Prefer playing axis or allies ?

@MarineIguana:

First of all, I want to say that USA committing any purchases to the pacific is a mistake. For the same amount of resources, the USA can always pressure Germany more than Japan. This is from my experience playing hundreds of revised games, many at a high level.

That said, assuming the US commits to the Pacific…

1. Japan should always sink the US fleet at pearl harbor. If this is done, Japan generally starts with a 1 battleship, 2 carrier, 3 fighter advantage compared to the USA that will take 5+ turns of buildup for the US to overcome.
2. The US can’t make significant advances unless the Japan fleet is destroyed. The best way to stall the USA is to place your fleet in the sea zone off the phillipines or china and deadzone all sea zone within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. Have the carriers filled with fighters AND try to have an equal number of fighters in a land territory that can reach all the sz within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. For example, 2 carriers can support 8 fighters attacking a sea zone.
3. Japan can continue pushing land units into asia, even with all US purchases going to the pacific. My typical purchases are like 6 inf and 2 fighters. With the Japan fleet off of China

From what I have seen when the allies does a KJF is that, PH really isn’t that easy. If UK commits and is lucky, PH can be very difficult. Complete UK commitment would be  UK india ftr attacking the J sub in 45 with the australia sub, and then landing on PH. The Australia TT taking 2 infs to papua, the indian TT taking 2 infs to borneo, The UK CR attacking the japanese TT in 59 and the India CW either standing in 36 or 49.  At this point, taking PH might be difficult for japan. If they do it with air only (5 ftrs + bomber) they will lose about 3 ftrs for 2 ftrs, 1 cw, and 1 sub. The good news is that they will not lose boats to a counterattack, and can use their boats to deal with the british fleet, the bad news is that they are spread out, will be in trouble on land and will take 3 ftrs in losses for only 36 US ipcs (+ 10 UK).  If they try to do a heavy PH, alot of the uk fleet survives and UK will keep borneo until J3.

I still feel it is a bad move, since you are handing africa to the axis, but japan will be in trouble.

i’m a pro-axis player myself. i’ve always been interested in WWII, and especially in germany. so i always enjoy it more

mind you, i’ve played germany so often that my mates always try to make me play a different nation. mainly an allied one!  :lol:

@ncscswitch:

Baiting is best done AFTER you have determined that your opponent might be subject to it.  The most common way of determining that is by a moderately risky attack by your opponent in the first 1-2 moves of the game.  If they roll for moderate odds battles (70% or less) early on, then future baiting may pay off.

Or if they try for a Russian Triple on Russia 1. :P

But honestly, baiting only pays off when you are winning.  Otherwise, baiting will always help your opponent.

@Crazy:

:-D
You gotta love LL!  :wink:

I don’t love LL . . .

No love.  (oo a tennis pun . . .)  :lol:

Interesting results this far:

There’s a sizable ‘rookie’ class (3 or less years of experience), 19 poll participants

and a group of grizzled veterans (over 15 years of experience), 13 poll participants

I am glad to see the new comers.  I guess Revised was a good thing.

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

Revised edition is much better. Except for neutral countries…we should be able to invade them as the axis.