Posts made by 221B Baker Street

Smith,

But that merely indicates the weaknesses of playing w/o a bid

Of course, a bid changes everything. But then the question becomes, with a 15 ipc bid to Germany, which is the strongest? What about a 10 ipc bid to Germany, 10ipc bid to Japan?… Bidding does radically change the game in ways that can be difficult (at least for me) to assess.

In theory if you could eliminate either the US or Jap navy then they would be irrelevent as a fighting force in the game.

We disagree here. Either would only be set back about 2-3 turns as they would simply build a navy as required. Still, a 2 turn setback would hurt.

On the otherhand Germany is very difficult to box in past the EE/WE border in that it takes time and skill to do so.

We agree. But with only these territories, Germany has about 25 ipcs of income with no opportunity for growth. Thats not enough to be considered the most powerful IMO as other nations will have more income and therefore will (eventually have more forces and be able to do what they want). The same is true, I believe for Russia as there is almost no potential for economic growth unless either Germany or Japan gives way (which shouldn’t happen without Allied help), but Russia can sustain economic shrinkage from both.

However, the real power in the game is the teamwork that is played between players. Thats why the US should never go after Japan alone but should instead focus its resources on Germany first.

Agent Smith,

Germany would certainly be a fair choice. I did give serious thought to Germany considering its head start of forces over the other players and the fact that Germany usually gains Africa quickly. However, after that (in a no bid game) Germany is usually pretty much boxed in with the Allies retaking Africa. Not the hallmark of the most powerful nation.

Russia, I think is the most critical nation as usually the main focus of the game is fought on Russian territory. But needing the help of its allies to even survive also doesn’t make it the most powerful, just the most important IMHO.

I’d have to say the US. While the US will lose 4 ipcs in Asia and perhaps Hawaii (1 ipc) I can’t think of any other territory that can be taken by an Axis player that can’t be easily countered. The US starts with the greatest income and while Japan may acquire more, most of the US income is very secure which enables the US to use most of its forces in offense rather than defense (with the exception of the infantry pipeline through W. Canada). All other players must devote their forces at least somewhat to defense in Europe, Asia, or Africa.

If Russia has 25ipcs, but then adds 7ipcs(Yakut,Sfe,and Manch) they become almost as powerful as Japan without a US campaign in the Pacific. In this scenario I assume that Russia can push Japan back

And of course some UK/USA troops, tanks and planes could also be sent there to assist via Karelia - Moscow - Novo … 8)

Once Germany cannot pose a threat to Russia (either because of their defeat or because of a long stalemate in forces), its only a matter of time before Allied victory. Unless of course Japan can make the final push for an economic victory. I will sometimes push Japan back in Asia before cracking the German Nut to prevent this from happening.

Smith:

No way. No good Allied player is going to let that fleet just roam around. I would advise to always make it priority number one in the first few turns. If it costs 1-2 aircraft sobeit

I see your point. However, I am OK with trading your fighters for my Navy as long as you are willing to chase them down. The 8 ipcs are only 1 tank 1 inf, or 3 inf. Germany can survive the start of the game without this, especially in a bid game. I just think your efforts to chase it down, if I can get it to the Indian ocean, gives you an opportunity cost of having the fighters not where you want them in addition to the possible lose of 1-2 fighters.

If I roll for tech, which is almost never, I am always happy to get anything! And I will take rockets over super subs, and most of the time jet fighters as well!

There are two ways I’ve seen the transport played

1. Keep BB and original transport by Italy along with the purchased transport which makes for a moderate sized Navy. Assuming success with the Luftwafe/sub attacks taking out the UK Med fleet, the UK won’t have much with which to attack this fleet, maybe 1 sub, 1 bomber? The US to follow up with 1 bomber? Unless I’m forgetting something this isn’t real good odds for the UK/US, although I can see it being attempted as its not great for Germany either.

2. Keep the bought transport at Italy (of course, its the only option for placement) and the original BB and transport near Egypt. The UK won’t be able to attack both with great odds, maybe bomber against the Italy transport and 1 fighter against the BB and original transport. The UK sub should have easily been sunk with the BB and perhaps a fighter although there is the chance of a hit by the sub in defense. If Russia attacks, they could lose a valuable fighter that they need to help strafe Japan later in the game and to help hold Karelia.

Either way, this most likely extends the life of the Germany Navy in the Med by at least one turn. In a no-bid game, this might enable Germany to move a couple additional inf to Africa which will be crucial for any chance for victory, the 8 ipcs will be more than recovered by either a longer span in holding Africa, or by forcing the Allies to retake Africa strong, thereby weakening the reinforcement to Karelia.

In a bid game, this could enable the German Navy to escape into the Indian ocean which opens up different options (Madagascar, India?, Australia?, New Zealand, or how about Brazil with the bonus of the German navy in S. Atlantic to prevent shipment of troops to S. Africa by transport?). While this is somewhat duplication of what Japan could do, it could force the Allies to react to a situation they have not seen before.

I’d say never build a transport on G1 as it is just a waste of income as it will be destroyed in 1-2 turns.

In a no-bid game, it can pay for itself to help Germany with Africa.

Otherwise in a bidding game, you could just place whatever you wanted in Africa, or try a power Europe approach.

Just my opinions on this,

Well, I usually go with the classic build AC, transport with the expectation that the US will land figters on it. If by some miracle, my BB survives then I would just buy lots of transports. I think this provides the bet opportunity for an Allied victory.

I generally don’t wait for UK2 to build a Navy as I think the AC with transport, and US fighters should be enough to hold off a second round German attack, at least I’ve never had anyone try to attack on G2 with this. Also, I have plans I want to do and I think its a mistake on the Allies to go slow. They need to stall the Axis as soon as they can, certainly before the Axis reach around 75 ipcs.

I really don’t like the Allied bomber stategy, I think its basically a wash between Germany and UK as far as IPCs and I think Russia won’t be able to hold off both Japan and a weakened but still strong Germany without British troops early as the USA would be hard pressed to both take back Africa and reinforce Karelia before Japan gets rolling in Asia.

I sometimes play the India IC gambit and I find I usually still win, but it takes a bit longer. I will never put an IC on a territory with less than 3 ipcs as you just cannot produce enough to make it worthwhile IMO. With regards to the India transport, there are lots of possibilities. I usually try the Egypt counter attack to hold Africa longer (unless Germany builds in Libya for an extra turn). Sometimes I run it to Australia and try to sneak in with the Australia troops to take Sumatra or even the Phillipines if the Jap player isn’t paying attention (low odds, unless there aren’t any troops there). At least I can distract the Jap Navy with it. Or sometimes I will move it to the N. Sea (takes a while) to help discharge inf to Europe.

I agree that there is a great number of possibilities available for UK to start the game. :)

Cant you even put the Emperor of Japan’s name?

Sorry, I had a mental block and couldn’t remember. I figured everyone would know who I meant.

It utilizes all your resources (something Germany should really consider doing all the time)

Yes, but don’t you keep the 2ipcs for the next turn? Why not spend it then?

Germany needs to build infantry in a hurry so I pick 10 inf. However, there are situations where you could go with 8 inf and 1 transport for the Med sea.

I voted none of the above. While the styles differ, fundamentally I don’t see a significant difference between these two. There are differences between various Protestant groups that are greater than the differences between Catholics and what I would consider the average Protestant faith.

Perhaps Christian should have been one of the choices?

During WWII, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt all would on occasion direct military operations. Who do you think was the best leader in terms of military strategy?

Back to the original question, how best to attack the US from Japan? Well I would not try to attack the US with Japan initially as it is very unlikely to work. However, IF I were to do so, I would do the following:

J1) Take out the US Fleet at Hawaii, buy inf and transports.
J2) Go after the remaining US fleet with BBs and subs remaining after Pearl and take Alaska with transports and AC. Buy inf and transports.
J3) Take Hawaii with AC, one transport from Japan, and remainder of Japanese fleet (destroying any builds by US on West Coast with aircraft from AC. Start a “shuck-shuck” to Alaska with the transports.

Basically, I would start moving troops enmass to Alaska every turn. The reason to take Hawaii is 1) to provide a base for bombers from Japan. They can assist when you are ready to attack W. Canada, W. USA, strategic bombing runs on the W. US coast, or if the US builds a fleet off the W. US. 2) To move later to take Panama, or Mexico, (and how about Brazil?) to harass the US. and 3) To increase your ipcs while reducing the US ipcs. Also later turns can be used for side trips to Australia and N.Z. to increase the Japanese ipcs.

But my main focus of the attack would be through Alaska. I would hope the US would not be able to take back Alaska (perhaps they wouldn’t have the forces within reach so soon) and that Japan could reinforce Alaska faster than the US could put forces in W. Canada (unlikely). I would perform strafing runs from Alaska to W. Canada using bombers from Hawaii and the fighters from the AC (and perhaps from Alaska) to assist, until I reached the point where I could take and hold W. Canada. Then do the same to W. USA (watch out for AA) and/or E. Canada as the situation permits.

It might be possible to have some sucess in the early game here, but I think its best to attack the US with Japan once/if Russia falls because at that point Japan probably has a larger economy that the US and doesn’t need to defend its Russian front.

No, I agree with Agent Smith that a long term plan is required for either side.

Consider only the one point from your objectives.

Africa=tank blitz through French/Equit to Egypt

I would also say that it is very useful to the Axis cause for Germany to take and hold (for as long as possible) Africa, I think we agree on this. However, consider that in a no-bid game, the UK can counter attack you and with any luck on their part, re-take Egypt and destroy all but one German Inf in Africa. And they can sink your Mediteranian fleet with the UK Med fleet on UK1 as well, therefore keeping Germany out of Africa, probably for the entire game. As Germany you really need to consider taking out the British med fleet as well (not in your plans).

If the UK is planning to give up Asia to keep Africa as part of a long term plan, this is one way they might go. I’ve seen alternate playing where the UK plays to keep India (giving up Africa for a while).

If you are Germany and part of your long term plans includes taking and holding Africa as long as possible (which B.T.W. isn’t really necessary for Germany), I would suggest you consider clearing out both the North Sea and Mediteranian of the UK Navy. If the game is not Russia Restricted, then use the transport to move either 1 tank or 2 inf from Norway to Africa (you are weakening Norway to strengthen Africa). You could either play to take Egypt as before and plan to retake it (if lost) on G2 with additional forces from S. Europe (and your tank from Norway) or build in Libya G1 and attack on G2 with these additional forces. On G3 you should then be in pretty good position to take the remainder of Africa and hold it for awhile. You might even consider moving a fighter to Africa on G1 or G2 to assist latter Africa campains and defense if your G1 naval attacks went well.

This is getting long-winded, so I’ll quit here. But my point is that a long term plan is necessary because the first turns (even with stunning Axis victories) do not make the game.

Get Hvy bmbs, and/or long range, its yours!

It had better be, otherwise Russia will eat your lunch in E. Europe! :D

Even if you take London and have HB and/or long range Germany will still struggle.

Spending the cash required to get the tech plus the planes and other resources you will lose to take London will let Russia walk into E. Europe. on R2. And when the USA takes London back on US1 (or Russia on R2 if this by chance doesn’t happen) Germany will lose the GB income and by UK4/US4, Germany will start to see Allied reinforcement of E. Europe.

What makes this hard for Germany is that even with the cash from UK, Germany can’t replace the lost fighters and will have trouble defending Germany, S. Europe and W. Europe. If Germany is sucessful on G3 or G4 in taking E. Europe back from USSR, it will still be very thin on defense, especially from a UK/US attack on W. Europe. The fighters are needed to put some teeth into the German defenses and to add offensive punch on the Eastern front when there is little or no chance of losing a fighter.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the Allies will surrender once UK falls, and even if they don’t its worth the look on their faces 8)

If you are lucky I suppose it might be possible to do so on turn one. However I never plan on rolling a Yahtzee, I try to make plans where I have a reasonable chance of sucess.

Against good Allied play, I don’t beleive it can be done until after the fall of Moscow. Then Germany must build a navy sufficient to control the North Sea and hold off any UK/US counter attacks. All this would take a long time to accomplish.

I would only do this if I was more interested in a different type of game than actually winning as Germany. Better axis strategies can be found by searching this site.

Taking Karelia in G1 should only be used in order set up an attack on Moscow on G2, otherwise its a bad idea. Even if Russia were to fall on G2 which is doubtful considering that Germany might not even take Karelia, the axis could still lose the game since UK/US should be having a field day in W. Europe and Africa by G3. But it would make for a different game and could work if the Allies do not respond to the fall of Russia well (maybe they would sue for peace 8) )

Hehehehe…he was far from prepared for ANY fight. He proposed a peace treaty to the Germans in the opening months of the 1941 invasion, after the fall of kiev and minsk, and constantly tried to negotiate throughout 1941. He almost fled Russia, and was so paranoid that hsi staff would betray him he locked himself in his bunker for days, without letting anyone in. He wanted peace, very badly.

Are you sure about this? The reason that Stalin was caught off guard in the early going was that he was building up to invade Germany. Having the bulk of his best forces captured almost immediately enabled Germany to advance quickly. However, Russia was so much bigger than Germany (or I really should say had a much bigger population) that Stalin was able to rebuild his army, mostly from the far east in time. Yes, he was stunned and did nothing for the first 10 days after the invasion, but we don’t know this was because he wanted peace. I personally think it was because he didn’t like being outsmarted by Hitler.

First, an invasion of England could have been possible in a couple months after the fall of France (like 6) if the Germans built enough transports.

But Germany did not have the transports ready at the time of the invasion and they only had about 3 months. After mid-September, the conditions in the English channel do not permit amphibious assults which is why Hitler officially called off Operation Sea Lion on Sept. 21. Even with their best efforts up to this point, the Germans were woefully short of the transports they would need for a sucessful invasion.

This is one reason why Eisenhower planned D-day on June 5-6.

The earlier ME series planes could have paralyzed the RAF, and almost did, but then Hitler decided to swicth to the bombing of London.

Not quite true. They almost paralyzed the one RAF division which was commanded under Park. However, there were several other RAF divisions in England, divided up into regions most of which saw very little action. The region under Park was of course the one within range of the German airforce. This does show the inefficiency of the RAF, but do you really think if the invasion was taking place the other divisions of the RAF would sit idly by? Churchhill himself would order them to counter-attack immediately, convention and regulations notwithstanding.