Were you landing England in Norway/Karelia/Archangelsk and only America in North Africa after round 1?
America should be hitting Persia on round 5 and putting immediate pressure on Japan’s industrial might at that point onward.
I really must not understand the strategy. I thought you had to wait for the Indian carrier/dest to link with the main fleets in order to go to SZ6 safely, and that happens on UK4-5. Otherwise I’d feel like I would have to buy more UK navy to defend off of Norway. I also didn’t think the Allies could land in Algeria on round 1 because of the bb/tran/sub + 5 fighters 1 bomber ready to strike boats there.
So I counted Round 2 infantry in Algeria, being in Persia on Round 6, and not even bothering the Japanese because they took India on round 1, built a complex on round 2, then 3 infantry on each round afterwards. When the Allies got to TJ, they had to wait a round before wandering into Persia because of the sheer Japanese force easily waiting to roll them backwards.
Personally I don’t think the G AC buy is a good strat, and more than one is only worse.
But sometimes allies can’t even land in Afr. rnd. 1 becuase Germany may do sealion.
And in other games there’s even sub, trans + BB in sz 13, 4 G ftrs in WE + bmr in Berlin makes
allie landing in Afr. too dangerous, better to wait until rnd. 2.
To let Germany have Afr. uncontested means allies is letting axis win. E.o.d.
Bean:
The “classic” (as in what most people describe as) North Africa Domination is England solely on North Russia from UK 2 on and America in North Africa every turn.
MY version is a few rounds in North Africa with England and then solely into Asia. But in my version, England’s only buying 4 infantry for a few rounds as well, the rest goes to fighters which land in Russia to defend. That usually works out to about 6 or 7 British fighters by the time I have 4 transports for England.
The “classic” (as in what most people describe as) North Africa Domination is England solely on North Russia from UK 2 on and America in North Africa every turn.
I wonder how the UK can afford to operate by itself early on if there’s a carrier in the Baltic, maybe they have to build something silly like car/dest?
MY version is a few rounds in North Africa with England and then solely into Asia. But in my version, England’s only buying 4 infantry for a few rounds as well, the rest goes to fighters which land in Russia to defend. That usually works out to about 6 or 7 British fighters by the time I have 4 transports for England.
I see, I was trying it different.
Carrier in the Baltic is meaningless to England. You are off loading in SZ 4.
In my version, the carrier in the baltic can be sunk without American interference. But in Classic it’s just a 16 IPC tourist attraction since you don’t want to land in E. Europe anyway!
Carrier in the Baltic is meaningless to England. You are off loading in SZ 4.
Hmm that’s exactly what I thought would be untrue. Then the Baltic runs out to SZ3 and blocks you off unless you spent the first couple rounds building fighters.
Then the SZ 3 fleet is destroyed by America and England is still uneffected.
At worst, America loses a few transports and a couple destroyers, and England finishes off what’s left of the SZ 3 fleet and lands units in Norway for a round with minimal, if any, losses to England.
Then the SZ 3 fleet is destroyed by America and England is still uneffected.
At worst, America loses a few transports and a couple destroyers, and England finishes off what’s left of the SZ 3 fleet and lands units in Norway for a round with minimal, if any, losses to England.
This strategy is harder to understand than I thought. Isn’t America off of Africa? They can’t really reach SZ3 unless they’ve stopped dominating Northern Africa.
No you’re on the right track here, Bean. If the US fleet is landing in Africa and the UK goes to sz4, moving the Baltic fleet to sz3 is a devastating move. And if the US fleet is near UK then Germany isn’t going to be buying more than 1 CV in the Baltic or leaving it for that matter, but then Africa is open in that case.
my start uk isent landing much units before the baltic is sink, so put it to sea zone 3 i dont care.
My med strat for the us.
I dont walk to persia, i land all my units in algeria. then i have another fleet in the med picking up the units. They will atack se, and -ore balkans ukraine. The rest i put in caus
that usal makes the germans to trade about 5-6 areas. and that they cant do for long.
But that means u must purcase a ac in round1 for usa.
Enskive, how many TRNs do you use with USA?
I usually go to Algeria with USA becoming in US1, aiming to have 3x3 TRNs going back and forth between ECAN and Algeria.
Do you interrupt the shuck move to invade SE or BAL? Or do you buy oher 3 TRNs?
The movement in Sz3 of Baltic fleet is interesting. If UK wait for US to attack is a turn in wich UK do not land in KAR or ARK.
Moreover, the Allied fleets are separated and one of them may be vulnerable to an attack.
il usal purcase 2 tranny the first round, and maybe 2 the 2 round. After that i usal purcase 1 a round. Usal il have 3 trannyes in the med and the rest will pickup units from ECAN. But it al depends.
whith this strategy u need to eraly ac whith the allyes.
If germany wants to exchange figters for fleet, i will be happy to do so.
I agree. I prefer to land in the north with UK and in Africa with USA.
This forceGerman to spread more thin in defense, being forced to garrison SE also.
However I usually walk my troops by land toward Egypt and then Persia, landing in Europe leave TRNs off position.
Before making such move I bought mor eTRNs to replace the ships going in MED.
