Attacking sub withdrawl after a naval victory?

This makes no sense. Japan controls Philippines at start. The only US forces are in Hawaii. This is Milton Bradley Edition, not global

Yeah, we are playing the new version with destroyers and guns. I’ve never played the game before last month. I came at him with a sub a destroyer and a battleship. He had a destroyer, two transports and a battleship. Luck of the dice and his desire to save his battleship ended his chances of getting anything off of Japan for a time.

@Linkon:

Taking any Allied islands should be considered a luxury move.  Do it after critical territories are secured.

Not quite.  The question of whether to attack Australia depends on what the Russians did in round 1.  IF Russia is making a strong Asian stand (ie: if the Russian fighter was sent on the Manchurian attack and/or if 2 or more Russian INF were sent east in round 1) then I would agree with you:  Pull all Japan forces back to Japan proper, assault Manchuria with so much overwhelming force that Russia is basically totally defeated in the east, then move toward Moscow as described elsewhere.

However, if Russia did not attack Manchuria at all, or if their attack forces were not at maximum strength, or if Russia sent all available forces west to defend Karelia, then you do not have to send EVERYTHING against Russia.  In fact, “wasting” both battleships sitting in home waters is counter-productive to Japan’s openning strength:  navy.

Remember, the US has to stage forward to attack Japan, or any navy around Japan.  That means that Western US navy has to move to Hawaii (or Midway, or Wake, or SOMEWHERE forward of California) one round before it can attack Japan’s home waters (and that transport fleet you started building in round 1).  Japan has more than enough initial air power to counter any Round 1 US attack, and then you simply re-start building that transport fleet and move the Australian navy back toward home waters.  And if the US does stage forward, then the TWO Japan fleets pincer it, destroy it, and then keep building their transports to attack Russia and threaten Midway, Hawaii, and Alaska.

fair enough. Let’s say you pull the armor back, and toss fighters in? Or one arm, one ftr?
Also it’s not just the german ftr but also it’s armor(s). Plus stalling it for 2 turns (by forcing it to pull back instead of allowing it to build up).

I’m not sure I follow, how does hitting EEuro hurt Germany more than attacking Ukr. It has 1 more armor anyway, and you have more guys to throw in. Further against a good PE bid you’d likely be creating a deadzone in Karelia even with armor there, or I could stack Cauc to force you from Karelia on R2. Either way I don’t see why attacking EEuro is going to hurt Germany more than hitting Ukr would.

Depending on the bid of course, but interesting is

sub vs sub in AZO

2 ftr vs trn, sub in BAL
8/3 vs Ukr

and maybe 5/1 vs Man (only w/1 inf Kwa bid or less)
ncm the trn to NOR and Germany has a tough task.

Yes very much depending on the bid if you ask me. IMO no Africa bid should ever happen unless you are prepared to bid 2 guys into Manch. I assume an Africa bid as against a PE bid this would be extremely risky, and create a potential deadzone out of Karelia. So yes I’d say this would work against only the very worst of bids.

That’s the only reason I’d risk all my tanks in E Euro. At least I know I’ll have another round to build before an invasion. I don’t like it, but in an unRR, no bid game (ie playing by the printed rules) I could see the tactical advantage to taking Manch, E. Euro, Baltic Sea and the sea zone to the west of France with Russia followed by a Kwang attack by the UK.

But herein lies the problem in a no bid no RR game why would Russia need to ever worry about Karelia. I would also question why Russia would need to attack Manchuria as in a no bid game the Allies start with such an impressive advantage they don’t need to do much to win.

Yeah, CC is right. The rules state you can retreat to a sea zone that does not contain enemy units. Clearly if the battle has not been resolved then there are enemy units.

A point of interest is that the defender can retreat into the sea zone from which the attack was launched provided there is no other enemy units in it.

BB

Pardon me!
I have a lazy eye.
:roll: :P :wink:

I’ll try to cut downn on my smileys.

It’s dangerous to just assume that any specific or even general strategy will work all the time or even most of the time. Even though Axis and Allies does have certain “tendencies” of play, the best strategists, tacticians, and generals will always find ways to defeat those tendencies. The only truly general principles apply to all wargames, not just A&A:

The Cardinal Rule: War never guarntees anything. Therefore, any strategy or tactic that is invented is never guarnteed to work 100% of the time.

None of the following rules may or will apply in any and all situations.

Outguess your opponent. Chess grand masters visualize the game several moves ahead, trying to figure out what they will do, how their opponent will respond, and vice versa. Thinking a step or two ahead of your opponent is generally a good idea.

Adapt to changing situations. You may do something based on what your opponent seems to be preparing to do. He may then do something entirely different and throw you off balance. How well you adapt to what your opponent this did may determine whether you live or die.

@Xi:

KNOWLEDGEABLE DUDES and DUDETTES,
Y don’t you post a website where s/he can find the rules variations?
Ta da! - Xi

ok i found a website with the rules. http://www.kelleysisland.com/danspage/axisallies/rule.html