@Krieghund Thank you!
Anzac Shuck Into Europe
-
I think this work well with a KGF or a KIF.
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower I am no expert player, but have watched and studied expert play. A lot of people use 54 as an anchor and a fortress to project power over the money, islands and threatened to recapture them or to capture Caroline, which is very powerful and threatened both the main lands, China and the money islands. Anzac purchases can tip the scales in the allied favor inship versus ship,
The problem of course is this is a defensive action and only counts mathematically for defense. I also find 54 to be too accommodating to a Japanese expansion. It fights the fight exactly where Japan wants to fight the fight, endangering in India and Queensland, and protecting the Philippines further in the war the fleets can move between Queensland and Caroline versus the axis ships moving between Malaya and Philippines, so nothing happens, except Japan, live votes more and more of its aircraft to the new carriers that are being brought on board to keep up with the arms race. Those are solid strategies and not to be disparaged however, they do not advance the football because of the political rules America gets into the game too late and so this trench warfare develops without advantage to the Allied player Andrew AA gamer does this extremely well and you should study his Japan movements. What is a historical about this is that the allied purpose was to avoid trench warfare or stalemate.
What I like to do is have a main battle fleet and then side fleet that makes the Japanese also divide their fleets. I think a fleet should always be endangering the mainland with the transport. See how many games the Japanese are able to hold the mainland with just a handful of infantry and three anti-aircraft. It’s disgusting and obviously bad strategy also the waters of Japan and the waters of the money islands should always be convoy ABLE. In other words subs that could slip into a convoy anytime they are left without a destroyer you ought to have more submarines on the board than his destroyers that is a job for Anzac. I also think you ought to try and have US carriers that have room on their decks for Anzac fighters because that can increase the range of attack from 4 to 7 because the carrier can move three and the fighter can move for the other the other great use of the Anzacs is to block with Anzac destroyers. On account of the need for offensive coordinated action the Anzacs also are the ones that should be taking over islands with transport and ground units so that if the Americans want to attack together, they can so I see Anzac as crucial in capturing islands, providing blockers, convoying seasons, and I have a hard time seeing diverting energy to the Atlantic. I think you are throwing away a huge advantage of having four different, perhaps five different nations, taking down the Japanese.
-
@crockett36 I understand what your saying and I appreciate it. You said something on the lines of if Anzac focuses just on the pacific you have 4-5 countries trying to take down Japan. So it’s sounds like you dis-favor this idea. Is that correct? Just wanted to clarify. Or are you neutral. My thinking is what if you had another power in Europe? I’m no expert I just think Anzac being able to “shuck” units into Europe is helpful especially when we are talking about Anzac. I think Marco may be onto something.
Also when you said I have a hard time seeing diverting energy to the Atlantic that’s my point. That as far as I know no one has really tried this before which means it could be more benefitable having Anzac In Europe rather than the Pacific.
Again, I’m not taking a side I’m just curious if this should be tried or not or if this is an idea to consider.
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower I think it is imperative that Anzac stay in its lane in its ocean PTO.
-
@crockett36 a good experiment for you would be to do the math that it would take the allies to catch up to the Japanese Navy and aircraft. How many rounds of full production in the PTO would it take to catch up to the Japanese?
-
@crockett36 after that consider the reality of offensive warfare you can’t count your carriers for attackers and then to be even more realistic. Imagine Japan tries to keep up with the arms race.
Hey, another idea if you’re looking for fresh ideas to play around with is sea zone seven which I have called my friend has called the magnificent seven as a place to park every available American ship give the Japanese go to season 3635 or 33. Another possibility is filling the ocean with destroyers from Anzac and UKP and the United States destroyers in order to block their movements, this in combination with magnus seven keeping the Russians in a more moving the Indian troops in the Burma perhaps even Russian fast movers makes for a very bad day for Japan.
-
@crockett36 Alright, would you suppose that I should use triple a for that?
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower yes you should and or could and also look up sneaking car pants and not intuitive but declaring war something like they’re doing all this combat action and you can’t stop them until the WDOW, which happens actual combat. It’s really funky silly I am in my opinion.
-
@crockett36 sticky Carl
-
@crockett36 I understood nothing you said, sorry. Could you re-explain without metaphors please. Thanks. :)
-
Sneaky Karl is a way UK & ANZAC can ‘abuse’ the turn order and create a hostile sea zone so that Japan cannot load transports. Typically you would exploit this in SZ37 off French Indochina.
Deep dive into the Sneaky Karl:
https://youtu.be/Pkj_9K3lfQk?feature=sharedThat's 'cause a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose.
-
@crockett36 said in Anzac Shuck Into Europe:
@FranceNeedsMorePower I think it is imperative that Anzac stay in its lane in its ocean PTO.
This. If America already has the ability to get ground units into Europe as early as turn 4, why’s ANZAC going out of their way to build a base on Brazil? That’s equivalent to icing on an already frosted cake.
-
@Stucifer Ah I will have to look into this thanks for clarifying what he meant by that.
-
@TheDesertFox said in Anzac Shuck Into Europe:
That’s equivalent to icing on an already frosted cake.
My point exactly, extra frosting = extra yumminess.
Sorry got side tracked anyway, I think having a consistent force of Anzac troops coming in just makes your landings even more secure than before. Personally I think this is better than Anzac doing submarine gorilla warfare.
-
Well personally as crazy as it sounds I like to build an aircraft carrier as ANZAC and then rendezvous with my fellow British in the Indian Ocean. ANZAC starts off with 3 fighters and can be making up to 20 IPCs a turn why not lean into that?
-
@crockett36 said in Anzac Shuck Into Europe:
@FranceNeedsMorePower I think it is imperative that Anzac stay in its lane in its ocean PTO.
Can’t agree more. ANZAC has very limited income and production capabilities. If they are making 20 per round due to NOs Japan is going to be in serious trouble. They can build 2 subs and a destroyer each round and assist the US deep in the Pacific. This is far more effective than shucking infantry into Africa or Gibraltar.
One of the #1 rules of Axis & Allies is to use overwhelming force. For that reason it is better to have most of your income and units being controlled by as few powers as possible. Germany at 80 IPCs/round and Italy at 3 is far more dangerous than Germany at 53 IPCs/round and Italy at 30.
The Allies income is already very distributed, which when coupled with generally longer supply lines, lowers the effect of their income lead. If you take Brazil with ANZAC you are:
- not projecting any threat of trading islands or securing objectives with that ANZAC transport in the Pacific;
- operating a very weak power far away from their power base
If you continue down this path, what do you do with the ANZAC infantry if you get them to Gibraltar or Africa? You need artillery, and preferably heavy air support, to go on the offensive.
Spending 34 IPCs (factory, harbor, transport) to then spend 6 IPCs per round shucking 2 ANZ infantry into a theater where they have no ability to project power is a complete misuse of resources and will cost you the game against a solid opponent. If you spent the same amount in the Pacific, you could have an additional fighter and 4 subs, plus another sub each round; as @crockett36 mentioned having a sub count higher than Japan’s destroyer count and the opportunity to shotgun them out to start convoying can do some serious, serious damage to the Japanese economy.
-
Would you rather have 10 ANZ infantry in Europe or this?
That's 'cause a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose.
-
@TheDesertFox I just do see any purpose in an Anzac Carrier. Anzac should spend there money on other ships to join the U.S. fleet it’s not cost effective. The British fleet is domed anyway unless you use my ME variant. Hmm I suppose that may actually work only with my strategy though.
-
@Stucifer I’m not following the data. Can you break it down for me?
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower to get 10 ANZAC infantry into, say, Normandy. You need 5 turns of transport shucks from Brazil with a harbor and the factory. 64 IPCs. That’s the same as 9 subs and a fighter.
9 subs spread out into a few convoy zones can easily do 12-15 convoy damage (avg per sub is 2 IPCs)
To get an extra 10 US infantry into Normandy in 5 rounds you only spend 44 (2 transports and 10 inf), and you have combined weight of all the other US forces to actually threaten Germany on offense.
Suggested Topics
