Posts made by 77stranger77

@jbriggs:

I have been playing the game for over 15 years and I have seen many things done with both sides.  I can win with both sides, but no matter what stratagy you use, you have to have teamwork from your ally.  I can usually criple germany in 3 rounds with Russia and use the rest of the allies to clean up germany by round 6.  The key is to be smart and aggressive.  Let me explain, and see if you can adapt this to your style of play……

This game to me is a game of options… You always have options with what to do every round.  The trick to winning is to limit the enemy to options that they have and increasing yours.  Basically the stratagy that you have played with by bringing your pacific fleet to the atlantic is limiting the amount of options that you have to choose from and making your stratagy 1 dimensionable.  You are basically giving the pacific to Japan and not challenging them.  This leaves Japan the opportunity to focus on the Asian mainland, and that will not do well for Russia and Britian.  No matter what you do in the Atlantic you will not be able to beat the Axis powers.

So far so good, except that I’ll argue that America often should leave the Pacific. America challenging Japan in the Pacific is at the expense of America challenging Germany in Africa and Europe(in force). Not sure who you’ve been playing, 6 rounds to kill Germany seems way too fast against a good player unless they had some major dice jobs.

@jbriggs:

This is where teamwork comes in.  Most people I have played against, see’s russia as very weak, and they play them defensively.  I can’t play that way.  My first round purchases for Russia is 6 artillary.  This will do a few things for you……it creates options.  Doing this for your first 3 rounds along with attacking Germany every turn will make you stronger.  Buying the artillery adds an offensive option to you your stratagy.  First round combat movements should consist of attacking Norway with 2 fighters and 3 infantry from karelia.  You will limit the fighter from norway from attacking the british fleet, and it gives you an easy 3 ipc’s.  Then attack west Russia with everything else from russia, your tank in archangel, and artillary and tank from caucas.  You should win both battles with little loss.  Your non combat phase, move 3 infantry from archangel into Karelia and land 2 fighters into karelia.  Move 2 infantry from kazakh into Caucasas.  2 infantry from yakut to Buryatia.  2 infantry from novosibursk into sinkiiang. 2 infantry from E.N.O into Novosibirsk.  Move your submarine from sea zone 4 to 2. Place your 6 artillary into caucasas.  What this does is creates a wall for germany to attack.  If Germany goes on the offensive they will be very weak for a counter attack by britian and russia.  Caucasas will have 5 infantry and 6 artillery to defend with.  Karelia will have 3 infantry and 2 fighters to defend with.  West Russia will have 3 tanks, artillery and at least 1 infantry to defend with.  If Germany attacks either one of these they will have to attack in force.  They will be hurt badly and then you’ll be able to clean up with your other units the next round.  Doing this will put you at +5 ipc’s for your next round.

1. The R1 attack on Norway is risky, especially since you don’t send the tank, and that’s putting it mildly. The fact that you send two fighters guarantees you’ll lose at least one of them landing in Karelia but you’ll land BOTH. But There is a 40% chance that Russia doesn’t even come out of there with a fighter(assuming to the death, but you can retreat before that point).

2. Your rationale for doing this is preventing the attack on z2, right? If Russia moves it’s sub over to z2, the attack is not favorable towards Germany in the first place and Germany even attempting this sets them up for losing multiple planes in their first turn and weakening the attack on Egypt. Wait, I just read your UK game plan - you should NEVER be able to assume the Egypt fighter lives. That opens up all sorts of possibilities for the Allies.

3. Never tried 6 artillery build. I will stick with 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank or 2 inf, 2 art, 2 tanks, or 3 inf, 3 tanks depending on if I attack Wrus/Ukraine or just West Russia and how I’m feeling that particular day. You’re right that Russia needs to buy offense early on to prevent an early German stack in Karelia or Ukraine. However, to do that, you need units that can hit Karelia and Ukraine right away - tanks.

4. You cannot legally build 6 art all on Caucuses, that IC can only build 4 units per turn. The other two art are built in Moscow.

5. As Russia, if you leave you fighters so exposed, you cannot expect to win. Sorry if it’s harsh but I don’t think I could lose to that open. As Germany, what I would probably do is stack Karelia, liberate Norway the 23% of the time you actually take it based on what you send, attack the med Battleship, med destroyer, and take Egypt. I might(depending on R1 dice and mood) counterattack West Russia to destroy some Russian heavy units.

6. Seeing how rough things went for Russia on Germany’s turn, I might even smash Buryatia on Japan’s turn. Or I might play it safe and play a more traditional clear the Pacific and take China turn.

@jbriggs:

If I am Germany my focus is to keep britian land locked.  I usually will use 1 sub from zone 8 to attack 2.  Fighter from Norway and bomber from Germany to attack sea zone 2 also.  Sinse Russia took norway, Germany no longer has that fighter.  So you limited Germany on its options.  Germany lands a tank and an infantry into Norway and captures it losing the infantry.  Germany loses the sub and bomber leaving the battleship and troopship for britian.  German bomber hits the Russian Sub for fodder.  germany then attacks your battleship in gibralter and you lose that, at a cost of 1 fighter for them.  Basically your British fleet is still intact for future assaults on Europe.

1. Why attack the UK ships in z2 if it costs you a bomber and a sub and you still fail? If you have a fetish for killing British boats, a safer alternative is attacking the Canadian transport with the sub in z8. I tend to send it against the med battleship to minimize any chance I have to lose planes.

2. So by your summary, two turns in, Germany is down 3/7 planes, almost half their planes are gone.

3. You forgot to mention what’s arguably the most important battle on Germany’s first turn - Egypt.

@jbriggs:

Britian…… Purchase 1 IC to be placed in India and 1 troopship, 1 infantry, 1 artillary to be placed with northern fleet at Sea zone 3.  Combat moves should be bringing a tank from canada and infantry from britian to land in Norway.  Bring BB from sea zone 2 to 3 for bombardment with troopship carrying 1 tank and another infantry from britian for support. You can use your 2 fighters to attack German surface fleet in the baltic.  Your bomber can support the fighters, but Taking more money from Germany is more important.  Use sub from australia and attack Japanese Sub in sea zone 45.  Use carrier fighter to attack transport in 59.  You want to maximize your limited naval strength in the pacific for defense.  Don’t attack the Japanese fleet. But make them chase after you.  I’ll explain later.  Non combat moves…land fighter back on carrier.  Bring fighter fromegypt and land it in india for support.  Move infantry from jordan to egypt.  Infantry from persia to india.  Infantry from S. Africa north.  Land fighters from baltic back in britian.  Bomber the same.  Move destroyer from sea zone 15 to the rest of the fleet in 35.  Place new units with fleet in sea zone 3.  New IC in India.  Britians goal is to attack Japanese interests in Asia, limiting their options for attacking Russia.  Build 3 tanks in India the next few turns and keep putting 1 infantry, artillary, and a troopship in the atlantic.  The next round you should still have Norway, so britian could build an IC in Norway so they can keep building tanks and moving them into the Russian lines later in the game.  Britians purchases for turn 3 should be 6 tanks.  3 for Norway, 3 for India.  Basically with tanks in india you should take Burma and kwantung by the 3rd round.  British units should be mixed in with Russian units in Europe.

1. Without Americans in the Pacific and/or heavy Russian support, the Indian factory isn’t that hard for Japan to take.

2. Are you assuming that your ships in z 3 are safe? If I’m playing Germany, I probably have 4 fighters in Western Europe and may have submerged my subs. So you have a battleship, sub, and 3 transports and I have 2 subs and 4 fighters and I’ll at least strafe those ships, there’s a good chance I will sink them all.

3. It’s more efficient to transport troops from London than to build tanks in Norway. Plus, tanks on Norway can only go to 4 territories while transports can land or threaten any coastal territory. Sometimes if British income is high, an IC there is good.

@jbriggs:

Japan has to build an IC in Asia to match the brits, otherwise They will starve to death and britian will overwhelm the pacific.  Japan most likely will not attack Russia this round.  If they do they will be very weak for the british armor onslaught that will happen in the next few turns.  The Japanese fleet will have to respect the US fleet as well as the British fleet.  Japanese options are limited at this point……

1. Japan should eventually build an IC, but I don’t like to until J2 or J3. As long as you can protect them, I greatly prefer transports over complexes in the early stages.

2. I read the American section and it mentions the Chinese fighter. China is a MUST ATTACK on Japan’s first turn.

3. It’s not often that Japan leaves the US ships alone on their first turn. They’re easy targets and most players will attack them unless they want to attack Buryatia or a large concentration of British ships on the first turn.

@jbriggs:

US…… purchases- 2 troopships, 3 infantry, 3tanks, All to be placed in the eastern US.  Combat moves… Move 2 transports, 1 destroyer, 1 tank, 1 artillary, 2 infantry, and 1 bomber and attack algeria.  If you still have China use fighter and attack any troopship of the japanese.  If you still have your fleet in hawaii merge them with your transport and battleship.  You can meet them in wake and attack wake island using 2 fighters, bombardment, and 2 infantry.  This will basically show Japan that you are there and you will attack anything open.  They will have to put some energy towards your fleet.  Don’t attack their fleet, let them attack you.  Carriers defend best and a fully loaded carrier will wipe out a small fleet on defense.  This fleet is basically there to keep Japan honest.  They won’t be able to divert all there attention on mainland asia and if you don’t lose your fleet, you don’t have to build anything else until Germany gets wiped out.  This will allow you to focus shuttling units into Europe.  Germany will most likely lose interest in Africa by round 2 because of the russian advance and the british buildup in Norway.  Non combat moves… move destroyer from sea zone 20 into 10.  land bomber in egypt.  Move fighter from E. US and land it in britian.  Fighter from W. US lands in Hawaii, or on carrier.  Fighter in China should stay.  Move infantry from sinkiiang into China.  Place new units in Eastern US.  Your purchases for the next few rounds should be the same as your first round purchases.  If Germany doesn’t attack your transports in sea zone 12 their next round, you can send them back to the US to bring more units later, or you can keep them around Europe and land them in places in europe to help with taking it.  Doing this constantly will keep Germany pressured from 3 sides and you will limit their options.

1. With America in the Pacific, my policy is go big or go home. Either retreat the leftover Pacific units towards Europe and Africa(usually just the Battleship and transport) or challenge Japan for the Pacific. Are you taking into account that Wake Island is probably a Japanese deadzone, meaning that they can kill your ships at relatively low cost?

2. You may have the right idea for America, troops and transports marching through Canada. Lots of logistics going into the purchasing strategy.

3. You should NEVER be able to assume that the Chinese fighter lives. If that happened, the Axis should probably concede.
@jbriggs:

After you get Germany weakened by round 2, try and develope combined bombardment, with Britian and the US.  This will give you more firepower later on.  If you get combined bombardment, you can buy 2 destroyers for every one battleship.  Thats twice the amphibious firepower for your money.  If you build a fleet with at least 2 fully loaded carriers, 4 destroyers and, and at least 4 transports, you will have a powerful navy that has alot of bite.  Play with it and see what happens.  I promise, you will never purchase a battleship ever again.

The key to this stratagy is teamwork.  There will be times that Britian and the US will play a supporting role to Russia.  Russia will have to do alot of the dirty work, but during the British and US turns, they will reinforce the Russian lines.  The British and Us bombers should strategic bomb germany every round.  For every dollar germany loses thats one less tank or infantry that they can buy.  Every bit helps.

Stick to the gameplan I set up, and the allies will have Europe captured by round 5 or 6.  Japan will be weakened drastically and will fall by turn 10.

Try this out, and let me know what happens.

1. Yeah, a fleet of 2 loaded carriers, 4 destroyers, and 4 transports is pretty menacing. The question is, what are they fighting? Beyond their starting pieces, the Allies shouldn’t normally need more than a carrier for fleet protection against the Luftwaffe. All the money that went into developing the technology and building the destroyers would have been better spent on more transports and troops.

2. Trust me - I won’t be buying battleships.

If you have TripleA or ABattlemap or are just willing to type up moves, keep unit summaries, and use physical boards, I’d be open to an online game to demonstrate some points. If you’d like to play a game, let me know. I don’t mean to be condescending(I hope I haven’t come off that way) but I think you have a lot to learn and would benefit from playing a fresh batch of opponents. A bid for the Axis is necessary for a balanced game between fairly equal opponents usually ranging 6-10 IPC’s in  any combination of extra starting units and income. I’d play either side, your choice.

(Whew. Long post.)

Good read, I liked the article.

This is a good article, and I’d like to try and revive some of the discussion, I’m surprised this hasn’t stirred up more replies. I’m doing something to this effect in a friendly PBEM game where Russia attacked WR+Ukr, rolled up, sent a lot East on R1, and bought 6 inf, 1 tank. In it, I managed a G1 Ukraine stack and bought 5inf, 5 tanks(a risky play, needed the med fleet and a Japanese fighter from FIC) and with help from Japan’s fighters held Caucuses G3! In order to get this much done, Germany abandoned WE on G2. I pulled out of Caucuses on G5 because I needed tanks on EE to deadzone WE. Germany’s tanks and Japan’s fighters are proving invaluable in this game.

What I’m trying to get at is whether West Russia is a superior stacking territory to Caucuses. It’s an interesting debate. I’m reiterating some of the points in the article, but they definitely have their pros and cons and sometimes the better one depends on the game. Caucuses has a factory that Germany can build with. But I think that there’s often more value in keeping the Allies out of Karelia(assuming KGF) by stacking West Russia instead of Caucuses. What I’m thinking is that Germany will keep tanks on EE to maintain deadzones on Karelia and Western Europe all the while sending infantry and artillery to West Russia by route of Belorussia to keep max pressure on Karelia. When it is clear that Germany and Japan have enough to give Moscow a 1-2 punch, then tanks can be sent forward from EE to help kill Russians. Germany must be careful on timing the advance of their tank stack. It lets the Allies hold WE which is a big setback for the Axis unless Russia is falling fast.

I’m starting to get partial to stacking West Russia as Germany with the goal of keeping Karelia gray for as long as possible but I’d like more opinions and other people’s insights. For example, if the US and UK can safely stack Karelia, Germany cannot protect their supply line EE to Belo to WR and can’t handle a 1-2-3 on the West Russia stack. Instead, could it be best for Germany to strafe Karelia even if it isn’t quite profitable, with the intent of retreating to Eastern Europe and leaving Russia up to Japan?

As for early purchases, I usually like 10 inf, 2 tanks G1 and 10 inf, 3 art G2. While Germany has only 1-2 artillery in Europe right away and should get more soon, the early tanks can help open the door for a early stacking opportunity or prevent an Russian stack in Ukraine which can be invaluable. Not buying tanks could potentially cost Germany early momentum.

Hey, I’m primarily a revised player but am looking back at 2nd Edition. I’ve never played it before but given reasonable bids for axis (giant bid, no RR), if anyone wants an easy game via TripleA, I’m up for it.

In revised, the USA needed two sets of transports, usually a total of 8. One was bouncing between Canada and either Algeria or London. The other set typically operates in the med or the Baltic. Only one set is needed to land constant waves into Europe in 2nd Ed. So in Classic, does the USA typically stop with one group of about 6 transports and just march troops through Canada, dropping on Norway/Finland and walking them to Karelia?

The weakness I see in this is that in order to make a move on Eastern or Berlin, one must break the Shuck, which a big price especially if you fail. Is this inflexibility a lesser evil than building two sets of transports or a light overbuild? Is there a “standard” of how many transports the US has and how they operate?

Also, suppose that the UK goes to the Baltic or Barents to reinforce Karelia directly. With a simple swap fleet between ECAN and Norway, the US can’t follow without breaking their shuck, so it’s possible that one set of transports is under defended. Are two transport fleets the solution here? Part of me says no, because that would involve defending two sea zones UNLESS Germany is muscled out of France or just doesn’t have enough planes to be a threat. Am I missing a simple solution like by that time, the US battleship will be there?

Basically, what I’m curious to know is: about how many transports, one group or two and how to best defend them. I like to work out my best guesses at the optimized logistics of the moves myself.

Thanks

Oh, I forgot to mention one thing with the USA.

There are kind of two options on where to shuck as the US, in the Med or in the Baltic. Depends on the game which to do but the med requires more fleet protection to be bought so that’s a bit of a downside there. When in the med, you’ll probably have one set of transports bouncing between Algeria and Canada with another set picking up in North Africa and shucking to Europe.

Wow that’s a broad question.  :-D

Well, the Russians don’t have a lot of variance in what they can do. In general, where people vary is on the best first turn attack is and the best buy to compliment it. Quite a few things will work. Personally, I like hitting Ukraine with everything that can reach and West Russia with everything else and buying 3 infantry 3 tanks first turn. The alternative to that is attacking West Russia only and stacking Caucuses. My concern with that is an aggressive Germany counterattacking West Russia. I guess the main place people can vary is what they do with their Eastern infantry, send them after Japan or bring em home.

Germany has a little more flexibility than Russia. Where many people differ is whether or not to build in the Baltic, purchasing, and how aggressively they play. It might be a decent idea to build a Baltic navy if your opponent hasn’t faced it before but in general I build primarily infantry and don’t add to the Baltic navy. Their first turn moves are set in stone like attacking Egypt and the med Battleship with the only variance in how much is sent to the battles. In general Germany needs to keep enough to either hold or deadzone their core territories for as long as possible WHILE pressing against Russia. You might want to read the article on the Lurch.

The UK, being two turns in has much more flexibility. Their first turn options are usually just what to do in the Pacific(loads of options there), countering Egypt, attacking the Baltic if not reinforced, and depending on German plane placement, taking Norway or Algeria. Something fun to try is a factory on India. A good Japanese player can probably take it without a lot of Russian help. As far as overall strategy, I usually build to 4-6 transports and shuck units in Europe. When the US and UK both go after Germany it’s called KGF(Kill Germany First) as opposed to when the UK messes with Japan with starting units and the US builds in the Pacific which is called KJF(Kill Japan First).

Japan and Germany’s roles are pretty much set in stone. Go after Russia. As Japan I prefer to rely on transports in the early rounds to funnel units to mainland Asia. My first turn buy of choice is 3 transports and 2 infantry. One benefit of relying on transports is that it provides a threat to the US west coast and costs nothing to set up. In most cases your first turn will just be attacking China and the Hawaii seazone. Main priorities first turn are to take China in force, that you won’t be counterattacked in Hawaii, and that the transports are safe. Important choices later are factory placement and which prong(s) of attack to press hardest. Coordinating moves on Russia with Germany are also important.

The US generally has two options. Go for Germany or go for Japan. I don’t recommend going for Japan unless they did something stupid, they skipped attacking Hawaii, or had a poor first turn. In the first few rounds, the US won’t have much for combat moves. They might go to Algeria round 1 either if the UK went there or Germany had poor plane placement. Assume you’re going for Germany. The goals in the first few rounds are usually going to be protecting transports, building up to 8 transports(called a 4x4), securing Africa, and sinking the med fleet. The basic “shuck” involves building units on EUS to march to ECAN to be transported to London(or Algeria) and then be transported by the second group of transports to Europe. Something to consider is building some units on WUS to be marched to ECAN and covering the West Coast from Japanese meddling.

Was this at all helpful? I thought I covered the basics but the other piece of it is just playing, taking it turn by turn, and discovering what works.

The thing with spending that much money on technology is that Germany has less threat to their actual units unless you luck out and get it right away. Just by capturing Norway and liberating or preventing the fall of Africa, you prevent the Germans from collecting an extra $14($15 if you count T-J) each turn and that money isn’t destroyed, it stays in your own paycheck. In some games, the UK is collecting a lot and has excess cash beyond what they

I read your post in another thread and you mentioned Germany getting rockets, I think you overestimate them. The only time rockets might be worth it for Germany is if they get them on the cheap like $5-15 or so. If we assume Germany spends $30 G1 to sucessfully develop rockets, and gets a bid of 7, and no early Allied dice disasters, I would win as Allies. I’d be playing with LHTR. I’d be willing to play against you on that one if you have Triple A and want to test it.

I typically play without technology. That said, I have considered getting rockets with them midgame, not right away. What happens is they need to retreat their AA gun from India and bring it up at least to Caucuses, if it could safely make it to Karelia, great. If the UK has the Indian AA gun in position and has excess money beyond what they can build on London, yeah, rockets are a good buy if playing with tech. They will cause an average of $7 damage each round.

Don’t think of getting a technology as an effective strategy. As the UK, take advantage of your proximity to Germany and blow stuff up. If you have 5-6 transports and several planes, the Germans need to be stacking their core territories pretty high in order to deter an attack. There are no die rolls involved in setting up that threat, those purchases are guarunteed to pay off unlike rolling for rockets, heavy bombers, etc.

When I go after Japan, I don’t commit much beyond my starting units as the US to Africa. As the US I think it’s usually better to go after the islands ASAP and before trying to destroy the Japanese fleet. If I am a) getting desperate, the Axis are winning big or b) think I can make a high odds attack on Japan’s navy, I can take Wake Island and buy all planes. This allows me to shuffle fighters to bring more into the fight.

The first turn buy for the USA in a Pacific Campaign depends if you can counterattack PHII and if Japan even did PHII. Obviously, people will vary on what is best.

A) Japan did PHII and there’s no counter. I buy 2 carriers and a fighter. The US has 3 fighters at the start of their first turn so at the end, they have 2 loaded Carriers. Total: BB, 2 CV, 4 VF, DD, transport.

B) Japan did PHII and there is a counter. I might buy a transport, sub, carrier, and fighter. There’s more flexibility here because you don’t know for sure what will survive the counter and you need to replace the transport you use for fodder that is almost certainly dead. Total: whatever survives the counter + DD + whatever you built.

C) Japan skipped PHII. I would buy a carrier and 3 subs(or 2 subs and 1 transport, some might get a battleship). Check if you can take the Solomons safely on the first turn. Total: BB, 2 CV, 4 VF, DD, 4 SS, transport.

My goals when Island Hopping usually are:

1. To get a fleet to the Solomons quickly that can withstand a Japanese attack that turn. From the Solomons I can hit any island worth money and Tokyo itself.

2. From there, if necessary, I build up. If I can, I’ll grab an island as long as it doesn’t lose me my fleet.

3. Philippines, East Indies, and Borneo all make excellent places for factories and they should be built there if I can defend them.

4. From here, I can either neutralize or destroy the Japanese fleet. I can build much closer now so it’s easier to do. When the IJN is destroyed or irrelevant, I can start transporting from my factories to the mainland.

Have you tried other US strategies? Often, I don’t even consider sending America after Japan unless they had a rough first turn, skipped PHII, or I can counterattack PHII. More traditional US play would be liberating Africa and then either shipping in the Baltic or Med.

Strange, I’ve never tried it unless Japan’s navy is sunk or neutralized. It’s never been my target going into a game. I don’t think that the IC would be necessary in Alaska unless you need to buy big expensive ships there. Troops can be built on WUS and marched to WCAN to be shucked to SFE.

I would see it as generally less effective because in order to be able to get troops to those territories, your navy needs to be able to withstand attack from Japan’s navy which at the end of Round 1 probably consists of 2 BB’s, 2 CV’s, 1 DD, 6 fig, 1 bom, 4 transports. And once you do get that kind of a navy together, which takes quite a while unless Japan neglects to build more ships/planes, Japan probably is pretty strong in Buryatia and can kill any invaders.

The upside to shucking to Europe is the relatively little need for capital ships, the greater ability to cooperate with the other Allies, the more valuable territories, most are worth $2-6 as compared to $1-3 in Asia, and the ability to contest Africa.

A better case can be made for Island Hopping because East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines are valuable and make good locations for factories.

@Frontovik:

medium experienced players, no tech, no NA’s

It depends on how close the competition is, how quickly they play, and what you’re playing to(8-10 VC’s or concessions). I’ve been in games that went 6 hours and could have gone longer. I’ve been in games that went 3 hours and the eventual winner was obvious. The longer games tend to be more fun, against some really even competition that can happen. If you surf some of the game boards, some can go around 20 rounds which seems ridiculous while other games might only go 6.

Empty countries

If you have Russians on Buryatia and nothing in Manchuria, Russia may walk in any number of units(in range) to capture the territory. Infantry have a range of 1 so they can enter any friendly or hostile territory adjacent to the one they’re in. Even if it was occupied, Russia could still attack if they thought they could win. There’s no rule that says you need a tank to capture a territory. In fact, if you can’t hold a territory, you may not want to commit tanks or large numbers of units to claim it. If in your example, Russia can take Manchuria, they can just send one inf to get paid for the territory and the other 5 can either come with, stay on Bury, or retreat to Yakut depending on how safe they are.

Blitzing

Yes, you can blitz two countries with one tank assuming there are no enemy units in the first territory.

Submerging subs

If the German sub submerges, it resurfaces at the end of the UK turn meaning that the USA can still try to sink it. Just a tip to whoever is playing Germany: That particular sub is useful on their first turn so that they can attack the UK’s med battleship with the sub and 3-4 fighters. It’s nice when that sub lives but it’s purpose is to prevent Germany from losing fighters.

Battleships

When the BB survives a sea battle and gets one hit applied to it, the battleship is considered repaired at the end of that battle.

Heavy Bombers

In interest of balance, you’ll want to start nerfing the Heavy Bombers and the SBR’s. In the box rules, each heavy bomber can do 10 damage assuming you’re bombing Germany. If you have around 5-6, Germany is lucky to have any money left.

In LHTR 2.0 (Larry Harris Tournament Rules) Heavy Bombers are rolling two dice and picking one of them and then if you’re bombing a factory, you add one to the result. Each factory cannot lose more than the territory’s value on each enemy’s turn. So the Berlin factory can’t lose more than $10 on one Allied turn and Moscow factory cannot lose more than 8 on one Axis turn. The factories could take 20 and 16 damage in all between the two powers likely to have bombers in one round, that is legal.

Fighters don’t defend during bombing raids or during a fly over unless you want to come up with some house rules. They only defend when the territory or sea zone they’re in is being attacked.

I’m currently in a game as the Axis where it is US against Japan with UK in Africa and Russia temporarily on their own against Germany. So far I’m waiting for UK3. I like the fallback option of FIC but don’t have a factory and probably shouldn’t build one at this point so I thought I might have another idea.

Suppose that the Americans were able to advance their navy to the Solomons but Japan can’t reasonably attack them. Japan’s main fleet is already based on the Carolines and their transports, a loaded carrier, and whatever they built last turn is in zone 60. Japan still is stronger than the USA on the defense and can withstand an American attack if they consolidate everything on the Carolines. Then Japan can base all naval units on the Carolines except one sub to block a combat move to East Indies and Borneo through New Guinea. As long as Tokyo has enough to deter an attack, this might be a good delaying method although I haven’t yet tried it.

Thoughts?

Some of the stuff on the box is right. The Brits don’t have a Battleship in the Indian Ocean, The Germans don’t have a Battleship in the Baltic. There might be a web page that has the setup listed. Triple A and Game Table Online both have versions of the game that can be played online so you can copy their starting setups.

Don’t you have cards for each nation that list the starting units in each location or is that what seems inaccurate? At least in my revised edition, the board situation on the box seemed ridiculous with a US Battleship rounding Brazil, a Russian bomber, a German carrier in the med, unlike the starting setup so I ignored the picture.

If you can’t make sense of where things go, use Triple A for a reference. You can download Triple A here. http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki
Triple A has A&A Revised, Classic, 50th Anniversary, and other games. The ships are a little difficult to make out at first as the aesthetics are poor compared to the board game itself.

You can find it here. http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki

I use the latest unstable - 1032.

It has quite a few maps besides A&A Revised. It has AA50 both scenarios, Classic, Europe, and Pacific. I haven’t gotten to all of it, I stick mostly to the LHTR version of revised.

I didn’t think it was that good if it was just walking either. I’ve heard mention of NAD but didn’t understand how it worked. Walking from Algeria was my best guess. The only way I could see that working is with NA’s and mech infantry.

@AThousandYoung:

The supply lines don’t sound too bad.  Remember, you can transport directly to Caucasus.  It sounds like a method of supporting Russia directly via Mediterranean dominance.

I think you misunderstand me. It would require a 3x3 or 4x4 in the med to go directly to Caucuses. The supply line thing is because they would be walking through Africa/Middle East because there would only be 4-5 transports dropping off from Canada then directly on Algeria and then repeating. The version you are thinking of is drop off on Algeria, walk to Libya, and then shuck from Libya.

I’ve seen older posts referencing North African Dominance as a viable strategy. As someone who hasn’t played with or against it, is the short version of this to continue sending the Americans into Africa even after Germany is kicked out and then advancing to Caucuses/India?

I’d like to know the details of this. The supply lines sound ridiculously long but it doesn’t take that many transports or very long to set up. Is there more to this strategy? I’d like to know more of the USA’s options. They have quite a bit of flexibility to where precisely they focus - Africa, the Med, the Baltic, Karelia/Archangel, the Pacific, etc.

As far as the Axis response to North African Dominance, my favorite by far is the North American Dominance  :mrgreen:

@bb82:

I’m glad I never got into AA50.

Blasphemy!

Just kidding. I haven’t gotten to AA50 yet. I would play it if a friend got a copy but its all A&AR until then or when AA42 comes out.

How well does it work for the USA to have 4 transports funneling troops from Canada into Algeria and 4 transports in the Med grabbing troops from Libya and threatening Western Europe, Southern Europe, Balkans, Ukraine, Caucuses, and Trans-Jordan? I think it sounds great when you consider how much it can threaten. If the UK is working the Baltic as you’re in the med, this covers every gray territory on the map except West Russia, and Belorussia and the USSR typically can collect from those for a while.

How feasible is this when capital ships are taken into account? I tried to figure out the logistics of it on Triple A using the AI for the other nations to do super quick albeit stupid turns. I think I was able to sack Italy on US 5. In this trial, I only purchased 1 CV for fleet protection and managed to leave transports unguarded in zone 12, not possible against anyone who knows what they’re doing. Unless Germany squandered her Luftwaffe early, fighters staged in Western Europe are free to harass fleets off of Algeria and Italy.