Topics created by TheDesertFox

@TheDesertFox said in Can fighters scramble into a seazone later in the round if they already participated in another fight and had to land?:

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?

Why not? The fighters’ attack takes place during Italy’s turn. When an enemy power attacks Southern Italy scrambling occurs as a defender’s move at the end of the attacker’s Combat Move Phase.

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

Round 2: Japan captures 3 out of the 4 of the following territories: Malaya, Java, Sumatra, and Celebes. In your game you only captured Malaya.

Everything goes down the drain if you don’t have a strong J2 turn.

I’m not a fan playing against myself - it can make you go blind and miss obvious moves. The J1 was Cow, and J2 - 3 were Andrew’s moves from our mini-test.

The real problem is turn 3. The Allies have mid-sized fleets off both India and Queensland. As for as I can tell, Japan has 3 options for J3:
*Option #1 - Put the IJN in between the Allied fleets. This is what Andrew did, and is probably the least bad option. Most likely outcome is you trade the IJN for both Allied navies.
*Option #2 - Attack one of the fleets. Face the multi wave counter attacks ready on either side. Most likely outcome is you trade the IJN for only 1 of the Allied navies.
*Option #3 - Retreat north. Allow the Allied fleets to merge into a fleet bigger than the IJN. I haven’t played against this yet, but it feels like Japan is turtling.

Note - the absolute best realistic outcome Japan can hope for in the first 2 options is wounded capital ships limping back to a NB while facing another turn of Allied attacks.

I really hope I’m missing something and there is a 4th option.

@theveteran

Yeah, well, that’s my ego to you. You’e right though.

@panther

Gotcha, so it’s just a matter of whether or not you wanna lose such an expensive item.

@thedesertfox

Hope it worked (works) out!

@thedesertfox said in U.K 2 Economies Question:

… I would imagine it goes to the Europe UK since its on the Europe side of the board …

This is correct.

@domanmacgee said in Stopping the Allies?:

@thedesertfox Are you playing with NOs on or off? As @OLA mentioned, which side is favored in the 41 setup swings based on whether NOs are being used. Off = Allied-favored, On = Axis-favored. It boils down to the starting income gap being easier to mitigate when Axis have access to their NOs.

Not sure if German navy is the right way of going about things. In higher level games it’s usually Japan that ends up winning the game for the Axis while Germany/Italy hold the line.

I’ll add the following rule-of-thumb.

Assuming every other option is off,

no options on: slight Allies advantage interceptors on: balanced National Objectives on: marked Axis advantage

Using Low Luck (a popular house rule) possibly balances the game when played with no options on or else gives an additional slight advantage to the Axis.

@andrewaagamer

That’s the general idea, basically summarizing the prospect that the Soviet player can and should push Germany back. I think what a lot of people tend to forget is when stripping all the other outside factors away, you and Germany are both tit for tat in natural gaining IPC’s, with Germany gaining 31 and you as the USSR getting 30 so it’s not a drastically different match up in strength then what people make it out to be.

As for Japan and the Pacific theater, I definitely see where you’re coming from and I think to lay the baseline down for exactly how the Axis are meant to win, the way I play it is the Axis are required to take every city in the old world, except for London, since taking London is practically out of the question of the possibility for either setup of the game, meaning the Axis need to take 12 victory cities in total to win, I think this is a very marginalized and fair victory condition.

One thing that I honestly discovered that I hadn’t seen before when played as the United States and the UK in the Pacific was just how vastly different the style of combat is then what you see in the Atlantic side of the map. With each island holding special significance to it’s controller, especially if National Objectives are on, it means that Japan needs to be actively using their navy to screen the Pacific ocean and provide atleast one infantry for each island under their control. All in all, even on mainland China as well as the island fighting either side will primarily fight with infantry and fighters and maybe a tank or artillery. Now obviously the Americans won’t go full speed into the Pacific that would be a waste of valuable resources and the Americans dont need to put up that much offense anyway to the Japanese. My point being, all the Americans need to mount an offensive and island hop in the Pacific is a few infantry and an artillery/tank to start liberating islands, and, as I touched on the idea earlier, it emphasizes these islands all the more to be protected due to their value that they hold with National Objective money. Should the Japanese dedicate wave after wave of land forces to try to take Moscow and they neglect the big bad 3 in the Pacific. Though, as you said, this idea can vastly vary between whether or not you do play with National Objectives so it ultimately comes down to the circumstances for which the players have agreed upon.

@gen-manstein

Good man, I also play Battle of the Bulge on December 16 every year ;)

@bryzz

There is one viable point made here, which is that russia lacks troops to defend the south. What is not mentioned is the factory you already have (Volgograd Stalingrad). Later in the game, Russia often lacks the troops needed just to block. They could walk all the way from moscow or be waiting down south all game, but if you failed to do that, building some more units in the south in the mid game might be a good idea to get some blockers in place.

For all the talk about how powerful Germany is and how imbalanced the game is, its odd that no one suggests making Germany or the Axis weaker, rather than the allies stronger. Or both.

Removing an air pair from japan or germany makes a big difference.
And to repeat, why does germany get 70-80$? That’s what makes it too easy. The bonuses are too easy to get and are easily nerfed (leningrad volgograd moscow shouldn’t be worth 5, you could make them 2-4 and lowering the bonuses doesn’t alter Germany’s setup or first turns. Moreover, interfering with Germany and Japan money and production is way too difficult in comparison to how easily they can smash the UK or USSR economy (except in anniversary). By midgame, Germany has 2 greater and 5 lesser factories, we’ve tried partisan type rules to limit their vast choices.

@TheDesertFox Although this topic is quite old, I strongly disagree with you. In every game, Japan pushes through China AND the Far east to take IPCs off Russia. Yes, they are only worth 1 IPC each, but it sums up. Russia usually loses 4 territories here, which not only makes them lose 4 IPC (which is more than 10% of their starting income) but also grants Japan 4 additional IPCs 8which is more than 20% of their starting income. Plus, you usually have many fighters nearby so Japan can crush the Russian infantry pretty easily there. The Russians have no offensive capabilities there whatsoever (unless they send something there but believe me, they need it against Germany rather).

If you want to implement a Manchurian Pact there though, I suggest using a rule from revised: There is peace between the Soviets and Japan at the start of the game, however, you can declare war at any time. When you do so, the Player that has been delcared war against receives 3 infantry units that he can place immediately in any territory that is under attack by the opponent.

@robson

Yeah something like that, but when I heard this bizarre tactic it seemed a bit more directed at the Soviet Union doing a reverse can opener with the UK on Germany, which is what had me confused since that’s not how that works as far as my knowledge goes.

@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.

@flyingbadger

Absolutely badger.

While we may see the fight in the Mediterranean from different perspectives, what we inevitably all agree on is that it’s one of the more significant fronts that can easily sway the game for one side or the other all down to the results of a simple raid on Italy.

For me I stick by my philosophy that every Axis piece on the board should be doing something, or playing some sort of role. Which is why I’m a firm believer that scrambling the fighters into the Taranto Raid as the Axis should be done every single time because fact of the matter is, a lot of people tend to say that it’s better to save those fighters for something new but in the end nobody really knows what they’re saving them for, and that’s what causes Axis players to lose. I mean granted Squire had previously said earlier to save those fighters against the French ships or the remaining British ships in the Med but for me the Taranto Raid is the only time I’ll really be able to take of British Planes if I scramble these fighters and when they’re throwing this many planes at me then that’s my objective. Obviously you won’t be able to have absolutely every unit doing something and playing some sort of genuine authentic role but you can get very close to having every single unit active on the board, which is what wins you games.

@marshmallowofwar

Okay, thanks for correcting me on this

@marshmallowofwar

Much appreciated. So then naval bombardment does count towards a combat move

@panther

Well for starters I’ve totally negated this rule so thanks for confirming with me that this was true

While I’m not the biggest fan of a rule like this, I can understand how it stops player like Germany and the Soviet Union from abusing the fact that they could just move their tanks forward into combat, than move them out of combat to keep them safe.

Another strategy many Allied players of fond of using is the more recent strategy known as the Floating Bridge done and performed by the United States player in a game of Global 40’.

To summarize this strategy, the American player uses the concept of making the game long and drawn out to their advantage to which they eventually build a link of transports together to cross the Atlantic Ocean preferably into North Africa and then into Southern France/Italy with a built up navy over the course of 5-7 rounds.

The Floating Bridge technique is often the go-to for the United States frankly because there really isn’t much else they can be doing other than sending men to die in Europe, which makes for a problem to the German player and the Axis as a whole, since Germany should be the ones to hold the team on their shoulders, being the leader of the Axis.

There isn’t much the Germans can do to stop the Americans from building their floating bridge initially, but there are methods of delaying it.

One thing that should be prioritized is keeping the Americans out of the war.

To put simply, Japan should NOT do a J1 attack, being as it is quite the unstoppable opening for the Japanese player, it’s not often seen as beneficial to the Germans for having brought the Americans into the war on the first turn, allowing them to gain more income, and most importantly a free window to move into Africa at any point, with Germany only being capable of sending a couple U-Boats to fight a 2 boats which doesn’t seem very cost effective to me since every German U-Boat should be fighting the British Navy in some sort of fashion.

Not doing a J1 attack will already set the Americans back and limiting them to their only 2 Sea zones that border their Eastern US territories, as well as delay them into building up their navy sufficiently without the bonus 20 IPC’s.

Though this will delay the Americans, it won’t stop the sleeping giant completely. Which is why it’s imperative to do one of two things as the German player. 1) Build a formidably sized Luftwaffe to fight off the American landing or 2) Building a formidably sized Kriegsmarine to size up the American navy.

In this scenario, the latter works better, though how would you do that with such little time to build up until Barbarossa is implemented?

With a simple strategy called Afrika Korps that General Hand Grenade had previously made.

Granted having tried this strategy myself, building a mobilizing a German Navy and sending it to the Med Sea is without a doubt the best way to go, seeing as you’ll have the 3 turns of not being at war to make it into the Mediterranean and to help the Italians grow their navy to a size at which it can and should protect itself.

There is no telling how big the Americans will want to make their navy in the Atlantic, and it isn’t cost effective for the German player to continually size up the American Navy by building more ships than them, but rather build the occasional ship here and there, and compensate with the assistance of the Luftwaffe. (With that, bringing down the 3 transports with 6 guys to make landings in Gibraltar and Morocco, as well as 6 more guys from Southern France).

Having done this and helped the Italians build up their navy, the Americans have 2 options.

Risk everything they have to go in to try to sink your navy or 2) Not move in to attack the German fleet, to which as I stated, the American player should not be of someone to take risks.

For the American Fleet and amphibious assault of operation flashlight to be beaten back by the Germans and Italians has a lot more significance and sway in the war effort than others might think, because it’s not as simple as just ‘rebuilding and trying again’.

The Americans can’t afford to try again if they do not succeed, they have one shot, one opportunity to make it into Africa and then Europe, and if that opportunity even has the slightest chance of being withered away, then a proper American player shouldn’t even take the slightest risk in attempting a landing and take over of the Med sea, which is exactly what the axis should be looking to have happen.

To summarize, the longer the Axis can stall the Americans from landing in Europe, the more the war effort sways in their favor, since the German War Machine will be grinding against the Soviet Meat in the Eastern Front. And all said is done, it doesn’t end there.

I feel that the statement of ‘not letting Japan take Honolulu or Sydney’ is an incredibly significant overstatement due to the fact that once Japan cleans up in the Pacific, YES they will take Sydney, YES they will take Honolulu, because unlike in the other games such as 1942 second edition, 1941, and Anniversary edition, Japan as the complete capability to win the war completely for the Axis powers by controlling 6 victory cities. Being that the Americans and British cannot ignore the Japanese any longer. Which is the exact role that Japan plays in all of this, playing a big enough threat to the Americans and British to the point at which they MUST act upon stopping them at all costs.

Having done this, follow it by the letter, and you will have a swift victory as the Axis powers, unfortunately there is no real magic bullet or secret method to completely defeating the Americans, but with stalling and waiting them out, will you find success in your efforts to winning World War 2.

@squirecam said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@squirecam

I’d much rather have transports moving troops directly into Lenningrad then worrying about tanks. Moscow is going to fall once they are deprived of enough IPC. Or, I’ll never get there because I’m defending and letting Japan win.

I absolutely agree with this. This is how the German player should take Leningrad. Obviously with troops bordering leningrad as well like from Finland/Belarussia as well as the Baltic states. And granted it doesn’t take a huge navy to protect 3 transports givertake. Like I said, unless theres a detail I’m missing, Leningrad won’t win you the war, but it’ll substantially put the war effort in your favor as Germany, and frankly taking Leningrad should be Germany’s #1 priority to begin with, regardless of the 1941 or 1942 setup, and I would expect a proper Soviet player to take immediate actions to protecting Leningrad as if it’s more important than Moscow, and if the Soviet player thinks retreating from Leningrad is a good idea then you’ve just basically won the game.

But all in all, this is of me going by the idea that the Soviet Player knows what they’re doing, and knows how to take immediate steps to fighting off the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Like I said, I dont disagree that Germany shouldn’t have a navy say in the Baltic Sea to protect the territories bordering it as well as the transports but no way in hell will they be building a large enough navy to take on the every growing size of the British and American navy. (Yes, I’ve done a 42’ scenario with a buddy of mine and as the allies both America and Britain had possession of atleast 2 aircraft carriers filled with fighters and a battleships).

Hense why the only way Germany will be able to so said “Walk up to Moscow and then take Caucusus” is through tanks and blitzkreig. it’s what they were designed to do, move fast and move efficiently across terrain