I'm tinkering around with a new German opener - ignoring SZ 110

@JPatrickRemiger

Welcome!

mainah covered most of the points, and I mostly agree.

TripleA is really good. I estimated it decreased the amount of time it takes for me to play a solo game (by myself, I do that a lot) by 50-90%. Playing by the board is fun though if you have the time.

Definitely play online against real humans. mainah’s right, I learned a lot more from those than solo games. Let me know if you want to play.

AI’s not great, they’re only useful after you’ve become moderately good for quirky projects.

For IPCs, I use the National Production Chart. It’s definitely prone to errors, hence why I like TripleA (computer does it for you).

Personally I started with one theater first to get a feel for the basic mechanics (I progressed from 1941, which I played a ton of), but progressed to Global quickly (possibly one or two games too quickly). If this is your first Axis and Allies game ever, if you want to take things slowly start with one theater.

Once I started Global 1940 I’ve never looked back (only a few times to test single theater strategies).

@JDOW said in German airbase in Holland r1:

Good idea but not worth the 15 IPC. Taranto isn’t that bad for Axis and many top players avoid it and rather stack 92 in UK1 to preserve the fleet in sz98.

Very true. Not worth it, and has 0 long term value. Seems tempting, but not. Also not worth it, but is better, about G3 AB in yugo. I think you want the allies in the med compared to 110 or Norway as axis

Here’s a large post, from this very same page, discussing the very same thing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36942.0

edit-
And looking at it, you actually made the last post there. I’m confused, and I’ll shut up now.

@WARRIOR888:

Did any other scuplts change in the Pacific 1940 Second Edition besides the ones mentioned already?Â

I finished inspecting the new Global sculpts last weekend and here are the main differences I was able to spot between old and new versions of sculpts which are supposed to represent the same model of equipment.  I took a few pictures (see below) to go with these notes.  (I haven’t noted cases in which some of the details on the sculpts are simply defined a little better in one version than in another, without being different in actual shape.)  Most of the differences involve sculpts which were introduced in 1942 (2nd ed) game, and which were then replaced by revised sculpts in the Global 1940 (2nd ed) game.

Artillery: 105mm LeFH 18 howitzer (German)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the breech and the undercarriage are connected.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, there is a gap between them.

Antiaircraft Gun: 3.7in QFAA (British)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed). In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, there is an additional structure underneath the thick lower part of the barrel assembly, at the point where it connects to the mounting.

Antiaircraft Gun: M1939 85mm (Russian)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the gun ends with a flared muzzle brake.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the barrel is more slender and ends with grooves running around the barrel tip.

Antiaircraft Gun: 88mm FLAK 41 (German)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which a spur extends backward from the base of the breech, the horizontal element projecting forward from the front of the mounting is cylindrical, and two of the mounting’s legs are thicker than the other two.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the breech is shorter, the horizontal element projecting forward from the front of the mounting is oval, and the mounting’s four legs are the same thickness.

Antiaircraft Gun: 75mm Type 88 (Japanese)

Introduced in 1942 (2nd ed), in which the mounting’s four legs are thicker than in the 1940 (2nd ed) version.

Cruiser: Kent class (British)

Introduced in Anniversary.  In the 1940 (2nd ed) version, the third funnel is short instead of being the same height at the other two.

Sculpt Differences 1.jpg
Sculpt Differences 2.jpg

Thanks everyone for the advice.

Unfortunately my friends don’t come over enough, so I end up just testing out different strategies. Right now I am trying really hard as Germany to bomb the living heck out of Britain. And it’s working: at the end of G2, ALL British facilities on the island (except for airbase Scotland) were gone. The whole Royal Navy was gone as well (but so was the Kriegsmarine). I figure with the bombing and the subs I’m throwing at Britain it’s almost better to just bomb them. Because I think I could even when the US came into the war. Russia is going to die, and I think Germany is going to do really well.

As for Italy, they’re in major trouble with Africa. On UKE1 I tried out taking Tobruk. I succeeded (albeit at the cost of not having my Med. AF available to pound the Italian Navy), which has thrown Italy on its heels. Also, I landed 1 loaded trans. from GB (with 2 inf.) and if it survived the U-boats G2, it would’ve grabbed Brazil.

Japan is probably going to crush India/China, but since Russia is under so much pressure to retreat they’ll probably leave each other alone and not trigger the Mongol infantry.

G5 is possible, but not with a G1 attack.

Japan can occupie russian terretories behind china in G4 and take 4 IPCs from the far east, without leaving too much planes in Japan/Mandschuria.

Sea Lion is not an option. Russia grows too big.

You are right! A combined attack on Russia is my favourite solution, too.

G5 or G6 for capturing Moskau is realistic.

We call this tactic “Panzerwalze”. :-D

“Taranto Raid” refers to the November 1940 assault by the United Kingdom on the Italian navy, docked at Taranto.

It’s often used on this forum to describe a first-turn attack by the UK on Italy’s Mediterranean fleet.