Uhhhh, well I can’t say what’s in the oob rules, because I don’t have europe, but don’t you play by Alpha 3 rules and victory conditions?
Posts made by ronrye
-
RE: Axis victory
-
RE: Axis victory
@Cmdr:
Last time I checked it’s still by map - COW.
Allies: Take Tokyo or Berlin
Axis: Take 8 European Victory Cities or 6 Pacific Victory Cities
If I am going Pacific, it’s because Sea Lion did not happen first of all. Secondly, I’m going hard Pacific with 80% or more going for warships. I want 4 transports and assorted ground units (5 infantry, 2 artillery, armor) on them and I need units for holding Alaska as well probably.
I’m happiest with 4 battleships and 4 carriers, (dds, cas, sss etc as well of course) but don’t care how that combo comes together.
Where did you get those rule conditions? I thought the Allies won by holding the 3 axis capitals for a complete round
-
RE: Odd strategy to quickly subdue the Russians as Germany
It almost seems to me that it’s more beneficial to Russia to have the Russian front divided up more, but it’s not very obvious at first glance. Let me back up…
This analysis assumes that Germany is devoting everything to barbarosa (no Sealion), and that Russia doesn’t have to worry about Japan. Also, Germany attacks Russia 4th round, not before.
Ok, Germany should have about 153 ipcs to spend for barbarosa in the first 3 rounds (30 1st round, 70 2nd round, 53 3rd round). After that, any extra income it gets comes from Russian territories. Russia has about 121 ipcs to spend for the first 3 rounds. The differences between games lays in the purchases between the players.
So, why would Germany spend extra money on ICs in places like Finland and Romania? (Actually, I can see the usefulness in Romania, but I’ll get to that in a minute). A major IC and an air base in romania along with transports costs Germany 66-80 ipcs, depending on how many transports. So now, when it comes to units on the fronts, Germany has 73-87 ipcs worth compared to Russia’s 121ipcs (not that the extra 34-48 ipcs for Russia will keep Germany from winning against Russia).
Unless the purpose for a IC in Romania is to exploit the Black sea (which is almost always the case), there’s not much of a use of having it, is there? My reasoning is this:
- the immediate benefit of a ic up at a front is you get to attack immediately
- in this scenario, Germany is attacking round 4
- if the German player has the insight, he could just figure out what units he wants to have up at the front on the turn in the future that he wants them there
- so why spend an extra 12 or 30 ipcs on an ic when you’ll get the same benefit if you do a little extra planning?
conclusion: plan ahead, so that you can buy another 5 or so units to actually do something. (and this goes for any ic that you just want up in the front)
That’s my first point.
My second point goes back to the ipcs that both Germany and Russia have to use in the first 3 rounds. If the Russian player is experienced, he will see that Germany is planning on opening more fronts by putting the major IC on romania. However, Germany still has to work with the ipcs that it has, and the same for Russia. Soooo, why doesn’t Russia invest more in the same area that Germany does? As Russia, just station mobile units in Russia and Volgograd, so that you can get to any place he attacks right away. Russia can do this because Germany is investing less on the other fronts. If Germany sees that the south is more heavily guarded than what he was planning on and so he backs off on those attacks, just take your quick moving armor and mechs up to Western Ukraine or Belarus. It’s not as though just because you now have the opportunity to attack Rostov and Caucasus that you will be able to just move your armies there without a fight. With this in mind:
- by using the black sea, you get the advantage of attacking deeper in, but the ipcs should roughly balance out.
- I would ask if it wouldn’t be more worth it for Germany to instead use the 80 ipcs it would take for a major ic, air base, and 5 trans for other units on the immediate front–you could get 15 inf, 5 art, 3 mech and 3 armor.
Looking back at this little analysis of mine, I do admit that it (probably) breaks down for Russia. But that’s because Russia breaks down for Germany. Germany starts out too strong for Russia, and so Russia is going to have to give up some fronts so that it can properly defend others–it’s going to have to give ground somewhere. Nevertheless, I think that if Germany is going to commit to building a useful IC in Romania, it only benefits Russia (despite the more fronts it has to face), because it removes a lot of German ipcs from units.
note: some of the calculations might be off in this, because I can’t yet see it on the board. I don’t yet have europe 1940 because it’s so dang expensive.
-
RE: Rules Question
I have another question. If you want to amphibious assault a territory that is only protected by subs, you may choose to ignore the subs as long as you bring warships correct? But what if the defender scrambles? Will the subs then take part in the naval battle?
I think that unless you attack the subs, the defender may not scramble. According the alpha 3, "A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending fighters and tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t scramble) located on each island or coastal territory that has an operative air base can be scrambled to defend against attacks in the sea zones adjacent to those territories. " If the sea zone only has subs, you can ignore the subs and therefore are not attacking the sea zone…which means that the planes can’t be scrambled.
The rules are here http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149 -
RE: Axis victory
So is there a good way to balance US between the two boards or is it better to go primarily for just one side? If you want to liberate London, could you purchase accordingly and then just build enough subs/des in the Pacific to defend Honolulu and Sydney so that Japan couldn’t get victory?
I have found it is usually better for the Allies if the US goes primarily one side or the other. In fact, I find if US goes after Japan first really hard and can more or less neutralize them early enough (don’t have to actually take Tokyo, just sink the navy and corner them on Japan), there is usually enough time for US to make a decent presence in Europe before Germany/Italy gets the 8 VCs.
I have also found that when US tries splitting up it’s resources between both theaters, they end up with not enough on either side to make a difference. They may slow the Axis down, but not defeat them. Meanwhile, Germany gains ground in Russia and Japan gains ground in China and India.
Hmmmm. How many rounds does it take for US to corner Japan, and when can they make a presence is the Atlantic? Maybe when I play as the axis I’m just not playing against great players, because in my games it would not be possible for US to corner Japan and then go and make a difference in Europe, because victory comes for the axis before US has any chance of that. For example, in my last game as Germany, I decided to try sea lion for the first time, and it went SO much better than what I was planning on (and it wasn’t just luck). I had plenty of units on London for when the US would come around. Then I moved over to Russia and I burst through their front lines–Russia went from a big threat (as it was holding the three border countries in Germany) to a threat Germany could stop two or maybe even three times over. This was just the beginning of round 5, which I don’t think is enough time for US to do its work in the Pacific and then move over to the Atlantic to liberate London or capture back Egypt or hold Rome for a round.
(BTW, Jenn, it was because of my previous games where I dominate as the axis that I was assuming Germany owned London, Italy held Egypt, and Russia was in trouble).
I would have thought that after I went for Sealion that Russia would have been able to pound into Germany a whole lot more than it did. Any thoughts?
-
RE: Axis victory
I’ve played Axis a few times and found my aggressive strategy is very effective, I can probably recall about three or four victories out of five or six games I’ve played as Axis.
Did you get victory from the 8 vcs in Europe or the 6 vcs in the Pacific?
-
RE: Axis victory
@Cmdr:
I generally win in the Pacific because America freaks out about London falling and races over to Europe hoping to stop Germany from winning. (Thus nothing is there to stop Japan from winning.)
So, US races over because Germany is dominating in Europe? (where London is out, Russia is in trouble, and Italy holds Egypt). So, essentially Japan gets the victory because Germany is about to get victory?
-
RE: Axis victory
So is there a good way to balance US between the two boards or is it better to go primarily for just one side? If you want to liberate London, could you purchase accordingly and then just build enough subs/des in the Pacific to defend Honolulu and Sydney so that Japan couldn’t get victory?
-
Axis victory
When you all play as the Axis and win, which side usually has the victory? How many people have won in the pacific?
-
RE: How likely could America fall if all the Axis work together?
Problem with that ronrye is that Germany needs 11 transports. If Germany takes Gibralter R2 how are their 10 transports going to be protected from at least 4 UK planes?
That is a good point, but if the Axis really are bent on this strategy, then it (hopefully) wouldn’t be too much to have Italy use its tac and ftr on a suicide mission to bring down a couple of UK’s planes.
-
RE: How likely could America fall if all the Axis work together?
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
I never did it, but that’s along the lines of what was being done. I always meant to try it, but Larry said no, and then made it illegal to set up the attack. wink Makes me wonder if it would have worked, or if it was along the lines of the CASPIAN SUB - Canadian Shield strategy.
How is this attack illegal? Japan is in range of Hawaii, and when you attack Hawaii, you have to declare war on America, which means you can come that close to America, right?
The whole attack hinged (at least as far as I can tell) on being adjacent to SZ 10 from the south and the west. That’s no longer a legal move - so the strategy as written is illegal. That does not necessarily mean it cannot be reworked and made legal again.
There’s a rule that says Japan can’t be adjacent to sz 10 even when they are at war with America?
-
RE: How likely could America fall if all the Axis work together?
@Cmdr:
I never did it, but that’s along the lines of what was being done. I always meant to try it, but Larry said no, and then made it illegal to set up the attack. wink Makes me wonder if it would have worked, or if it was along the lines of the CASPIAN SUB - Canadian Shield strategy.
How is this attack illegal? Japan is in range of Hawaii, and when you attack Hawaii, you have to declare war on America, which means you can come that close to America, right?
-
RE: How likely could America fall if all the Axis work together?
So, the main problem (tell me if I’m right) is that America can block. If they do, they have an extra turn to build defensively, and this whole thing wouldn’t work.
On the Pacific side, the best case scenario for Japan 2nd turn (after they control Hawaii) is that America doesn’t block Japan from Panama. If they miss that (which a good player wouldn’t), then go for it! If they don’t, and the plan is to do all the attacking on the 4th turn, then why couldn’t Japan’s “back up plan” be to just move to a sz adjacent to sz 10, so that on turn 4 they attack W. USA?
On the Atlantic side, America has 1 ship that can block Germany (and possibly Italy if they can) from sz 91. They need two ships to block from sz 91, and presumably they would have bought another one. However, if Gib is taken G2, then Italy could bring its str bomber over I2, so that I3 it could run out and can open the way for Germany, correct?
Wouldn’t this “fix” the problems? Of course, if the American player was planning on this, it would be certain to fail, but most people don’t plan on KAF.
-
How likely could America fall if all the Axis work together?
I’m about to have another A&A game and I’m going to be the Axis. My friend says he wants to try to have all the Axis work together on taking American down first. I’m a bit skeptical of this, because 1) this is AMERICA 2) if it fails I’m not sure the Axis could win after that.
He hasn’t told me all of his plan yet, but this is what I know so far:
J1 buy 3 transports
1 artncm:
fleet from sz 33 move to sz 49J2 Japan attacks Hawaii…
planes in sz 49 attack the island, while everything else from sz 6 and 49 attacks the american fleet. Japan has 3 art, 1 arm, 4 inf v. 2 inf, 2 ftrsJ3 attack Panama (drop 1 inf off in SEMexico)
From here, Japan can attack either Western or Eastern US. This is as much as I know of his plans, but I’m guessing that on G1 Germany takes out UK navy, Germany G2 moves down the Gib, and that Germany’s purchases are focused on this. Then Italy and Germany are in range of US 3rd turn, and should still be in range by turn 4 when they try to take Washington.
The only reason I’m considering doing this is because the people I’m playing against aren’t that experienced and very possibly could miss this.
Considering this, I have four questions:
1. The Axis have basically spent 3 turns focused on this strategy, but if this fails, what chance would the Axis have of still winning?
2. If US wasn’t preparing for this (meaning not buying any land units) for the first two turns, wouldn’t they have enough money to only buy units for Washington and still be safe from the best the Axis could throw at them?
3. What could Germany safely contribute to this so that Russia doesn’t trample through and destroy Germany R4?
4. Is there any way this basic idea could work? -
RE: Axis pacific strategy
If for kamikaze you target an AC, you sink it, do the planes die too?
-
RE: There is no quick win to Global
Easy was a typo… it’s not easy, but if it’s a focus, you can make it happen. And it’s worth it.
Coupled with this strat I like to bulk my German ground units in Romania, put a minor there, and Go for UKRAINE.
My units STOP at Ukraine, and hold a defense - thus to get an advantage over OVERWHELMING Russian forces. Build Mec/Arm in Romania, and 3 inf in UKR, odd artillery maybe. UKR WUK and the territories east of that, are worth some decent coin, the rest of Russia is wasteland.
Then use your Baltic Navy, which has been threatening sea-lion, FORCE YOURSELF to build a few transports (This is painful) and Hammer Leningrad.
The Russians have to defend 2 front at once, and can’t do it, usually, Leningrad gets given up.
This is a slow go though… and you need to be playing a hell of a tactical game, keeping the allies OUT of the mediterranean, by taking, sacking, blocking Gibraltar every possible second.
Also, if your opponent is unsuspecting, from UKR, you’ll have a medium/sizable mobile force. IF the Italians use air power effectively, they can crack open a 1 to 3 man blitz block, and the germans can break through to smash the capital - OCCASSIONALLY. the mistake is your opponents to make.
First, why do you have to build transports? You could just march there. Isn’t Germany strong enough to break the Russian lines at Baltic states and east Poland?
And what is the 1 to 3 man blitz block?
-
Axis pacific strategy
I recently realized the alpha 2+ rules are the official global rules. I was disappointed with one thing because it screwed my axis strategy completely–the scrambling rule that you can only scramble 3 planes. With the rules out of the box, I would make a “wall” with Japan by putting ftrs and tacs on Japan and the Caroline Islands for when the US comes with its huge force. With that, I could choose whether to defend the sz or to attack their navy.
Since you can no longer do this, how can Japan win in the Pacific? (assuming US does KJF)
-
RE: All Axis attack Russia.
@Cmdr:
Ronrye,
I am not stating a propensity to give up Africa with Italy. I am only stating that Italy should send 2 Infantry and 1 Armor into Russia to take land for Germany to reinforce. It’s faster than if Germany has to take and hold it for a round to move forward.
Wouldn’t this fail if Russia builds a huge force at the border? So if Italy doesn’t take it, what would happen, or are you saying that if Russia puts the units out there as a wall that Germany just weakens it a lot and then retreats so that Italy can do this?
@Vance:
Suppose Japan ignores everything else for the first few turns and focuses exclusively on killing those 18 Soviet infantry divisions in the far east before they all run back to reinforce Moscow against impending barbarossa (please humour me I am new).
On J1, Japan brings all three transports to sea zone 6, and buys a fourth transport plus 3 tanks.
On J2, Japan attacks Amur with 4 tanks and 1 mech infantry (but lets assume the Russians might have already run away to Buryatia R1 which is fine because we will catch them).
For the next few turns, Japan does nothing but build tanks and transport them to Amur, and on subsequent turns they all chase the Russians westward. Japan also assembles a big pile of planes one territory behind the first wave of tanks. By not attacking USA, UK, etc., Japan also gets the 10 IPC NO each turn, which it uses to buy more tanks and maybe a fifth transport. By the time USA is in the war, this Russia thing is already set in motion.
So the Russians keep running westward and the Japanese tanks and planes eventually intercept them at Timguska on J4 and strafe them, again at Novosibirsk J5, Vologda J6, and finally Moscow J7. Anything the USSR might do to protect those far east infantry reinforcements (like sending a fighter or tanks) would only detract from their defense against the Germans. By J7 Germany should have USSR on the ropes and Japan finishes them off with a stab to the back.
If you did this, Russia would fall, but I don’t think Japan could stay alive because then UKP, China, US, and ANZAC are all building up ready to smack the Japs.
-
RE: Germany v. Russia –who wins?
Who do you all usually find that wins, if Germany is all out on Russia and Russia all out on Germany.
Russia’s usually going to be all out on Germany, and Germany usually can’t afford to go all out on Russia (since it has to deal with the UK, USA, etc.). In a straight fight Germany would always win because of its superior economy. With the other factors involved (mainly the other nations) Russia’s still more likely to lose in the long run unless a second front is opened (France, probably).
My first game playing 1940 Europe (I had only played spring 1942 before that), I was playing as UK and Russia. I wasn’t used to air bases, so I thought all the planes were out of range in Germany, and so I lost UK 2nd round. Germany didn’t have to contribute much at all–he only used one transport to take London. I felt so stupid after that, but I thought I’d still give the game a shot. the US’s primary goal, when it finally got into the war, was to liberate London (which it did after a while). In the mean time, it was Germany and Italy (from the south) all against Russia. Italy took over just about all of Africa since the UK was out of the game. However, even against this, as Russia, I held out against everything and was even pushing Germany’s lines back a bit. When London was liberated, he gave up because that brought two more powers into Europe.
Was I just playing against someone who wasn’t very good at playing Germany?
-
RE: Four battleship counter
start with the DEI and China. Those two things are big just by themselves–an extra 35 ipcs