Basically my T1 for Russia is the same as yours mind a few exceptions. First I don’t place any inf. in the Caucasus. Why? Because Germany probably has better things to do with it’s inf like support N. Africa. Plus if Germany decides to I can just counterattack next turn, stripping German of 3-6 IPCs.

Second, I don’t use my planes on the attack on Ukraine. The inf. and ARM should be enough. Instead I use the Yaks to wipe out Germany’s trans and sub in the Baltic Sea and save my Russian sub and trans to help absorb hits when the Luftwaffe strikes against the British fleet.

Yeah, no kidding. plus there are all sorts of misnomers about transports and airplanes.

thanks for confrming my assumtion

No way! Panzer General II was the best! PGII:Pacific was pretty okay too if you can get around the fact of snow-covered islands.

Ever heard of the old saying that it doesn’t matter who wins or losses, just whoever takes the most of a beating. I think that principle can be applied here. As for gearing up for the war, American industry just wasn’t fully mobilized. If you compare production rates of military arms of WWII vs. the Vietnam War (and the Vietnam War lasted how many heres), you’ll see the real story.

teaches you to buy the game :wink:

Yeah, I know.

Hmmm…never thought of it, but that actually makes a lot of sense. Hitler threatened to invade Spain if Francisco Franco didn’t sieze Gibraltar (which was eventually made moot when the Allies invaded Morocco before anything could be done). Japan of course had very little respect for neutrality. And Switzerland’s “neutrality”, was indeed strictly enforced–with German-built ME109 aircraft! This is an interesting “historical” house rule…

Just my $0.02…

Ozone27

It’s interesting to think about. But considering Hitler thought of Moscow as (and I quote) “…a geographical expression only…” it is clear that Germany had no intention of seizing Moscow quickly, whether the general staff wished to or not…

Ozone27

Are you and Djensen the only ones that run this site? Must be kinda tough.

Hey SUD, why not make a name on this sight, your IP address says you have one but don’t post under it.

Aren’t the Russians usually the ones to take Norway and Eastern Europe. Plus you shouldn’t have much trouble out building German.

As for Japan at Pearl Harbor? I’m not sure who he/she is but I would advise that person to attack Hawaii with all the Naval forces he has. What I noticed was a BB and AC missing, which could make a huge difference on the outcome of the battle.

Another post I agree with. By maintaining a strong ftr. force you can significantly delay a landing made by Allied Forces at both N. Africa or WE.

This forces UK and USA to work together as Allied transports can no longer move unprotected. Forcing money on building a Navy draws away IPCs much needed fronts and slows any build-up.

Ftrs. prove the perfect defense. If you’re defending with 6 inf. and 4 ftrs., the Allies are once again forced to build is higher numbers in order to overrun these defenses.

In all, ftrs. are the best way to slow down any sort of invasion.

I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.

I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.

Ozone27

Case closed!

Hi yall! About that scinario I posted its what you try to play. its like a new way to play the game. A differant objective and stuff. and tell Djensen I spelled it wrong cause I hate english and I dont check my spelling and Anymonous I am 13!
Well off of the lame stuff this is my stratagy. Usually on my 1st, 2nd, and sometimes 3rd turns I power up the U.K. with fighters, Bombers, transports and infantry incase the enemy starts beating me bigtime I use them as a target so I can iflict damage w/ my powerful stuff. And also I buy lots of tanks to do the final touch. Then If I win in noth arfica I build an I.C. and build a big army. Then when I am powerful enough I attack Western Europe w/ my guys from U.K. and Southern europe w/ my guys from North Africa. Then when they are weak the Soviets march in and take Ukraine S.S.R.
and Eastern Europe. If you can see ways I can adjust my stratagy to make it more powerful please leave a comment.

stevie tell me how u got it from morpheus. i cant seem to find it

What’s with kids people these days? Don’t they understand the difference between “YOUR” and “YOU’RE”?

David Jensen
Webmaster, Axis & Allies.org

[ This Message was edited by: djensen on 2002-03-13 15:46 ]

[ This Message was edited by: djensen on 2002-03-13 15:49 ]

You said that all fighters (3) must have a way to land at the end of the turn. If I designate both FTRs to land on the carrier, that’s all I can get, whether they’re destroyed or not. Now I did some play testing with the CD ROM game of A&A and found out that you don’t need to designate which ftr lands on the carrier before the battle actually starts. Only after the battle do you decide where the planes must land. So if you plan to land 3 planes on the carrier and 1 is destroyed, then you can land the remaining two on the carrier.

Of course I could be wrong and this may just be another bug in the A&A CD version (which isn’t the first time). Can someone shed some light on this?

What use is it if India is to be taken by Japan on the very first turn?