@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.

Your first turn build is being spent trying to psych out the UK, forcing them to spent their entire build reinforcing the UK rather than anywhere else.

For the record, I love the psych-out. I once won a game entirely by psyching out my opponent on turn one. When his teammates finally convinced him I was full of <bleep>, it was too late for Japan to build properly.

But I digress – back to your note.

You start behind Russia on total infantry. You build ships, and this allows Russia spare room to build tanks and artillery. By the time you start building for the Russian invasion, you are a full turn behind Russia in deployments.

You use those ships for Novgorad. So what – the ships don’t land and are a liability that you have to protect now. Without an air base to cover them, you have to build either an airbase (locking down your planes) or more navy (which ALSO don’t get you anywhere) and in the mean time Russia is building MORE ground forces. You will never catch up.

In the mean time, the survivors from the 8 or 10 units you were able to land can now be crushed by Russia (which had an entire turn to stack Belarus and Bryansk with pretty respectable stacks). Even if you swap unit for unit on your defense roll (you won’t), Russia comes out ahead here. Your ground offensive stalls out.

Solution: Stop wasting your money on ships that don’t actually get you anywhere. Alternately, use the ships to get troops to somewhere they can be effective.

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

It’s not boring.

It’s tense, hanging on the edge of a knife. Germany pouring as many resources as possible into the destruction of Russia, and Russia and the Allies trying desperately to avoid mistakes and stave off defeat.

Definitely NOT boring. Just not action-packed!

Marsh

Someone please confirm my numbers:

E Poland
3 AA gun
11 infantry
4 mech infantry
5 artillery
5 tank

Bessarabia
8 infantry

Ukraine
6 infantry
tank

@thedesertfox If the attack on E Poland is in doubt and there are six Russian infantry in Ukraine to 8 German infantry in Bessarabia, it looks to me like you should take the three planes in combination with the tank and infantry from the Ukraine and annihilate the German stack in Bessarabia.

It looks like the East Poland attack is in doubt, but losing the stack in Bessarabia will hurt Germany as well. Germany will be forced to divert forces from the main stack to keep you from pressing into southern Europe with your remaining ground forces, which buys time for Moscow to build more defenses. (If Germany doesn’t divert forces, then you’re remaining ground forces are positioned to boost your economy at Germany’s expense.)

The planes would land in Ukraine, along with the forces you are building there. You would need a blocker in Western Ukraine to keep them from dying to an immediate counterattack through Western Ukraine. Everything else can retreat.

If the attack on Eastern Poland is on (again, from the thread it seems like that’s in doubt), then the tank doesn’t participate and at worst you are going to take in the planes and infantry from Ukraine into Bessarabia and stop the attack once you are at risk of losing planes. Losing those infantry is going to hurt Germany.

@superbattleshipyamato said in How would you stop this?:

@marshmallowofwar

I thought Bessarabia isn’t a good target. It’s all infantry. The heavy equipment in Eastern Poland is much better.

If that attack is indeed at 87% (I don’t think it is – see my numbers question below), that is a GREAT attack for Russia to make and I agree with making it as well. If Bessarabia is off the table (because I just can’t read those numbers of units from the map), then the planes (at the very least the tactical bomber) should go too despite the risk of AA hits.

Marsh

@thedesertfox I disagree with attacking the planes in Romania. As juicy a target as they are, you will be trading two of your very valuable planes (that you cannot afford to replace) for three of Germany’s proportionally less valuable planes.

(Yes, Germany’s planes are valuable, but it has more of them and can afford to replace them over time. Russia has much more difficulty doing this.)

It’s difficult for me to make out the exact composition of the force in Bessarabia, but if you have an edge over Bessarabia a much better play would be to take the planes in combination with the infantry from Ukraine and hit the stack of German infantry in Bessarabia. Now Germany has lost a devastating amount of ground forces and has to sacrifice valuable tanks and mechs to hold back your assault while it marches in new infantry stacks.

If you don’t have that numerical parity, then you should use your planes in East Poland to get your chance of victory to almost 100%.

Marsh

Why are you talking about 42 in a Global 1940 forum?

@squirecam said in Axis are underpowered.:

You can pressure the middle east as well if you build a german fleet to aid Italy. You dont have to play out Moscow or bust every game.

In the scenario you’re describing you’re either splitting your forces, which means Russia is on definitive seek and destroy (and possibly even pushing you back), or you’re concentrating in the north, which means there is no pressure on the Middle East until several turns after you build this second fleet.

Assuming you build your fleet in Southern France, you need several turns to build a fleet that can survive if the UK is doing alright and essentially in control of the Med. Your Med fleet depends on the Italians to survive unless you’re spending a lot of money (more not spent on ground troops). If there is any UK or US air presence, your fleet will be blown out of the water as soon as you start building it without an Italian navy or air cover (which you have to build and anchor fighters there – more forces NOT helping you in Russia).

Of course, you might be trying to move your Baltic fleet to the Med. That is several turns of concerted movement through a hostile Atlantic and you are depending on Italian control of Strait of Gibraltar.

And once again, those ships do not occupy territories – they don’t help your economy directly. They are not “boots on the ground”.

I 100% agree with you that you don’t have to “Moscow or bust” every game, but you DO need to shut down the Russian army in a way that makes it totally defensive. That takes a LOT of ground troops and planes.

@snpic said in Axis are underpowered.:

@marshmallowofwar thank you for your advice, I will try it on tripleA and tell you what I think.
But I think that there’s a problem because if you take all of Russia you still need another victory city.

That’s true, but it’s rarely an issue. Your practical choice for VC is now Cairo or London. If things have been going well-ish for the Axis in the Med at this point but Egypt still holds out, there’s an excellent chance that the UK player has short-changed the spending on UK defenses. NOW you can build your fleet and air force while you bolster your Western defenses and consolidate Russian territories that you haven’t been able to conquer yet. A late Sea Lion is a beautiful thing (for the Axis).

On the other hand, if Egypt can be destroyed by the forces you currently have at hand (and can produce and deliver in a timely manner), you can go for Egypt.

Marsh

@squirecam True, you can land nine units every turn. But Russia is still 30 IPCs ahead of you on ground troops, and you started behind. Those naval units can only get you to Novgorod, which means that you are forced into a northerly attack and cannot pressure the Middle East until later in the game.

Yeah, I’ll play it my way. If I’m building ships, they won’t be used in the Baltic.

EDITED: You can only land six units per round in Novgorod with three transports. Not sure where the nine in the originnal note came from or why it didn’t register when I responded.

Marsh

Your first turn build is being spent trying to psych out the UK, forcing them to spent their entire build reinforcing the UK rather than anywhere else.

For the record, I love the psych-out. I once won a game entirely by psyching out my opponent on turn one. When his teammates finally convinced him I was full of <bleep>, it was too late for Japan to build properly.

But I digress – back to your note.

You start behind Russia on total infantry. You build ships, and this allows Russia spare room to build tanks and artillery. By the time you start building for the Russian invasion, you are a full turn behind Russia in deployments.

You use those ships for Novgorad. So what – the ships don’t land and are a liability that you have to protect now. Without an air base to cover them, you have to build either an airbase (locking down your planes) or more navy (which ALSO don’t get you anywhere) and in the mean time Russia is building MORE ground forces. You will never catch up.

In the mean time, the survivors from the 8 or 10 units you were able to land can now be crushed by Russia (which had an entire turn to stack Belarus and Bryansk with pretty respectable stacks). Even if you swap unit for unit on your defense roll (you won’t), Russia comes out ahead here. Your ground offensive stalls out.

Solution: Stop wasting your money on ships that don’t actually get you anywhere. Alternately, use the ships to get troops to somewhere they can be effective.

@cojoh Australia is a continent, not an island, under the rules of the game. Therefore, Queensland is acceptable for a minor IC, as is Malaya. Most Chinese territories of 2 or higher can be used for minor industrial complexes by Japan only, but Kwangtung should be an exception as a UK territory (assuming my memory is correct).

Marsh

@hengst So the article says, and read on until you actually get to what I was talking about in the article.

@superbattleshipyamato123 Bully!

Looks like the US put troops there in 41 according to that article.

Right, I’m going with “Where’s the naval base on Scotland to represent Scapa Flow?”

Marsh