New Allied Strategies for Anniversary Edition

[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.

[Romulus]

Sending USA infantrymen to fight in the infantry regiment of First Shock Army? Hardly to do, IMHO.

Moreover if there was a material that Stalin had plenty of were the men! USSR had shorcoming of bullets, shoes, cloth, bullets, truck, tires etc. Men vere in excess.
USSR had a total of 20 Million of death in the WWII (soldiers and civilians) and at the end of the War the Red Army had no menpower problemes for sure.

[Imperious Leader]

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

They sent EQUIPMENT… and the quantities they sent could not equal more than the total value of nearly what is represented by a ‘piece’. And secondly, the ‘piece’ represents the manpower, and lend lease had none of that.

Plus the units are under independent command?  You send a tank over, but the Russian player receives the benefit of playing that force on an independent turn order, which is essentially saying the Soviet player gets to move pieces before or after his turn. No sir. An American piece sent over in the way the game allows it is not Lend lease. Its US forces landing in Russia (with Stalins consent) to fight on Soviet land against Germany.

It should be a simple transfer of IPC, subject to interdiction by subs or warships or planes by axis…just like the real war.

[Guest]

@Imperious:

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

They sent EQUIPMENT… and the quantities they sent could not equal more than the total value of nearly what is represented by a ‘piece’. And secondly, the ‘piece’ represents the manpower, and lend lease had none of that.

Plus the units are under independent command?  You send a tank over, but the Russian player receives the benefit of playing that force on an independent turn order, which is essentially saying the Soviet player gets to move pieces before or after his turn. No sir. An American piece sent over in the way the game allows it is not Lend lease. Its US forces landing in Russia (with Stalins consent) to fight on Soviet land against Germany.

It should be a simple transfer of IPC, subject to interdiction by subs or warships or planes by axis…just like the real war.

Interesting, as that is not to far from what I use in my house rules for Lend-Lease.  I have made Lend-Lease certificates, which are spent just like IPCs, to purchase equipment from the US.  The main difference is that the material is ordered at the start of one turn, and then delivered at the end of the following turn, to reflect the time spent in production and shipping.  The amount that each country receives is based on a die roll, sometimes in combination with a minimum guaranteed amount.

The whole purpose of Lend-Lease was to combine the enormous production capacity of the US with the manpower reserves of Allies who could not produce enough miilitary equipment themselves.  The Act itself was passed on 11 March 1941, long before the US was at war, and was a decidedly un-neutral act.

[Guest]

Based on the following post by Krieghund, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12415.0, where he states the following:

The only time having more than one AA gun in a territory can benefit you is if they belong to different countries and both countries have Rockets.  That would allow each country to fire Rockets out of that territory on their own turn.

It would appear that a valid tactic for the Allies, if both the US and the UK get the Rocket technology while trying for one of the Land/Production techs, is to have the US also place an AA gun in the UK, and both subject the German IC to Rocket attacks.  If combined with Strategic Bombing Attacks, even without Heavy Bombers,  you could get four D6 rolls on the IC, with an average for the four die being 14.  German IC production would be 10 units, 12 if the German player gets the Improved Production Tech.  It would be possible for the Italian player to put in an AA gun as well to hit the UK, but given the limited number of IPC that the Italians will be getting, I suspect that Italian research is going to be limited.  If combined with Heavy Bombers, it might be possible to really limit German production severely.

[squirecam]

@timerover51:

Based on the following post by Krieghund, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12415.0, where he states the following:

The only time having more than one AA gun in a territory can benefit you is if they belong to different countries and both countries have Rockets.  That would allow each country to fire Rockets out of that territory on their own turn.

It would appear that a valid tactic for the Allies, if both the US and the UK get the Rocket technology while trying for one of the Land/Production techs, is to have the US also place an AA gun in the UK, and both subject the German IC to Rocket attacks.  If combined with Strategic Bombing Attacks, even without Heavy Bombers,  you could get four D6 rolls on the IC, with an average for the four die being 14.  German IC production would be 10 units, 12 if the German player gets the Improved Production Tech.  It would be possible for the Italian player to put in an AA gun as well to hit the UK, but given the limited number of IPC that the Italians will be getting, I suspect that Italian research is going to be limited.  If combined with Heavy Bombers, it might be possible to really limit German production severely.

A good reason why we need a new LHTR. At least tech is “off” by default.

[Romulus]

@squirecam:

@timerover51:

Based on the following post by Krieghund, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12415.0, where he states the following:

The only time having more than one AA gun in a territory can benefit you is if they belong to different countries and both countries have Rockets.  That would allow each country to fire Rockets out of that territory on their own turn.

It would appear that a valid tactic for the Allies, if both the US and the UK get the Rocket technology while trying for one of the Land/Production techs, is to have the US also place an AA gun in the UK, and both subject the German IC to Rocket attacks.  If combined with Strategic Bombing Attacks, even without Heavy Bombers,  you could get four D6 rolls on the IC, with an average for the four die being 14.  German IC production would be 10 units, 12 if the German player gets the Improved Production Tech.  It would be possible for the Italian player to put in an AA gun as well to hit the UK, but given the limited number of IPC that the Italians will be getting, I suspect that Italian research is going to be limited.  If combined with Heavy Bombers, it might be possible to really limit German production severely.

A good reason why we need a new LHTR. At least tech is “off” by default.

Or quickly make another set up and start another game.