New Allied Strategies for Anniversary Edition

[Guest]

Excellent, we are in agreement then.  I prefer the side that I play to win as well, and I never play the Axis.  Nor do I have any qualms about stacking the deck in the Allies favor.  A US-only Atomic Bomb tech would be nice as well, similar to the one in Xeno Games Pacific at War.  Death to the Axis!

[variant]

@timerover51:

I prefer to see the Axis annihilated, totally and utterly destroyed.

Better get a black marker and start blacking out the Axis then.

@timerover51:

Excellent, we are in agreement then.  I prefer the side that I play to win as well, and I never play the Axis.  Nor do I have any qualms about stacking the deck in the Allies favor.  A US-only Atomic Bomb tech would be nice as well, similar to the one in Xeno Games Pacific at War.  Death to the Axis!

Why do I get the feeling that you have no friends that play Axis & Allies?

[Richter von Manthofen]

@timerover51:

@Richter:

Attacking Italy (Southern) Europe was an option in the basic game - just not a clever option.

Italy is quite protected (from what I have seen of the map) - Italy being a separate player is a bonus to Germany - startegic bombing italy does NOT hurt German resources…

But I know too less of Triple A to decide exactly what to do…

My comment with respect to Strategic Bombing was on using Italy as a base for bombers to attack Germany.  This was actually done during the war to split and avoid German air defenses.  I am assuming with the change in Strategic Bombing rules that the German player will place an AA gun in both Northern Europe and France to reduce the effects of bomber attack.  Attacking from Italy would avoid this.  However, if Italy can be persuaded to change sides, then an Allied attack on the Rumanian oil fields might be a viable option.

However, the ability of the Allies to attack Italy is constrained by the very limited US production capacity.  In actuality, during WW2 the US mounted a major offensive in the Pacific against Japan, mounted a strategic bombing campaign against Germany while building up the mass of forces for the D-Day invasion, and fought a major campaign in the Mediterranean Theater, all at the same time.  That is not possible in the game as it appears presently.

Also unknown is if there are any limitations to the number of Axis troops in Libya.  The port capacity of Tripoli put a cap on the number of troops that could be supported, the number diminishing steadily the farther from Tripoli they were.  It does not appear that there is a separate area for Cyrenaica.

If you implement production levels into the game you would have also to implement troop quality, Equipment quality morale and a million other things - some favoring the Allies, some the Axis.

Regarding the three front war (Pacific - West Europe - Africa) : not only the US had to do this quite all major powers had to do it. Sure the US did produce MOST war equipment, but without the help of others the US alone would NOT have won… - despite production supremacy

If Germany and Russia were at peace (stupid decision to attack the red while still at war with the brits) an invasion to Europe would probably have failed - you can bring only SOOO many troops with ships - if the enemy has enough reserves he can push back the enemy into the water with ease…

T am not convinced that the US won the war in Africa and Italy.

Key factor in the med was the British carrier of Malta, the presence of a strong Royal navy to contain Italy and shipping to Africa - both factors are missing in the setup of this game (AAE has malta and as avid brit player its my first duty to hold Malta at ALL COSTS)

…err… rant and anti US mod off …

(Sorry but I can’t stand if the Efforts of the Brits - at war 1939-1945 - and the Russians - summer 1941-1945 - are forgotten to easily - The US played a great and vital part in the war, but they were not alone)

This game is an abstraction and I want to play both sides and WIN with both sides…

BTW the idea of splitting Africa into MORE territories sounds great (Morocco Algeria Tunesia Libya Cyrenaica)

I do NOt think the idea of limiting the number of units in certain territories is a good one. - Those territories represent huge stretches of land… - you would have to limit the pacific islands to an inf+plane - then ;)

The Allies can limit the number of Axis units in NA just the way they did in the real world - sink the transports - kill off the Axis…  :evil:

[Guest]

My apologies, I did not mean to slight the British efforts in North Africa in the least.  I am well aware of the fact that the British did most of the fighting in the Tunisian Campaign and all of the fighting in the Western Desert and Libyan campaigns.  The limitation on Axis troops in North Africa is based on the problems actually encountered by the Axis with respect to supply.  Tripoli was the best port available, with Benghazi and Tobruk as poor seconds.  The farther from Tripoli the Axis went, the fewer the number of troops that could be supported.  There does not appear to be a location for Malta on the board, which limits how much damage the British can do quickly to the Italian Navy.  The Royal Navy is severely reduced in comparison to the Italian Navy, being sacrificed on the altar of Play Balance.

Drawing the analogy of small islands in the Pacific having no restrictions is incorrect.  Given the massive investment by the Allies into amphibious equipment, supplying an island in the Pacific posed few problems.  Guadalcanal was a special case, but even that supported a force in excess of two divisions, and a good-sized air force.  If the Italians or Germans could have afforded the same investment, supplying the forces in North Africa would have been much easier, and larger forces could have been deployed.  The Germans and the Italians had nothing to compare to the DUKW or the Amphibious Tractor Cargo Carrier, nor the LST, all of immense importance to Alllied logistics.  Tripoli was rated at 45,000 tons per month for cargo handling, although it was pushed to handle more than that.  A strip of beach, one thousand yards long, with adequate amphibious equipment, could easily handle 1500 tons per day, or 45,000 tons per month.  As a former logistics officer, that is the MINIMUM monthly tonnage that I would guarantee.  I would anticipate being able to supply much more than that.  That is with WW2 amphibious equipment.  Therefore, no Pacific island really would have problems with a unit limitation, unless you are talking a a very large number of units, considerably more than the Axis actually deployed to North Africa.  The fact that a much larger Axis force could be supported following the seizure of Bizerta from the French was a combination of several factors.  Larger port with more capacity, shorter voyage from Italy, much shorter distances with North Africa, making much lessor demands on fuel as cargo, and the shorter distances meaning that the same number of trucks could hual much more cargo.  Bizerta would not have helped Rommel that much, as it was considerably farther away from his front than Tripoli.  If supply factors in North Africa are not considered in the Anniversary edition of the game, then they must be considered if a Mediterranean versoin of Axis and Allies is produced.

[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.