Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?

@redrum

That makes sense. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for responding! :+1:

@Elsass-Lorraine:

@NotEvenJail:

Its starting to feel like this guy is just trolling us with these “essays.” I mean come on, man. Many of these statements are way too out of touch. Can’t be serious.

I would hesitate to jump so far so quickly. He/she probably is just discovering this forum and/or other sources of strategies, and their game group has probably been disconnected, if you will, from the most effective strategies that the wider A&A community takes for granted.

I will note that in his first essay (the Barbarossa one) he mentioned how G40 had recieved “little attention on this blog”, which I take to mean the main axisandallies.org website (which most definitely does have a lack of G40-related articles, last I checked) as opposed to the forums. I knew about axisandallies.org the site long before I knew about the forums, so maybe that is what happened here.

I didn’t mean to be harsh just speculating. I get it. This game is special because it has a lot more nuance than one would readily perceive.  I have no problem with the thread just made me scratch my head.

@Gamerman01:

What about airbase on Normandy/Holland

Not sure about it but I’m saying that I think that spending enough for protection of the Kriegsmarine (in general) may just be inviting Russia deeper into the Fatherland, regardless of the interesting differences between defending with an additional 2AB or 2CV or even going 1 of each?

@Whitshadw:
All strategy for both sides is indeed largely hypothetical, since a large part of the game (for both sides) is more dynamic than a fixed strategy can cover for: action and reaction dominate the field! That is so educational about the forums: strategies being discussed assume a certain action already. Discussing the (possible) reactions to the assumed actions is what makes it so interesting.

Having said that, Axis are largely the side that plays a certain action. The allies then need to come with a proper reaction. And even that is a lot harder than it looks.

Fantastic!  Thanks Bob!

Another option, besides the CV buy, is to invest in bombers.

Do a strat. bomb on London G1 (with 2 bombers), and do another one with 2 + 2 on G2 (with a G1 buy of 2 bombers and whatever else your heart desires for 6 IPCs).

In my opinion, it’s the better option because once you’re through taking London, extra bombers are far more useful against the USSR than a carrier.

You should give A2 a try and then A3 and then make a personal choice as to which you prefer, which version is more balanced for your playstyle.

For instance if you like to take risks than A3 is better because it rewards sloppy play more than A2(unstoppable sealion/IndiaCrush)

That is exactly why I attack the Canadian tran/dest asw ell/ Summed up nice Jimmyhat.

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.