Try your strategies out in the league

@ampdrive They had a lot of money in the pacific, and the combination of Japanese pirates and German bombers held them off for a while

Thanks again for the input.

We ended up getting through 5 rounds, the game is still set up. We are hoping for a Saturday/Sunday finale…

As for what I did, I opted the can-opener route with Italy and purchased mech and tanks for the first 3 rounds. Had to switch to Infantry for rounds 4/5 as the US hasn’t hit land yet but have 12 TT’s and planes and bombers ready to hit anywhere now that Germany’s last DD blocker has been wiped out. Italy did well opening for Germany and I am at the gates of Moscow ready to go for it on G6 although I am not 100% it can be taken thanks to a UK stack of fighters. If I don’t attempt it Russia is gonna get 12 more Inf, 2 AAA from the Soviet Far East plus 3 more UK fighters. And, as I said, the US is going to hit hard.

@IKE:

@farmboy:

I didn’t think the of the fighters coming from UK (in my limited experience so far, they get used for scramble, defense of UK, and supporting the destroyer in taking out subs or the German battleship. So I’ve only simulated the combat with the UK bomber, the Egypt fleet and the Malta fighter. That obviously makes a difference and makes it much safer. I’d guess with 80% (1 UK fighter) to 95% 2 (UK fighter) odds, most Italy players aren’t going to try to scramble either. The British will lose the carrier and the two fighters after from a German counter but that will take some of the German air out of the game too.

thanks all for taking the time to walk me through this.

If the Germans make smart attacks turn 1 on the RN it doesn’t make sense to scramble.  Now if they get cute and try to do too much then a scramble may be worth it.

Yeah. I wouldn’t use them for a scramble in turn 1 (depending as you say, on the German attacks) but in turn 2.

I have only had a chance to play this a couple of times (and a couple of more times playing around in triplea), but so far I’ve used the fighters to hit surviving subs and/or the battleship near UK in turn 1 and (assuming no sea lion) I have tried to put 3 allied fighters in UK and 3 in Scotland (this means building 1 and moving the Gibraltar fighter up) so that I can rebuild a UK fleet in 109. I figured the German air force could still probably take it out but if they are going barbarossa it was worth it to pull the German airforce West and to take out half of it on turn 2.

J3 DOW is a bit non conventional. If that happens, you can be in Norway US4, landing fighters on Finland the same turn. Bombers can be doing unescorted raids on West Germany US4, escorted US5 and also on Germany.

UK can do unescorted raids on West Germany UK1, although it isn’t likely to do so.

@Young:

@UKMaverick:

By leaving the UK boats alone after the Taranto raid, isn’t this detrimental to Italy in regards to the convoy zone? Can they afford to lose the max amount of IPCs by not attacking the Brits? I realize the French boats can escape into the Atlantic or hit your remaining fleet off of Rome, but you can still scramble there. I tried YG’s Italian move after being decimated R1 in Taranto and off of Malta then was convoyed so I didn’t really make any money. Just looking for more opinions on this. Thanks as always.

The Axis must try to control the Med Sea, even if Taranto gets smashed, and even if the idea of controlling Egypt is lost… because if the Med Sea belongs to the Allies, Rome will soon follow.

Understandable, I guess I was just curious if the Italians should take it out even if for example a loaded carrier and a destroyer is remaining after Taranto? After you hit southern France’s boats you’re virtually left with A couple boats anyways, and you bank around 16/17 IPCs depending on what you attack, not 7ish. Let the French escape or come in to try and wipe the rest of the Italian fleet out? I don’t know honestly. This is my first game with the axis using the 2nd edition setup. It’s only round 2 and I feel Germany and Italy are both weak and not in position to do a successful push into Russia by say round 3. I could be wrong since I’m normally a Debbie downer ha.

@Boldfresh:

Here is where we disagree omega.  A full on kgf or kjfWOULD be the way to go in a total war, which is why the vc conditions exist.

I prefer the KJF in a total war because Japan is much easier to contain and render irrelevant with a concerted action from all Powers.

The Germans slowly expand in Russia and they can only gain so much from doing that.

I think that the price for leaving Japan entirely alone with the US (Hawaii and Anzac falling) and the trouble that follows, outweighs the incremental benefit that you get from going all out against Germany from the beginning, as opposed to still spending some in the Pacific to render the starting US forces there a potent force that prevents unreasonable Japan expansion.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

@kungfujew:

Sorry, that’s G40 Multi.  :)

I figured
:roll: