Posts made by Andy1984

As Fenian says, I’ve seen a US sub-based fleet and heavy bombers (positioned on an island) which effectively deadzoned the Pacific. It was the ultimate US-defense fleet, since my Japanese fleet simply couldn’t reach and destroy this fleet (although the Japanese economy was way bigger than the US-economy).

Given in a Pacific situation however (and that is what this thread was all about): it is in the Japanese intrest to build alot of subs to ‘deadzone’ the Pacific, thus defending the Japanese islands. (Considering Japan is spearheading in Asia and not planning an invasion into the US)
I’m not sure whether a Japanese Pacific defense with subs is any good (since you can’t cover all your islands). To an American player however the massivly relying on subs is of little value, since he should be the one conquering the Japanese-held islands. (I haven’t seen a situation where the US controlled the Pacific and the game wasn’t clearly over).

@atarihuana:

what do you du turn 2 when 8 inf, 2art, 6 arm + air can reach KAR if GErmany sets it up?

you can have there 9 inf, art, 3 arm. so germany gets a superior attack. if you land allied planes, all the better for Germany cuz Russia gets less money.

From what I can remember, I haven’t been forced as the SU to effectivly give up Leningrad on SU2. Sometimes I manage to take out part of the German armor (slowing their advance and giving me a third turn), sometimes I’ve been able to build up a pretty huge stack in Archangel while I retreated from Karelia (which denies Germany to effectivly take and hold Leningrad, thus giving them the bonus once).
In another case, you might build a Russian fighter on SU2 (and place it in Karelia!) to boost your defense. If you don’t feel this will do the trick, consider sending in the UK fighter (hoping there is still at least one in reach). Even if sending in this fighter costs you your NO once or twice, it will still be worth it as long as you keep Karelia.

Needless to say I agree fully on the importance of Leningrad: keeping it as the SU for as long as possible is definitly worth it.

I like them. Right now you can force Japan/US to keep their transports with their main fleet or these transports will be destroyed. In the original game, I’ve seen countless of expensive fighters being destroyed by transports that shouldn’t have the **** to set sail all on their own anyway.

About the ‘fleet fodder’-idea: wouldn’t destroyers with their defense of 2 serve better for this purpose than an only slightly cheaper transport?

Any idea what the defense of Caucasus would look like? (As well as what game you’re playing?)

In my experience, I’ve been running really low on troops in the early game as the SU. I’ve hardly found out how other players seemed to be capable to send in forces to China or (in your case) Persia. Especially in 1941 I’ve placed my armor more than once in Russia in order not to get it slaughtered should Germany attack Karelia or any other province. For as Germany, I’d be really happy to take out the initial armor the SU gets.

@Unknown:

I see some of the points made.  It would be interesting to actually see the math of, say, 4xCA 4XDD v 4xBB.  I would think the 8 ships would have the advantage even with the free hits.  But then… how often do you ever actually have 4 BBs in a single battle?  There are usually only 1 or 2 present at most.  I’ll stick with my CA/DD for now, the math from that battle calculator some of you seem to have would be interesting though and might change my mind.

I’ve seen stacks of BB in the Pacific, both American and Japanese. Since Japan and the US should have a really nice income after several turns, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise. In the few games I played lately, Japan owned between 8 and 12 BB. Sometimes they were put in a single fleet to match an opposing US fleet. Sometimes they sailed off to the Mediteranean to harass the smaller UK-fleets. Sometimes they were used to smash the Indian IC. Battleships are extremely difficult to take out when you have naval superiority and are useful to perform other tasks besides just guarding your Japanese mainland. Therefore building them en masse seems a sound strategy to me (and my opponents).

I may actually have been understimating the free hit a little, but you are understimating the flexibility of 2 ships v 1 ship.  Your 4 BB navies would mean my equavilant CA/DD navy would have so many ships that I could be strong in multiple locations on the map.  The big naval battles are staged into by both sides, you know when they are coming and they don’t come often.  At all other times, having twice as many ships is a pretty big advantage.

What other times are you talking about? When I engage as Japan a US-fleet, I want to keep my entire fleet in a single sea-zone, and so does the US. Imho, there should only be one single large battle to decide the fate of the entire Pacific. In between two major naval battles, destroyers and cruisers aren’t of much use anyways, as opposed to the highly versatile BB.

Having said all this, I agree with you cruisers and destroyers can easily make up the bulk of your navy at another theatre (e.g. the UK and Italian fleets), since these nations don’t have the gargantuesk resources US and Japan have, and since especially the UK might want to have alot of cruisers for offshorebombardment purposes. Therefore your statement probably is correct when it adresses the European fleets (given fleets aren’t destroyed by massive airforce). But in the Pacific, having to face gigantic fleet, I wouldn’t bet too much on destroyers or cruisers (although I do use subs and destroyers as cannon fodder in combination with BB).

I really didn’t mean to start such a debate with that final little comment, and you guys might very well be right about that although I still have my doubts… I had been hoping people might actually comment on my favorite US strategy, I thought people might find it interesting since it is so far removed from the very valid KGF strategy that is usually being discussed.

To me, your overal strategy seems pretty sound, for it is balanced and indeed far removed from the sometimes ‘experimental’ strategies that appeared lately. In the games I’ve played, I too deployed US-forces in Africa to a minimal extent, while going almost all-out against Japan. About the KGF-strategy: it is indeed surprisingly often discussed, but I wonder if it is used as often as it is discussed.
It is here however, your text is quite confusing. You speak of using Okinawa as a US-bomberbase against Japan in the early game. How are you, in only a couple of turns, capable to outbuild the Japanese navy, manage to build a fleet that does not get wiped out by Japanese fighters and fleet and conquer Okinawa? (And then I didn’t even mention the bombers that still have to be built.) Are you using bombers to attack fleets in the Pacific? (And if so: doesn’t this weaken the defensive stats of the US-fleet to much?) In the games I’ve played so far, Japan has always gained naval superiority in the early game against the US. I agree with you regaining these NO’s is of the highest importance to the US, if she doesn’t want to have the same fate as the UK-Empire, but doing so is a slow and often painful process.
For if Japan keeps her fleet in the East-Pacific in the first few turns (which she should once she destroyed several major US-ships imho), I see no other way for the US-player to try to slowly outbuild this Japanese fleet. Hence the build-up in BB. Using Okinawa as a bomberbase was - in the games I’ve played - only a way to finish off Japan in the late-game.

@kendrick
I was commenting wodan’s ideas.

Your strat seems pretty sound at first sight.

Ok, now suppose you’d be capable to take the US succesfully. At what costs would it be achieved? If you needed to build up during two or three turns (and have to pull back ground-forces and fighters), the eastern front is completely lost imo. This is because you have no airforce left. Any counterattack you plan vs the SU, will be done by armor, which leaves them vulnerable to a counteroffensive. You might be capable to take out the US, but lose Germany herself. China will be invincible and the UK-powerhouse thanks to their empire gargantuesk.

Therefore even if you managed to take and hold the US, Germany would be confined to the Americas at best. You now find yourself in a situation where: the US is down, both SU and UK have all (or almost all) their NO’s. Germany and Italy will probably be lost or find themselves confined to Western Europe/Germany at best (losing a NO and having only 10 unit-production-capacity).

I fully support the German focus on ground forces. But you don’t have to train 10 inf on G1 to do so. How about sending half your German army (supported by Italian groundforces) to Ukrain and building a factory there as soon as possible? That would give you the opportunity to:

• train infantry at your eastern frontier
• have the much needed extra production capacity for Germany (imagine a Germany crashing out 12 ground units/turn)
• it would virtually secure your positions against the SU, giving you your second NO

The main advantages of a factory in Ukrain is however: it’s safe. There’s no way the UK can hope to take over that one (contrary to IC’s in France or Poland).

Last game, I build transports as Italy. I figured my Italian navy was going down anyway if UK really pushed, so I wanted to get as many infantry towards N-Africa as possible. I ended up with a total of three transports (all sunk of course), and a pretty vast stack of 10+ inf in N-Africa. Add a bomber and one or two fighters, and the US/UK-forces are in for a hard time in Africa. The NO they completed, added to Italian support in Europe.

@wodan46:

@Bluestroke:

Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s.  Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.

I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs.  Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.

A minor US fleet, with two or three BB, one or two destroyers and a transport would be a pain to take out. Besides: I believe the Japanese aim is not to defend Japan, but to dominate the entire Pacific (with Japan herself not even threatened).

@ Jennifer: if the US would like to keep Japan at bay, doesn’t she need almost her entire income to do so? If not (from what I’ve seen), any ‘small’ American fleet would be easily destroyed by Japan thanks to their huge starting fleet. The ipc’s the US spent would almost be thrown away, since a few ships would hardly delay Japan.
Please tell me: what kind of a US-fleet did you imagine (size and type of ships) to face Japan? (In the games I’ve played, I’ve seen BB and destroyer based fleets in the Pacific. The hitpoints of the BB would make a minor attack against the Japanese fleet extremely costly. But then again, I may have been playing the game completely different than you)

I can see how the European axis are put under pressure after a long while, but not as quickly as just five turns. Last game, my Germany built only armor and infantry (and an occasional bomber after a really long time). By having focused on ground forces, it became increasingly difficult for the Allies to build sufficient transports (and cruisers) in order to ship the invasion forces. Also remember UK can only build 6 (?) units each turn in England, which further limits her actions. On the eastern frontier, things are getting plain ugly for the SU by an ever increasing lack of forces. If Germany concentrates her forces in two SU-provinces (e.g. Baltic and Ukrain), and they trade East-Poland, they’re gaining two NO each turn… which should ease the defense against UK and US. Early on, I needed some Italian forces for support, but after four or five turns, Germany should be capable to make a decent stand in the east.

About Africa or Scandinavia: it’s loss is regrettable, but far from lethal.

@atarihuana:

:-o :-o :-o :-o

why dindt UK buy 4 bombers and sink Jap BB?  :wink:

1. This small fleet consisted of 2 battleships, 2 transports, 3 inf and 1 armor. It wasn’t a too easy target. Anything less then 3 to 4 bombers wouldn’t even threatening me.
2. I don’t think the UK had any bombers (maybe a single one in the UK itself), nor did they have any AC’s (seriously limiting their range), they were too busy trashing my Italian inf in Libya (who were hopelessly isolated by significant US and UK forces). The UK did have a few (max 3) fighters however. Remember I didn’t even attack UK-ships as Germany. Going for a vast fleet (BB, cruisers and transports) and force landings in Europe was an obvious UK-strategy. This was even more the case since Germany put a really big pressure upon the SU, and the UK didn’t want to send forces to the SU (which would cost her a NO). The pressure was (partly) removed by keeping a considerable UK-fleet in the Med Sea. They would cut off any German forces who dared to break through to the Caucasus. At the same time a vast UK-fleet garded and harassed my North-Sea and Atlantic shores. From a UK-point-of-view, these BB and cruisers were mainly there to kill my infantry in coastal bombardments (but they could as well cut off any forces attacking the SU). They were also forcing me to keep significant infantry stacks in Europe, rather than sending them to the eastern frontier. Therefore: not building bombers and allowing my Japanese fleet in S-Afr made sense.
They didn’t bothered building bombers, since they probably didn’t think I was dangerous in S-Africa, and since they were busy building ships to invade Europe.
3. I couldn’t really threaten Africa. The best I could hope for was picking a territory or two for a couple of turns. Since there were UK forces in Northern Africa on the verge of breaking through, UK didn’t really bothered my forces. Actually I was the one trying to relieve my Italian forces (hoping to keep some African provinces for a few extra turns). A direct attack on their fleet however, was way beyond my reach.
4. The US did build some bombers in Eastern-US. Therefore I had to set sail to the Streets of Magelhaes rather than attacking Brazil (my initial plan) The significant naval buildup in W-US forced me to hury to the Pacific, rather then trying to irritate/harass some forces in Africa.
5. The UK wasn’t that rich. They had some 35 to 40 IPC/turn, due to their lack of NO-bonusses. They choose to build three units in India each turn, and their landings weren’t that expensive (they had to train tanks and inf, since their fleet was safe). Building such an amount of bombers and bringing them to S-Africa would take quite a lot of time. :-)

@TG:

14 hours!  I think that’s the record for longest match game in history.  Plus you guys made it competitive until the end.  Any idea of the total number of rounds?

No idea how many rounds. But if you figure out what one of my Japanese battleships did: they sailed off to Australia, then fought some American ships in the Pacific after several turns trying to scare off/outmanouevre the US fleet (and eventually crushing them), they returned to India. After that they threatened the UK-fleet that just passed the Suez-canal, they sailed to South-Africa (and unsuccesfully trying to retake Western Africa), through the Streets of Magelhaes… only to merge with my main fleet in order to fight off another US-fleet. They set sail to Hawaii, garding it as a bomberbase, only to fall back to Japan (keeping the US-fleet at bay). Eventually, they ended up before the Indian coasts… Well it must have been quite a lot of turns.

The longest campaign I’ve ever fought was one in the MB-version: this game was played during three days. During the first day we played like 12h, some 9 to 10h at day 2, and a couple of hours at day 3. That game became a stalemate, with balances ever turning until one of us finally broke through.

Title:  Infantry defense
Date:  Jan 2009
Special Rules:  Tech + N.O. (1941)
Victor:  Axis
Game Length:  14 hours?
Bias:  Axis had (slightly) better player
Description:  I - playing Germany - really wanted to keep my three eastern provinces for the NO, but I didn’t like to go on a Russian offensive, knowing this would be too costly. I concentrated my troops in the Baltic and in Ukraine, trading East-Poland with Russia early on. I build a IC in Ukrain, so I was capable to hold it as long as I wanted. My fighters and bomber took out two or three UK-ships, but never really bothered them any further than that. Germany would concentrate on infantry and armor for the rest of the game. I guess I only built a single German fighter in the entire game. Later in the game, I decided to build a bomber every know and then, but they got shot down pretty easily when trying to SBR Karelia.
Russia was capable to hold the invasion by training nothing but infantry. She too built a single fighter for trading purposes. Thanks to the German build-up, she was only capable to sent a single infantry to China for the first 6 or 7 turns.

The UK focussed upon building her navy in the Atlantic and her IC in India. She lost Egypt after four turns to Italy, and Australia to Japan at the same time. Her NO were lost for the rest of the game, but she was capable to make a fierce stand in India, even threatening South-East-Asia. Her Atlantic fleet liberated with some minor (temporary) US-support Morocco-Algeria and even Libya (and trashed my Italian fleet). American landings in French-West-Africa, and an ever approaching British army in Northern-Africa made sure my African campaign was over. A small Japanese fleet would be capable to liberate Madagascar once more, but could make a difference.

In Asia, Japan could keep the upperhand by building quite a lot of battle ships, as did the US. Her IC’s in Kwantung, Kiangsu (?), and later in French-Indo-China-Thailand and East Indies secured the Asian mainland indefinitly. A slow advance in China, and an even slower advance in Siberia gave her a ±60IPC’s/turn.

After my early successes, I got a little cocky I think. I split my Japanese fleet in two, to fight off the UK-infantry from India and the ever rebuilding US-fleet (after Japan used Hawaii to SBR the US, my thinned fleet soon faced some 8 US-bombers as well as several ships). By falling back, and sending my own Asian bombers to the Pacific, I could achieve a stalemate (I couldn’t attack the US, and the US could not attack me), but my Asian offensive had to be halted once more (giving the UK and Russia even more time to outbuild me).

It was around that time the UK-fleet that destroyed my Italian fleet a while ago, and that sailed to Persia later, suddenly returned and took Italy. (damn!) I lost my Italian bomber, and didn’t have enough troops to retake it immediatly. The German infantry stacks managed to contain the British threat early by sending close to 20 infantry to both France and the Balcan (opposing some 10 to 12 UK-pieces).

After increased SBR against Russia, I decided to close in for Russia. Europe was still pretty well defended (some 40 to 50 german infantry, combined with around 15 to 20 Italian infantry, opposed by 3 UK battleships, 2 cruiser and 6 to 7 transports). My now huge stacks in the Baltic and Ukrain merged in East-Ukrain (some 40 to 50 infantry and 30 armor, all German). This left Ukrain vulnerable to a counterattack, but threatened Moscow directly. Since the Japanese infantry was (finally) approaching as well, and since Moscow soon got surrounded soon afterwards, the Allies surrendered.

Tech-wise: the game had been a stalemate. Only after 10 turns, I started to invest in technology, which granted me Radar as Japan and Industrial Production to Germany. Shortly afterwards, the US got super-submarines and the UK got war-bonds. Especially these super-subs were pretty frightening when the US started to spam them.

Observations/Recommendations:  Not trying to fight the UK-navy, but simply outbuilding them with infantry stacks seemed to be a great strategy. The construction of an IC in Ukrain helped to secure German positions as well.

If Germany is going so brutally after Moskow, can’t the UK threaten and take Berlin, grabbing all the precious German income?

The UK would easily have a +40 income (+50 with NO) when they aren’t attacked for two or three turns. Their transports, battleships and troops all over the world would hand it to them really quickly.

You’re saying France would fall to the UK, which seems correct. But if the axis don’t retake it for two turns, and they don’t even took out the UKfleet, these British troops would soon become dangerously numerous. I guess these groundforces, combined with the UKfleet, troops in England and maybe even the UKfighters defending Russia, might be capable to attack Berlin.

Hmm… from what i’ve seen Russia can - with sufficient UK help - survive at least pretty long in the 1941 setup. Yesterday it took an experienced German player about 8 rounds to seriously threaten the first Russian IC (Caucasus). This was not due to Germany outbuilding Russia significantly, but rather to a swift armor movement from the Baltic to Eastern Ukrain (thereby sacrificing the Baltic to Russian troops), which forced Russia to give up their not too heavily defended Caucasus. Russia couldn’t take her ‘No allies’-bonus in this game, but this definitly didn’t paralize her.

The axis - from a more general view - had a really hard time breaking the allied income. Yes, Japan becomes a monster early on, but they start from only 17ipc, meaning the US has at least two turns to undo her most important losses. The same goes for the UK, they can easily sustain a fleet and an IC in the early game, forcing Germany to sacrifice a large part of her airforce or to sustain landings every now and than.

Even Russia is capable to build up some airforce in the very first rounds, and might attack early on using only infantry and one or two planes.
Thus far, I haven’t even seen a large and quick Japanese breakthrough in Siberia, since ca. 8 Russian infantry placed in the second or third Siberian province is quite a lot to attack for the Japanese (given their other fronts).

My guess is, as some other players’, that it might be better to play the game a few more times and just to see what happens.

greetings,

Andy

I wouldn’t see tech as a random factor. If you want it, just throw quite alot of cash at it… and you will probably get something.

I can see how the UK could be lucky by just one or two tech rolls, but the overall gameplay is hardly influenced too much by mere tech-luck imo. Clearly, in your game this was slightly different.

PS: I’ve never believed in something like one techroll each turn, but rather in spending 20 or 25 ipc’s each turn you’re going after tech.

Tin_snips seems to be right. In my 1942-game, Russia managed to keep Germany at bay for a long time by attacking, targerting armor and even two fighters, building infantry and an occassional fighter.
As for the first moves, I don’t think taking and holding the provinces in front of Moskow is realistic for Russia. She’ll lose alot of troops she really needs. As long as you can make sure no IC falls into German hands, it seems possible to hold on. I have yet to look for a realistic strategy when your IC’s are threatened.

Title:  Unfinished game
Date:  December 14, 2008 
Special Rules:  NOs and Tech were used, 1942-game. 
Victor:  Maybe the allies would have won if we continued, but this wasn’t too clear.
Game Length:  5 hours, about 5 rounds
Bias: The Axis player was slightly less experienced, so he opted for playing with the (probably stronger) Axis forces in 1942
Description:
As the Allied player, I decided to take a huge gamble. I wanted to keep Moskow and her three IC, to keep the Germans at bay and to take my ‘No Allied troops’-bonus. Therefore I decided not to send any UK-troops to Karelia. Even worse, as the UK I didn’t see the point (yet) of building a IC in Asia or Africa. Instead, the Russians were attacking German fighters and armor whenever they had any opportunity of doing so, using almost only infantry and fighters. Once they conquered Finland-Norway, they got the opportunity make attacks the German player was forced to react upon. Germany was cashing out quite a lot of money, but they had to spend it fighting the UK fleet. They sacrificied their entire Luftwaffe at G1 or G2, but failed in a tied sea-battle. After this battle, the Germans only built three more fighters, but gave up fighting the UK-fleet. This fleet counted at UK-5 three or four battleships, an equal amount of transports and some smaller defensive ships. This forced the Germans to allow huge openings in their defenses, enabling the UK to attack Morocco, France and even Poland… grabbing the NO and thus even more IPC’s. By the end of our 5th turn, UK and Russia were all around 40-45 IPC. A 44 IPC Russia is definitly dangerous on the German-Russian front. As a side-note: no SBR were executed after Germany shot down two British bombers at their very first attempts. As for the research: Germany and Russia both went after some research (four tokens each), but all failed.
In Africa, a weak Italy managed to gain 16 Ipc/turn (by one national objective). After a tied battle in Egypt, the Axis forces were left with nothing but an armor and the reinforces the Italians could send in. The Germans didn’t bother building a new transport after hers was sunk.
Italy could be stopped in Africa rather easily by UK-forces from Morocco and Sovjet forces from the Caucasian.

On the Pacific front things were much more messy. After an agressive J1 - which got my Indian navy wiped out - I got into the defensive. The Australian fighter had to get to India on UK1, whereas the Chinese held out quite well against Japanese attacks every now end then. In the end, the Japanese managed to break through Northern China with some infantry units, whereas Chinese forces occupied Kwangtung in an attempt to hurt the Japanese monster.
The US - her fleet left alive at J1 - started to build a considerable fleet, and pulled back her Atlantic ships. At US3 or US4, 3 battleships, 2 AC, 7 or 8 destroyers and some defensive ships tried succesfully taking over Solomon and Caroline, threatening the Philipines which it never made.
Japan was forced to focus upon her fleet, building destroyers, submarines and battleships at an equal pace. She managed to take over two Sovjet provinces, but didn’t got any further than that. Due to my eagerness to destroy the Japanese fleet, my navy got completely wiped out near the Carolines, leaving the Japanese with her three battleships and a cruiser. As for the IPC’s, Japan was around 40, equal to the US, which shortly before reached heights of over 50.
As the US, I heavily invested in tech, hoping to create a war of attrition by means of a tech race and naval build-up. I got at US3 Improved Naval Shipyards and at US4 Long range aircrafts. At J5, the axis gained heavy bombers. Up until the fifth turn tech development didn’t influence the game too much (Japan could only field one bomber in the battle of the Carolines), but it would definitly become more important should we have continued the game. Due to a lack of time however, this was not the case.
By the end of the game, Germany was severily weakened by constant Russian pickings and UK attacks. Italy-Germany lost their African campaign, whereas Japan gained superiority in the Pacific, but lacked the ships and an Asian IC to be ably to conquer her recently lost islands - which would buy the US time to build up a second Pacific fleet.

Observations/Recommendations:
I believe a focus upon NO can actually turn tides in this game (at least as far as the 1942 setup is concerned). Both me and my younger brother were never to keen for a KGF, and were both used to the Milton & Bradly version. Up until now, we both believe in a balanced game (with the US going Pacific). This may have influenced our gameplay - which relied heavily upon naval build-ups.
Not building any IC as the allies didn’t hurt too much for the first turns, given the strenght of Russia, which could easily free up infantry and her airforce (which was bigger than the German) to strike against some Japanese forces.
The three IC Russia is blessed with proved crucial for her succes. She was ably to place troops wherever she wished upon her entire front, whereas German infantry had to move slowly from Germany onwards.

Eager for our next game next weekend (with another experienced player),

Andy