New Allied Strategies for Anniversary Edition

[Imperious Leader]

This thread is only strategies for AA50. Its not History or house rules.

[Greand Stone]

I read somewhere that Russia gets +5IPC if it holds archangels AND there are no allied(UK,US) troops on russia.

This means that if US lands a bomber in russia, and you are 6 people playing, russia is going to be pissed of cuz he looses his 5IPC bonus!

How much will this small bonus change the allied tactics?

[Guest]

My original question was whether or not there were any restrictions on the number of Axis troops in North Africa because of supply problems.  That has yet to be answered in any official manner, aside from a statement by 03321 that there will be no restrictions.  With no restrictions, and the Germans moving before the UK and the US, with the Italians moving after the UK but before the US, how do the Allies deal with the probable loss in the first German move of Egypt?

You have detailed in your post on the German strategy thread on how to inflict the maximum damage possible on the UK in the German turn.  If Axis players follow that strategy, the UK will be severely crippled, and probably unable to mount any significant defense of the Middle East, assuming average die results.  As Japan also moves prior to the UK, the UK player will have extremely limited production, given the probable emphasis of the Japanese on attacking south.  The Russian player does have a large number of Industrial Centers, but will likely be fully occupied in dealing with the German assault, although it might be possible for the Russians to deploy 2 infantry into Persia, to contain the Axis penetration towards India.

The one redeeming factor in this is the limited number of Japanese transports on the first Japanese turn.  This may make it possible for the UK player to consider an Industrial Center in India, depending on exactly what the rules governing Japanese-Russian relations are.  As those are unknown, any prediction of what the Japanese might do is fruitless.

Given the severe gutting of the US Navy, probably the best US strategy is to get a foothold in Africa, build units in China to harass the Japanese to whatever degree possible, and reinforce the UK to limit the possibility of Germany attempting Operation Sea Lion, with reinforcing the UK taking precedence over the African foothold.  Actions in the Pacific will need to be based on what the Japanese accomplish in the first turn.  Likewise, any builds will be dependent on combat results from the German and Japanese attacks on the UK, Russia, and the US.  The US having only a single transport in the Atlantic makes major reinforcement of the UK difficult, and will probably dictate the building of at least 2 transports in the Atlantic.  The US should plan on loosing the battleship near Hawaii, the ships and forces in the Philippines, and probably some of the ships off of the West Coast in the first Japanese turn.

The major initial problem, as I see it, for the Allies, is how much pressure can Russia and the US put on Germany and Japan, while helping the UK to recover from the initial German attacks.  If that succeeds, then the probably best strategy is for the US to keep some pressure on Japan with its fleet and the Chinese, while helping the UK and Russia to kill Germany.  By gutting the UK and US navies, and stacking the odds in North Africa, Mr. Harris has set the 1941 scenario up for the possibility of a fast Axis win.

I cannot say that I am impressed by that, but it will sell games.  That is the bottom line, selling games.

[Imperious Leader]

I read somewhere that Russia gets +5IPC if it holds archangels AND there are no allied(UK,US) troops on russia.

yes i read that too. Archangel has a factory and it can take out finland and Norway…so its vital to take it down by G2 IMO.

[squirecam]

@timerover51:

By gutting the UK and US navies, and stacking the odds in North Africa, Mr. Harris has set the 1941 scenario up for the possibility of a fast Axis win.

Ignoring whatever else you’ve said, this is absolutely wrong. In fact, I daresay 1941 will be harder for an axis win than the 42 scenario.

Nor will the axis ever get “quick wins” anymore. Not with the nerfs to japan.

[squirecam]

@Greand:

I read somewhere that Russia gets +5IPC if it holds archangels AND there are no allied(UK,US) troops on russia.

This means that if US lands a bomber in russia, and you are 6 people playing, russia is going to be pissed of cuz he looses his 5IPC bonus!

How much will this small bonus change the allied tactics?

I would have preferred USSR lose IPC based upon allied presence. Every territory allies are in = no IPC for USSR for that territory. If the game is going to nerf Japan attacking USSR, then it should likewise nerf the allies marching to moscow.

And nerf does not mean “no bonus”. It means severe penalties for doing so.

[Guest]

Squirecam, since you seem so knowledgeable about the rules, would you kindly explain precisely what is the relationship between Japan and Russia in the game?  That would be very helpful for everyone to know.

[Romulus]

@squirecam:

@Greand:

I read somewhere that Russia gets +5IPC if it holds archangels AND there are no allied(UK,US) troops on russia.

This means that if US lands a bomber in russia, and you are 6 people playing, russia is going to be pissed of cuz he looses his 5IPC bonus!

How much will this small bonus change the allied tactics?

I would have preferred USSR lose IPC based upon allied presence. Every territory allies are in = no IPC for USSR for that territory. If the game is going to nerf Japan attacking USSR, then it should likewise nerf the allies marching to moscow.

And nerf does not mean “no bonus”. It means severe penalties for doing so.

Squiream it is a really interesting rule that take in account the xenophobia of Stalin and his relations with USA and UK. Moreover it solve the problem of the defense of Moscow supported by USA and UK troops.

[Imperious Leader]

xenophobia of Stalin and his relations with USA and UK. Moreover it solve the problem of the defense of Moscow supported by USA and UK troops.

This is Larrys fix for that problem which Stalin would NEVER allow allies troops in Soviet territory. He thought the British were conspiring at every moment where they could join with Germany or go after the Balkans early to deny the Soviets the ability to clean house in Eastern Europe.

[shermantank]

What about the Lend-Lease Act? Was that only for equipment to the Soviets?

[Imperious Leader]

Lend Lease sent planes, tanks, trucks, and other equipment to both UK and Russia.

No men were sent and the quantity of the material sent was far less than what the game represents. The game is army level.

Lend lease in the game should be basically just IPC that Russia uses to buy stuff cheaper, except infantry for obvious reasons.

[shermantank]

Okay. That makes sense.

[Guest]

Lend-Lease also supplied large numbers of destroyer escorts and escort carriers to the UK, and the Shermans and Grants furnished through Lend-Lease basically reequipped the 8th Army prior to El Alamein.  The escort carriers were furnished with planes, Wildcats and Avengers for the air group.  The Russians got about 400,000 trucks from the US, plus most of their radios, a goodly number of B-25 Mitchells, most of the P-39 production (the Russians loved them for ground attack), and just about all of the P-63 King Cobra production of 4,000 planes.  Essentially, the Lend-Lease was supplied in army-sized quantities.

On a different note, based on the post of Krieghund in the Chinese as a New Player thread, the Chinese player will be a big boost to the US player in the game.  Allied forces can be deployed in China.  The US player will decide which forces, the US or the Chinese in China attack first.  Also, after examining the map, the US can deploy bombers to China with one movement from Alaska, either combat or non-combat, without worrying too much about interception as there is no CAP in the game.  Once there, the US can use the bombers to work over the Japanese first, then send in the Chinese ground troops.  Also, any unescorted transport will be fair game.  From studying the various map images posted, it looks like just about every Pacific sea zone can be hit by bombers operating from the US, Alaska, Australia, and China, taking off from one area and landing in another.  A good first buy for the US should include one or two bombers in the Western US, depending on exactly what the Japanese do, and where they leave transport exposed.

[Romulus]

@timerover51:

…
On a different note, based on the post of Krieghund in the Chinese as a New Player thread, the Chinese player will be a big boost to the US player in the game.  Allied forces can be deployed in China.  The US player will decide which forces, the US or the Chinese in China attack first.  Also, after examining the map, the US can deploy bombers to China with one movement from Alaska, either combat or non-combat, without worrying too much about interception as there is no CAP in the game.  Once there, the US can use the bombers to work over the Japanese first, then send in the Chinese ground troops.  Also, any unescorted transport will be fair game.  From studying the various map images posted, it looks like just about every Pacific sea zone can be hit by bombers operating from the US, Alaska, Australia, and China, taking off from one area and landing in another.  A good first buy for the US should include one or two bombers in the Western US, depending on exactly what the Japanese do, and where they leave transport exposed.

timerover51, what do you mean with “using bombers to work over Japanese first”? Using bombers to attack Japanese land armies?

[Adlertag]

@Romulus:

timerover51, what do you mean with “using bombers to work over Japanese first”? Using bombers to attack Japanese land armies?

Its pretty obvious he will send a bomber from WUS to Manchuria, and try to kill one single japanese infantry before the remaining japanese units, 10 inf, 4 art, 5 tanks and 2 fighters, kill his lone bomber. Now the 3 chinese infantry face one less japanese infantry, and the odds are improving. I would love to play the Axis against this man.

[Guest]

@Romulus:

@timerover51:

…
On a different note, based on the post of Krieghund in the Chinese as a New Player thread, the Chinese player will be a big boost to the US player in the game.  Allied forces can be deployed in China.  The US player will decide which forces, the US or the Chinese in China attack first.  Also, after examining the map, the US can deploy bombers to China with one movement from Alaska, either combat or non-combat, without worrying too much about interception as there is no CAP in the game.  Once there, the US can use the bombers to work over the Japanese first, then send in the Chinese ground troops.  Also, any unescorted transport will be fair game.  From studying the various map images posted, it looks like just about every Pacific sea zone can be hit by bombers operating from the US, Alaska, Australia, and China, taking off from one area and landing in another.  A good first buy for the US should include one or two bombers in the Western US, depending on exactly what the Japanese do, and where they leave transport exposed.

timerover51, what do you mean with “using bombers to work over Japanese first”? Using bombers to attack Japanese land armies?

Basically, yes, use the American aircraft to attack the Japanese first, and then attack with Chinese ground troops.

[shermantank]

@timerover51:

@Romulus:

@timerover51:

…
On a different note, based on the post of Krieghund in the Chinese as a New Player thread, the Chinese player will be a big boost to the US player in the game.  Allied forces can be deployed in China.  The US player will decide which forces, the US or the Chinese in China attack first.  Also, after examining the map, the US can deploy bombers to China with one movement from Alaska, either combat or non-combat, without worrying too much about interception as there is no CAP in the game.  Once there, the US can use the bombers to work over the Japanese first, then send in the Chinese ground troops.  Also, any unescorted transport will be fair game.  From studying the various map images posted, it looks like just about every Pacific sea zone can be hit by bombers operating from the US, Alaska, Australia, and China, taking off from one area and landing in another.  A good first buy for the US should include one or two bombers in the Western US, depending on exactly what the Japanese do, and where they leave transport exposed.

timerover51, what do you mean with “using bombers to work over Japanese first”? Using bombers to attack Japanese land armies?

Basically, yes, use the American aircraft to attack the Japanese first, and then attack with Chinese ground troops.

That makes more sense, timerover51, than what Aldertag is proposing. Only removing one japanese infantry with a US bomber/ Chinese forces doesn’t make much sense. Aldertag, can you enlighten me please?

[Guest]

@Adlertag:

@Romulus:

timerover51, what do you mean with “using bombers to work over Japanese first”? Using bombers to attack Japanese land armies?

Its pretty obvious he will send a bomber from WUS to Manchuria, and try to kill one single japanese infantry before the remaining japanese units, 10 inf, 4 art, 5 tanks and 2 fighters, kill his lone bomber. Now the 3 chinese infantry face one less japanese infantry, and the odds are improving. I would love to play the Axis against this man.

Japanese, assuming the one picture is an accurate picture of the setup, have 9 infantry in China, 3 in Manchuria, 3 in what I assme to be Kwantung, and 3 in French Indo-China,
plus a fighter in Manchuria.  No IC in Manchuria.  Japan has one transport in Sea Zone surrounding Japan, One transport with fleet near China, and what looks like 2 transports near the Caroline Islands, hard to tell the way the picture is slanted.  One transport is going to have to hit the Philippines.  The Allies still control Borneo and the East Indies, so something is going to have to go there for Japan. The transports in the Caroline Islands are 2 sea zones from Japan, so can only get there in the first turn with non-combat movement, unless they are used elsewhere. One infantry, 4 tanks, and 5 artillery add up to 5 transports, unless Japanese destroyers can transport infantry.  It looks like the Japanese player starts with 4, so one more needs to be built to move all that in one move.  Builds in Japanes do not reach China in the first turn, and depending on transport location, maybe not the second turn.  I said nothing about attacking  Manchuria.  Given that a bomber attacks at 4, hard to say how many Japanese infantry can be killed.  I did say that it would depend on what the Japanses player did in his first turn.  My highest priority would be to kill Japanese transports.  For the Japanese player, going after China makes very little sense, as he needs IPC.  I would happily see the Japanese player throw the forces that you mention at China, as they would not be going elsewhere.

The Japanese player is going to have to either concentrate his transports with his fleet, or disperse his fleet to cover the defenseless transports.  If he goes for maximum amphibious attacks the first turn, he is going to pretty spread out.  If he is spread out, I go for the transports that are easiest to kill.  The bomber in the Western US can reach Australia in one movement, attacking along the way.  If he concentrates, he limits what he can do.  It is a matter of waiting to see exactly what happens the first turn, and what the UK player does in his turn with respect to India.  I did not say that bombers to China would be the first turn, but that a build of bombers to be moved to China would be a good idea, depending on what the Japanese player did in his/her first turn.  A massive build in Japan takes a while to get anywhere else, so killing transports at the start is one way of slowing Japan down.  With transports at 7 IPC, that costs the Japanese 1 infantry and 1 artillery for every transport sunk that needs to be replaced. As the US player goes last, the Japanese player cannot build any transport in Japan without also having some combat ships to protect them.  I suspect that the Japanese fleet is going to be spread all over the map.  When spread thin, it is easier to kill.  The US air power in China is a longer term strategy, not immediate one.

[Romulus]

Interesting. Sinking TRNs may be an effective way to slow down Japanese reinforcing.
Other than the real attack of the bomber it is useful the threat of the bombers attack, this will force the Japanese to spend IPCs in escort warships, reducing the IPC spent in ground units. However at this point the USA BMB in China are less a threat for Japanese shipping. The “soakening” is not an option and China have to fought on his own.

[losttribe04]

@Imperious:

Lend Lease sent planes, tanks, trucks, and other equipment to both UK and Russia.

No men were sent and the quantity of the material sent was far less than what the game represents. The game is army level.

Lend lease in the game should be basically just IPC that Russia uses to buy stuff cheaper, except infantry for obvious reasons.

The lend - lease act also sent boots, ammo, rifles, blankets and clothing.  I don’t see why that couldn’t include infantry.

Another interesting fact about lend - lease was that the US would send supplies from Alaska to the SFE either in Russian ships or in US ships with Russian ensigns and markings.