@DoManMacgee nah dude you’re good its fine. you pretty much covered my concerns about the axis powers and actually showed me a new way to attack the British fleet do thanks for that! Ifk I guess playing with NOs is kinda just personal preference for people. Personally I like it because it involves some pretty insane games as well as it gives some irrelevant territories a purpose of existence to be taken or liberated by the nations imo. R&D is another fun one because it could totally turn the tides of the game to one side or the other instead of having the same half arse game every time. But yeah is gonna be Japan and go nuts on the allies but they’re pretty much subjected to their own little fighting ring. Otherwise that’s pretty much it for my concern on protecting Africa, thx for ur opinion dude I really appreciate it. Hears to roll dice together one day.

@Argothair

For the most part it was kind of just a playtest since he did the Taranto Raid as well with both strategies being put into the ditch after Afrika Korps. (btw to simplify things, all Afrika Korps is is Germany taking 3 transports, a BB, CV, Cruiser and Sub to the Med to protect the Italian fleet until it can protect itself, then conquer the ME and Egypt and win the game and sit on the throne on the doorstep to Moscow

@tin-can-of-the-sea

Definitely. I’ve been playing many of the different versions of A&A for a while now and having read through rule book after rule book especially with G40 I still miss rules that I overlooked and what not so thank goodness the forums exist for people to inform on these kinds of overlooked and missed aspects of the game.

@altruex

For me, playing with National Objectives is a must, 1) You’ll find that it makes the game WAY more interesting, 2) It is kinda the one thing that actually makes half the stuff you can do in a WW2 scenario make sense… and 3) It balances the game a lot better in that retrospectrum.

As for Research and Development, this is for sure optional since it kinda plays an important role but not super into swaying which side will beat the other, so do what you will with this.

As for house rules, I only have 1 house rule I put into play, one at which I like to call the “Siberian-Manchurian Pact” which, by the name you can probably tell that it relates to the real time non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan at the time.

The reason I have this houserule into play is that for starters, I feel like it is a HUGE waste of time for the Soviets to be throwing valuable infantry into Japanese Manchuria all to gain a single infantry for 1 turn only to lose it, as well as the fact that it kinda defeats the purpose of Japan fighting the Pacific as a whole instead of having to deal with the annoyance of the Soviets taking Manchuria with like 5 infantry…

And in the other aspect of it, It is a huge waste of time for Japan to be going after Siberia, whether theres units there or not. It’s of the USSR player’s own will to move those infantry to the Eastern Front against Germany or to keep them there, but like I said, Japan can at most get like 4 to 6 IPC’s outta the far Eastern Russian territories… which I can literally get double that with like, 3 provinces down south (The Money Islands).

All in all, that’s not to say these 2 can’t go to war with eachother, the basic rule is that if Japan and The Soviet Union do go to war, it needs to be through the Chinese border with the Soviet Union and not the Manchurian border, because it saves people ALOT of time and strain and annoyance from either side if one is attacking the other.

Just my opinion though.

@gen-manstein

Much appreciated, I’ll have a look at it as soon as I can

@Argothair In order for the Axis to even have a chance against Middle Earth U.K Japan needs to do a J1 attack. Not just any J1 attack but they need to do the 4 move check-mate as I call it. If you’re unaware of what that is it’s where the Japanese take their 2 carriers’ planes 2 destroyers and sub to do a Pearl Harbor attack. You will destroy the fleet scramble or no scramble. Next you need the U.S to size you up and destroy your blocker in the Hawaiian islands with their San Francisco fleet. And to top of the check-mate Japan brings in their 2 fighters and 2 tactical bombers from the island of Japan as well as the 4 planes on their carriers (Japan should have taken Wake Island to land the 4 extra planes). With that, The entirety of the U.S fleet has single highhandedly been destroyed by Japan as early as Round 2. And with no American navy that leaves you to send your navy into the Indian Ocean to disrupt GHG’s transport shuck of guys into the Middle East and thus pretty much throw the strategy.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income?

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory? Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

In terms of trading territories, from a technical standpoint, yes you would be correct. Trading 1 IPC territories wouldn’t be very cost-effective whatsoever. The only time I would see trading territories with Germany as being useful per se would be if it stopped a German National Objective.

Though alluding to the idea, I think what he’s trying to say here is when it comes to trading territories, it’s less about how much money you’re obtaining from it as a result and moreover how many German units you’re destroying each turn.

Ultimately, this is just a differing of play styles. You go about the wide and cheap angle of using infantry for defense, which there’s nothing wrong with that. All the same I, and I think Dom as well are more inclined to defend key areas and consistently find places to constantly counter-attack Germany in specific areas not just to slow their advance but to really make them prioritize on mobilizing a single unit that they’re running short on, for instance, tanks. And, from what it sounds like, to me it seems like both of these strategies would work just as effectively as the other so long as the Allies are doing their thing in Norway and North Africa.

@leebear said in A question on components.:

@thedesertfox
I’ve done 8 battleships and 8 carriers for both the USA and Japan. Probably half that for everyone else. I’ve done probably 20 fighters for each as well.
That 1941 set is a nightmare in terms of limited pieces. I ended up combining 2 sets but since then I’ve swapped a lot of pieces out for the unique, nation specific sculpts. I actually like the 1941 game for its simplicity though. The fact that you can’t build IC’s actually keeps navies relevant for the whole game. (Particularly for Japan).

yeah i definteely agree. I played that game throughout my beginnings of A&A with a friend of mine until I upgraded to Anniversary, then 42’, and finally Global 40’. I also forgot about those custom American fighters that I atleast thought were selling in Historical Boardgaming. They were the ones different from the P-38 Lightning, the other model was the Chance Vought Corsair, the plane with the bent wings. I honestly prefered those over the twin engine models since first off, those weren’t standard issue planes in the second world war, and second, I just think the Corsairs look way cooler.

I get where your concern comes from but let me give you a broader perception of all this. To cover your points I’m going to go one by one to help you understand this attack and the benefits and success you can reap from it.

@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

I mean, if you’re taking Wake Island J1, then you’re pulling at least one transport away from the standard J1 attack, and that has immediate consequences – you are either only bringing one transport to the Philippines, meaning you are attacking with 1 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 tac against 2 inf, 1 ftr, and you could easily get diced, or you are skipping the attack on Borneo, which means that India will be richer and you will be slower to collect the money island NO, if you can collect it at all. With only 2 transports in Indonesia for the first couple of turns, your attack is slower by one territory every turn – the infantry that took Borneo could have moved on to take, e.g., Java, but if it wasn’t on Borneo yet then it can’t continue on. So you’re not just down 4 IPCs for one turn; you’re down 4 IPCs for each of the first few turns. There’s also a problem where if you leave the Allies any toeholds in the money islands, then your transports need to be defended – if you take every money island, the Allies need carriers to harass you and they don’t have any carriers in the opening, but if you leave one of the islands in Dutch hands then Indian / ANZAC planes can land there after sinking your transports.

Japan begins with 3 transports. 2 of them on the coast of China (SZ 19, SZ 20). These 2 will brings 4 units and attack the Philippine Islands along with the Fighter and Tac Bomber from the carrier next to the Caroline Islands so you’re idea of being diced really doesn’t work here. Am I skipping the attack on Borneo? Yes. Is it going to cost me? No. Do you know that India only has 17 ipcs? And thats with Borneo. As I stated before, you’ll have 4 guys to then send to Celebes, Java, Sumatra and Borneo with your 2 transports and take all 4 of them if you so choose. And assuming that U.K is doing a Middle Earth strategy they won’t be using that small fleet to cross the triangle of Persia, SA, and Egypt. Your transports will be defended by 1 carrier with 2 fighters on it, and 2 battleships. If that’s not enough then maybe you’re infantry can personally swim out to protect the transport. ANZAC only has 1 fighter. Literally one. If they wanna spend that 10 ipcs on another fighter then they can. It wont make a difference.

Normally defending your transports wouldn’t be a big problem, but if you’re sending 2 CV, 2 DD, 1 SS to Hawaii then you’re running pretty low on boats. Your starting cruiser has to go to Singapore to fight the British BB there on J1 and may be lost in that battle or by an Indian counter-attack. So the Japanese southern fleet is something like 1 SS, 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB.

1 Aircraft Carrier (1 fighter, 1 Tac Bomber), 2 battleships, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 1 submarine. I suppose that’s a small and insignificant fleet to ANZAC and U.K Pacific.

The British start with 3 DD, 2 CA, 1 CV in the eastern Med + India, which is only very slightly weaker than the Japanese forces you have available – the British could build a couple of subs and get to parity if they’re feeling frisky, or they could just force you to concentrate your fleet in one sea zone, and then you’ll be losing 1-2 Japanese transports every turn as they get picked off by Allied fighters. ANZAC is also potentially a problem – you can’t attack their starting fleet if you are going for Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on J1, so they have a DD, a CA, and 15 IPCs of income turn 1 from Dutch New Guinea that can buy a couple more subs.

Unless the British are invading Tobruk, they’d be absolutely stupid in the head not to do the Taranto Raid. Especially if they plan on focusing their resources into a full force Middle Earth strategy. Yes, build 12 ipcs of sea units that totally won’t not be utterly destroyed at any point in the game. The British only have 2 fighters and 1 Tac Bomber in India. What they plan to do with it is unknown to me. But I’d welcome them attacking my fleet to take out the one air force they can’t even afford to rebuild in 2 turns. And yes you can attack ANZAC’s destroyer and transport with the destroyer you have in SZ 33. Take out the destroyer and transport with no scramble and the cruiser comes after you manage to hit a 1 or 2 and you destroyed the entirety of ANZAC’s navy. Once again, by all means spend 12 ipcs on units that will totally be there to see the dawn of sunrise over the American Flag in Tokyo…

Meanwhile, there is no naval base on Wake, so if you move carriers to Wake on J1, they can reach Caroline Islands on J2, Java on J3, and India on J4, assuming no blockers at all and no need to remain near Wake for even one turn to mop up American resistance. Neither assumption is guaranteed.

There is an airbase. And there’s a specific reason for taking Wake Island. Because that one island is what’s going to decide the life or death of the ENTIRE American Pacific fleet if they move their San Francisco fleet to challenge yours. Frankly any of my starting navy on the coast of Japan would be overkill in a natural J1 attack which would be a waste of valuable resources.

There’s nothing wrong with launching a Pearl Harbor attack if the Middle Earth defense is what worries you the most as Axis; you’re right to point out that Pearl Harbor makes Middle Earth somewhat less attractive. I don’t think Pearl Harbor is as strong as you think it is, either in general or against Middle Earth specifically. Want to try it out on TripleA? I’ll take the Allies with 24 IPCs in standard or no bid in Balanced Mod, and I’ll play my Middle Earth against your Pearl Harbor.

Don’t misunderstand me. All I’m killing is a Transport, Submarine, Cruiser and Destroyer, nothing to wright home about. What is to wright home about is if the American fleet on San Francisco moves down to secure Hawaii from you. And believe me when I say it I’ll put everything on the line to destroy that American fleet. Because once that fleet dies any chance of the Allies winning goes with it. But take it with a grain of salt if you must. Believe me it sounds easy to have 70+ ipcs as America but if you’re really willing to let the Japanese win with 6 victory cities or rebuild your navy from scratch and allow Germany to do Operation Sealion.

And it was on this day that we celebrate the lives lost in the Big One, and the Great War, and every other war that said country had participated in. Let’s honor the fallen soldiers that gave their lives for the country through out history to the present day. For we all may love war games and specifically Axis and Allies, we ought to take this day as a break from any game of Axis and Allies, any game of Global War 1936, any game of Risk, and so on and so forth to honor the men of each nation, both Axis and Allies, both Central Powers and Entente, both home nation and foreign. For at the end of the day, we might be pushing plastic pieces on a board, but must recognize the bigger and broader picture to that of what these battles, wars and conflicts were truly fought by men of each nation.

Have a good Memorial Day.

@superbattleshipyamato

Due to the way warfare in the Pacific works the Americans dont need that many ground units but still, Japan can threaten Honolulu and Sydney and thus threaten to win the game if America just lets them have Hawaii.

I know it has been a rather tedious argument for both sides on whether the United States should go after Japan first or Germany first, however the more games I play and the more test runs I do I find that Japan takes precedence over Germany in a lot of the games. Granted, maybe going all in on the Pacific just to kill Japan may not be the answer however leaving Japan completely unopposed in the Pacific just doesn’t work either. I admire the idea of going after Germany and Italy as the United States however the U.S can only do that once Japan has been contained. My question to you is this: how would you go about it? How much time and resources do you invest in the Pacific, if any at all?

@superbattleshipyamato

To my recollection, Germany responded by doing two things. Making an assault towards Western Ukraine as well as consolidating the vast majority of their units in the Baltic States, primed for an attack on Leningrad (also moving their infantry from Finland into Vyborg.)

@superbattleshipyamato

This is how I responded to Germany’s blitz into East Poland and what I was telling you about earlier.

Instead of attacking I shadowed the units in East Poland preventing them from making an immediate push forward without being counter attacked with heavy resistance.

@marshmallowofwar said in How would you stop this?:

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

7 infantry are on Bessarabia

East Poland as 4 Mech infantry, 16 infantry, 3 AA guns, 5 tanks, and 5 artillery

@superbattleshipyamato

Of course! The Soviet Union was the first nation I ever played in A&A and it’s still probably my favorite nation to play due to the challenges you’ll face as well as the potential you have as that nation. I definitely would say that the Soviet Union has a many different paths it can take on how they want to go about facing Germany, most widely debated amongst others in these forums and on youtube but I’ll probably describe this strategy of mine more in depth in a separate thread.

I think Bessarabia has 12 infantry.

The chips are a little bigger then what they might seem. The Germans have 8 infantry in Bessarabia.

@superbattleshipyamato

Instead of going into Eastern Poland I pulled my units back to what I call the “2nd line of defense”. Essentially, I pulled my units back into Archangel, Smolensk, and Bryansk so that my infantry could attack Belarus/Western Ukraine if need be and so that they had the option to move toward Ukraine/Leningrad in case Germany decided to do an all out bomb rush for one of them with my tanks obviously being in Smolensk so that they can reach both Leningrad and Ukraine.

@marshmallowofwar said in How would you stop this?:

@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.

Sorry I should have been a little clearer. I meant to say that I considered going into Eastern Poland to attack those guys but went against my better judgement knowing I was going to suffer a lot of casualties from it. As for the 2 tac bombers, yes you are correct. The Soviet’s planes would be much better used on defense then offense.

@superbattleshipyamato

Interesting take, I never would have thought to destroy those planes on Romania since I was so focused on the big German blitz into Eastern Poland.

I considered going on there to take em out, but I figured that if I did the battle casualties on my end would be too tuff to top making it into a pyrrhic victory. I find it kind of interesting that the battle calculator read out 87% odds of winning since I looked at the stuff I could take in versus the stuff that he had and didn’t think there was a chance in the world I could come out on top. What I opted to do instead was I pulled back to smolensk, Bryansk, and Archangel for another counter attack line incase he moved in. (Germany moved in toward Leningrad and we had a big tustle there, ultimately lost but took down TONS of tanks with it.)