So of course, the typical German goal is to take Moscow and in ways it is counter-productive to try to fight in the Atlantic.

However, I think Germany may have such an initial EDGE in the first rounds, that it may be best to accentuate that edge as long as possible(until the tide starts turning, at which point you ditch offense in the atlantic), coming out on top IPC wise.  Any “overspending”(forces that were only a deterrent) will remain useful as a threat to allied transports off of France(10 subs at a minimum,6 fighters and 1 bombers is a very potent offensive force, threatening even a huge allied fleet).

So, submarine and destroyer for 12 purchase to minimize casualties in first naval battles, also, spend first 40 turn buy on ships.  Second turn, 20-40 on ships depending on circumstances.  From then on, mostly infantry or other land units.  This will cause the allied players to spend much more than 60, and build in Canada and Eastern US seaspace rather than British seaspace.  In the meantime, to give you an edge later, as with this strategy it WILL be a long game, Middle East must be taken.

The guaranteed 4 per turn Russian convoy is an added advantage.

Meanwhile, to help compensate some, almost all forces vacate Western Germany to Eastern front(maybe some transport action in Baltic also), as there will be no landing threat for many turns with temporary Germany dominance of the Atlantic.

I have played and won with this with Berlin under no threat, although the Russian player could have managed his forces better.  I think it could be a viable strat though, even if possibly inferior to an aggressive land strategy.

Hi, I just moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota for college and if there is anyone here from that area that would want to play A and A I would be greatly interested.

Yeah, Britian would be in a tough spot.  However, barring an alliance, neither America nor Germany would like to see the other in control of the U.K.  It still has the advantage of being an island nation.  They would not have to worry as much about defense there with a strong navy and air force.  Germany requires land defense against Russia, and the U.S. will be the prime target for Japan… this gives the U.K. a nice advantage in the Atlantic.

In addition, their location in the Atlantic makes them a viable threat to the U.S., Germany, and Russia.  Being able to hurt someone is a good bargaining chip.

As for why Japan will most likely give attention to the U.S…
In the regular format Japan can easily fight Russia because Germany is their enemy, but in a FFA it is most likely a Japanese force would be fought out of Europe.  Defending near a capital, with its production potential, is a huge advantage.  Likewise, attacking away from a capital is a disadvantage.  Keep in mind that Japan still has to defend against the U.S. in the Pacific, so they cannot put all their IPC’s towards the European front anyways.

In a FFA the Americas I believe the U.S. would be a more attractive target for Japan. The Pacific will end up being a theatre that only involves Japan and the U.S.  Nothing makes an offense harder than a third party that can pounce on a victorious, but weakened force.  The Japanese will have gained some ground in Asia, 10 IPC’s or so, making them most likely slightly stronger than the U.S.  The U.S. mainland production is huge, and it would be much easier to defend than Russia if they conquered it, bringing them much closer to winning.

Back to the British…
Holding either the Africa or Pacific territories would require some politics as the production per turn is limited, but they could build up a serviceable force in one of the two areas least.  If it seemed too hard for the British (they do lose canada for sure) a couple extra ICPs could be added to the UK, or possibly instead, a factory or at least increased IPCs could be added to South Africa or Australia.

Not necessarily… Europe has the more concentrated IPCs than Asia.  Japan can’t expand into Russia as easily when Germany isn’t necessarily pressuring Russia.  Japan’s choice of going after the U.S. is not easy, either.

America and Britian would have an interesting advantage because they have territories all over the world that they could build up forces in.

Sort of like risk?

I think that could potentially be really interesting and fun… I’d envision a lot more battles for naval superiority, a lot more variety in viable strategies.

Although some tweaks might have to be made for balance issues.

Has anyone played where you can use artillery to fire against enemy units and not enter battle?

Just off the top of my head, I would say it would go something like this…

Artillery can decide to fire at enemy units in an adjacent space instead of attack moving or moving.  The artillery scores a hit on a 1. 
Enemy artillery may fire back at the bombarding artillery.

This would not be extremely overpowering in most circumstances with 1 in 6 odds, but it would n=make artillery very useful on fronts which are at a stalemate.

If the enemy artillery were able to fire back, it would also place the attacker at a disadvantage as they only lose artillery while the opponent can lose any unit.

This would make a interesting artillery power struggle, as a player who is on the defense and not even interested in attacking would have to keep sufficient artillery to keep enemy artillery from freely harassing their forces.

It would add a new dynamic in which players would have to take in consideration how soon a conflict may occur on a front, as the extra infantry could be more valuable if there was going to quickly be a conflict while the artillery would be more useful in a prolonged conflict.

“Did you take into consideration that the Naval Bombardment can only target the pillboxes?”

Yeah.  They just need to take out the pillboxes at Omaha(bombing is out of the question because of the 3 AA, otherwise that would work nice), taking on 7 is a lot better than 9…

"I would think that you could get yourself in trouble simply getting to Cherbourg if you do this. If your opponent is in the habit of abandoning it he can bog you down pretty good around Utah. You might try encircling St. Lo from the Cherbourg side while  concentrating your Ftrs in those reinforcement zones. That might force the Germans in on the Caen side and bring them in range of the British overrunning that city faster leaving less for the US to root out of St. Lo. Not march on St. Lo per se but march on the reinforcement zones on that side of the board. Overrun it with your tanks.

I certainly agree that clearing the Omaha beachhead is a no. 1 priority."

Personally, I like it when the Cherbourg Axis units assault the beach.  The majority of the first American units are infantry so it’s hard to get a quick start anyhow, and if the battle goes down at the beach, the Axis only have 15 units or so (plus you can bomb them), so although they may inflict some heavy damage at first eventually they die off and you only have to march one infantry (or one tank to move faster) up to Cherbourg.  And, if they get lucky at the beach you know how much you have to compensate, while when you have to march all the way to Cherbourg there is a chance that you could misestimate.

Although, maybe I just haven’t seen an Axis player handle a Utah beach well yet.

I’ll try the reinforcement rush sometime, it sounds like it could work out well…

the thing is, with how I have done this strat games so far the brits are hurting a lot more than the U.S., and I generally end up with more than sufficient in St. Lo units while Caen is in danger of being pincered by both the Rouen/Chartres reinforcements and some of the Renn/Chartres reinforcements,  so I don’t even know if I’d want Renn/Chartres going to Chartres.

After playing several games, I think I may have developed a cohesive allied strategy which can be very effective.  The strategy is fairly straightforward, but requires very specific first turn actions.

The main objective of this strategy is to make a unified American and British thrust towards St. Lo at the very beginning of the game, quickly creating a stalwart line either in St. Lo or adjacent to it.  St. Lo may seem very distant near the end of the game when Axis units crowd the game board, but in fact it can easily be occupied by turn 4.

The shore bombardments main priorities are the two boxes in Omaha beach.  It is very important to kill the 4 german infantry and 3 anti-aircraft in that territory quickly, as they are only large force seperating you from St. Lo.  If you have leftover shore bombardments go after the adjacent british beach, if you do not get them with shore bombardments use the bombers to take them out.

This heavy concentration leaves you relative vulnerable on the Cherbourg and Caen fronts, so instead of strafing Axis reinforcements use the fighters to pin down the german tanks near Cherbourgh and dissallow the Germans from harming your British landing forces weakened by the untouched Eastern pillboxes.  This can be done with as few as 4 allied fighters, so you can still get shots on Renn reinforcements if you wish.

How this will play out is your British landing force at Gold Beach will quickly dominate the two infantry, and your landing Allied units will struggle but start to chip away at the german units.  By turn 3 British reinforcements and Allied units will have most likely destroyed them.  However, if you have poor fortune and have not, your game is not bad off.  While your 8 or so units are caught in combat at Omaha beach, British units will be landing adjacent and IMMEDIATELY advancing on St. Lo.  Needless to say, as many British reinforcements as possible will be placed at Gold beach on the first and possibly second turn.  After that the majority of your British reinforcements will be required in the East.

By turn 4 you will have British units entering St. Lo, and a freed up allied beach two movements away from St. Lo, and only one turn for tanks.  If the Germans attack, you will be able to reinforce St. Lo and can utilize fighter cover.

While doing this, be on the defensive near Cherbourg as you may be outmatched, and take Caen relatively quickly (turn 2 or 3 or 4 possibly).  While your forces may be weakened and hurting for reinforcements, utilizing most of your fighters can isolate Caen from German reinforcements and allow you to draw a defensive line which includes Caen.

By turn 5 you will have control of St. Lo or be battling for it, and most likely waiting on Cherbourg.  Bombers can be very valuable assistance for hurrying the Cherbourgh assault, and it allows you to avoid “overcompensating” for Cherbourgh and stranding units.  Try to get Cherbourgh by turn 7, because then you will have 3 full-turn opportunities to win the game(8, 9, and 10).  Regaining the cities at this point is very costly for the Axies with good fighter use.

What makes this strategy very effective is that it places you on the defensive end in both St. Lo and Cean, rather than trying to assault them.  The defender has a definite advantage as infantry hit more often and the defender gets the first counter-attack against a weakened force.  With your fighters, defense becomes even more effective.  In addition, if you get the early city control you have a definite tactical advantage.

Of course the Axis can counter this by placing more reinforcements in Rouen/Chartres, but Axis players rarely place those first 5 precious tanks farther away from combat.  Placing fighters in Renn/Chartres discourages that also.  In addition, it is difficult for the Axis to get enough units to flank the Allies, so a potential early defense in St. Lo will most likely only take place in the city, creating perilous fighter conditions (You can simply place your reinforcements safely to the rear of St. Lo).

It is quite likely that the Germans will have lost relatively few units, so keeping control of the cities will become a game of pinning down and delaying German units rather thank trying to kill them.  You will not have unit superiority (which is always dependant on rolls however, and not a good solid strategy, especially considering the German makeup of units is superior), but with your fighters and the fact that you can attack first in a turn to initiate battles and pin down German units will give you a decisive edge in the event of a large unit buildup.

This strategy is not fullproof, but I believe it relies less on good rolls and gives the Allies a very good chance of winning the game.  The strategy is highly aggressive in early movement, but with the purpose of putting the Allies in a defensive position early in the two most contested cities.  Another strength of this strategy is it takes full advantage of the poor Axis starting position, and attempts to gain superiority BEFORE Axis reinforcements brighten the Axis situation.

Thanks for reading, if any part of this post seems especially incoherent or needs to be elaborated, please point it out

1.  If Axis units are destroyed while entering a territory, did they count for the 8 unit limit?

EXAMPLE:  In a disputed territory, the Axis have 5 units remaining during their move phase.  They attempt to move 3 in, but 2 are killed by patrolling fighters.  Are they unable to get more than the 5 + 1 units in that territory for that turn?

I have ruled it as they wouldn’t be able to get more units in, as I believe the Axis units are first in the territory (bringing the limit to 8 ) THEN gets fired upon.

2.  The rulebook seems to define control of a territory as a side exclusively having units in a territory.  How does this apply to the victory conditions?  If the Allies take control of the VCs during one turn, and during the Axis turn they move units into St. Lo and one  axis unit is still alive at the end, do the Allies no longer control it?

Also, it says the Allies must control the cities for a FULL turn.  Does that mean to say that if the Axis move units into the city at any time during the turn, even if they die the victory conditions are not reached, as for a moment Axis units were within the city and the Allies did not control it?

Or by a full turn, does that just mean the Allies have to control the city at the beginning and end of the turn?  Or just the beginning?

“I wouldn’t “reinforce it” with “reinforcements” just local holding troops…”

Yeah, that’s what I usually do.  There is usually about 14 units down near Cherbourg, I think.  14 units can usually sustain at least 2 full turns of combat no matter what, unless the Allies have some tanks (which it probably won’t), or employs its bombers.  The Cherbourg forces have a good amount of AA though, so it is risky for the allies to use their bombers.