@anzacguy That is a big question in a little sentence. I will try to answer as concisely as possible, but it is impossible to answer in specifics.

First, Italy.

Italy is the only Axis power that depends totally on the actions of the Allies to decide its course of action. If the UK does things right, Italy has very limited options.

Assuming the UK does things right, Italy can and should provide ground forces to free up German resources for the destruction of Russia. After defending itself, Italy should position itself to help with the defense of West Germany, Southern France, and Normandy (assuming Germany or Italy was dumb enough to take Normandy).

Second, Italy should annoy the heck out of the UK by depriving it of its NO for as long as possible, maximize its income, and force the UK to try to neutralize that income. The best options for doing this are taking Cyprus if you have a surviving transport – this is very difficult for the UK to recapture without costing it extra resources. Taking African territories works only in the short term.

Finally, the Italian fast movers should move in advance of German forces to clear blockers and also allow German planes to land with the German stack that moves into the territory captured by Italy. The presence of defensive fighters can make a German stack feasible in circumstances where Russia might have odds of 50% or better when attacking the stack.

If the UK does things wrong (or just gets really unlucky)…

Italy might have navy play. Boost your income as much as possible and keep the UK tied up by taking its territories and forcing it to fight in Africa instead of reinforcing Russia. Keep can opening for Russia. With your boosted income, you can also keep building ground forces that can move to Europe or invade Africa.

Now, for ANZAC. Like Italy, it’s sucking hind tit. It has to support the major powers that keep it alive while not dying and thwarting the enemy as much as possible.

There are two schools of thought here – that ANZAC should turtle and that ANZAC should fight for possession of the Dutch East Indies. BOTH are true – ANZAC should do everything possible to not die while fighting for the DEI. To do these things, it needs US support. US fighters can reach Queensland from Hawaii in a single move. ANZAC ships can strengthen the US fleet to make it safe from Japanese attacks. The US can can open for ANZAC transports to let them take territory.

A major factor here is when Japan makes its move – with J1, ANZAC has less options than with every other Japanese opener. With J1, ANZAC should activate Dutch New Guinea on J1 for its NO. Without J1, ANZAC typically activates Java for income and possibly ferry fighters towards India via Java while building more defenses. (Whether or not to do this also depends on what’s showing for J2.)

A major limitation on ANZAC is factory capacity – there is one IC, and it is not in the best location. Some folks will tell you to build an IC with ANZAC, but timing is everything – too early, and your income will never support the enhanced capacity. Too late, and you’ll be giving initiative to the Axis powers. Also, the right blend is important – too many ground troops and you can’t help much. Too few ground troops and you’re a liability to the Allies.

A general rule of A&A combat is that fighters are sexy, but infantry holds off hits on more expensive units while they kill attackers…the more infantry you have, the longer your fighters live.

So, if you send a fighter off to India, it needs to be replaced but you also need to keep the infantry up. Combined with you factory limitations, this typically means you might build something like a fighter and two infantry, or a transport and two infantry, or a destroyer and two infantry.

Both of these minor powers require great skill to play properly – they both depend on balance and judgement of the enemy. Properly played, they can and have turned the tide of games.

Have fun!

Marsh

@Alex-Phillips said in OOB or BM3:

@AndrewAAGamer I’ll be baited. Unfortunately I think there’s a lot of arrogance displayed by some of the more serious/veteran posters like yourself, Gen. Manstein, etc. It puts me off joining any league on here. I like to post the occasional snippet, read interesting strategies, but that’s it, thanks.

With all due respect, I think you’re misunderstanding Andrew.

I’ve played with him many times and lost many times, having won against him only once when his partner made a massive mistake in the Pacific that cost the US catastrophically.

Three other times I’ve come close to beating him:

Once he and a friend took the Allies against me as the Axis in Global. I threw the script away and launched a devastating mechanized attack against Russia (which appears to be me to be the basis for Andrew’s current Axis plan, albeit with some refinement). The question, “How are we going to beat him?” was asked and the answer from Andrew was “I don’t know.” In the end, I made a bad attack and beat myself.

The next time was Anniversary again, and three players against Andrew (running the Axis by himself I believe). The US and Russia did their parts, but the guy running UK was a horrible player who liked making questionable attacks. He did not want to do anything that his partners needed. At the end, the attack on Moscow would have never happened if the UK had killed just four more German infantry.

Once he and his buddy ran Axis in Anniversary, and I was on a team with two other players. One of the players was very new and a very good player who made Russia look interesting and easy, but at the end despite the fact that Japan was beaten in the Pacific Germany took Moscow. Japan was beaten but standing (and it would have taken many more turns to crush it completely). US fighters, a whole darned stack of them, were one more turn away from Moscow and that would have ended the game definitively in favor of the Allies, with Germany having no chance of success in Europe and Japan having no chance of success in the Pacific. The new player had refused to take a UK fighter in defense of Moscow in order to keep his objective. That resulted in a 50/50 battle that could have been like 35/65 in favor of the Allies. The dice came up against the Allies. With Russia defeated, we felt there was no way to achieve victory unless we risked defeat in the Pacific.

Andrew doesn’t believe in luck. He believes in hard work and patience, and he works harder at this game than anyone else I’ve ever seen or heard of. I’ve never heard him complain about getting diced (although I have seen him lose games because his opponent got lucky with the dice). He just waits til he has the best possible chance of success for an attack. He practices constantly.

He’s proud of his skill. I don’t think that’s arrogance. He works harder than any other player I’ve ever met to improve his play. There’s a difference between pride in your effort and arrogance.

Yes, Andrew is a serious player. He’s not a better player because he’s more gifted at strategy. He’s a better player because he works harder, period to understand the mechanics of the game and how they will play out. That’s not arrogance – that’s determination.

He’s not a better player because he blames other people for his mistakes. He accepts responsibility when he makes a mistake. That’s not arrogance – that’s honesty with himself, something many, many people in the world should consider taking more of.

I’m probably a better instinctive player than Andrew, but where I come up short is determination. Me, I spend my time on city government, running a D&D game, working on a book, and learning two different languages while juggling my day job and pondering graduate school. Why does he beat me? Because he practices harder and longer. Because I’m not as patient as he is.

Playing against him has made me a better player. He has always been willing to offer advice without judgement and to help me get better. He has taught me new things about the game both with and without trying to do so.

So, with respects, reserve your judgement and get to work. When you win as much as Andrew does, you’ll have the right to decide whether or not he’s being arrogant.

No, anyone in our local area playing the Axis would have conceded long before that happened.

Marsh

Also, I have yet to actually receive a 60 IPC bid from Andrew.

“Let’s eat Grandma”

“Let’s eat, Grandma”

COMMAS SAVE LIVES.

@tchenao If you control Normany, the German battleship should have repaired in the G2 purchase phase.

Since you can’t move it into the Med unless Italy took Gibraltar on I1, it would be better to move it to sea zone 112 where it can have air cover.

Marsh

@tchenao We once play a game where the French were the most effective minor power on the board. They could do no wrong on defense. At one point my partner (who was running the French) responded to the player running Germany saying, “Two guys and a plane should be enough” with “Are you sure? They’re French.” and the other player winced visibly. The French in that game killed more German units than the UK…

Fun day!

Marsh

In all frankness, I have never seen KJF work. Yes, I have seen Japan be completely hosed, with income down to the teens. Despite this, the US still has to spend money to keep Japan down and is unable to dedicate 100% of its resources to Europe.

Admittedly, I have only played with a few dozen players. Maybe there’s a good KJF out there that I have yet to see.

It is hard to script out KJF because Japan has soo many options, but here are a few random thoughts:

First, Japan has other income options that don’t depend on its navy. Crushing China early and taking Russian territory helps Germany and Japan while impeding Russia.

Second, it does not take that much US income to give the UK and Russia the edge over Germany and Italy.

Third, it takes almost the entire US income to overcome Japan’s navy.

Fourth, it is completely up to Japan when to go to war with the US.

All of these factors lead me to believe that KJF as a primary plan can’t work because it fundamentally assumes that your opponent is going to do certain things a certain way.

If you know your opponent always does a J1 attack you can certainly plan a response for that, but in terms of strategy that works against every opponent you need more tools than that in the toolbox.

Marsh

@Contango I might be able to attend this, but with all due respect to YG I don’t want to watch a 27 minute YouTube video instead of actually reading a rules document. Is this variant written out somewhere?

Marsh

@oysteilo Ok, I’ve got the file. I’ll send you my first move sometime this weekend. Please be aware that my availability from day to day varies considerably and it may be more than three days before I’m able to move in some situations.

Marsh

@aanda1 said in Can a single US dest block a whole Jap fleet in sz 25?:

In 1940 Global, can 1 US dest in sz 25 block a Jap attack in sea zone 26. If the Japs clear the dest in sz 25, can the rest of their fleet move from sz 6 into sz 26?

Short answer, yes.

To expand on @Panther’s answer, all combat movement must take place during the combat movement phase and resolved during the combat phase. Since the US destroyer requires combat for the IJN to clear, the IJN cannot bypass the destroyer.

Planes, however, could FLY OVER sea zone 25 to sea zone 26. The US destroyer does not block air movement, only sea movement.

This leads us to the importance of turn order. If there were a German plane that could attack sea zone 25, it could clear the US destroyer during combat on Germany’s turn and then the sea zone would be clear for transit by the IJN on Japan’s turn.

Welcome to the forums.

Marsh

Not only does it make Moscow weaker by at least four infantry (more if Russia actually builds there), it also forces the UK’s hand. Now the UK must defend the Middle East and be prepared to fight for Caucasus while Moscow is under siege. Under no circumstances can Germany be allowed to hold Caucasus with a Russian-built IC present on the territory.

A Russian IC in Caucasus is a bad idea, pure and simple. It’s almost as bad as pulling all UK forces out of the Med on UK1 so that Italy can lock the UK out of the Med on I1.

Marsh

@tincanofthesea True, but the only reason to liberate France is to keep the Axis from winning because Germany killed Egypt and London on the same turn. Otherwise, you are better off keeping the Normandy and Southern France ICs for the US/UK until Germany is occupied.

(Assuming, of course, that Germany was silly enough to actually invade Normandy and give you the Normandy IC.)

@fmerwinrommel said in Hall of Shame - tales of the worst dice ever:

@windowwasher UK was too air heavy, which meant a bad dice roll would adversely affect UK more than Germ, as UK had much more TUV at risk. UK only had 8 ground units, so a modestly favorable G dice roll could have destroyed all its ground units on the first dice roll. Why risk expensive planes against cheap mech after that first round? If you wanted to take the territory, it would require taking a plane as a hit to save one ground unit. Without knowing the circumstances, I’d still say cut your losses. Your fighters were attacking at 3 against mech defending at 2. If you retreated, your fighters would defend at 4 and mech attack at 1. G might have planes or other units for offense that might offset that somewhat, but cut your losses.

Absolutely correct – yet another instance of not having enough infantry.

The calculator is correct – the odds of winning the battle are accurate assuming that the dice fall as average, but you also need to look at the TUV cost. It should have shown that UK was going to spend a lot more taking the territory (or clearing) then the Axis was going to lose on defense.

Marsh

@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:

@marshmallowofwar ok, and the US Transport with the ANZACs; yes did follow those rules and sequence. So, the US transport can go into the ‘empty’ SZ off the Carolina Islands during its US non-combat even though the islands have an air base and enemy fighters stationed there? (during the ANZAC phase, they moved in cruisers and fighters into the SZ for the Amphib landing and won.)

Yes, the US transport can go to the sea zone as long as it does not contain any surface warships belonging to a hostile power.

If the ANZAC amphibious assault is met with a scramble that succeeds in killing all the attacking units in the sea zone, the US transport cannot be killed because it technically is not participating in the attack. This example is specifically pointed out in the rules.

Marsh

@anzacguy That is a big question in a little sentence. I will try to answer as concisely as possible, but it is impossible to answer in specifics.

First, Italy.

Italy is the only Axis power that depends totally on the actions of the Allies to decide its course of action. If the UK does things right, Italy has very limited options.

Assuming the UK does things right, Italy can and should provide ground forces to free up German resources for the destruction of Russia. After defending itself, Italy should position itself to help with the defense of West Germany, Southern France, and Normandy (assuming Germany or Italy was dumb enough to take Normandy).

Second, Italy should annoy the heck out of the UK by depriving it of its NO for as long as possible, maximize its income, and force the UK to try to neutralize that income. The best options for doing this are taking Cyprus if you have a surviving transport – this is very difficult for the UK to recapture without costing it extra resources. Taking African territories works only in the short term.

Finally, the Italian fast movers should move in advance of German forces to clear blockers and also allow German planes to land with the German stack that moves into the territory captured by Italy. The presence of defensive fighters can make a German stack feasible in circumstances where Russia might have odds of 50% or better when attacking the stack.

If the UK does things wrong (or just gets really unlucky)…

Italy might have navy play. Boost your income as much as possible and keep the UK tied up by taking its territories and forcing it to fight in Africa instead of reinforcing Russia. Keep can opening for Russia. With your boosted income, you can also keep building ground forces that can move to Europe or invade Africa.

Now, for ANZAC. Like Italy, it’s sucking hind tit. It has to support the major powers that keep it alive while not dying and thwarting the enemy as much as possible.

There are two schools of thought here – that ANZAC should turtle and that ANZAC should fight for possession of the Dutch East Indies. BOTH are true – ANZAC should do everything possible to not die while fighting for the DEI. To do these things, it needs US support. US fighters can reach Queensland from Hawaii in a single move. ANZAC ships can strengthen the US fleet to make it safe from Japanese attacks. The US can can open for ANZAC transports to let them take territory.

A major factor here is when Japan makes its move – with J1, ANZAC has less options than with every other Japanese opener. With J1, ANZAC should activate Dutch New Guinea on J1 for its NO. Without J1, ANZAC typically activates Java for income and possibly ferry fighters towards India via Java while building more defenses. (Whether or not to do this also depends on what’s showing for J2.)

A major limitation on ANZAC is factory capacity – there is one IC, and it is not in the best location. Some folks will tell you to build an IC with ANZAC, but timing is everything – too early, and your income will never support the enhanced capacity. Too late, and you’ll be giving initiative to the Axis powers. Also, the right blend is important – too many ground troops and you can’t help much. Too few ground troops and you’re a liability to the Allies.

A general rule of A&A combat is that fighters are sexy, but infantry holds off hits on more expensive units while they kill attackers…the more infantry you have, the longer your fighters live.

So, if you send a fighter off to India, it needs to be replaced but you also need to keep the infantry up. Combined with you factory limitations, this typically means you might build something like a fighter and two infantry, or a transport and two infantry, or a destroyer and two infantry.

Both of these minor powers require great skill to play properly – they both depend on balance and judgement of the enemy. Properly played, they can and have turned the tide of games.

Have fun!

Marsh

Here’s the response I made to your posting in the Pacific forum.

@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:

AA 1940, Pacific: 1. If an US amphib assault of destroyer and 2 loaded transports hit the Carolina Islands, and the defender scrambles 3 fighters and kills the destroyer, can the transports retreat to a friendly adjacent sea zone (I know can’t unload) or are they killed?

The surviving transports can retreat to a non-hostile sea zone through which one of them travelled, but only after all the hits from the defenders are assessed. If the scrambled fighters got more than one hit in the situation you described, each hit beyond the first is assigned to one of the transports. Any units on a transport that is hit are lost.

The transports can retreat but cannot unload. In this case, on the next Japanese turn the transport is probably dead unless there are Allied ships guarding the transport.

2. If a US transport picks up 2 ANZAC infantry, can they goto an enemy island during non-combat phase? There are no enemy ships there but could scramble enemy fighters. During the ANZAC turn, they send in ANZAC combat ships and planes to support the landing of their troops from the US transports. Ok?

When loading Allied troops on a US transport, the transport cannot move until the US turn and the troops cannot be unloaded until the Allied power’s turn comes back around. The sequence you described is:

ANZAC: Load troops onto a US transport during ANZAC non-combat movement.
US: Move transport:
ANZAC: Unload troops during either combat or non-combat movement. (Note that in this case the transport cannot retreat as it did not move.)

Hope this helps!

Marsh

@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:

AA 1940, Pacific: 1. If an US amphib assault of destroyer and 2 loaded transports hit the Carolina Islands, and the defender scrambles 3 fighters and kills the destroyer, can the transports retreat to a friendly adjacent sea zone (I know can’t unload) or are they killed?

The surviving transports can retreat to a non-hostile sea zone through which one of them travelled, but only after all the hits from the defenders are assessed. If the scrambled fighters got more than one hit in the situation you described, each hit beyond the first is assigned to one of the transports. Any units on a transport that is hit are lost.

The transports can retreat but cannot unload. In this case, on the next Japanese turn the transport is probably dead unless there are Allied ships guarding the transport.

2. If a US transport picks up 2 ANZAC infantry, can they goto an enemy island during non-combat phase? There are no enemy ships there but could scramble enemy fighters. During the ANZAC turn, they send in ANZAC combat ships and planes to support the landing of their troops from the US transports. Ok?

When loading Allied troops on a US transport, the transport cannot move until the US turn and the troops cannot be unloaded until the Allied power’s turn comes back around. The sequence you described is:

ANZAC: Load troops onto a US transport during ANZAC non-combat movement.
US: Move transport:
ANZAC: Unload troops during either combat or non-combat movement. (Note that in this case the transport cannot retreat as it did not move.)

Hope this helps!

Marsh

@imperious-leader said in The rehabilitation of cruisers and the 4-4-7:

@crockett36 Cruisers always move 3 spaces, and if they roll a one and the enemy has a plane, it must be selected as a hit…ok balanced

Umm, this should be under house rules if that’s what this is about.

Marsh

@thedesertfox With respects, Young Grasshopper’s tournament uses house rules. This forum is for actual Axis & Allies Global 1940.