Posts made by Amalec

I send 12 Inf 1 AA back to Moscow and leave 6 Inf 1 AA in the East. It’s enough to get Moscow the manpower it needs while still keeping Japan honest*. They’ll usually be worth most of their value in preserved income by the time Germany can realistically attack Moscow anyway, and will pay off and then some if you dissuade Japan from the Far East altogether.

*They can’t blitz through with a tank amphib’d in and leave Mongolia inactive.
*They can’t blitz - they need to push you back a single province at a time.
*They’ll need to commit significant ground forces they don’t have and/or position significant parts of it’s airforce to hit your stack, at which point you simply pull back and tie them up longer.
*They can support future Ameircan landings if they survive.

If you believe Moscow will fall at the latest on G6, then it really doesn’t matter. Even fully dedicated to Europe, America realistically needs until A3 to cross the Atlantic, landing A4 in Normandy, and even then without enough to really matter. Strategic bombers won’t be effective at slowing you for Russia either, since the last ground units who can make it to Moscow for G6 need to be built on G3 - far too early to be prevented. In other words, the most America can really disrupt you is by forcing you to build a handful of Infantry for defence or spend a few IPC repairing factories on G5/G6 - neither of which will matter much.

That said, I personally think (though I’ve gotten flak from it before on this forum) that Moscow can not be taken by Germany on G6 unless Russia makes serious mistakes; and relying on your opponent’s mistakes is a bad strategy. You also leave yourself open to the UK flying a half dozen fighters to Moscow on UK5 and properly ruining your plan. Then again, I also tend to think of Moscow as a bit of a red herring - Russia is better dealt with by taking it’s money and NOs and leaving it to starve.

In a more general sense: the optimal time for Japan to attack for the Axis is whenever you think is optimal for Japan itself. A strong Japan will force America to either invest substantial resources in the pacific (and thus away from Europe) or lose the game on the Pacific board before Germany can be cracked open and forces redirected to deal with Japan.

To add to the above, the transport can only still load IF it is used on the same turn to make an amphibious attack. If it isn’t being used to make an amphibious attack, then it can’t load those troops until the non-combat phase - but at that point it’s already taken part in the combat against the sub and so can’t be used again.

@Ichabod:

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I read 2 spaces within to literally mean 1 and 2 spaces…as in if ships are within 2 spaces because they can travel 2 movement points.

So if Japanese ships are in SZ 26, they can travel to SZ 12 = 1 movement, then travel from SZ 12 to SZ 10 = 1 movement. So that’s within 2 spaces. Whether there are 2 sea zones or just 1, they are both “within” the limits of 2 spaces.

But SZ 10 isn’t the US mainland. It’s 1 movement away from the US mainland.

@Ichabod:

Look again. Sea Zone 26 is 2 spaces from mainland US meaning that ships could go there without a Naval Base. That is within two spaces. The rule book doesn’t mean 1 space away otherwise it would have said Japanese ships can’t be 1 space away from the US mainland or Alaska.

A fighter in SZ 26 would need to move 3 spaces to reach any US mainland territory. I believe you are interpreting the sea zones adjacent to the US mainland as the US mainland, rather than the mainland itself.

The first stack will make it on R6. Technically, a 2 turn German delay assuming a G1/G2 declare but with the 11 INF 3 ART in Germany being involved in any attack on Moscow. Frankly, if you can’t keep the German’s out of Moscow for that long, regardless of the German declare, you need to seriously reconsider your game.

Stacking in Amur is suicidal. Japan can reach it too easily and with too much. You’ll get a half dozen hits or so before being flattened by the Japanese airforce and once those troops are gone, the far east will be blitz’d quickly and the Soviets will be starved far worse than usual. Unfortunately, having just infantry and AA means you’ve got very little offensive power and Japan’s enormous airforce means you’ve got even less defensive ability. So their job is really to make the best out of a bad situation.

I send the 6 INF closest to Moscow back. They’ll be essential and make it in time if Germany decides to go head on for Moscow.
The other 12 INF 2 AA will be moved to Buryatia. Any further forward and a Japanese attack on Amur will leave them cut off and as good as dead.
On R2, I’ll send 2 AA and, depending on Axis play, possibly 6 INF back to Moscow. If the Japanese airforce hits your infantry the stack is dead, so the AA are next to useless there. They might make a huge difference in a German attack on Moscow though.
For the rest of the game, those 6/12 Infantry’s job is to force the Japanese to commit. They’ll need to move significant air/land forces in position to hit the stack, at which point you retreat. Then repeat. Every step it makes forward forces Japan to commit enough of it’s troops and have planes in range to attack a 6/12 Infantry stack, and enough troops to defend against an attack from one since it can’t land it’s aircraft after moving forward. This helps take pressure off India, China and The Pacific.

At Yenisey, Japanese troops will be in range for your fighters/tac(s) out of Moscow. Probably, Japan will have 4-6 ground units - possibly with some following further back. In other words: they won’t have enough to push any further forward without being destroyed in a counter attack. If you get lucky, they’ll move forward and die. If not, you’ll trade Yenisey back and forth with small attacks for a couple turns. Either way, buying time and killing scarce Japanese ground forces is really the best you can ask for.

@ProtesT:

True, it gives UK and Anzac income boosts. Those income boosts will be taken away quite quickly however once Japan DOW. As far as the handicap is concerned. Assuming a J1 attack, Japan can capture Borneo on turn 1. If USA rolls poorly in the Phillipines then Japan can hop on the other three islands assuming UK and Anzac haven’t placed anything on them. If they put up, say two Inf each on an island each then Japan probably won’t get all the islands J2. Meanwhile USA is into the war. And if USA rolled well or Japan rolled poorly in the Phillipines battle then a J2 capture of allied controlled money islands probably won’t happen.

If Japan builds 3 TT and an Inf or Art J1 and keeps USA out of the war until J3. Position those TT next to Kwansi with some carriers/air power then Japan can take the Phillipines and all of the money islands pretty much guaranteed on its 3rd turn. Plus they take Hong Kong that turn while their drive into China while only being at war with China should have the Chinese backed up quite far. That is a massive income swing for Japan in one turn. All the while keeping the USA out of the war all that time. And if the UK and Anzac want to stack the money islands with troops and planes. Just build more TTs on J2. That only benefits Japan because there is less troops on Calcutta/Sydney.

I tend to think J2 is optimal under most conditions, so the J1 argument you’re having isn’t really with me. I largely agree with you. Still, I’ll stand by my statement: A J3 DoW allows ANZAC and UK to grab an island each and retreat, giving them 8-12IPC each for no cost before Japan can take them. Borneo and Kwangtung add another 14IPCs to UK. That hurts, especially since Japan is reducing their potential J2 income substantially. J2 brings it down to 4IPC each and 7IPC for Borneo and Kwangtung, and they sacrifice the TT and Inf. That said, I expect UK will most likely use it’s TT to hit the Italians in Africa.

Do not declare war on the United States. The United States will have to wait until Round 3 to join the war

Round 2: Italy holds off the British, Japan pushes into China, the money islands, and the Soviet Union, and Germany pushes into the Soviet Union.

You cannot take the money islands without going to war with UK and ANZAC. You cannot go to war with UK and ANZAC without bringing the US into the war (unless they declare war on you, but they won’t). From page 37:

Japan may attack Dutch territories only if a state of war exists between it and the United Kingdom and ANZAC.

The United States may not declare war on any Axis power unless […] or Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the UK or ANZAC

I think leaving the money islands so long is a handicap the Axis just can’t afford. Worse, ANZAC and the UK can take these islands for significant income boosts.

Rules aside though, I think you’re wildly underestimating Russia. An average Russian player will not lose Moscow on turn 5 or 6. A good Russian player will actively force Germany to delay movement or risk attack-retreats strongly in Russia’s favour. Germany’s advantage here is that Russia cannot afford to guard all of it’s critical territory and will eventually bleed out when it loses enough income.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Never underestimate your opponent. Men having been making that mistake for thousands of years and paying the price for it. Just because someone doesn’t play in your group or league that doesn’t mean that they are less of a player than you or your comrades. Making an assumption that each other’s play groups are weaker doesn’t make it so.

Sure… but that comment seems like it might be better directed at the guy who said he had “the best” strategy and then went on to call basically the entire community garbage because a few people said “here’s why I don’t find that the best” and gave some reasons.

And hey, maybe the Allies’ 2-board predicament has been solved by a guy who can’t take light criticism of his strategy without flying off the handle, who seems to think most of the largest AAA communities are trash, and who isn’t willing to discuss what happens in the turns before or after (let alone on the other board!) he executes the best strategy of showing up with overwhelming force and taking the opponent’s capital. I’m entirely willing to listen to his ideas, just in case. But generally speaking competition in any form is improved by diversity and discussion. An unwillingness to engage with either doesn’t lend much hope.

@Gen.Nehring:

Perhaps it’s the competition you guys play against? You think that the British are sitting by and letting the US do everything alone? Nieve! The British air force crushes ANY Italian effort to do anything after turn 1! With Italy being neutered by Taranto it leaves the Luftwaffe to cover Europe while the British run over the Italians in the Med. And Africa! The Japanese can’t and won’t win any game unless they take a Pacific capital like Sydney, Calcutta! We are coming from the Hartford area and playing the WBC Axis & Allies champs in NYC on Saturday, April 29 th. Why don’t you guys come up and put your big boy pants on! The US with 2 loaded carriers, 2 battleships, 3 cruisers, 5 destroyers and 3 bombers and 10 to 12 loaded transports landing in Rome with salvoes and the Italians making 10 to 15 bucks a turn can hold the US alone!? Really? And the British won’t be helping? Wow! You eggheads put away the inept AAA and play some REAL competition! Most are only pretenders! Stop misleading the new players who log in to learn some real strategy and get a lot of pretenders who base their responses and criticisms on playing the same inept competition and a lackluster AI on AAA on low luck! There should be 2 Axis & Allies websites!

You know, I started to run the numbers and try to figure this out. You know, 328 IPC  of units committed to Rome at minimum. Factor in America’s starting units, ships pulled from the Pacific, etc. 10-15IPC stolen from Italy. 5-6 turns of Italian builds at 10IPC each. 4 turns returning the mainland USA to reload Germany liberates Rome the following turn. Etc etc. Too many factors.

Instead of just spouting off nonsense and insults, why don’t you walk us through your strategy? Where are those units coming from? How will you respond to J1/J2/J3 DoWs? What turn do you land in Rome? When can you re-retake Rome with follow-up landings after Germany liberates it?

Sorry if I wasn’t clear,

Is this allowed: infantry gets off, fights then AA gun off loads in non combat?

No. If the infantry fights, the AA gun can’t off-load.

Can the AA gun or does the AA gun too get off loaded as well and not take part in the attack, or both infantry and AA don’t get to off load?

No. The AA gun can’t unload during the combat movement because it cannot move during the combat move.

AA Guns can only be moved during the non-combat phase.

Limited Move: Normally this unit can be moved only
during the Noncombat Move phase. An AAA unit cannot
move during the Combat Move phase (other than being
carried on a transport if the unit was loaded on a prior
turn).

Transports can only unload once:

It can offload in only one territory, and
once it offloads, it can’t move, load, or offload again that
turn.

Unless there’s an exception I’m missing, you can either unload that infantry during the combat move and leave the AA gun on the transport until your next turn (since the transport can’t unload a second time) or you can unload that infantry/AA gun together during the non-combat phase. Additionally, unless you had loaded that transport on a previous turn then you’re stuck with option 2, since you can’t load an AA gun during the combat move.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

I prefer the transport shuck to Southern France because you only need 3 groups of transports to continuously put units into Europe. Germany will fend them off for a few turns but eventually you will wear them down and when the time is right then you bring up your UK transports from Africa and take down Rome. I don’t care how good a Japanese player is, he can’t make transports appear out of thin air and if you pile enough ground units on Honolulu and Sydney combined with a strong effort in Calcutta they can’t gain the 6 VC’s needed before you wear Germany down. If all they had to do is destroy boats then sure it looks great, but to get the required number of ground troops to those cities if they are defended properly is a different story.

I agree. Continuous small landings every turn is much more cost effective in the Allies’ favour, since Germany is going to have to send a couple of infantry to each province every turn and then lose them rather than smashing a stack and retreating from the coast before you can respond. Since you’re defending only a few transports instead of a dozen, you also don’t need to defend your transports nearly so well. If Germany wants to trade vital aircraft in exchange for surface ships/defending fighters and a few transports, that’s just playing into your hand.

I also agree on your Pacific strategy, I just think it’s likely that those VCs will fall before Germany - or at least before the Allied strength can be brought from Europe into the Pacific. But then, that’s exactly why most people play with such a huge Allied bid.

@Gen.Nehring:

The best current strategy is to pull everything out of the Pacific for the US and use all of the US’s money to build at least 10 fully loaded transports on the east coast and America’s first move after war declaration is to the Gibraltar sea zone to take Gibraltar if needed and then the next move is to take Italy’s capital or Western Germany or Normandy or Southern France! Wherever the axis is weakest. It makes the European axis have to defend the vital areas instead of sending everything towards Moscow. We have played this strategy out many times and as long as the pacific allies guard their capitals the Japanese can make as much money as they want and it doesn’t matter!

I have found in my games that this strategy essentially guarantees an Allies loss.

1. American landings in Normandy, Western Germany and Southern France can be crushed relatively easily with a handful of German infantry backed by Germany’s large air force. They force America/Britain to invest substantially in their Navy to protect those transports from the Germany air; IPCs which will sit off the coast the rest of the game doing nothing to justify their enormous cost. They also take 4 turns to return to the US to reload. Rome can be defended for ages with Italian infantry, blockers in the Med. and, if necessary, German aircraft. It requires huge numbers of transports to take, which can’t return for 4+ turns and will likely be retaken by Germany immediately. You might stop the German advance into Russia, but:
2. Without serious and early US commitment to the Pacific, a good Japanese player will win the game for the Axis long before Germany falls since Japan only needs to take 2 of 3 from Calcutta, Honolulu, and Sydney. Japan’s starting navy and air force are enormous, and by turn 5-7 they’ll be outproducing the US. Those VCs won’t hold long enough.

@WILD:

If you are moving into Russia with multiple forces north and south of the marsh, then yea the Russians could hit and run you because your strength isn’t concentrated. If you are moving one super stack going south of the marsh to E Poland, then to W Ukraine etc…the Russians will probably collapse back ahead of you (LEAVING YOU A PATH SOUTH IF YOU WANT IT). �If the Russians have built a lot of art then they could potentially still attack, but could be disastrous for them. Make sure to bring 3 AA guns with you so if they try to strafe your stack you have a chance to kill planes. Another thing is once you super stack W Ukraine the Russians can’t stay on Bryansk, so have some Italian mech (maybe a tank) and It bmr to take Bryansk for you so that you can NCM your German stack in, and bring in some German ftrs for defense so there is no way for they to hit you.

They may set-up counter attacks to trade their minor ICs to keep you from building for a round, but they can’t afford to lose to many units .

Don’t worry to much about marching a force to Leningrad. I have found that if you pressure Leningrad by sea (build at least one more tpt) that they have to choose to defend it, or evacuate it. If they try to defend it those slow moving Russian units get caught out of position and can’t get to Moscow in time, or get killed when you do amphib it. �

Absolutely. My point isn’t that you can beat the Germans - or even hold both locations indefinitely - just that you can slow them down. And that retreat rules are a very large component to slowing them down without getting obliterated in a counter attack.

@Tirano:

Germans have so many starting Inf that if they do it correctly they can target both considering there airforce can reach either and so gives great threat projection.

My standard Russian start is to mass the majority of infantry and artillery in Bryansk. A German player attempting to split forces between Western Ukraine and Belarus, for example, will allow me to hit the Belarus stack and retreat to Smolensk - out of reach of German’s Western Ukraine infantry. The German’s start with plenty of infantry and such - but not enough to hold two provinces against the majority of the Russian stack - nor to counter attack with only mobile divisions.

Seems quite a few of you share a distaste for retreats, or at least consider them a minor mechanic. Is that common?

We’ve often found Russia to be a far tougher nut to crack as Germany than many of you seem to. It’s a big part of my scepticism of any German naval builds (see G1 Carrier thread). My group, however, makes extensive use of attack and retreat as Russia to force the German’s to clump up and choose between Leningrad and Ukraine, or to inflict favourable casualties without exposing the Russians to counter attack. Is that abnormal?

@Young:

Why not converge as much Japanese navy that can reach into the Hawaii sea zone, with the American ships already there (they’re neutral powers after all). America wouldn’t be able to attack US1, the American ships wouldn’t be able to escape far, and America can only build 3 units off San Francisco US1, leaving them sitting ducks for a J2 attack (I call it a crowbar)… anyone care to do the math on that?

I think you’re forgetting that the American ships can retreat to the coast of San Francisco and, without the use of the Hawaiian naval base, the Japanese ships are out of range. On J2 you could potentially take Hawaii, but America can block that with a destroyer off the coast of Midway if they’re clever. By J3 you can certainly take Hawaii… but by that point America has had a couple of turns to build, you’re outside the reach of your land based air, you don’t have the backing of the SE Asian economy, and the British, ANZAC and Chinese are all looking to put a knife in your back.

I’ve yet to try it, but Pearl itself doesn’t seem like a particularly bad idea with a J1 DoW:

J1: Parking 2 carriers off the coast of Wake allows you to commit 4 aircraft and relatively little else to the initial attack. The Caroline carrier can still land the fighters necessary for hitting the Philippines, and you’ve still got plenty of aircraft to hit Yunnan, Hunan and Kwangtung.

On the J2: Any American counter attack can be destroyed. The aircraft from the 2 Wake island carriers can hit the Hawaii SZ and land in the Marshall Islands, 4 additional aircraft from Japan can also hit the SZ and land on the carriers, all escorted by most of the rest of Japan’s fleet staged in Japan or Carolines on J1. 3 Transports built on J1 to threaten the island itself. 2 Transports, a loaded CV, and the Japanese fleet that was used to destroy the Philippine ships can be used to take the money islands - potentially with a 3rd transport depending on what you did with it.