bringing USSR troops down out of the Eastern Front is usually a queasy move, but the chance to sink the Italian Fleet and really cripple their chances in Africa and then turn on Japan is nice.
3 BOM maybe a bit more costly than IC and troops over course of the game but could get you into action more quickly.

i am liking how some of the strategies coming out of AA50 are more reminiscent of history than AAR.  i know there are some complaints about that-too limited, too scripted- but much of the strategies at least for the Allies were not done just out of necessity, but thinking they were good ideas.  Airpower-bomber/fighters really crippled the Italian fleet and more or less took them out of the war.  …and now back to the original topic…

@gebs99:

where do you play this game online???

In the triplea lobby, but its not supported for the stable version yet.

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki

The last triplea unstable (AA50) version must be hosted outside the lobby.

@wodan46:

Also, for the last time, I’m experimenting, and trying to analyze what strategies are possible, rather than sticking to the same strategies over and over.  I offer an exotic strategy, take feedback, and alter the strategy to see if its possible to make a version that is feasible.

that’s cool and all to think out loud about stuff, but the experimenting part involves trying it, against players or at least solitaire.  if you are just think-tanking, don’t be too defensive when players who have played numbers of games may sharply critique it.  But i got it, i’ll discuss in theory.

@Subotai:

I would like to play against this strat in TripleA low luck game, but sadly AA50 is not finished yet for release in the stable version.

If I think a strat is vastly inferior, then I could possibly be interested in playing reg dice, eventually good dice rolls can only bring you so far.

There’s un anstable version, but it works perfect.

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki/Forum

The only thing I noticed so far are some error messages in History. But you can ignore them, and still look at it.
For the rest, it seems to work great.

This is one of many strat suggestions which obviously will not work against decent players.

I have found that it is fairly easy to get Japanese units to the Russian’s doorstep via Persia. What is more difficult to do is to get enough units there to be a real threat. Between attrition, taking territories to build income, and watching your back for the US, Japan can get spread real thin despite having perhaps the highest income of all the players.

Depending on how hard the UK fights, Japan can be in Persia on J2 if they want and have an Indian IC building tanks on J3. Unfortunately, Persia can quickly become a dead zone until Japan has enough force to hold it. And just because they can hold PER doesn’t mean they can take CAU right away. A lot depends on how effective Germany has been on their side of the front. Unless they are very lucky, I don’t think Japan can assemble a worthy attack force in PER until at least J7, and that is a long time in this game particularly if the US is making threatening moves on the Japanese territories in the Pacific.

Don’t get me wrong, I think BUR-IND-PER is a great way to go. But Russia needs to be pressured on multiple sides. Maybe some Japanese units coming through China (MAN or JAP IC builds), some coming from the south (IND, BUR, FIC, or SUM builds), plus some German pressure from the West. Otherwise, Russia can easily hold off any one of these fronts for quite a while.

So far, I am finding AA50 to be a very fluid game. What works in one match, may not work in another. A lot depends on the decisions made by your opponent, and how you respond to those countermoves.

There is a oft-repeated piece of military wisdom (variously ascribed to either Clausewitz or von Moltke) that goes, “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Make all the plans you want, but be ready to throw the original plan away the moment it is no longer working for you.

@wodan46:

G1: Build 10 Infantry
G2: Build 10 Tanks
G3: Build 10 Tanks
G4: Whistle
G5: Take Moscow with G1+G2+G3 builds.

haha, whistle
good one
once tried your plan, but instead of whistling, i drunk some water
if i did some whistling instead of drinkning, i would of taken moscow
ah well

gib takes commenwealth NO yes. luckily india isnt included, else that NO would be worthless.

u absolutley must fight in africa with italy. sending them to russia for shore shots is peanuts. they are not fighting for IPCs. each round  italy gets 20ish IPC  thats 5 inf / arm each round , with SBR 3 -5 inf. without africa, italy is almost at chineese production level. if italy falls and russia isnt in danger, i dare say the game is lost.

Yup, I def agree that Japan ICs should be located in FIC/Burma/India. Honestly, I don’t see the point of putting a factory in Manch.

I like to make a hard push towards India on J1, taking out Burma and both 4 IPC British islands so that I’ve got plenty of ground units to take and hold India on J2, as long Germany was successful at clearing Egypt and the Soviets didn’t send troops to Persia R1 (which I’m starting to think might be a good idea).

This allows an IC on Burma J2, and an IC on India J3, which means Caucasus starts to hear the Jap tank treads as early as J4. I find this really helps relieve some pressure on Germany.

If Germany did not manage to clear Egypt, or the Brits have Soviet assistance in India/Mid East, then I’ll go the Burma/FIC route for the factories instead.

I hit SZ56 with 2 FGT and %3 with the DD and 2 FGT. In non combat I put the CVs and the surviving fighters in SZ51. I also withhold the CA from SZ50 using the BB only. I position the CA with the fleet in SZ51. I have had the US get cocky and attack this fleet. Yeah it cost me a CV I could replace and it cost the US a wad of units that were going to take several rounds to replace.

The only time I build an IC with the UK in India is in the '42 setup with huge Pacific support by the USA (as I always do). In '41 I am strongly against the India IC (as I’ve mentioned before in this forum). The difference is obvious: 1941 Japan has 5 transports and can easily take India J2, even with the US going all out in the Pacific, there’s just not enough starting power for the allies. 1942 however, it is much more difficult for Japan to get to India with enough to take and hold it. The US Pacific fleet in 42 is strong and when made stronger turn 1 can cause the Japanese to stay at home for a few turns; thus allowing the UK to protect the IC in India.

Yep, and it’s even more funny do it to the USA in a Polar Express campaign. Priceless

Also, western axis could make a try with SBRs on London if UK makes the error of not buying SAF IC. 16 damage on a country that is colecting about 25 or less? Deadly

thanks for the quick replys

@Unknown:

is there any reason why Russia can’t hit large German groups with their Tank stack, then retreating them after both Germany and Russia have lost their Infantry buffer?

This is known as a ‘strafe’ attack, and has been a common tactic since Classic.

And yes, it is quite effective. ;)

Correctomundo.

It is usually why German Tank Dash strategies fail.  A good Allied player will fall back and fall back, then if/when the tank stack gets too close, Russia strafes.  It works against advancing Japanese armor just as well.  It’s why you always need a decent supply of inf to cover your armor.

Edit:

I still like buying 5 inf, 3 arm or 6 inf, 3 rt on R1.

That’s one epic game.

I agree as Russia i’d prefer the axis to take the ‘northern’ path so to speak as there are fewer IPCs there for me to loose, it is further from Moscow, and most importantly, UK can liberate it for me.  The only bad thing is it keeps me from taking Finland.

Moscow is the goal, and Karelia is a distraction.  I’d rather counter Ukraine on R1 honestly.

A few problems with that idea.

UK can probably retake alaska or atleast weaken your forces there with 1 inf 1 arm.

US keeps there NO because they’d have midway, wake, and Solomon.

You best keep your destroyer alive or else a sub drop alone will secure there coast (just the fact they can sink your carriers in response)

US can easily shift 1 inf, 1 art to central US, pull back the AA gun, and keep there planes in range to retake LA, stalling them at most 1 turn from africa.

I think you’d be better off hitting Hawaii and buying 2 transports + DD and shift the cruiser to japan, then threating a turn 2 grab of alaska + western canada and setting up for a train.  The interesting thing as well is if you move the BB to wake and have all 3 carriers plus your DD and within range and hit Hawaii there is absolutely no fleet purchase the US can make that can survive an attack on J2.  Not sure what can be done to capitalize on that but hey.

I agree with putting down as many units as possible as Germany and even Italy because the UK and USA can easily muster a massive bomber force for cutting down your production in just a few rounds.  I personally hate to lose the Baltic fleet because you just opened the path for naval invasions with minimal counterattacks.  I know the airforce could strike those fleets but that means they are not attacking Russians.  I strongly favor a ship/land unit build first turn to protect your fleet from a turn 1 UK slaughter fest.  Heck if Italy saves 3 IPCs and meets their NOs while also taking Trans-Jordan, they could build a carrier and have one powerful fleet to contend with.

@JWW:

Now here we are, 25 or so years later, no beers or J’s and discussing this online. Crazy

Speak for thyself…  :)

@JWW:

@Cmdr:

Does winning without your technologies coming into play count?

Sure it does! I’m having trouble seeing how the axis have a real chance right now. Maybe I’m wrong?!?

The Axis are currently winning a large majority of the games, regardless of tech or NOs.  Its widely believed that this will even out or switch eventually.  Though its still unclear, I suspect that NOs help Axis, who need money desperately, while techs help Allies, who have money but need something to turn that into tactical or strategic leverage, something they are very short of.

The reasons why the axis have the advantage are the following:
1. The Axis go first, whereupon they sink well over half of the allied fleet, and easily demolish a dozen territories on the first turn before they have a chance to regroup.
2. Without a fleet, the Allies have to wait a turn or two before they can have a significant impact on Eurasia/Africa/Indonesia.  By that time, Axis will have conquered pretty much all of it except Russia and the fringe territories.
3. Upon the end of turn 2 or 3, the Axis has as much or more money than the Allies.  While they are now spread out and vulnerable like the Allies were on turn 1, the difference is that the Allies still have to expensively transport troops in to attack, while the Axis do not.

Keep in mind that if you are playing with NOs, by the end of Turn 1, Germany will have 50ish Income, Italy will have 20ish, and Japan will have 45ish.  By the end of Turn 2, that will go up to 55ish, 25ish, and 60ish.