Posts made by TheDesertFox

@shadowhawk

Precisely. And that’s exactly how it should be used. The ideal goal is to take Norway but if the German player just thinks “Oh he’s trying to take Norway let me just center all my resources up in Scandinavia” then fine as the British player I’ll just head South with the fleet where the Axis resources aren’t. Its resourceful and it also allows your planes to perform land operations from the sea.

@surfer

Two fully loaded carriers and the destroyers plus the cruiser you start with in the Atlantic can and will prove sufficient enough to ward off a Luftwaffe strike. What I consider a viable invasion is 6 ground troops atleast going into Norway… the point is to capture it and hold it and not let the Germans retake which is why Im largely considering round 4 to be another viable option for invasion.

And while Norway might be better suited in the hands of the US, the point is, the UK can take it AND Finland much quicker then the US, and on top of that, the IPCs are much more needed in the hands of the UK then the US.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris

Yeah I’ve been straddling the fence on whether turn 3 or turn 4 is more viable and I’m thinking turn 4 to, but not necessarily because of the oil fields, granted that’s a thing, but mostly because it’d be neglecting the defense of Egypt and pretty much the rest of Africa for two whole turns. Obviously ten whole IPCs though removed from the Germans should be something that any Allied player should strive for which is why I’m trying to find any way to implement it sooner rather then later.

@Cornwallis

I’m still trying to implement a way for the UK to invade Norway by turn 3. If they can get 2 carriers in Europe then I’d say its feasible enough to ward off the Luftwaffe unless the German player added to it.

@shadowhawk

Precisely. As for Norway though, I always make it a goal as the U.K to take that and Finland to strip Germany of ten whole IPC’s.

@shadowhawk

Northern /Southern Italy would require more transports but honestly I think it could be worth it if you could take Rome or better yet shuck units into Rome every single turn because eventually it’ll fall.

@Galendae

Not to mention the fact that the Americans will be on your doorstep to retake London again and then what would you do?

@Galendae

I find the most success shocking troops from Gibraltar into Southern France as America. Gets the troops there the fastest

@Galendae

I could honestly get on board with that name.

@Galendae

You forgot about the part where you ask them to watch Man in the High Castle with you afterwards.

If Italy used their 2 fighters to attack Greece and they moved them back to Italy, can they scramble those 2 fighters if the navy adjacent to Southern Italy is attacked?

@Colonel-Mustard

If Im not mistaken, one round of combat must be had before the attacker gets to retreat.

Edit: Also, I just remembered, you can’t retreat from amphibious assaults

@superbattleshipyamato

I don’t know man, sure they had lots of China and Russia but Southern Asia was looking pretty darn intact. Also, how did Japan even end up invading all that? Did the Russians pull their infantry back?

@arthur-bomber-harris said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

@andrewaagamer Throwing resources away for not enough value doesn’t work in a TripleA match but can sometimes work in face-to-face match against poor opponents. I have a feeling most of this strategy is designed for people who eventually make mistakes when faced with threats in multiple locations.

I think there is something to be said for that though. A perfect A&A player doesn’t exist and being that this amazing game originated from the good old fashioned person-to-person board game on the table, it’s not like people to have battle calculators in front of them either, especially when they’re playing the actual board game in person. That ultimately leaves a margin of error in play at all times for both sides that essentially forces them to eyeball with RNG in mind and the ‘rough’ averages that rolls can give in terms of analyzing the probability of winning and losing battles. Just like this strategy isn’t universal in all scenarios, it’s just meant to counter Japan when they so choose to do a J1 DOW. Atleast, that’s what I think.

I’d be find with posting my own response to the J1 DOW with my America and ANZAC turn 1 and maybe turn 2 as well depending on what you wanna see. I also do understand the concern for what’s being put on the Atlantic so I can include that to, but I dont think the moves over in the Atlantic will be super necassary with America. Plus I’ve been meaning to get some input on my starting Pacific build anyway.

@andrewaagamer said in A Nameless but Effective China Strategy:

Second, as for Russia; Moscow falling early is a problem. Moscow falling late is not. Taking Moscow does not win the game for the Axis. Taking Moscow and then taking Cairo does. Therefore, the key for the Allies is to have made enough progress against Germany/Italy and built up an Egyptian Wall that Germany still cannot win the game once Moscow falls.

Don’t forget that the Allies can’t just endlessly defend, defend, defend. At some point, they’re going to have to take the initiative and go on the offense. If there’s a method to defeating Germany while they’re still in the thick of war not having seized Moscow, then I’m all for that method since I think we could all agree that the Allies would stand a better chance against a Germany still fighting Russia then a Germany that’s already destroyed Russia. If the Allies try to just defend their victory cities there will be no thought of them winning at all.

@andrewaagamer

Exactly. Moscow is the only problem. The Allies in the Pacific to include Russia can stop Japan, the problem is stopping Germany. That’s why I’ve been trying to make some kind, any kind, of a floating bridge for America work because it’s the only hope the Russians have of survival.

@andrewaagamer

Then I suppose it accomplishes its mission fairly well in stopping a J1 attack from happening.

@arthur-bomber-harris

Not Java sorry, Sumatra. But I wouldn’t doubt that the result would be similar. Regardless, I only meant to devote 2 infantry to take the island and hold it atleast for a little while before Japan comes in and takes it. Any time the Allies can buy is time that is needed while they can continue building up Malaya and not be so far behind on IPCs.

@arthur-bomber-harris

When I do an Afrika Korps strategy as Germany, typically I’ll only ever building a carrier and a destroyer, then use my pre-existing boats to send down there and that’s the navy. Everything else will go straight to Barbarossa. Granted of course, halting Japan from taking Java with 2 infantry and a transport is indeed a sacrifice, and too many sacrifices will result in the Allies losing, but sacrifices need to be made in order to win regardless. Typically should the Japanese position their fleet in Sumatra/Java would be the optimal time for America and ANZAC to start advancing forward.