I have to concur with the others who have posted. A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go. If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia. While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units. Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia). Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too). That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia. So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it. If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about. YAKUT is the key for Japan. Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces. The drain on Russia: defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support. And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)
Where the heck are Germany's vaunted U-Boats?
-
I’ve found U-boats pretty hopeless. They are cheap and are a tempting way to try and tackle the ridiculous and relentless building of the Allied Transport armada in the North Sea (that huge bridge across the Norway and W.Europe undermines every game I play!).
My U-boats however seem to be wiped out by the RAF before they’ve undone the packaging from their shiny new torpedo tubes! What use are subs? When to buy them? Where to deploy them?
-
Actual I think that Subs, could be alllow to have a dice roll (success 1-3) to submerge before a airforce only strike!
This would give them a little more play value!
Jondifool
-
That’s one solution which occured to me - or perhaps you could roll for intiative - sub requiring a ‘4’ to dive first. Another fix would be to limit the massive transporter bridging possibilities by either making transporters harder to aquire, or else unable to unload and load in the same round. Otherwise you have virtually no chance of sinking a fully laden tranny. Transporters play too big a role.
-
Germany is not a fleet builder. They have to take our russia first, and in the meantime, they should build a complex in egypt. the fleet is kind of useless. by the time an attack for GB is ready, germany will have the aircraft to detsroy GB’s fleet, and then build up.
but then again, germany is my worst country!
-
Subs in AAE have a much higher survivability rate. Because to attack a sub, a destroyer must be present.
If there were Destroyers in AA, Germany might actually see a large sub fleet.
Also, the game starts in Spring 1942. By then, many German subs were destroyed.
-
germany’s sub fleet hit its peak in 43.
-
I think I like the idea of subs rolling to submerge against aircraft can be pretty niffty. Do you have to roll once or for each aircraft present?
-
isnt there a 3rd edition rule book that has submerging subs? If aircraft alone attack subs they have only one round of combat. So, after all the aircraft have attacked the remaining subs submerge and remain in the
same sea zone, like AAE. -
In the AandA 3rd edition, subs cannot submerge but may flee instead. In AAE subs cannot flee but can submerge.
-
if you are winning in africa and the middle east you can build a sub fleet in the meditranion,the RAF has no place to land.
-
The RAF can land in the Urkaine or the Middle East if they need to.
-
This kind of gets off the subject but why doesnt Germany have any U-boats in the Atlantic right next to Eastern U.S.A.? That was a major role in the atlantic campaign!
Now the U.S. can wonder the Atlantic without trouble! -
I think that the sub off French West Africa is suppose to represent the threat of a German attack on Eastern USA since it can reach it in one turn and sink that US transport if you want. However, by adding extra units for starting placement you might be distracting too much from the game. Do you really think that USA had one transport fleet in 1942?
-
The sub off of europe can reach the us in one turn? I feel stupid now. but why build subs when fighters are so much better? They can be used to sink the british fleet, or attack the sovies. subs are a waste of money for the germans. Actually, any naval presence for the germans is a waste of money. they should be spending it for the assault on USSR
-
Except for the additional transport(s) or carrier for Germany, I agree. Land units are a much wiser investment.
-
I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.
I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.
Ozone27
Suggested Topics
