@Corbeau:

Nice move but even if Triple A allows to do it, I am not sure if you really can send your fighters so far out without the carriers being in range to recover.

The thing is that in theory, carriers can’t recover your fighters unless you pass trough the BB.

It works out since you can recover in non-combat but I am not sure if its legal since at fighter launch, you can’t recover them due to ennemy ships in the way.

Either it is legal, or it’s a triple A error to allow the move.

I had exactly the same doubts Corbeau, but checked it on the main AA50 forum and it was confirmed that this is indeed legal (and explained in detail on pg 26 of the rulebook). Aside US good luck - it is possible to destroy the BB, AC, DD, and Ftr - and hopefully end up with 2 carriers and 4 Ftrs pretty much out of harm’s way. Capturing Hawaii is a bit of a stretch - but I like it for a first turner anyway as it does give Japan those 5 IPCs straight away. To have a go at Hawaii you would (I think) have to take some pretty extreme risks.

1. 2 Ftrs Formosa SZ, 1 dd, 2 trns, 3 inf (offload inf Hawaii), carolines - Hawaii SZ (vs 1 BB) 90% chance of winning. (tripleA battle calc)

2. 3 inf Caolines, 1 Ftr, SZ 57 - Hawaii (vs 1 inf, 1 ftr). Which is 87% chance of a win

3. 3 Ftrs SZ 57 vs SZ 44 (1 DD, 1 Carrier, 1 Ftr) which is virtually 50/50. However - I’m not sure whether the battle calc takes into consideration that the US must lose their fighter before their carrier as the ftr has no landing spot.

I’ve tried this solitaire on Triple A and got all my targets. However - I found that the extra strain on the Japanese navy left various transports in vulnerable spots without escort and the Phillipines came down to a rather close for comfort 1 arm/1 inf vs 2 inf which the Japanese lost. Japan took Wake though so as to deprive the US immediately of the their Wake/Midway/Solomons/Hawaii NO.

None the less - the following US turn Japan would have lost most of its transports - or a carrier (in the Wake Island SZ, with a Cruiser and transport - no planes).

After trying a second time with more conservative tactics (Not taking hawaii) Japan still was overstretched. She lost 3 ftrs in the attack (30 IPCs) against the carriers for only 32 IPCs damage to US forces and her carriers are rather out of range of the rest of the navy. She also had bad luck losing a ftr and destroyer to the American battleship (which was also destroyed). Even so - she ended up with just 2 ftrs and 2 carriers which fortunately the American response (1 bmbr, 1 dd, 1 ftr) only took 1 plane off. Had the US had more luck the Japanese carriers could have been in trouble.

Overall I think it was a bit exciting to ‘wipe out’ the US carrier force in Rnd 1 - but strategically of less impact than the much easier option of the destroyer/transport on the west coast (which Japan CANNOT do if they go for the carrier - they simply don’t have the forces).

Egypt has 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, and 1 fig.  5 extra units that could be in persia, while, G keeps 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm in libya that could be used to counter allied algeria landings with air support from france/berlin.  I’d say that favors the axis as far as time is concerned, and time is on the axis side in my experience.

We play with NO’s and tech rolls, and my normal partner and I spend most of the money in the Atlantic. We move the SZ44 off the west coast and build three subs there turn one. Then we usually put one into each of SZ58, SZ52, and SZ46. On the second turn we buy a couple subs. Japan will have to avoid moving unescorted carriers in range of the subs, and will need to use a lot of forces to kill the subs.  If they attack any of the subs, the counter would be 3-4 subs, a carrier, a destroyer, 3-4 fighters and a bomber.

In Atlantic, our plans often change. We either buy mostly transports and link up with the British navy after they take France while helping hold France or we attack the Italian navy.

G1 …1 sub SZ7 to SZ9
1 sub SZ7 , bomber from germany and fighter from norway attack SZ 2
1 fighter from NWEurope ,1 fighter from germany attacks SZ12
1 sub 1 cruiser from SZ5 attacks SZ6
2 tanks 3 inf 1 art from poland…1 inf 1 art from germany…1 tank from CH attack the baltic
1 tank from CH ,1 fighter 1 inf  from poland 1 inf from BR attack east poland
2 inf 1 art 2 tanks attack ukraine
transport 1 inf 1 tank from france to libya and (1 inf fro MA to libya if the german fighter is lost)let the italians soften egypt attack G2.
defend france if any british tranny’s survive,2 inf to poland.
activate the 4 tanks 2inf and art that you purchased

I think the only place in '41 for a UK IC is in SA. Maybe one in Egypt if it survives T1, but it’s pretty universal now that everyone takes it T1 for obvious reasons. I’ve heard the case for one in Australia, but I don’t like that one either. It’s too easy for Japan to take out. On J2 it can easily be taken and for sure on J3. So if you’re going to you’d almost have to wait until B4 to have any hope of defending it. I know if I saw a B1 or B2 buy of an IC in Australia I would gun for it hard with Japan.

The Norway IC I just don’t see working because the Brits don’t really need the extra three unit build, plus for the same SBR reason that a France IC for germany isn’t the best idea.

I guess there could be some games where the US having an IC there could help, but on the whole I think that’s just not a great spot for one.

I have played both the 41 and 42 set-ups and found that the 42 is a little more balanced and the Allies usually win, but the Axis can win if well played.
The 41 set-up does favor the Axis but we have won as the Allies in a long and hard battle that takes a long time but eventually turned around. In that game UK bought a factory on India T1 and diverted resources that way to slow down Japan, and USA and Russia (a little) went after Japan right away aiding UK as best they can. Germany, Italy and Japan were making way too much money by T3, but smart decisions allowed the Allies to slowly climb back and turn things around by T7, so it can be done. China was no help at all so they are week. Victory cities is the key. Do not worry about crushing the Axis completely just getting the VC you need.
I agree that China does not start with enough and/or is not getting enough men per turn. That part alone would slow Japan down enough to make it that much more balanced. :-)
We play with the rules as is. :-D

@Octopus:

Interesting topic (for it goes beyond the obvious).

I just finished a long game as the Axis and the potential to sink the Allied fleet was always on my mind. At one point I did pull it off and sink the British fleet after entering SZ 8. The kicker was the cost benefit of attacking the fleet that made it a no brainer. Fighters are worth 10 while cruisers are worth 12. Going 1 for 1 is a cost benefit. The Allied fleet’s cheapest unit defends the strongest (a fighter at a 4) meaning they will lose their cheapest units last and sacrafice their most expensive units early.

Keep in mind that bombers cost the same as a cruiser while having a higher attack value. The advantage goes to the airforce.

Having a fleet with 2 Cruisers, a battleship, and a carrier (with 2 fighters) is looking to get popped by an airforce that consists of fighters and bombers (assume comparable combat values). Economics demands it (especially if there are 4 juicy transports in tow).

To this end, I think the destroyer (cost of 8) is fantastic as a fighter/bomber eater as it will clearly take the fall for the more expensive ships that need to stay in the fight.

Good Luck!

Right.  Regardless of Capital ships the UK (or US) needs some DDs to shift the cost differential.  With 1 BB and maybe 2 DDs, you are only losing 16 ipcs for 3 hits while Germany would be losing 10 for each ftr.  I typically like to have just enough DDs + intial BB hits for the first wave of a potential G attack.  So 6 ftrs require 3 Allied DDs.  The good thing is you can split the cost of DDs between UK and US, meaning each could supply 1-2.  If you buy 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD on UK 1 and US follows with 1 AC, 1 DD on US 1, you probably won’t need another DD unless Germany makes a significant investment in more air.  In Rd 3 you can have a stacked Sz 6 fleet (additional UK3 buy if needed) and also enough to protect Sz 12 with the US ships.

It is beneficial to have a few US ships with firepower in Sz 6 (prior to moving to sz 5) if the Ita ftr is lingering around Fra.  A loaded US AC also gives the US some fighting power up north, even if you only get 1-2 trns up there it still helps and gives you some punch, but it is not enough of an investment to cripple you if you need to start spending in tha Pac or Afr.

@Lynxes:

I think DM is on the right track here, you need to have a core of your fleet in place early and then add DDs as fodder during the game. Getting caught having to buy expensive ships in mid-game when you should be pumping out land units that land in Europe is a bad idea. Also, you need a mix of high and low strength units. 1 CV+2 fig, 2 CA, 2-3 DDs is a nice fleet to have as UK and not too hard to reach. A CV is, as many have said, mandatory, having your fighters parked in UK is useless. And if you send fighters to Karelia, you should STILL buy a CV and put US or UK fighters on it.

Yes, it is a lot easier to find an extra 8 ipcs to buy a dd mid game then to worry about an AC buy.  Plus, if you have enough Capital ships early Germany usually won’t even bother contesting the Atlantic.

OK, my five cents on how to expose weaknesses:

Germany: weak in number of troops, this should be countered by killing infantry ASAP and to outbuild the Jerries with USSR and UK especially. Counterattacks by the Russians is the way to go, especially the first three turns. Landings by UK at the Baltic coastline is a nice way to disrupt the infantry chain as well. Needless to say, threatening France and splitting reinforcements between both fronts is a game-winning strategy in mid- to late-game.

Russia: weak in IPCs and vulnerable ICs, hinder any expansion and try to take territories. This means Karelia especially where you can hinder Soviet control of Scandinavia and threaten the Archangelsk bonus. An early build of a chain of infantry towards Karelia is dangerous. Later you can take Caucasus which will cripple Russian economics, even a trade of that area can make it difficult for the Russians since they might get short on IC placement sites.

Japan: doesn’t have many weaknesses, basically logistically in the deployment of units on the mainland is the only thing. So if you can do some timely counterattacks versus Siberian, Chinese territories and India that can earn you valuable time. Retreating India’s troops to Persia and then attack back is nice, also Russian counterattacks with air support is good and one or two fighters really come in handy.

UK: navy and IPCs are both very vulnerable. We all know about knocking out the UK navy from A&A editions past and it still applies. Even more important though is to negate the Egyptian NO and grab Africa ASAP. If you take Southeast Asia and most of Africa UK will be down to 20 or so IPCs and that’s really crippling!  :-P

Italy: navy is what keeps the Italians dangerous, so hitting it early is the way to go. If you can get at it before they build a CV that’s perfect, so even a suicidal attack by US or UK can be worth it if that means your ally can finish the fleet off. This means turn 2 or 3, not later! After the fleet is destroyed then Africa lies ripe for the taking, Italy’s economy is miniscule and UKs economy secure, a key to winning the game.

USA: long supply lines and a split-up front. If you can make a heavy attack at mainland USA it can easily disrupt the build-up vs. Europe and that should be a goal of Japan. Polar express not as a game-winning strategy but as a tactical move. Also when you take Midway or Hawaii they can serve as landing bases for bombers that are built in Japan and that strike at the West Coast. If you’d rather send the bombers towards Russia, you might still have made USA spent valuable IPCs on its Pacific fleet, the last laugh on you!  :evil:

Absolutely correct, Battlingmaxo.  This concept is illustrated by the transport combat example in the FAQ.

call me dumb but what exactly is polar express, is it going through alaska to the us

Japan because it’s as if a modern day army/navy was brought back through time and is virtually unstopable. I’m surprised Japan didn’t come with Cruise missiles and M1 Abrams tanks.

yes correct. When you DL just change the name of the file.

I use them in face to face games. My favourite setup in those cases is: 1942, NOs, techs on, 13 VCs. That’s for time reasons: if we cannot reach 13 VCs, then the side with more at end of time wins

It works well, it’s the only way of ending the games in FTF  :lol:

I honestly prefer buying 1 ac, 3 trannies (or 2 and a DD depending) into SZ2 on UK1 and dropping into Kar on UK2, with a grab of finland/norway.  This allows Russia to focus on the south and allows the UK to build up a large force to push toward Poland.  Only stinker is the turn before you go for the push 'n drop into Poland you will not be able to drop directly into Kar, but that is usually the turn I stack NWE with US/UK anyway so its not a big deal.  And with your fleet in SZ 4 you have awhile till G air can truely threaten you, unless they land most of there figs in Baltic which is rare.  Also, the only way G will take Kar is if she leaves her armor there to get smashed by the UK on G2 (which is actually a really nice thing).  Doing this along with a US push into africa on US3 + SBRs on G, you really wear down germany fast, as with a 2 bomber per turn buy with the US (easily done) by turn 3 or 4 G is looking at 6ish bombers bearing down on her.  The bombers being purchased in LA also helps to keep Japan honest with her transports when taking away your 2nd US pacific NO and are always nice to use against Italy’s fleet.  Just make sure with the US you start your shuck in LA and focus mainly on sending over armor to meet with the russians to stack the crap out of persia (you’d be surprised the effect 2-4 US armor a turn has on defending persia from Japan).

The really funny thing about this method is that by turn 3-4 russia is fighting Japan, the US is fighting all 3, and the UK is fighting Germany, but it does work even if it is a bit…wrong.

@TimTheEnchanter:

@Frontovik:

i prefer 42 for KJF
cause then you can put IC on those 4 IPC islands
and there, japan is actually beateble
Russia is also in offense first round, so germans have to withdraw a bit, which gives russia a bit more breath.

You can’t place US ICs in the pacific (except phi) in '42.  per the official FAQ, the “original controller” of those islands is still UK, even though japan starts the scenario with them.  If us takes them, they are liberated for the british.

sorry, my mistake :-)
but i still prefer '42

I’ve never seen a game where the Panama canal was contested.  If the Axis ever get anywhere near Panama, the allies are all ready in serious trouble.

Suez is a different story, and is a great advantage to which ever side holds it.

Depends though, how long can you hold off the allies from threatening Italy from the sea if you purchase boats?  Honestly I wouldn’t buy a fig and a carrier though, if your going that route go all the way and let the Germans and Japaneses lands planes on your carrier for you.

Look at it this way, by the end of J3 there could be a fleet of 2 loaded carriers, 2 cruisers, a battleship, and a destroyer or two.  That is 11 hits, 5 @ 4, 2 @ 3, and 1 @ 2.  I doubt the allies have the air power on turn 3 to take that out, and if they do they don’t have many trannies to push afterward.  The allies also must be careful at that point of splitting there fleet and Italy suicide into the US’s boats if the UK moves her boats.  Can be very effective against an all out push from the allies on Europe.

apperently, i’m the only not-risky guy :-)
i prefer killing british destroyer east of england with sub and cruiser
2 subs, 1 fighter and 1 bomber to sz 12
take out all 3 eastern europe countries
hold france

doubting wether attack egypt or not.
if you do, sz 12 is more risky without bomber, but perhaps still acceptable?

@AdmiralNagano:

I think if Germany drops a France factory, lots of Russians to India + UK build a factory is exactly the right response, because a German turtle relies on a rampaging Japan.

I agree, this is a good counter to the German turtle, ESPECIALLY if G1 Egypt fails

@axis_roll:

@ithkrall:

we have an agreed balance shift instead of a bid in my group

1 extra UK infantry in Egypt
2 extra Chinese infantry in the areas behind the front
move flying tigers back 1 space so it cant be attacked 1st turn
UK NO requires 4 of canda, egypt etc

that’s our balance tweaks

1 extra uk infantry in New Zealand.

That’s because we are New Zealanders and didn’t like our home country being undefended :) Has yet to come into play though until the game is basically decided.

Those three UK tweaks can be quite large.  Holding Egypt G1 is huge, possibly enabling a tank and a ftr to escape even if Germany did attack G1.  Adding more NO income enables more UK options, and the 1 extra inf in New Zealand makes an Australia IC more possible (in conjunction with the UK ftr from Egypt that gets to aid the defenses on UK3).  US can support that UK with 2 ftrs a turn quite easily while building a fleet in sz56 as the ftrs built on the existing US carrier can make it 4 spaces to Australia.

Bare in mind we have a gentlemans agreement not to move the NZ infantry out of NZ either

We found that the germans/italians could easily take egypt, everytime, thats why we added in the extra infantry.

The germans were moving a tank/infantry from france and the bomber to support. That would either win, or almost wipe the UK out. Italy would easily win the next exchange.

Now the UK has a 50/50 chance of holding (at least y our play experience)

China was getting wiped out on turn 1 as well, they needed a buff.

Its minor tweaks, but enough to find us seeing the game very balanced for us.