@AlphaAeffchen:

@ Kreuzfeld. You are totally right but the problem is if i do this buys for UK they can do nothing for many rounds in Europe. Italy gets very strong in the med. The USA have to fight Japan. The allies in Europe  are getting a problem because UK is isolatet because of only inf buy and USA has to Focus on Japan (but you are right i have to do this buy for UK).

In the scenario I made, US will only have to buy 2 bombers on US 1 (in most scenarios) and move 3 of the US planes to canada. They are capable of going towards Japan if Germany don’t buy the TTs in G2.

If germany doen’t buy 3 TTs on G1 (and save their money instead), I am doing taronto, and buy 6 inf and 1 ftr and lose no time in the Med. If they do buy 7 art on G1, I am buying a mIC in egypt and 5 inf in UK.

The only “loosing investments” UK has is : 3 inf instead of ftr on UK1, no taronto on UK 1 (I think 3 useless german transports might be too steep a price for germany to pay for this result).

The other losing investment is the canadian airbase and a few allied TTs on UK2/US2, however, they are more than offsett by the 9 german TTs that has to be bought to force me to do it.

The advantage I get for this plan is that no german should try for the sealion after US1, then that is just a lost game if they buy the 9 TTs. This means that I can (if I want to) send everything US builds against japan, including US turn 1 build. I am still taking Persia on UK1, so I can build the mIC on UK2 and shut down the middle east as fast as possible. My favourite way of playing the UK is to have 1 mIC in each of iran, iraq and egypt, and to use them to buy volumes of inf and mechs for a giant uk landarmy that can reach where i want them

I still think the game is favouring the axis, all I was commenting on was that in a J1, it is so much cheaper for the allied to prevent the sealion, so it will never happen.

Right, that’s what I meant.

Game started… let’s see how the first few rounds proceed.  I will post updates periodically.

Simon, Marc, Krieghund Thank you for input and clarification. This will avoid any confusion or debate later.
Sean…

Very True Simon, Sea Lion even if successful increases allied chances of victory, so unles its 90%+ as Germany, I’m not doing it.

How’d it go? How often do y’all play? Are y’all in Austin or Houston?

If Japan does a great J1 DOW on W.Allies,  ie:loses just 1-2 inf… ,

how should US respond? It’s first 2-3  rounds of buy?
And UK India? Should it keep its FTRS or send them to the Med?

I’ve thought some more about the details of this strategy. Firstly, it is not advised against a G1 DOW. So if we proceed on the assumption there is no G1 DOW, I like these builds/moves:

place 2 inf in Stalingrad

move the 2 inf in Caucasus to Kazakhstan - China bound.

move a tank to Turkmenistan.

move a AA gun towards China

remaining 2 mecs + 1 tank + planes move towards China.

UK West India inf activates East Persia

That way you can still take Iraq with a G2/G3 DOW.

If there is no G2 DOW, move the Stalingrad inf + Turkmenistan tank to Caucasus and leave Persia for the UK. Take NW Persia USSR3 & Iraq USSR4. With a G2 DOW, Turkmenistan tank activates Persia and Stalingrad inf proceed to the eastern front with Germany. Tac bomber positions to support the attack on Iraq USSR3.

Downside - are too many troops being stripped from the Eastern Front?

@simon33:

UK1, all landing on it does is add 1-2inf to the defenders and gains 2IPC but costs a transport and 1-2inf. If Germany has activated Bulgaria, that’s 5 inf who will hit it next turn, with planes no doubt. If Germany has left Bulgaria for Italy? Perhaps, but you have to be prepared to fly in a crap load of planes to try to hold it for I2.

I typically do not take Greece in early game, unless I am doing Taranto. If I am doing Taranto, then Greece provides a place that planes from the UK carrier can land. Otherwise, as soon as you take a hit on the carrier the Axis can retreat and kill your planes for free. On the other hand, if the Axis goes light your planes can survive and bolster your Greek defense, and if the Axis does not attack Greece your planes survive.

That being said, taking Greece while it is subject to Axis counterattack does put any infantry used in the counterattack five whole turns away from Moscow. Weakening the attack on Moscow by five German infantry may indeed be worth taking Greece on UK1 and losing eight IPCs (minus any kills that you get on the attacking Axis forces). That of course presumes that Germany activates Bulgaria on G1. On average, you should kill about 1.6 attacking infantry with those Greek forces, which would mean you lose between two and three IPCs in the process but gain Moscow an extra turn of life if Bulgaria was activated with German forces. It’s a trade I would make if I thought it would kill the Moscow attack because of a bad G1 build…

Also, I question sitting there in Greece and waiting for a counterattack if Italy activated Bulgaria – in that case, if you have air support, it would be better to attack the Italian forces instead of waiting to be attacked. It slows Italy down and if your attack is very successful might force Germany to divert forces away from the Moscow attack to prevent an sore from becoming an oozing wound in its southern flank. Killing an Italian tank on your terms could be very helpful for Russia.

A big concern with taking Greece is that it forces you to use the Egyptian transport to not attack Tobruk and also not reinforce Egypt. This could have consequences that you did not intend.

Marsh

@ShadowHAwk:

@Charles:

Ok, so a while ago Italy became upsetting for me after Taranto…now Japan is upsetting me.  I tried this strategy as the US and succeeded. My opponents got wise. Now whenever I play as Japan I get mowed over by this strategy :cry:  now we need a “How to beat Plan Orange” guide.  Seriously.

P.S. The key to this strategy as the U.S. is to simply place a submarine or more in each Japanese convoy zone (in a standard game there will be 10); just work out the details of getting there and Japan is going to be losing ground in Asia very soon because they either have to build a ton of destroyers, or build a few destroyers(only taking out your subs in big zones like 6 and 19), or totally ignore which is admitting defeat. Good luck Japan.

Maby play the standard 2nd edition rules without a bid so the allies need to devide their attention a bit more.
Good to see that the allies are becomming better at dealing with the axis.

But I never use bids!
@simon33:

@Charles:

Ok, so a while ago Italy became upsetting for me after Taranto…now Japan is upsetting me.  I tried this strategy as the US and succeeded. My opponents got wise. Now whenever I play as Japan I get mowed over by this strategy :cry:  now we need a “How to beat Plan Orange” guide.  Seriously.

Here’s what I might try:

Take Guam.
Base one DD + scrambling fighters off Philippines, Guam and Japan. That only leaves two holes for the Asian coast, SZ18 + SZ36. The latter is a long way around for the US to go. Basing a fleet in SZ18 can plug the other hole. You need to pick off the UK and/or ANZACs if they come through the bottom though.

The above won’t work if Japan is already being pushed back significantly.

If I’m the U.S. and Japan does this, first thing I’m going to do is say “Yay! My subs forced 3 destroyers and 9 fighters to sit around and do nothing!” Now that’s before I even get a chance to counter it…

Im glad we agree on some problems, I just want to find a way to take out Japan without either completly abandon Europe or commit to Europe.

A 60 - 40 economy split should work for the US at the bare minimum

70 - 30 might be better depending on the threat level

UK middle east factory is always a great idea for support
A Norway factory is good for the Allied Power who controls it(Unless it is Russia, because Leningrad Factory)

For the Spanish Beach head what if the UK hit Sweden and/or Norway to contain it , just like we do with Turkey

@Maddog77:

After looking at the game table (board) I can understand why this idea is intriguing. But after thinking a bit, Russia & GB can very easily keep any the black sea ship free with their air force. At least if I was Russia, I would sink anything built there. Also would love Germany to spend that kind of $$ ion an IC & navy instead of tanks, art & inf……still, it might be fun to give it a go sometime.

I once built an airbase in Romania in a Tech game where I had rockets and paratroopers. If you had that, I guess you could protect a TT with scrambled fighters and hit Caucusus from the Ukraine.

If I present this in video or audio format (still thinking bout it) will definitely include old time background music for it.
Hmm each country could have music by its own artist when its being presented… but I don’t want to run into copyright so that might add a challenge.

@Leatherneckinlv:

Would you play in Las Vegas? I am a huge fan of global 36 from HBG as well….some kinks in the game that need to be ironed out

Maybe

I feel like the “3rd” option is stacking UK navy in 92 and building an air base in Gibraltar UK1.  Same risk of Sea Lion as building the IC in Egypt UK1 tho.  This requires “breaking out” by attacking the Italian Destroyer in 96 with air power (bomber from London and Fighter from Malta).  I would also recommend an attack on Ethiopia via India support combined with the Tac and TT with 2 units from egypt, then consolidating Alex/Egypt forces in Egypt.  If, for whatever reason, UK navy in 110 was avoided, send them to 92 as well.

Just another option to consider with lots of “ifs”.  Germany’s opening move should dictate your options rather than have a hard and fast “this is what the UK MUST DO”.

@General:

If you do it early enough you can take Gibraltar without the need for a navy. It does open up more landing spots for the Allies but taking the base from them is a hindrance to the American player. And if you maintain parity with the Soviets above the Black Sea you can then undercut them through the Caucasus.

Unlikely to be worth it though. Opening up the weak points in both Spain and Gibraltar doesn’t help the Axis. And those 8 inf in Turkey are a real pain to take out.

It’s point 1 which matters.

Point 2 - well you still deny the Leningrad NO and potentially gain the Lend Lease NO. You have to lose the Lend Lease NO while giving up the Caucusus and Stalingrad NOs to be on a loser here.

Lots of good options for G1 builds, but here are my personal thoughts.  Two bombers can help Sea Lion in the following way:

Clean up residual ships on G2 to prevent ship blocks Bomb London on G2, doing ~9 points of additional damage to the factory which reduces the number of infantry built on UK2. Join in on the London raid on G3, contributing 8 more attack power (equivalent of 2 transports loaded with infantry + art) for approximately the same purchase cost Attack the Russian response on G4-G5; bomb Russian factories along the front. Attack the US Navy trying to liberate UK on G4-G10ish

Additionally the two bombers are quite useful to bomb Moscow and support a Barbarosa if Sea Lion is not an option.  It is not as optimal of a build of 6 art + 2 inf for marching into Russia, but still is very beneficial.

:-D

@Zarito:

I was just wondering if it is allowed to send more than two planes to a battle in a seazone when only one carrier could be there at the end of turn. The motivation would be that some of the aircraft would die in the battle and each individual aircraft can land on the carrier. Did not find an answer in the rulebook but probably didn’t look thoroughly enough.

Look here:

@rulebook:

Air Units
…
You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the
Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the
possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It
could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.

In order to demonstrate that an air unit might have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate
a possible safe landing zone for any fighter or tactical bomber. Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have
been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example,
aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if doing so leaves air units with no place to land after
combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). However, during noncombat movement
and new unit mobilization, you must provide for safe landing of as many air units as possible after all combats are resolved.
…

HTH :-)

most nations, especially US and Italy should always strive go have at least one bomber threatening to deactivate an airbase or naval base.

US bomber usually aim for WGR AB while Italian bombers often have an eye on the Gibraltar Naval base (to leave US with only 2 space movement next turn) or AB London in case there is a fleet in 110 which depends on fighters scrambling from London.