Stop the presses: Glemax has Axis and Allies revised… finally!

@redrum I am very short on time as I am leaving until Sunday so please allow me to simply point you to this thread, where all of this has been discussed and clarified in depth:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/989/aa-revised-minor-bug
We have a Github issue for this here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/4133

Thank you for your understanding.

The Pacific route may like an attractive path, but in practice, it take much more naval investment to protect the transports.

Typical air and naval:
Germany - 5 fighters, 1 bomber. 1 fighter is usually lost in ukraine and baltic fleet is sunk by uk
Japan - 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5-6 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 destroyer, maybe 1 sub, + any transports japan bought.

Japan starts with a much larger naval threat, and US would need to invest 50-150 IPC for a US pacific fleet to survive.

Also, the Atlantic route is shorter than you’re describing.
The typical starting route is for land units purchased in East US to move to east Canada. From there, a transport can move it to Algeria each turn. From there, transports can threaten South Europe or West Europe. US also has the option of placing a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. That fleet can transport from Libya to Ukraine, Caucasus, trans jordan, Southern Europe, and Western Europe. A US1 buy of 1 carrier, 1 transport, and land units is a great start to accomplish this.

I have attached a map of pickup and drop zones in the North Atlantic from a US perspective.  You have to remember that if your Eastern fleet is dropping into Archangel or Karelia from Z04 then you can’t get to the Baltic in one move.  You are stuck with going to Norway or WEU for a turn before moving to the Baltic.

The Baltic is generally preferable, though not always possible.

BTW - This is from Caspian Sub’s paper on US shipping (Paper #2).  http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

Peace

NAtl.JPG

@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.

@JLord:

I thought the generally accepted rules of bidding were that you couldn’t place more than one unit in the same territory?  Anyways, that is the rule we would follow.  And the thing is, if Allies put 12 IPC somehwere, the Axis will place their bid next and can presumably counter whatever the allies do.

Yeah, it’s also generally accepted that you don’t give a bid to the Allies.

I figured you were doing your own thing, you know?

This discussion needs moved to House Rules

@merkle:

Tri and NC.

You 2 should play each other.

Tri, you be the Allies and show 'em how it’s done.

NC, you be the Axis and demonstrate Japan’s crushing power.

We did… And Japan played VERY well, but my Germany was NOT up to par…

There are 2 threads in the Games section (the first game you can disregard, it was my first ever game of Revised, and I lost Berlin in Turn 2).  Then second shows better how I use my Japan forces…