retake Burma with existing forces and place new units in the North starting T2

@Ichabod:

I think most experienced players won’t let the US land 5 Bombers in London.

No J1 for me; most likely a J2 DOW or J3 DOW if Germany drops transports.

I don’t think J1 DOWs are as common as they used to be. Often China becomes a problem and it like you mentioned (5 US bombers), there are ways to take Sea Lion off the table.

In your experience against the J1 DOW, do you move Chinese forces North or do you try to contest the Burma road as long as possible?

I know its probably not optimal, but I pretty much always build 6 inf and 1 fighter on London UK1. I always send some aircraft to the Mediterranean and with 60-70 ipcs on G2, Germany can attempt Sea Lion even if they may not have been originally considering it unless you have the defenses.

I would also agree against the factory in Egypt. It can be a little precarious early with nearby German air and I think that normally games where you have an option to build a factory in Egypt are games where the Mediterranean is already in the Allies’s favor. It doesn’t exactly create opportunities the same way a factory in Persia does. Just use transports with South Africa.

USA naval movement is extremely restricted on the Atlantic side to just 3 or 4 sea zones. On the Pacific map, I think, your boats can end their turn anywhere as long as they don’t share the sea zone with Japanese naval units.

So in that case, you would be able to have your Philippines fleet merge with an Anzac fleet.

I think the 2 health points of the Bismarck is the main value. It can lessen the damage of bad rolls by shielding your air force from hits. I almost always send it to 110 or 111 fully expecting it to be sunk by G2. If it survives I normally use it to shield the starting transport or take it on a desperate mission into the Mediterranean. That was an extremely rare occurrence and thinking back to it I should have gone for Sea Lion that game instead of sending it South.

@AxisAndAllies1940:

Having just finished getting badly beaten in a G40 game as Germany/Italy, I feel like there’s something I’m missing/ doing wrong that causes me to often get beaten like this. I went for a Barbarossa with an Italian can-opener of 4 mechs and 2 tanks. I also sent an Afrika Korps of 1 infantry and 1 tank on an Italian transport to protect Libya from the French and capture French North Africa. Meanwhile, Russia had just been leaving 1 infantry in each territory starting on turn 1, while bulking up Ukraine and Leningrad. By turn 6, when I captured Smolensk and the Italians Bryansk, there were 50 Russian infantry, 7 Russian artillery, 3 Russian fighters, 2 British fighters, the French fighter from London, and 4 Russian tanks. I had 15 tanks and 20 infantry, along with 6 tac. bombers. This obviously wasn’t enough to capture Moscow, and so I attempted to build up tanks in Ukraine to make up for this, while also attempting to use the Italian can-opener to take Stalingrad and attack the Middle East. The Russians, meanwhile, were building up tanks, and on turn 9, they beat me out of Smolensk (with 20 infantry and 3 artillery left- they had struck with 10 tanks). That turn, the British landed in Norway and pushed for Leningrad. Finally, on turn 12, the Americans landed 12 infantry, 6 artillery, and 6 tanks in Normandy, and the British threw in 2 fighters to protect it. That same turn, Leningrad fell to the British and Ukraine to the Russians. It seems like there’s a pattern in my Axis play: I can’t get the strength to kill a Moscow stack owing to masses of Russian infantry and Allied fighter support, so I attempt to build up, but just as I do that, the Russians counterattack, using their stack as fodder, and cripple my forces. This usually coincides with a large Anglo-American landing.

Also, Japan was reasonably active: they held the Money Islands, Malaya, French Indochina, Shan State, Yunnan, Philippines, and the valuable Chinese coast. Their navy was also reasonably sized (3 battleships, 3 carriers with a tac and fighter each, 4 cruisers and 6 destroyers, all concentrated in the Philippines). Japan had also landed heavily in Western Australia, and was fighting its way to Sydney. What are Germany/Italy doing wrong?

It seems like there is more to this story, a large portion of starting German units appear unaccounted for. Another thing to consider would be how you move your forces. Sometimes it is better to move them together to prevent counterattack. Other times you can be opportunistic and blitz through some outlying territory.

For your next game as Germany / Italy I would recommend a more methodical approach to your attack. Carefully coordinate strategic bombing raids on early factories with mobile purchases that can quickly reinforce your fronts and overwhelm your opponents. A Russia army comprising primarily of infantry and few mech has trouble responding to aggressive posturing. When a Russian stack in Moscow creates a situation too dangerous to move your army adjacent to, then you should consider leaving territories empty and fighting a battle of attrition. Wear down his units by trading territory each turn and deprive him of economic resources by taking surrounding locations and moving south towards the Middle East. A steady supply of mechanized infantry supports this plan.

You should capture Leningrad the 2nd turn of your Barbarossa campaign. If it is too heavily fortified you can bypass and move your troops through the Ukraine. Prevent it from escaping with your Italians and Moscow will be severely under-defended.

If allied aircraft are harassing you remember to bring your anti-aircraft guns with your army. Those cannons don’t do much sitting in Western Europe. If the allies get a chance to use aircraft in a land battle, you’ve already lost. Your defense should comprise of a gradual build up anywhere from 3 - 12 ipcs a turn starting turn 2 spent solely on defense. This includes submarines, transports, fighters, bombers, infantry, artillery and anything you deem necessary to prevent Italy capitulating as well.

In most games Italy has 3 priorities.

• Provide Mobile units on the Eastern Front to can open for German forces. (This can be accomplished by purchasing mech / tanks the first 1-2 turns depending on the board)

• Defend Rome. This is kind of multi part. I would argue that a US landing force would be expected to have somewhere in the range of 5-7 transports if they are attacking early. Therefore Rome needs to have a substantial amount of defense on that territory. Furthermore, Italy quickly loses attrition battles from submarines and SBR so you need to defend the area around Italy. (You need air superiority in the Mediterranean so that you can scramble and defend your boats while destroying submarines.

• Land in Africa again. Once the first two priorities have been taken care of, Italy should focus on a consistent means of bringing reinforcements to the North African coastline. Capturing these territories denies the allies landing zones and compliments the second priority of defending Rome and the immediate vicinity.

  With regards to a J1 attack, this plan doesn’t really change. A substanial US attack should not be expected before turn 4 because it would otherwise be vulnerable to local German aircraft.

  Defending the larger part of the European continent as Germany is a much more challenging task. I think the simplest suggestion I can give is to buy aircraft. Not necessarily bombers only, but enough aircraft that can be mobile enough to reinforce different parts of the continent at a moments notice. You can’t reasonably defend every single territory at the same time and attack Russia, so you just need to discourage the inevitable landing and respond when it does happen. Aircraft are the answer to that problem.

If I go after Southern France I will normally bring either:

1. 3 mech (W. Germany) + 1 tank (GSG). This is what I normally would send at Normandy so if I’m not doing Normandy I would send it at S. France instead.

or

2. 2 mech (W. Germany) + 1 tactical bomber (Germany) + 1 fighter (Slovakia). I go with this option when I decide to take all French territories, hit the french navy, and SZ110. It doesn’t fix your problems in the Atlantic very well but it sets you up well for action in the Med.

Alternatively,

You could attack it turn 2 with surviving slow movers in Paris.

@Argothair:

Thanks, everyone, this is incredibly useful feedback! Just what I was hoping to read. :-)

I’m particularly fascinated by KGrimB’s strategy of letting the starting transports dictate the pace and flow of play, from the western Pacific at game start to the Philippines and Borneo on J1 to the rest of the money islands on J2 to Burma/Malaya on J3 and finally on to India on J4. it’s very elegant, especially with the transports purchased on J1 moving to FIC on J2, being available for reinforcement as needed on J3, and then landing in India on J4. The core part of the strategy all hangs together nicely.

I have a couple of nitpicks about KGrimB’s analysis of the war on China – like some of the commenters, I don’t think it’s realistic to attack Yunnan on J2 if you’re pulling units away from China to seize the money islands early, and it’s not even possible to attack Szechuan on J2 with anything but airplanes, even if you win every battle – China has no land units in range. If the Allies see you land your bombers in Kwangtung on J1, it’s easy enough to conclude that you’re be strategically bombing India, and easy enough to keep a pair of fighters in India proper at the end of UK1. That means a bombing attempt on J2 – which can’t possibly have Japanese fighter escorts that early given the overall plan – is very risky and may just cost you your bombers instead of dealing industrial damage.

I also think that trying to take the entire set of money islands on J2 sets ANZAC up to seriously interfere with your ability to get those troops west to take Malaya and Burma and India. You don’t have enough starting Japanese warships to protect SZ 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, AND 43 all at once against the starting ANZAC resources of 3 fighters, a destroyer, and a cruiser, plus whatever ANZAC builds on turn 1, plus whatever the French or British have available to use as blockers or spoilers. You’re going to get blocked from delivering troops to Malaya on J3 at best (which helps keep UK Pacific wealthy enough to buy infantry), or lose a transport and strand your infantry on the islands at worst (which directly hurts your prospects for a J4 attack on India).

I think if I were modifying this plan, I’d say (1) only bomb India on J2 if they don’t leave fighters defending it, and (2) only take all the money islands on J2 if ANZAC is ignoring you and doing something weird like going all-out for Brazil or building pure infantry. Instead of attacking Celebes, Java, and Sumatra, you could send those three transports to take Malaya on J2, which helps flatline the UK Pac economy more safely than trying to do an unescorted strategic bombing raid, and allows you to more reliably defend your transports and their routes to Calcutta.

All very good stuff so I’ll just address a couple of things.

It is true that some of your movements can be frail and you get close to being overextended, but you can still bring more force to a single target than any other nation at that point.

As for losing units in China attacking with the starting transports, following Cow’s model I take:

transport in SZ 20 - 1 infantry in Kiangsi to Borneo
transport in SZ 19 - 1 infantry in Okinawa + 1 artillery in Manchuria to Phillipines
transport in SZ 6  -  1 infantry in Japan + 1 tank in Japan to Phillipines

So the Chinese front loses 1 infantry in the South and 1 artillery in the far north. Other resources are pulled from Tokyo or islands.

You should be able to secure the Phillippines with at least 2 surviving land units and if not you can grab the guy in Palau. So you can take each of the remaining islands with 1 unit.

As far as defending the Sea Zones, in order for UKPac planes to attack SZ 36 they need to start their turn in Shan State which they are unlikely to do given targets in the Middle East or responsibilities to the factory in India.

Additionally Anzac Fighter aircraft starting the turn in Queensland can only hit SZ 42 on AZ2.

So while you may be spread a little thin around the islands the truth is you only really need to worry about warships because the islands, once occupied, are out of reach of air support.

In position in China to attack Yunnan J2 you should have: a pile of aircraft, 3 infantry and a mech. If China can get about 8 infantry there you should be able to attack it with those land units and air support while doing a pavelow in Szechwan.

As a disclaimer I would like to say that no strategy is perfect and if someone tells you exactly what they are going to do you can figure out an effective means to defend against it, but when you’re playing the game following these sort of ideas you can project more power and threaten more targets than you are actually focusing on. 6 transports in the DEI J2 could easily switch targets and attack Australia.

@Ichabod:

@KGrimB:

You don’t need to abandon the Pacific if your goal is Calcutta on J4. Calcutta normally falls J4 through the natural progression of your first few buys.

It is important to keep track of your transports. You can purchase 3 of them J1. An artillery is included as well

If you’re trying for India on J4, I think it best to only buy 3 transports on J1 because then you end up with 45 IPCs (assuming Yunnan, Hunan, and the walk-on territories if you do or don’t J1 DOW). I think it’s too hard to know if you’ll need purchase both an airbase and naval base to get everything in position when you’re set. 45 IPCs gives you a little more purchase power.

That’s a great point about flexibility that you bring up. I’ve traditionally gone with the artillery just for aesthetic purposes of 3 inf and 3 art on my 3 transports. Airbases are cool as well, but normally for a J4 attack your planes are taking off from Yunnan.

@Hunter:

I am going to throw my hat into the ring.

I prefer landing in Normandy. To me, there is more upsides than just the IC you get. Landing there, you can protect the UK Fleet and allow them to build it up under the Protection of the American Fleet and a 3 Plane Scramble. The UK can also reinforce the US Landing almost straight away, if it has some transports. Normandy also touches France, Southern France, and Holland/Belgium. Another reason I like the Normandy is that it is 2 turns away from the Major IC’s of the Axis. You can build up on the Landing before a large force comes in and tries to smack you around.

Norway is 2 turns away from tanks. Normandy can be hit by a tank purchase in Western Germany.

I voted Norway because I think the key to KGF is getting Germany to fight someone other than Russia. While it is true that Norway doesn’t threaten Berlin immediately (and honestly neither does Normandy or Southern France) it has several big upsides.

1. You don’t lose a factory there when France is liberated.
2. It is out of reach of tanks produced in mainland factories (tanks in occupied Leningrad still take 2 turns to reach)
3. Fleet in SZ 112 are an immediate threat to Germany’s longevity by threatening landings all along the Western coast.
4. Occupying Norway allows Strategic Bombers to hit Berlin from London and protects them against a ground attack.

Norway is too difficult for Germany to counterattack efficiently. Any strike requires 2 turns. It is the best place to stick an initial landing because it is the least likely to be repelled. Once Norway is secured it allows for a continuation of operations against Germany without risking getting stalled out by West Germany / Paris stacks.

Norway isn’t the game ending blow, but it is the beginning of the end for Germany if it becomes a point of resistance that cannot be beaten. A developed Norway gives the allies the options to win and critically diverts German attention the most due to its distance from a factory assuming Germany doesn’t invest in transports.

Even if Germany attacks the navy or builds transports and troops it will consume resources necessary to securing Moscow and Cairo.

@simon33:

The only way I would think that Calcutta is likely to fall j4 is in a j1 scenario. I assume that is what you are taking about. China would probably be pretty strong but if they can’t buy any more artillery,  They are mostly just defending.

I suppose if taranto fails, Italy could be going hog wild.

A J4 attack on Calcutta normally depends on Japan controlling Yunnan turn 2 onwards. If that condition is met Japanese forces in Northern China can normally clean up any further resistance.