Best Feeling in Round 1

@Yoper:

I am especially interested in this simply because of how this will affect my use of it in the A&A tournament that I run.  Being that it is a timed event for the individual games, I am curious as to how the extra need for naval units will slow down the Allies in building up for their attack into Europe.

I’d say it can slow down the Allies from 1-3 turns. It really depends on how many naval and air units G has at the start of G2. It might be enough to sink the AC and 2 DDs that seems to be the regular UK buy for UK1, depending on where they are placed. It also depends if the US landed on Algeria on US1 or not and how Africa is going for the Allies.

Now, extra German planes in the mid-game can be a good investment against a balanced, slow KGF if Allies don’t have excess escorts. They already defend where they are almost like 2 more inf (6 IPC), also threaten 1-2 fleets that will need extra escorts, and swap easier on land. Combined with the Japanese fleet coming throught the Med, they can paralyze the Allied moves sandwiched between each of them.
But, that’s not ships, but anti-ship build…

As I said above I’m not that keen on sea lion myself. and if the conditions are unfavorable (like Russia took Ukr) than to hell with it.

Additionally I want to remind you that I would spend only 1 die on tech so germany can build new troops on G1 for 35 ipc.

I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

But how often does that happen?

How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?

Yes I meant AI … thanks

@ezto:

@ncscswitch:

Aggressive Russia means you still take Africa, still clear the Med, AND take out the Russian advance forces.  Then re-group in G2 for further advances against a Russia depleted of offensive units.

This comes from the guy who uses a game board :lol:

And who has a nearly 70% win rate, including a perfect win record against Ezto in Revised  :wink:

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

And the other side of the coin is…

Threaten strafe and TAKE instead.  It just worked in my current game.  Jen was afraid of a German Strafe from Caucuses (I am guessing) making her Moscow force too weak to hold against the Japan.  So she evac’d instead killing the German force and surrendering Moscow.

Strafe Threats CAN be very fun :-D