Posts made by kyrial

I would like to say that with America it is important (in case I haven’t stressed this enough in my last posts hehe) to be able to change strategy on a dime.

As was suggested, the “shuck” is the basic American strategy as well it should be. But the shuck must be pliable; the American player must constantly decide where the greatest threat lies. Usually there are two main areas that are threatened: Russia (Karelia) and Africa. Taking back Africa is critical by say G4 at the latest. However you must be able to send troops to Russia on short notice if it looks like a German breakthrough is going to happen there because that’s more important than Africa.

I know I’m probably repeating myself over here (it’s late… just bear with me guys) but it’s just I’ve seen a lot of people give America to the “newbie” and then it gets the reputation of being the newbie country. I will easily grant that it is easier to play than Germany, UK and Japan (I think Russia is probably one of the easiest because there’s not much you get to decide on… hell, you get RR on R1 it’s just a lot of infantry for the first few turns) but if the United States doesn’t get their act together and quickly Germany will break through and Japan will get troops into Africa.

The US player must also be prepared to recognize weaknesses and to counter them on behalf of the German player. For example, if he’s not paying attention to Western Europe, and you have your transports plus maybe the remnants of the Pacific fleet, try and take it. If nothing else it will force the German player to pull some troops that would normally have gone on the offensive in Russia to shore up the West. Also once you’re in Africa, look at how well defended Southern Europe is. Does the German player have 2 INF there? Invade if you can. The bottom line is that time is on the side of the allies so even Dieppe-esqe raids can be effective: you can replace your losses on the next turn, but Germany is not in so great a shape. If you can force the German player to put 2 INF in both WEu and SEu to defend, that’s 4 INF you’ve deprived him of that could have attacked Russia which means less cannon fodder to protect his tanks, even if only in a spoiler attack. Every little bit helps but you must be aware of this as the US player and must jump on every opportunity to go after them.

Also, make sure that if your allies ask for help in a certain area you give it to them. If for example Russia needs fighters in the East because they have a good deal of infantry but need sharp defensive units, buy a fighter and send it over. Try and get a few bombers over to striking distance so you can strategic Japan: even the loss of a few IPCs can mean 1 less INF down the road and Japan needs every INF they can get for their initial pushes.

Ok, I’ll cease now… I just want to make sure I have pointed out that although admittedly one of the easier countries to play, the US can just as easily end up being a disaster for the allies because without them England and Russia cannot hold up alone.

:D

I should make one addendum to my last post… if you’re playing with bids (which in most games is the case) always remember that before any long term strategy is dealing with real and present threats. For example, if Germany gets a decent bid and decides to go all out against Russia early, get troops to help defend Russia BEFORE going after Africa… Germany will ignore Africa because if he gets Russia the game is in extreme danger for the Allies. So don’t have a plan and then stick to it just because “it’s the plan”… if the plan needs to change because of sudden movements on the enemies part, make the change or else you’ll liberate Africa just as the German army is regrouping to take not only Africa back but England as well :cry:

The Americans usually end up being more of a supporting cast character, at least until later in the game when they can get their economic power into full swing and start pumping units left and right. Even then, the relative distance of the main US production areas (east and west USA) makes their ability to deliver troops on a need basis rather iffy… playing as America means being patient and not rushing things. It’s not like the other players where units you buy are good on the next turn.

As far as an American strategy, I will suggest the basic idea is to follow what was historically known as the “Germany First” agenda. All too often I’ve seen the following: American player decides to “take revenge” on Japan for Pearl Harbour. He goes after the Japanese islands and takes them one at a time. All this while, he gets maybe 3 IPCs from Japan which Japan has already made up by taking China, Sinkian, Soviet Far East, India, ect… and meanwhile Germany, with the added 9 or so IPCs from Africa, is beating down on Russia with no fear of an American offensive in Africa. Those games usually end (with the absence of brilliant play and luck by the other Allies) with an Axis win.

Ignore the Pacific… any major Japanese offensive can be sniffed out a few turns in advance. Take Africa back for the British; it not only helps them out getting back on their feet but it gives Germany 3-4 INF LESS per turn which adds up RATHER quickly. Land some troops in Karelia to support defenses there. Strategic Bomb Germany as much as possible to keep their economy in shambles. Allow the Russians the ability to move troops to the east; remember it’s a race between them and the Japanese because if you let the latter go a few turns without checking them they will get an IC on the continent and get enough transports to keep pumping INF/armour combos and you’re in trouble.

Once the situation in Europe is under control, start building a navy and begin to go into the Pacific because ultimately you want to be able to seize and hold the Japanese SZ so no more transports. Without pumping troops from Japan proper, Japan is a dead duck; they cannot support offensives from the mainland alone. Get a Carrier w/ two fighters and a bunch of subs in the SZ so you can take hits from Japanese fighters trying to clear it.

America is both at times one of the easiest and hardest plays because while you’re not in direct danger from any attack and thus can putz a bit if you’re a newbie, if you don’t get things running to Europe the UK/ Russia are in trouble. Ignore Japan at first except for maybe getting a few troops to Alaska and Mexico/ Panama just to serve as a deterrent from a quick raid there. Remember, unlike Germany who has all her units close enough to launch attacks in any direction, with Japan you can see the attacks in the Pacific as they are forming by the transports and escorts she’ll need to launch anything.

Hope this helps a bit… :D

Italian divisions were also highly undermanned and undersupplied with even basic weapons such as anti-tank guns… I don’t have my books with me right now, but if I remember correctly even Switzerland was better equipped on a per-man basis than the Italians. Also, most Italian divisions were really at 1/2 strength but they were called divisions so as to make it look like they were much better than they actually were.

The key to any setup of Italy is that you have to realise that Italy was woefully underprepared for this war…perhaps given another 10 years they might have been ready (or even something like a mid-40’s), but in 1939 they were just totally unprepared.

Sothern Europe(Value increased to 10)

Hehe you knew you were going to get a bit of a ribbing for this one UKcommander :D

Putting the Italian productivity on par with Germany and above England (and Japan) is I think a bit too much. It’s true that you might have to do something like that in order to give them a fighting chance, but then again that’s what history shows: they were not economically prepared and to give them that advantage is making the game historically inaccurate. I mean I know the game isn’t accurate beyond the setup of the board (with Japan coming into Africa shortly and what not and other fun things) but again Italy was just not ready and I think adding them in should show this. Just my thoughts :)

Mistabiggs that’s a really cool, thought out way to add Italy into the game in a way that I don’t think horribly upsets the Allies chance to still win. Heh, I have seen (and advised myself at times) the whole changing the tanks defense… my suggestion was to change German tanks so that they defend much better since historically the Germans (and Soviets later on) had very solid tanks. Since if the Russians are buying tanks, something has gone horribly wrong for the Axis, the team that really benefits from this is Germany because it allows them to chance having a territory defended by several tanks and not have to worry about an attack taking out the majority of their offensive weaponry.

For Syria-Iraq maybe just leave the territory Italian but not occupied to suggest the influence and natural hostility to the British?

Quite a good sampling of Italian WWII history tho, not too many actually care so it’s nice to see some who have read up on it. Too bad for the Italian armed forces Mussolini wasn’t as good a commander as he was a bully…

Any attack launched at Karelia is only to take out several of the Russian infantry. The idea is to eventually gain infantry superiority in order to make the assault more feasible as Japan gains Russian territory in the East.

Exactly… and Russia cannot attack unless the superiority is huge on their part because of a complete lack of offensive minded units. Just because they can get 20 INF into a territory doesn’t mean they can do anything but sit there with them.

Yeah apparently the hurricaine also hit my brain last night when I forgot to log in before posting the above… :oops:

I’m actually in the process right now of writing an opening strategy for Germany but I’ll tell you it involves the same kind of moves I advocated when I last posted here: all INF for the first few turns and on G2 and after start launching spoilers on Karelia with the INF from EEu and the tanks. With 8 tanks you can inflict some heavy damage on the Russians. After 2-3 turns, the Japanese should be putting serious enough pressure on the Russians that they cannot keep up (of course by this time the Americans and British will be back in Africa and threatening to even start putting troops in Russia) but Russia is most likely pumping all of their troops into Karelia every turn minus maybe 2 in Russia proper so once you beat Karelia and can hold on to it for a turn you can pretty much toast Russia.

If the odd IPC savings add up that you can buy a tank plus the ten INF on a given turn, then by all means do so but if you keep all tanks in Europe alive save the one in SEu that you’re probably sending into Africa on G1, you will have 8 tanks to strike on a given turn. Russia has a lot of INF but unless they keep both fighters there and the British keep the fighters as well in Karelia they don’t have much of a defensive punch other than numbers.

Keep pounding turn after turn with the tanks… and hope Japan plays well :D

Good heads up, thx for the info. :D

M-4, I agree you can forestall things somewhat by going all out on J-1 because it’s true there really isn’t too much that the Allies can throw at Japan at least not right away.

However if Germany has gambled and lost, she has no aircraft left which means I don’t have to worry about transports at all which means I can basically leave transports off the coast of WEu or anywhere else without fear of retribution. This, I feel, enables the US to start shucking to Africa quicker, which reduces the majority of German IPC gains from G1-G2, and puts Germany in the hole all the quicker.

As for the Japan all out on J-1, yes its feasible but the problem is that if in one place or more you get bad rolls you are really in the hole and it’s tough to execute an all out attack on all of these places and win in all of them, or even just knock out defending troops. I still feel that Russia can launch a counter in the east, especially not having to worry as much about German troops because if Germany is smart they are bulking up their western front as well.

I think we all can agree on one thing: the operation is a HUGE gamble that will basically turn the game one way or another.

There’s all or nothing and then there’s this…

I personally think it’s a really tough gambit to go Sealion on G1. As has been pointed out above, there is a possibility for the Allies to take back England before G2, thus making the only real results the capture of all British money and the lack of such funds for UK1. BUT, Germany will not have the ability to invade again on G2 so the US can hold the island with 1 INF and be secure until UK2 when they’ll have some money back.

It IS a terrible setback for the Allies; it forestalls any UK defense of India, allows Germany to send a significantly larger army against Russia much earlier than expected (the extra 30 IPCs) and there is no help with the British fighters for the USSR either against Germany or against Japan.

However, it is not a guarantee of victory… the Allies are still strong enough economically to hold and if the US can get things rolling early they can stem the tide. If, however, Germany loses (which is as has been pointed out about 90% of the time give or take) it is der kaput for ze Germans. There is really no way that Germany can recover from the loss of the aircraft that it so desperately needs in order to hold out defensively long enough for Japan to get rolling in the East.

All in all, Germany should stay away from Sealion for the same reasons in game as they did in RL: the inability of the German navy to get significant enough amounts of troops to make invading and holding worthwhile. Rather, concentrate on Russia with hit-and-run tactics using the armour in order to keep softening them up while Japan whittles away in the east until you can go after Karelia.

Don’t throw away Axis air power!!! :D

I thought that was the French?

Heh, I know the French take a beating as well as the Italians :)

What’s really funny is that during the last… three weeks I believe it was… of the German invasion in 1940, the French actually inflicted more casualties on the Germans than they suffered themselves which led to all sorts of accusations against the Petain govt that they were all too willing to surrender and that they should have instead tried to fight it out. I don’t say that to start a long drawn out argument about the French army effectiveness in WWII, but really after the initial shock of the invasion where the Germans basically split the allies in half, the French fought rather well but not well enough to offset the enourmous losses of the first weeks of fighting.

When Mussolini tried to cash in by invading in the south (always a good idea, mountain fighting when the enemy holds all the high points… :roll: ) and the casualties were something like Italy: 4000 - France: 15 in two weeks of fighting. And those are thought to be real #'s, not something made up afterwards :oops:

I’ll probably get more attacks for this one than not but…

Italy was a significant force in World War II for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was a sizable navy that contributed to harassing the British in the Mediterranean and keeping ships out of the Atlantic war enabling German U-Boats to operate with greater freedom. The major problem with the Italian war effort was two-fold: first, Italy was not prepared logistically to enter war in 1939. Second, the Italians lacked the military strength by that time to effectively wage an aggressive war against the British and her commanders (who were quite effective all things considered) were faced with the task of trying to go on the offensive with very few tanks and virtually no air support.

The Italians fought very well in most areas despite the now common belief that Italian war exercises involved practising throwing both hands in the air. But the Italian army had very few offensive weapons at their disposal and Mussolini felt he had to bring the Empire back, but also consider that Hitler promised Mussolini that he wasn’t going to go to war until at least 1944 or so, so Italy thought they had enough time to get the economy kicked into Wartime gear.

To make this short, the Italians did fight very bravely often against logistical odds (they did have an advantage in manpower but this was offset by the disadvantage in airpower, offensive firepower such as tanks and artillery, and logistics such as supply lines and overall supplies) and put up a good showing when fighting on Italian soil.

But Japan was a real deal offensive juggarnaut and more than deserved to be on the map; I think Italy, although capable of maintaining their own war programme early, by the start of A&A had become sort of an auxiliary in Europe to the German army and thus are best represented as pretending that the BB in CMed zone is their naval contribution and that the IC in SEu is the ability of Italy to produce some sort of a military contribution to the mainland defense.

I agree this is something I’ve never seen in a RL game. Maybe vs. the comp but even then…

Any invasion of North America proper with the exception of Alaska can be sniffed out pretty quickly. If the Germans are buying transports also that tells me they aren’t buying lots of inf, which means they aren’t worried about the Russians which means Russia is kaput which means the entire Allied game plan is pretty much kaput (economic victory usually follows caputre of Russia).

As was said above this, if you can somehow get things going and time a joint Japanese/ German assault where it would split the American ability to defend, but even then you would have to have a lot of troops since they can pile up 7 INF/ turn with only W and E USA.

Kwangtung Surprise!

It’s a thought, and certainly takes a different attitude than the traditional defensive vs. Japan. While I can see the merits, you have to remember the following… risk vs. reward. If Japan loses this, it’s a major pain in the rear. It pushes them back a turn but if they buy a few transports on J1 they can most likely take back at least Manchuria on J2 and then start pressing the attack from there. Plus India now becomes an easier target and you can bypass China altogether if they have too many fighters there.

If your rolls go bad, as laststrike did make a point, you’re pretty f***ed because they will be going full throttle on both Russia and the rest of the far east on J1/J2. And in taking back Manchuria Russia loses the armour.

As Russia I try and do everything possible to make Japan pay for every territory. Remember the key with the allies is simply to have Russia last long enough for the USA/ UK to get their act together.

I wouldn’t attack Manchuria (usually as with others we play RR) but MIGHT consider it under the following circumstances: Germany has had some bad rolls and the Western Front is secure; the US has the shuck full speed and the Western Front is secure; Japan has two fighters on Manchuria and only two infantry. If the latter, I might take the tank and fighter and attack with a host of infantry because taking out 2 fighters is a serious blow to Japan early. It leaves them with the unenviable task of trying to seize territory with a very infantry laden army, since almost all early Japan attacks are supported by air until they can 1) get an IC on the mainland or 2) get enough transports to get at least 1-2 armour each turn plus 5-6 inf.

Mostly with Russia though your best bet is to play hard defense against Japan and make them pay for the advances, slowing them to the point where Germany is getting beat on and you can afford to start shifting troops to the East.

Jeeez SUD… I think you put the rest of us to shame about analyzing the Pearl Hvy vs. Pearl lite debate :D

Pearl Heavy with Hawaii land assault is the biggest risk of all, in this sense. One less tranny available to consolidate against a possible US sub, 2 fewer Inf in Asia, 1 less Ftr in the Naval attack…reducing odds of getting 3 hits on first attack.

I just want to add I agree with this 100%.

Anytime I’ve seen anyone take the US it’s been because of a lack of concentration on the part of the US player, either that or it’s been because one of the Axis is going buck wild and stomping. BUT, the latter point is out if you’re playing economic victory since if at any point an Axis has the ability to launch serious attacks on the US mainland it usually means they have defeated Russia, contained England and are basically mopping things up.

The US just has too much of an economic ability to put troops in place within a turn to thwart any attack, which is usually easily seen in advance (massing of transports).

Pull back to strengtehn EEu and then after G1 start launching spoilers at Karelia aimed at chipping away the defenses. I will assume you have taken all or most of Africa at this point so you will have the IPC base for a few turns (until the Americans go take Africa back for the Brits) to get 10-11 INF each turn. Keep moving them to EEu from Germany and keep launching attacks on Karelia every turn with a lot of INF and all of your tanks. The tanks should take out 3-5 INF plus what the INF take out (I don’t know the mathematical statistics but it ranges from a few to a bunch if you get lucky)… anyways after a turn or two fall back and keep moving troops from Germany that you placed there last turn into EEu. DO NOT take Karelia unless you have the troops to keep it for one turn. Normally if you take it you have only a few INF and all your tanks and all that means is that in a counter Russia takes out all or most all of your tanks. In any case, keep that up and hope Japan can whittle away at Russian strength until you can break through. Then take Moscow and once that is done just turn west and break the UK.

I know, I know… long paragraph… sorry it’s late :)

I think a lot of this depends on how you’re doing on mainland Asia after J1. If, for example, you’re really on a roll then you might want to think about sending part of the fleet down there for the time being. It’s only 3 IPC but let’s face it, it’s 3 IPC that will remain Japanese until the game ends since there’s really no feasible way for UK or US to get a force down there without Japan smelling it out well in advance and preparing a counterstrike with naval forces.

Also, if UK has built an IC in India I highly suggest taking that out ASAP for the obvious reasons. If they haven’t, and if you’re making headway against China/ Eastern Russia, it might be worth it to send the fleet down there. It’s an extra INF a turn for you and even more important (if you ask me), it’s one LESS for UK. During the earlier stages, the UK/ Russia needs every unit they can get to stand up to the constant German attacks. So it’s certainly helpful to your ally.

I don’t think you HAVE to occupy Hawaii on J1… taking out the fleet is usually good enough to make sure the US sends the remaining ships to the Atlantic. But if you’re going to take the Aussies yeah you had better destroy the fleet at Pearl. Just make sure that you’re not diverting too much resources to this as early on the difference of even one INF on the mainland for the Japanese can make a big difference and by J2 you want to be pumping them over and preparing for a J3-J4 assault on the heartland of Russia.