@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.
Best posts made by TheDesertFox
RE: Protecting Africa?
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
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
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.
RE: [House Rules] How to create the best gameplay for this edition?
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.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
@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.
RE: 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.
RE: A question on components.
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.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
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.
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.
RE: Allies strategy
@andrewaagamer said in [Allies strategy]
National Objectives: I think, while the game plays differently, with or without NOs both versions are balanced the same. I would want a minimum $6 bid as the Allies with or without NOs. $9 is perfect.
Please explain how NOs are balanced and not majorly in favor of the Axis. I’m legitimately interested in how you came to such a conclusion.
I know you didn’t ask me but it’s America so I’ll answer anyway.
A baseline that I think should be established is the core difference between the Allied and Axis national objectives. As we know, the reason we deem the Axis as having such a huge advantage with NOs is because of how easily accessible their national objectives are. The Allies on the other hand are limited to very select few amount of national objectives that they’ll always have, with everything else lying at the top of the mountain, to put simply, not as easily accessible as the Axis National Objectives.
The Axis, mainly Germany, can and will get their National Objectives quickly. They already get one for controlling core territories, they get one for controlling at least 3 of the 5 given states of the USSR, and one for controlling Stalin/Leningrad, one or the other. Part of what makes these NOs so easy to get is their quick and easy accessibility and close proximity to Germany. However, that still resides as a weakness to the Germans. Germany can and will lose these national objectives just as fast as they will get them. The same can be said for the Italians and Japanese. This right here is the prime weakness that the Allies are very much capable of exploiting.
The Allies, while their national objectives are more beyond arm’s reach, there is one core difference that should be noted. One specific NO that belongs to the UK is to seize any originally controlled Japanese territory. Granted while you may not do it right away, once you get 3-5 turns into the game it’s likely that the British will have pushed the Japanese out of French Indo China or the Americans landing at practically any one of the core Japanese islands territories such as the Caroline Islands or Iwo Jima. Once the Japanese have lost either of these territories or even both for that matter they aren’t going to have the means nor the strength to take it back because they’re going to have many other things to focus on. The Soviet Union as well can be used as an example. Granted while their 10 IPC national will remain out of reach for quite a while, once Norway and Finland fall to the British, that leaves only one territory left for you to take in order to get that national objective at least once, leaving the Germans on a much more precarious and difficult predicament. This right here is the overall theme of the Allies’ NOs and playstyle, once you start to gain some traction as the Allies your National Objectives will kick in, and trust me when the Allies get the majority of their national objectives they seriously start snowballing.
So just because the Axis get theirs quicker doesn’t necessarily put them at an absolute advantage. The Germans will lose Leningrad just as fast as they took it and the Japanese will lose any one of the out-of-reach originally controlled territories from the impending British/American threat, because like I spoke of earlier, the Japanese have a vast and wide sphere of power for which they cannot protect all of it at once. Honestly, if anything the Allied National Objectives are better than the Axis National objectives.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
I like where you’re coming from. But I’ll counterfute what you’ve said to give you a better idea of the J1 attack.
That’s assuming you take no casualties in the Philippines, lose no transports before J3, and take no casualties killing off any reinforcements delivered by India / ANZAC. You can take the Philippines plus the 4 money islands with 2 transports and 4 ground units, but you’re spreading yourself thin and it’s not guaranteed.
True. With the U.S rolling 2 at 2 and 1 at 4 you’re granted to lose at least one unit which would obviously be an infantry but that’s not to say the fighter’s always going to hit. I’m not sure what you’re referring to by losing no transports on J3. By the time J3 rolls around you should have built atleast 3-5 more transports to shuck units as well as place factories in their respective areas such as Kiangsu, Kwangtung and Malaya. Depends on what ANZAC does with their small fleet. As the ANZAC player I would personally make it my mission to keep the fleet I have out of Japanese hands which means I won’t be trying to race for the money islands. Even if I did take Java or Celebes as ANZAC, it would last for like 1 turn? It’s not worth over 20 ipcs worth of naval units only to get an infantry unit worth of territory once.
I count 3 – in addition to the fighter in Queensland there are 2 in New Zealand that can land on Java as early as A1. All 3 fighters are close enough to the action to interfere with Japanese takeover of the money islands.
Yeah that’s totally my bad. I forgot about the setup in which they also have a fighter on New Zealand that’s my mistake sorry. And as I said, with a fleet like Japan’s, ANZAC shouldn’t be throwing their fighters at that fleet at any cost due to just how many little IPC’s they posses. And unlike Italy, they genuinely aren’t capable of possessing more without NO money (that is there’s not a J1 attack, allowing them to jump on Java and Celebes).
Sorry, I thought you were sending one of the BBs east to Pearl Harbor. Sounds like both BBs are going south. So what’s attacking Pearl Harbor? Just 1 SS, 2 DD, 2 ftr, and 2 tac? Against that force, I would probably not scramble the Hawaiian fighters, and then counter-attack the Hawaiian sea zone on US1 with something like 1 DD, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 tac. That should handily win control of the sea zone against 1 SS, 2 DD, allowing me to reinforce Hawaii with the transport on non-combat. So now Hawaii has 4 inf, 4 ftr defending it against a maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 tac, which seems fine to me. If I lose Hawaii at all, it will be very expensive for Japan, and I can retake it immediately. I hear you that you are baiting the main US fleet into Hawaii and that you could sink that fleet if it moves there on US1, but all I have to do is not take the bait, and I should be fine. You’re forcing the US to invest some significant spending in the Pacific on US1 and US2, which could make a Sea Lion attack more threatening. I suppose if I saw a Pearl Harbor on J1 I would adjust the UK1 buy – instead of 1 transport, 1 artillery for South Africa and 2 inf, 1 fighter for London I might do something like 6 inf for London and 2 mech for South Africa, save $1.
It’s alright I should’ve clarified that both the battleships would be going up against the submarine and destroyer in the Philippines. What’s attack Pearl is exactly what you stated being the submarine and 2 destroyers with the 2 fighters and tactical bombers going to Pearl. Your carrier strike group will be going to Wake Island to land the fighters. I wouldn’t scramble the fighters either for purposes of landing them on AC’s and also because the fight still tips in the 90’s for Japan even with the scramble. That’s the idea. It doesn’t matter what you have left after the raid of Pearl Harbor whether you have 1, 2 to all of your ships still there. It’s supposed to pull the Americans in to want to strike at the vulnerable 2 aircraft carriers that cannot escape even if they move 2 since there is no naval base as you stated on Wake Island. I think you’re misunderstanding the Pearl Harbor attack the idea is not to land and get boots on the ground in Hawaii. Frankly you’d be right about not moving your fleet there. As the U.K player myself, unless I saw even the slightest chance of Germany attempting Sea Lion I would see no need to purchase ground units on the main island. The U.K is subjected to requirement of spending their IPC’s efficiently and in the right area where the game will be played because if they put all their units in the wrong area then you’ve lost.
Sure, you can attack 1 DD vs. 1 DD, 1 trans and you might get lucky, or you might not. If you’re sending 2 DDs to Pearl Harbor and 1 DD to Australia, that leaves you with only 1 DD to escort your southern fleet, which, again, will make it tricky to cover multiple sea zones to protect your transports. With 2 BB, your main southern fleet will be safe enough, but the flanks are vulnerable, in my opinion.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about the ANZAC cruiser, other than that you expect to both win a 50-50 battle with the destroyers and then also sink the cruiser with like 20% odds when Australia counter-attacks your DD with 1 CA, 1 ftr. So, yeah, 10% of the time you’ll get quite lucky and sink the ANZAC navy. So? That’s dice, not strategy.
1 DD vs 1 DD is exactly what Germany does against the Canadian fleet. It’s 50/50 fighting you might hit you might not. Are you losing anything in return? Yes a destroyer. Anything else? Nope only a good attempt at winning the game for yourself. If having trouble guarding your transports is your concern then keep em together. If you’re going to split them off then make sure they can all reunite back to the same sea zone where your fleet is after you’ve attacked any islands you desired to attack. Simple as that. By all means I’m not saying that it’s a winning fight if your destroyer manages to survive against the 50/50 gamble to fight the cruiser. What I’m saying is that the destroyer will more then likely die but at the cost of taking down a 12 ipc unit (or 10 if they hit a fighter, which i’m totally okay with as well). Dice not strategy? You’re absolutely right. It is dice. But it’s the little part in dice that forms the ominous and pretty unstoppable strategy that is the J1 attack. And frankly for how much you’ve been admiring the ANZAC fleet makes it awefully bold of you laugh it off as if it’s not anything to worry about.
This is maybe your most interesting point – Japan does start with slightly more navy than it really needs to conquer and occupy the south Pacific, so there’s an interesting question of how to put that navy to gainful employment right away. I’m not sure I like your answer of attacking Pearl and stacking Wake, but I like that you’re asking the question.
If you could identify the PACIFIC fleet that will be challenging Japan’s as earliest as turn 3 then I’ll agree with your remarks on this part of your counter-claim. Otherwise, send your boats wherever you want.
Well, yeah, so, don’t do that. Don’t fall for the trap. You can secure Hawaii without moving the remaining US capital ships there immediately. It’s a good trap, but it’s still just a trap. It’s easy enough for the Allies to avoid.
It’s incredibly easy to not pull the lever after you’ve seen what it activates, if that wasn’t obvious enough. This isn’t some half-arse trap that the Americans will just see through instantly. Because frankly if you knew that there were no other surface warships in the sea of Japan that would come down to attack you in the Hawaiian islands then absolutely I’d be on full throttle towards what is over 60 ipcs worth of units that I’ll be able to destroy without taking many losses. But as I said, unless the Americans have a cautious and slow moving player, or if he/she has been subjected to this trap before then yeah they won’t fall for it and won’t even consider the temptation of trying to destroy the fleet. Otherwise, you’re practically looking for the Fruit Loop in the Lucky Charms which represents the 4 planes you’ll be sending from Japan.
I can do the Taranto raid and still wind up with significant naval assets to send east, if I’ve got a bid. One of my favorite bids is 2 subs for the Mediterranean, which means the carrier doesn’t have to go west to do Taranto.
If I’ve got no bid, that means we’re playing Balanced Mod, which means you have some explaining to do about how you’re going to handle the Chinese guerrillas with zero reinforcements on J1 and at most 3 transports of reinforcements on J2.
Overall, don’t get me wrong; I think your plan of attack is interesting and worth experimenting with. Pearl Harbor plus Sea Lion as you’ve outlined it sounds like a very creative way of shaking things up against Middle Earth, and if you catch the Allied player off guard or if they fall for your traps or if they roll poorly, then you could have quite a nice game as the Axis. My personal preference as the Axis is to play with a more traditional India Crush that focuses on shutting down Indian income as quickly as possible and taking India J4 or J5, with Germany going east to take Leningrad and Ukraine by G5. The idea is that if the US focuses on the Atlantic, then Japan can expand from India to take some combination of Persia, South Africa, Australia, and/or Hawaii, forcing the US to pivot back to the Pacific. Conversely, if the US focuses on the Pacific, then Germany will wind up at the very least being able to push Russia out of the Caucauses and take the southern money. When Germany gets rich like that, they can threaten London while holding the line near Moscow, forcing the US to pivot back to the Atlantic. Either way, the US supply chain gets messed up and slows them down.
Unlikely if Germany is smart and sends a plane to Southern Italy for the 3 plane scramble. In that case unless the axis get diced, everything is going to the bottom of the Med. Another part of the Japanese philosophy is to continue moving forward. It would be incredibly inefficient for Japan to shuck units from the island to the mainland which is why you’ll be building a minor complex J1 and place it on Shanghai. You’ll also be placing on J2 on Hong Kong as well and one on Malaya when you inevitably take it. So there’s you’re reinforcements. Absolutely no offense to the way you play the Axis, but that’s how everybody played it originally before the J1 attack was drafted which led to everybody believing that the game tipped in the favor of the Allied Powers in winning. Believe me unless America and the U.K are playing patty cake with each other while Germany and Japan do the absolute usual then this won’t work out for them. As for your Calcutta Crush, that works. Only Calcutta won’t win you the game. Honolulu or Sydney will. Unless Germany has some sort of magical trick up their sleeves, there’s no deciding and going back on which strategy you want to do. That’s why for the first 3 turns that Germany is not at war that’s the time they have to decide if they’re going Sealion, Afrika Korps, or Barbarossa. And frankly as long as the U.S keeps Hawaii out of Japan’s reach then they can feel free to just spend all of their money in the Atlantic. hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is essential. You might not get the Americans to pull that lever and fall for the trap but what you will do is you’ll be putting Pearl Harbor in you palm to control for however long you keep your fleet there in Wake Island. And you can keep your fleet there until you absolutely need it back home on the forefront of Asia or you can continue to keep there as the Americans keep their fleet in San Francisco.
I’m really likeing this debate. I can tell you’re a more adept player at Global 40 which isn’t easy to come by. If you have any counter arguments, I welcome them all good sir.
RE: May 31
Yeah, there’s plenty of ways to do it and whatever works fine, for me though I feel that taking a break from the game for at least today would be the right thing, but nobody is required or should feel entitled to do that. Just honor the fallen however you feel honors them.
RE: Allies strategy
To me Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia feel like “No Man’s Land” if you know what I mean. Eastern Poland for Germany is often what I would consider the base of operations for the Axis since any and all units on E. Poland can reach anywhere in the Soviet Union. All the same should either the Russians or the Germans enter into Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine it will make countering that with a consolidated force from either side all too easy.
One more thing, Germany starts with 6 tanks, taking all 6 of their tanks and hauling ass for Leningrad would be a rookie mistake and would very soundly hand the win to the Soviet Union, yet all the same that’s not going to stop the Germans from going heavy on it either.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
I apologize for my remarks, I generally don’t try to be so critical of opinion to win a debate, but I’ll slip up sometimes so sorry about my attitude about that. I think to keep things logistical let’s keep it down to Middle Earth, Afrika Korps and the J1 attack to stay on point of the debate. Sound good?
Let’s talk about starting income for a moment. Japan starts with 26 IPCs in the bank. India, ANZAC, and China start with a combined 39 IPCs in the bank. If you allocate a modest 6 IPCs/turn from the Russians and an equally modest 24 IPCs/turn from the Americans, that’s 69:26 – the Pacific Allies are outearning Japan by nearly 3:1.
Assuming we’re still debating over J1 vs Middle Earth, I’ll do the rounds. I’m going to automatically leave China out of this due to their restrictions as a World Power. I’m going to assume that all of this should be that each Pacific ally dedicates 100% of their respective resources against the Japanese player. If each player could combine their IPC’s to one economy then maybe talking about the ratio of allied money to Japan would be something to talk about. And frankly I’m not sure if you’re trying to take the average of IPC’s America/U.K is spending in the Pacific so you’ll have to fill me in on that part if I’m misunderstanding something. And is it to no surprise that the Allied money combined turn out to be more than Japans?
At the end of a J1 attack that includes Pearl Harbor, Japan has likely picked up about 12 IPCs of territory (Kwangtung, Philippines, French Indochina, Shan State, eastern China) while forfeiting its only NO. So Japan is earning about 38 IPCs at the end of J1. Meanwhile, the Chinese can likely reopen the Burma road so will be up net about +3, ANZAC is going to collect its bonus for Malaya so will be up +5 even if you sink its starting transport, and India can pick up a money island like Sumatra to go up +4. America is now at war and will get +20 IPCs for its basic objectives; let’s say only +5 of those go into the Pacific. So at the end of turn 1 the Pacific Allies are earning something like 69 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 86 IPCs. The Allies are up 86:38 – still over a 2:1 ratio against the Japanese.
I think you’ve also neglected to mention that ANZAC won’t be getting units to Java or Celebes until as early as turn 2. The fact that they have picked up 12 IPC’s already makes up for the loss of their NO for not being at war so that’s really not something that needs to be factored in. I’m sure the Chinese could reopen the Burma road with 6 infantry and the fighter at the cost of leaving their Northern Flank completely exposed to the Japanese, not that it matters anyway with the IC’s that will be going on Hong Kong and Shangai. Once again, assuming they are prioritizing on Middle Earth, they won’t be using that transport to take Java and Sumatra unless they want to be delayed in securing the ME by 1 turn in which the Germans will already be at the gateway to the Med by then. Once again, if I could combine that money together to purchase accordingly to defeat the Japanese then we wouldn’t be discussing the J1 attack’s effectiveness.
So when you talk about how Allied countries can’t afford to replace expensive losses, I think you’ve got it backward. It’s true that ANZAC can’t literally rebuy 3 fighters in one turn, and Japan can rebuild a carrier group in 1 turn, but if the Allies can manage to trade units against Japan at even expected value or even at a slight loss, then they’re doing great. It is Japan’s obligation to explode and conquer huge amounts of territory as quickly as possible. If the Allies can stop or even just slow down that expansion, then the Allies will collectively outearn the s*** out of Japan and Japan will be overwhelmed. That’s part of why I don’t like the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack. Yes, Japan deals more damage in that attack than it suffers, but Japan isn’t conquering any economically valuable territory with those attacks, and it winds up trading quite a bit of material. The more Japan trades, the less Japan is able to expand at lightning speed.
Now this is where this get’s interesting. if I had to be honest, I don’t disagree with you on the fact that the Allies can make attempts to disrupt what the Japanese are doing in the Pacific with precise purchasing of units. But you’ve yet to consider the one fact that ANZAC, nor America, nor the Soviets, no the U.K, and even China to an extent are prepared for an offensive war. Because frankly you could come up with any strategy you want about dealing with Japan in the Pacific, as long as Japan has you at the pointed end of the stick there really isn’t much any of you can do. Hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is necessary. To put America against the wall like that is something that they can’t just laugh off like they usually do, this time Japan is full front taking it to them instead of the U.S 6 turns later arriving in Tokyo. And if we’re going to look at this from a broader perspective, the idea of the turn order is for the Axis to do their thing and win, and for the allies to come back and turn things around. Aside from retaking the Road, the allies really are unable to stop the Japanese in their tracks on J1, which is why it’s such a powerful opening move. So the Allied powers in the Pacific are subjected to only taking at most 2 IPC’s away from Japan and completely unable to do anything about the rest. And as I stated from the very beginning, the Pearl harbor attack really doesn’t take away from the J1 attack and it’s effectiveness, it only adds to it.
All that said, what is your advice for the Allied Pacific player? Are they just supposed to build infantry and the occasional artillery piece and stay at home and skirmish near their capitals? If you see Japan as an irresistible force that can’t be usefully interfered with, then how do you play the Allies?
Well, that’s a good question. Frankly it’s how you would wanna play it. The core of the apple where we’re disagreeing is that you believe that it’s the Allies’ mission to stay on the offense and take it to the Japanese on the forefront of war as they continue to expand and conquer. And what I think is that it’s too risky for them to do something like that and that it’s essential for them to hunker down and defend for as long as possible. Let’s take a look at the way to win the game. Japan needs 6 victory cities in the Pacific to be victorious over the Allies. they’ll get 4 easily, Tokyo, Shangai, Hong Kong and Manila. If the British aren’t building defenses in Calcutta then Japan will more often then not take that out in a reasonable amount of time. That leaves 2 left: Honolulu and Sydney. If you’ve only focused on an outer-perimeter strategy for ANZAC and the U.K then there is absolutely nothing from stopping the Japanese to land in Western Australia and slowly move East to take it. But that’s how I’d play the Allies.
You’re nitpicking here in an effort to score cheap points; let’s try to keep the debate constructive. If Britain has enough air power in the area that the transports would be underdefended, then you build 8 transports and a destroyer, instead.
You’re also simultaneously complaining that I’m “going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany” and that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack. Pick one! Either Germany has plenty of infantry units and won’t miss the units they send on Sea Lion, or buying 7+ land units on G1 is a reasonable part of a Sea Lion attack. Those can’t both be false at the same time.
- As I said, I’m genuinely sorry for getting all fussy over Sealion. It has nothing to do with the Pacific and therefore has no place for either of us to try and get on top of the other with it. 2) Did I say that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack? I’ll need to check back on the thread for that cause I really don’t remember saying that anywhere but I’ll check back. If I did say it then I didn’t mean to, obviously ground units are everything when going after London. For the sake of the debate I’m not gonna continue ranting over Sealion so let’s just set it aside.
That’s incorrect. 1 fighter takes off from Malta, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then returns 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 1 tac takes off from the eastern Med fleet in SZ 98, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then flies 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 2 fighters fly in from London and will ideally be taken as casualties. If you get fewer than 2 casualties, then, yes, you’ll have to leave the carrier behind in Sea Zone 97 to land those 2 fighters, but at that point you’re doing so well in the Med that Germany can’t sink your boats without taking such heavy casualties to the Luftwaffe that Moscow will be safe for many turns.
Ahhhhhhhh okay that’s completely my bad. I honestly forgot that the Tactical Bomber begins on the carrier so you could just move it to Malta when the attack is finished right sorry that’s my bad so you would be able to take both fighters from London then. I know I’m being hypocritical here but you do realize those fighters can’t make it back to London if there is a Sealion right? (unless you’re planning on building fighters on London, then it doesn’t matter).
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
That’s the nuts and bolts I think both of us have been trying to get at here. So to finally get down to business for what the allies should be doing.
I don’t mean to project the fact that I’m paranoid as ANZAC or India. The idea is that these little slow downs, I have an idea of what you’re talking about. It would be just like Russia taking Manchuria only to hold it for 1 turn for the Japanese to spend resources to take it back, am I right? And honestly I do think of that as a distraction and annoyance to Japan, but you’re going to run out of those infantry. You always will. And there’s nothing left to hold Japan back then after that.
Basically, I’ve not stood by for a moment without considering all your thoughts and ideas to lead to a potential win of the Allied Powers in the Pacific. But my point being is that that you’re sort of getting at the idea that there’s an in between when it comes to both these nation’s low income. And I would argue that there really isn’t an in between. If you plan on trying to intercept the Japanese and their moves in the money islands with say the 1 transport from India then that’s fine. You might lose that transport and along with it Borneo Celebes and Java but if you truly believe that slowing down the Japanese will lead to the effective victory then I’m all for doing it.
To get into detail, the reason why I say there’s no in between is because if say the U.K sends frequent air raids towards the Japanese fleet or puts minor defenses in curtain areas to get them to divert small resources to taking it, then you need to be willing to keep that chain of frequent air raids going. But here lays the problem. Air raids won’t win you the game against Japan. Neither will meager small defenses in curtain key strategic areas. (I know you didn’t say that I’m just pointing it out as a notice).
That’s why I’m whole heartedly committed to the defense of Sydney and Calcutta for when the Japanese do arrive. In other words, I’d rather be safe then sorry. Because If I’ve lost too many of my IPC’s where I can’t afford to continue these air raids and small defenses then I’m standing here without a defensive perimeter as ANZAC and the U.K. And swapping between Offense and Defense each turn doesn’t work in this scenario. You cannot build say 3 infantry turn 1, then maybe 1 fighter and a tank the next, and so on and so forth. Because then you’re not committed to one strategy or the other.
That’s why I play the Allies the way I do
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
I hear where you’re coming from. And the way you play is perfectly fine. Just know that you’re bound to run out of resources eventually with the J1 attack. See, the one thing that’s always kept me on edge is that for countries such as Germany, they dont have to worry about the Allies interfering with their peace with the Soviet Union and America. But with Japan bringing all the Allies into the war, they’re still able to get away with their opening move without the Allies being able to intercept any of what happens on J1. If you know a way to to defeat the J1 attack on turn 1 then I’d really like to hear it. And this goes the same for the Pearl Harbor trap that Japan can set for America. If it’s as simple as no falling for it then Japan should have no difficulty and watching for their opponents moves. Japan has the time that they need to conquer the Pacific Allies before the Americans come across the water if they even do. And with a Pearl Harbor attack that’s going to delay the Americans from even going to Pearl Harbor for another 2-3 turns just with 2 aircraft carriers and an island worth no IPC’s. ANZAC and the U.K won’t defeat Japan, But America will. It’s up to the U.S player to want to make that happen.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
Likely for the best. We could go on and on about this but frankly I think to start a new thread would be the way to go. I think this debate has been incredibly intriguing for me to watch and react, it’s genuinely fascinating to look at a strategy made by someone else, so you can see just how differently you two think. Yeah, honestly the J1 attack when you think about it has less effect towards Middle Earth anyway.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
Not necessarily. Turn 1, I buy 2 aircraft carriers and a battleship. I’ll obviously have enough to fill both carriers up with the fighters I already start with. I place 1 AC in the Atlantic and 1 in the Pacific and the Battleship in the Atlantic.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
Maybe, as I said it generally depends on how much German resistance there is in France, and if Germany is put in a 2 front war well, we’ve already seen how that ends so can we really take a big guess about what’ll happen in-game?
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
I apologize it was not G2 my bad I actually meant the second turn to which Barborossa began… I commensed with operation Barborossa on G3 and on G4 I destroyed 10 of the Soviet Tanks that’s my bad sorry shoulda clarrified.
RE: UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
Exactly! See, part of what I was developing for a German strategy was to strike at the heart of the U.K’s economy.
So hear me out on this and tell me what you think.
First and foremost, you’d obviously be doing an Afrika Korps strategy which is sending a German navy and German units to help assist Italy down in Africa, whilst doing a successful Barbarossa attack. I actually made a thread in Europe 1940 called “Countering the Russian Fall Back Line” with a well devised plan to counter the counter attacking that the Soviet Union can do.
As for which route Germany should do, I absolutely think they should be taking the southern route since 1) more money, 2) closer proximity of industrial hubs with Stalingrad as well as Ukraine.
I’ve done counting and from the East Poland border to Moscow, it’s 4 turns, which is the exact amount of time it takes for the British to bring their destroyer and transport from the British Isles all the way to South Africa to start their triangular transport process in their Middle Earth strategy.
BUT, I have developed a way to potentially counter the Middle Earth strategy and the inevitable Minor Industrial Complex that will be placed on Iraq/Western Persia with a strategy that I like to call “Naher Osten”. This strategy is still a prototype, but the way it works is basically still the same get go, so let me fill you in on the steps.
Turn 1, Germany should build 2 transports and an Aircraft Carrier to create a fake Sealion build for the British to get all ancy that Sealion will happen, continue normal German moves that you’d do on G1, as for Southern France it’s optional to take it G1 or G2 doesn’t really matter much, but leave Yugoslavia and Greece for Italy since this strategy involves Italy to play a significant role in taking Egypt.
Turn 2, Germany should take the 2 infantry from Denmark, 1-2 infantry from Norway, the tank and artillery from Normandy down to Gibraltar and Morocco to make an official landing in Africa and control the straight of Gibraltar. Germany should next be building tanks, artillery and infantry for the inevitable attack on the Soviet Union. Now, it really doesn’t matter how you divide your infantry up as the Germans, you can either build the 3 infantry on Normandy and take the 3 infantry from Greater Southern Germany to Southern France, it doesn’t matter what you do, you just need to have 6 infantry and 3 tanks on Southern France, as well as having built either 3 more tanks on France, or 2 tanks and an artillery, etc. just buy 3 units made up of tanks and/or artillery.
Turn 3, Germany then moves their transports up to Southern France, taking 3 Infantry and 3 tanks down to Tunisia with the 3 movement they get from the newly taken Naval Base. Now, turn 3 should be the proper assorting build to send towards your Barbarossa attack consisting of aircraft, infantry, tanks, artillery, etc. BUT you must build 3 transports on Southern France by G3 for this strategy to work. So, G3 should effectively be your Barbarossa attack, this is when you can go now and go hard on the Soviet Union. I spoke earlier in a thread I made of countering the Russian Fall Back Line if it is enacted and it was a long post so I don’t wanna just say the same thing here, but the point is you can go now, this is it. or you can wait to G4, I’d go on G3 though. Now, as for your newly built 3 transports, the UK may or may not have a bomber on Malta that can reach. The Italian player should take their leftover cruiser, transport and destroyer and sub, (assuming they are all alive) to the sz 93 bordering Southern France to A) Keep the 3 German transports safe and B) Protect those ships from being destroyed by the Royal Airforce, to which being there the British will only have their bomber to take it out which isn’t very cost effective to trade a bomber for a destroyer being that the cruiser gets a guaranteed 2 shots at the bomber. So you’ll have a total of 6 transports, 3 bordering North Africa and 3 on Southern France.
Turn 4, this is where the strategy is put into play, keep in mind this is the exactly moment where the UK JUST STARTS to get their triangular transport route moving in the Indian Ocean so this couldn’t be better timing for Germany to disrupt the UK. Now, for building units you might wanna consider building a ship or 2 in the Med to help build up the German navy, as well as continually building the proper builds to help assist the invasion on Barbarossa. Now for the combat moves, Germany should take their navy, their 3 transports that will carry 3 infantry and 3 tanks, and their 3 transports on Southern France carrying 3 more infantry, and likely 1 tank and an artillery (It can be whatever you want, you just need to atleast bring 3 tanks), and bring these across the Med and land in SYRIA. The British may or may not know what’s coming, and might have aircraft there as well as some other units, which is perfectly fine, the more units there the better for you. So to recap, you’ll be taking your entire navy, 6 transports holding a total of 6 infantry, 4 tanks, and 2 artillery to Syria, and if there are any units there then you’ll get a landing shot with the battleship and cruiser.
Within the next 2-3 turns you’ll be able to march across the Middle East, taking the IPCs, the Industrial Complex, and the National Objective money from the British player, whilst Italy focuses on taking out Egypt, and while Japan works on taking out Calcutta, and with this, the British player is absolutely overwhelmed, they effectively have all 3 major Axis powers all marching for their base of operations, which the British just can’t afford to take on all 3 Axis powers, I don’t care how many units the British place in the Middle East and Africa, they just can’t industrialize fast enough to take on all 3 Axis powers. Keep in mind that after you make your landing on G4 into the Middle East, your ships should IMMEDIATLY turn back around to face the impending American navy that is coming across the water, and within a span of 3-4 turns you should have built at least 1 boat to put in the Med to help size up the American navy with your own and with the combined strength of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, you’ll be able to push the Americans out from their invasion of Operation Torch, therefore winning the game for yourself since the Americans HAVE to make their landing in Africa by turn 4, and if they’re pushed out then its game over, they can’t afford to make another landing because by then the Soviets will have lost the war.
I know this post was super long so I’m really sorry for making you have to read all this but I really wanted to make sure this strategy was devised and well thought out to take on the Allied powers.
Tell me what you think!