We need an allied playbook.

@rommel13579
I also don’t use my mechs to attack.

Ok…. So another question. What would you consider the best naval defense against 1-3 German subs and 2-4 planes?

I superior force.  Use the battle calculator to tell you if they’d win or not, and if they would…don’t move in yet.  It’s up to you to place your units in harm’s way.  The US has the luxury of waiting until they want to or need to move in without fear of someone attacking their capital.

The “best” naval defense depends on what your strategy is.  I find carriers essential in the Pacific, and often judge if I have the upper hand by a carrier count of the Allies vs. Japan.  If Japan has 6 loaded carriers to your 2, Japan is probably winning at the moment.  In Europe, I tend to go with more offshore rolls if I’m feeling offensive, or just stick with destroyers and strat bombers that can land in Gibraltar and England and hit just about anywhere.

Back to your example.  I assume the subs are by Western Germany and the planes are in Normandy or carrier based.  I’d ask…why do you NEED to move in to Gibraltar this turn to put your fleet at risk?  Wait another round and add 4 more destroyers, another carrier and planes, or other round of purchases to your fleet.  Germany usually doesn’t have the same capacity to match your purchases if they want to make progress vs. Russia at all.  Take your time and build up, then move in.

One easy rule is to add up hits and attack power.  If they have 3 subs and 2 ftr 2 tac, that’s 20 atk and 7 hits.  make sure you have 1.5 times the number of hits and you’re probably good.  Go in with 12 destroyers.  or 2 loaded carriers and 4 dds.  Carriers are great because they bring extra 4’s into the fight, and if you’re hard up for money, the UK or France can land their planes on your carrier if you’re thinking pure defense.

J1 DOW is strong. I won tournament games with it and league games. It is unbelievable against those who have not seen it before. You end up winning in the pacific by turn 7 or USA is full pacific trying to stop you while Germany and Italy wins in Europe.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.

I guess if Japan falls so do the Kamikaze pilots?

i would also rather fight on his turf where i get income generating for as long as possible. once you have to back down that’s when you are basically saying, “I lose moscow sooner or later.”

@JimmyHat:

I think you can attack unescorted transports, because they would not have any larger combat ships to hide behind.  This would be the only occurrence though because the kamikaze pilots are trained to go for the big combat vessels and not the weak, cheap transport vessels.

No, you can’t.  The errata has not overridden the pac40 rulebook, and the errata applies to Alpha 2.  Alpha 2 only changed the triggers to kamis but it didn’t change how they work.
Kamis can only target surface warships, and it’s not an attack (so deceptive to call it that).  it’s ONLY a defensive action declared at the end of a combat move (not during a combat move) in exactly the same way scrambling is declared.

This also has never changed, it’s ALWAYS been if combat move ENDS in a kami symbol SZ, which ALWAYS means either combat in the seazone or an amphibious assault.  You can’t combat move if you aren’t going to conduct combat.