I think, that I would have scrambled with 3 fighters to SZ110 because of the lack of sub fodder and 1 fighter to SZ109.
In my turn I would have attacked the remaining sub(s) in SZ109 with SZ106 destroyer and air to prevent convoying.

@oysteilo:

@Young:

@oysteilo:

What do you guys think? I am starting to think it is okey. � In most cases the Scotland fighter lives and the gib fighter can defend as well. This means if London buys 6 inf and 1plane you have like 11 inf/mech and 3 planes (2).if everything goes poorly buy 9 inf. Why not?

What about the UK keeping all their income turn 1?

If there’s no Sealion threat… buy all the fighters you like turn 3, but if there’s a Sealion threat… than buy all the infantry you like turn 2.

I think the problem with that is, if Germany does go for sea lion you are only allowed to place 10 units in London, You need more than that

True

@simon33:

Why don’t you just build a third fighter in Calcutta to defend against sbr? It is well spent.

Because I am worrying about a quick J3 Indian Crunch.  I am preparing for the following Japanese movement:
J1 move 1(2) inf from Kiangsi to Borneo, move 3 inf, 1 art from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to Philippines; J1 build 3 transports
J2 move 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to sz36; J2 build naval base in FIC; concentrate all carrier groups in sz36 (each with 1 tact, 1 fighter), bombers in Siam, block sz38 with some fleet
J3 attack India with 6-8 inf, 3 art, 1 tank, 3 tact, 3 fighters, 2 bombers (can have offshore bombardments)

According to the build & movement below (no Russian fighter to India), I will have
16 inf, 1 art, 3 AA, 1 fighter in India for defense.
This should just be enough to defend India.  If I build a UK fighter in India, then I don’t have enough infantry to defend India.

Middle East-Indian Wall strategy
[[to counter J1 attack, no matter Germany goes for sealion or barbarossa]]
Turn 1
C1: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 4 inf in Szechwan

UK1:
India 1 tack+fighter to Middle East (Middle Earth strategy)
Sz39 transport 1 inf to Persia
India 5 inf, 1 art=> Burma
Burma fighter=> India
Malaya 3 inf => Shan state
India build 5 inf

ANZAC1: Malaya inf => Shan state

Turn 2
C2: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 5 inf in Szechwan

UK2: (consider the case J1 take Borneo, build 3 transports; J2 build MIC and NB in FIC; move 3 transports to sz36)
Burma 7 inf, 1 art => India
Shan state 3 inf => Burma
India build 4 inf
(if no Sealion, build Persia factory)

ANZAC2: Shan state inf => Burma

Turn 3:
China: aim at taking Yunnan

@simon33:

I haven’t had much success with strategies like the one proposed except when Germany spends some of its money on fleet. That gives ussr a bit ight breathing room to do something.

But I agree with you, in case Germany goes for barbarossa, Russia should focus on wars in Eastern Front.  Again Yunnan and India worries me.  The above implies that China should defend J3 take and hold Yunnan by itself…

The z102 rule allows USA to sink the German fleet with carrier-based planes post-sealion, even if japan is still Neutral and bombers have nowhere to land (which is unlikely).

I prefer Queso cheese.

Oh

Cheese tactics to win the game?

Cheese tactics can be overcome very easily by experienced Allied players who recognize what is going on in the early part of the game, turn 1-4.

Great game report.

Your consensus on “who would win, eventually” is how most games are determined.  Fighting for capitals after Moscow is a big slog, that’s how it goes–the game kind of mutates at that point because the stacks keep growing and there are no rules that limit stack size, unit maintenance, etc, they can get pretty big.

I’ve noticed one response to a common variation of a J2. Situation:

SZ36/20 have 2-3 transports and/or marines on board BB/Cruiser (if you are playing Balanced Mod) There are no Japanese naval bases usable in those SZs.

Strategy:
USA DD to SZ43 (Off Borneo)
UK DD to SZ37
UK land on Sumatra
Anzac land on Java

Result:
Allies are secure on Sumatra and Java through turn 2. Some possibility of convoying off income but unlikely to get it all and some of the fleet might be exposed if they try to convoy both. Every bit as important: Japan doesn’t get the money on turn 2 which slows them down a fair bit.

Just tried this against one player and he avoided the DOW J2.

Downside: Losing two DDs. Doesn’t seem like a big problem. The UK one can be replaced turn 3 with the one starting off South Africa.

Roger, just wanted to remind that G40 ruleset is the exception here, to all other versions IIRC.

@taamvan:

Unternehmen Zee-Adler Angriff?

Adler =  raptor
Angriff = attack

I like it.

Was??
What do you mean?

@IKE:

@farmboy:

I didn’t think the of the fighters coming from UK (in my limited experience so far, they get used for scramble, defense of UK, and supporting the destroyer in taking out subs or the German battleship. So I’ve only simulated the combat with the UK bomber, the Egypt fleet and the Malta fighter. That obviously makes a difference and makes it much safer. I’d guess with 80% (1 UK fighter) to 95% 2 (UK fighter) odds, most Italy players aren’t going to try to scramble either. The British will lose the carrier and the two fighters after from a German counter but that will take some of the German air out of the game too.

thanks all for taking the time to walk me through this.

If the Germans make smart attacks turn 1 on the RN it doesn’t make sense to scramble.  Now if they get cute and try to do too much then a scramble may be worth it.

Yeah. I wouldn’t use them for a scramble in turn 1 (depending as you say, on the German attacks) but in turn 2.

I have only had a chance to play this a couple of times (and a couple of more times playing around in triplea), but so far I’ve used the fighters to hit surviving subs and/or the battleship near UK in turn 1 and (assuming no sea lion) I have tried to put 3 allied fighters in UK and 3 in Scotland (this means building 1 and moving the Gibraltar fighter up) so that I can rebuild a UK fleet in 109. I figured the German air force could still probably take it out but if they are going barbarossa it was worth it to pull the German airforce West and to take out half of it on turn 2.

In addition to Young Grasshopper’s point, you seem to be sending up outnumbered interceptors. Don’t do this. Leave them on the ground until you have probably more defenders than attackers. Defenders can be worthwhile on the ground in the sense of tying down the Luftwaffe though. If the odds are even, trading fighters for fighters is a negative for the defender in the event of a sea lion.

?

@Ichabod:

From my perspective when playing Axis…

From my perspective, the Jedi are evil… oh wait… wrong thread…  :-P

Thank you very much Young. I’ll follow your advice. Would you recommend using your home rules (national objectives and R&D) also to complete newbies?

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

@RedIndian:

Ok here are another 3 :D

USA : (US in first 3 rounds when not at war)

Beside the “No-China-Rule”
Are any ships and airplanes of the US allowed to go through seazones which are adjacent to Japan controlled islands? Yes, aren’t they? Unless they don’t park there/ end the movment adjacent to a Japan controlled island or territory, right?

I found this a bit weird rule as it also bars US from staging ships near singapore which is a major naval base for the UK.
But the rules are the rules :)

It is clear the US cannot attack before turn 4 without being attack is G40’s attempted to get AnA closer to historical actions. US was big about Monroe Doctrine. The bigger question is why USSR cannot attack before Turn 4. I know it’s about the pact between Stalin and Hitler but anyone with a brain knew Stalin was going to attack eventually.

I don’t know why you focus on that now but I will give you an answer.
Stalin’s plan was to wait until all the other powers have weaken each other, so that the USSR is able to conquer the world easily. (he said this on a party meeting of the communism in the 20’s)
Anyone who still says the USSR was nearly or ready to attack the Germans by 1941 is a liar!
The Russians weren’t ready (just had their “great purge”) at all. And as I said, they wanted to wait until there would be a chance later on!
So to me the rule does make sense. It makes it more historical. And if Germany invades & conquers UK, you have the chance to declare war. (this covers Stalin’s plan to wait, although no one know what happened if…)

For the Pacific, the USSR was interested in getting their territories back they had lost years ago against Japan.
But they weren’t strong enough at this time to do this without any help. The navy of the Russians in the Pacific wasn’t strong enough to face the Japanese.

Since 1932 there were several boarder conflicts between USSR and Japan in the north of Mandchuko. Finally in April 1941 both countries signed the  “Soviet�Japanese Neutrality Pact”.
Although many Allied partners of those both countries tried to push them into war with eachother (US the USSR against Japan / Germany Japan against Russia), they never came into war. (Russia needed the troops for Europe, Japan against China, US and all the other pacific campaigns)
Ok at the very last days Russia took some territories but only after all other combats in Europe were done!

So as a German I can give you the advice, be careful what you’re saying. This argument pushed by other nations until 1980s / 1990s justified the attack of the Germans in June, 22 1941. As some of the German Veterans say. Those people were told this, just to make this attack a right and justified one. They (Nazis) even said, this was a defending attack, although it was planned by Hitler for other purposes. Anything else is “Propaganda” or in Trump’s days “fake news”

Historians from different nations proofed this.

So no, Stalin doesn’t want to attack Germany that early! Maybe later, but there are no concrete hints for that in comparison to the Nazis.

I will try it next game I play, probably use it for Italy, since they need the Navy the most.

I don’t think even France could upgrade it to a major.

Awesome, thanks guys, this is really going to help in my game!

Agree with GHG, the limitation there is because you spend so many resources and so much time building up as the USA, it just wouldn’t seem fair that you could just pick off his invasion force, which in some situations, the USA player can not replace for 2 turns or possibly, ever.      Of course, its still pretty much impossible to invade japan proper unless you are demolishing him economically and even then, it takes quite a bit of time to get the forces over there–however, japan is not the only place he can kami --how is it fair to let him kami a transport that’s coming into iwo jima to set up a US strongpoint there?

The true limitation of the kamikaze is that there are really only 4 units that can be hit by it; dd ca cv bb    (no subs, transports, or planes, so its a long list), and 2 of those things aren’t sunk by just 1 hit.

Carriers are the most vulnerable, but they don’t even have to come along, they can wait in the wings and all they bring to the battle is soak hits.

Plenty of times when the allies attack SZ 6 they do it with like 2-3 naval units and 10+ planes, so the kami isn’t effective alone in stopping him.

The reason to keep it around in Japan’s pocket is that it ruins his support shots, iirc

Its a fun flavorful rule but its just piling on because Japan doesn’t really need it in order to survive or thrive, and usually when you try to depend on it it fails miserably in a gigantic blaze of glory.  I say try n dump it (we do in G42 G41 at times)!

I find Taranto to be a great way to slow down Italy and pick off some German planes, which is critical. You can also land in Greece with the Malta troops and leave the transport in 99. That way you can lose the carrier first against a German counterattack, and you offer an extra target to hit.

Example in this game in which a Taranto was done, and Greece held until I3:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39603.0