MOVED: Unstoppable strategy: 1942 scenario

@Argothair said in Reliable 1941 Axis Strategy:

@cheezhead1252 If you want to go hard after Africa, consider skipping the carrier – instead, build something like 4 inf, 2 art, 1 fighter on G1. Don’t bother attacking the Baltic States at all on G1, and instead use your transport to ferry extra infantry to Norway on non-combat. The overall idea is that after you take Egypt, you can pressure Stalingrad from three sides – the Germans push through Ukraine with tanks, the Italians push through Jordan with infantry, and the Japanese push through India with a few land units and a lot of fighter support.

There are interesting opportunities for a 1-2-3 knockout blow. E.g., Germans barely take Stalingrad but can’t hold it; this prevents Russia from building there, which limits how many units they can deploy next turn. Russia retakes Stalingrad, barely, but can’t afford to retake it hard because they also have to guard Moscow against German tanks in Ukraine. Japanese take Stalingrad against the weakened Russian defenses, accepting fighter plane losses to get more land units into the territory, and then Italy sends a couple of tanks and a couple of fighters to reinforce – now Russia can’t take back Stalingrad at all, and Japan is producing 2 inf + 2 tnk every turn right next to Moscow. This is basically game over for Allies even if by now the British have taken Norway & Finland and even France.

I wanted to get your opinion on the Green Skies strategy. Currently, we have been playing without the interceptor rule. My dad recently discovered this strategy and implemented it against me.

So over the last few days I have uncovered some discussion on here from the good captain as well as his video on it and he says Green Skies breaks the game without interceptors.

I wanted to pick your brain to see if you agree with this or if you have developed any counters for this or if you just play with interceptors. I realize some errors in my last game so I have much to improve and want to start there before demand the optional rule :P but still wanted to see what your thoughts are!

@mobius1:

You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.

There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…

Put some allied (UK/USA) fighters with that stack of forward Russian troops and you should be able to safely get to/hold Eastern Poland.  That territory is a key piece in the theatre of war.  Whoever controls that (Germany/allies) can effectively dead zone 6 territories that it borders.  Also, those allied fighters are not out of play based in EPL.  In conjunction with the a/c strategy that Argothair posted for an allied navy, the ftrs can even hit france.

@USS:

I would like to add that I haven’t played without National Objectives so maybe my advice means nothing. The US benefits from NOs a lot, so maybe that will help the Allies?

Actually, the allies lose their National Objectives quickly, whilst the Axis attain (and keep)  theirs.  This makes playing with National Objectives more advantages to the axis.

Overall, no NOs means IPC income is less for all involved.  Units are more valuable, especially reusable ones (like planes and transports).  Once the allies make this initial investment(s) in these type of units and does not lose them, the can have a fighting chance in the game.

I play without national objectives regularly.  IMHO, the key for the Axis is killing Russia. I have found that the best way to kill Russia is to do a combined Germany/Japan land assault.  However, this cannot be done if USA and GB are offloading on France/NWE-  Germany cannot guard the Atlantic borders and keep pressure on Russia.  My solution was simple.  Establish a chain supply of Japanese fighters to France for defense (2 per turn as of turn 3)  This accomplishes two things: one, defends France effectively and,two, forces the Allies to build navy to avoid losing their transports.  This allows Germany to send roughly half of their land forces to the Russia front. ( build only infantry and artillery since IPC’s are scarce from turn 3 forward)  This slows Japan down but is well worth it to keep pressure on Russia from Germany.  Also,  move the Japanese fleet to protect Italy from invasion.  Allies can’t amphibious assault Italy with a massive combined Italian/Japanese fleet in sea zone 14.

I build a German bomber on turns 1 & 2 to keep Britain off shores till turn 3, then the bombers become useful in swapping territories with Russia.

Amen Brother…  Axis need to be offensive, axis have shorter supply lines and can take losses a little bit better then the allies.

@Cmdr:

An all out attack on Japan’s worked more often. (Russia holds the front against Germany and stacks up to help with China/holding Japan back while England puts down ICs in Africa/Asia Minor and America blitzes in.)

Maybe this is why Japan is so strong?

imho if japan hits india j2 ,  he can easily set up a southern front against russia. much faster from here, than through china or up north :D much faster than wus attack. can pop out 5 units each turn at burma/india at j4. he doesnt need to defend theeseIC’s against chinese cannonfodder so 25 ipc each round go rolling to caucasus from then on, leaving japan enough for pacific/china

how fast can uk/us set up serious invasion of france/ italy ?

I think I would have made China its own just to eliminate confusion with any nearby US forces sizing up an upcoming battle if nothing else.

LT