Try your strategies out in the league

@Krameleon

Welcome!

One thing to keep in mind is that the Axis only need to win on one side of the board.

This means, that if a Japanese strategy is good enough, even if Germany gets their butt kicked the Axis might still be able to win if Germany buys enough time for Japan to win.

It’s still risky, of course, as an increase in IPCs on the Europe board can translate to an increase in units in the Pacific, but it’s an option and a far more viable one than the equal version for the Allies.

Personally I’m not a fan of J1 or G1, but that is more out of principle than practicality.

I found this cool J1 video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRi3aIsj8P8

Important note about this video:

There are some astericks in the video, and it is not explained what they mean. I have gotten information from the maker of the video what they are, however.

The only thing that can/will stop this J1 attack is if the Soviets stacked all 18 infantry in Amur.

In that case, both I and the maker of the video strongly advise not to do this strategy (I learned this the hard way, trust me, it’s painful to watch). I recommend, if the Soviets declared war, to attack that stack. Air units, landing back, can defend Jehol and Manchuria from the Mongolians.

I’ve only played one game where Italy raged, it was glorious.  No Taranto I believe.  Axis win in Europe

Thanks so much guys. I like all of your input and I will be sure to use them. Please also help me with my question in the recent “please help” section.

Thanks,
          SJS063

@Zhukov44:

There are several good reasons to get an ac instead of a battleship.  The first is that Germany already has fighters to land on the AC.  So with the AC (plus fighters) you get a defense punch of 10, with a count of 4, compared to the bb’s punch of 4 and count of 2.  The second is that you won’t get many bombards out of that battleship unless you are using it in the Baltic.  You might get the one bombard when you attack England, but ultimately that one bombard shot is pretty useless compared to 2 fighters (also 20 ipc) that would participate in every round of the battle.

Another reason is acs extend the range of your fighters.  Unlike ships, fighters can’t be blocked.

Whether you intend to go for London or go for Moscow, there are better ways to spend that 20 ipcs.

Agreed, all good points.

nah I always buy bombers usa 1 when germany buys naval r1. Japan usually DOWs J2. The only exception would be if japan opens with sino russia strategy, in which case I go full pacific buys rounds 1-4… if germany takes london then I can turn around and almost full atlantic (couples subs or dds for upkeep), because I secured the pacific theater with just those 4 rounds of buy (china, uk pac, and anzac can handle after that).

pretty much my allies strategy centers around uk sinking 97 and the spot below it in low luck games, for dice games it depends on what naval germany sunk…

Two different styles of germany, most do 110 and 111 and that dd transport off canada. others do the cruiser off gib, canada fleet, and either 110 or 111 or 109. If 110 is alive, yeah sure you can merge your fleet instead of doing 97 otherwise you pretty much have to sink 97, which kind of sucks because it is only 84% and not 94%

With the new alpha 3.9 its not as viable a strategy to assault london on G3 (this was the point of alpha 3.9)

My guess is sealion on G4 or no sealion at all

If you dont do sealion you still need to wipe out UKs fleet (in atlantic) by end of G2 and have subs in convoy zones to maximize IPC loss for UK.

Honestly if UK goes for a (atlantic) fleet build early then he is leaving London open to sealion on G3 or G4

@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.