Posts made by Axis4life

I have been Japan when a US build up occurred and when he attacked me I annihilated him.  All it did was prolong the fall of moscow.  However this time I am Russia and the fact that I am receiving no support against Germany is frustrating.  I can hold out for another 2 to 3 turns but after that I am toast.  It will take my allies at least that many turns to build the infrastructure that should have built on turns 1 and 2.  Oh well.

I usually play in five person games and for some reason the last two people who played the US have tried to take out the Japanese fleet, which as the Russian player frustrates me to no end.  I tried to explain to them several times that they should defend the west coast a couple of ships and INF in the WUS but they insist that naval superiority is key.  So my question to the experts is:  Is it even possible for the US to gain naval superiority in the Pacific?
    Japan starts with a navy twice the size of the US and if Japan goes after Russia (which they do) after a couple of rounds they will be able to match or exceed any US purchases in the Pacific.  So I think that naval supremacy in the Pacific is already Japans and they won’t lose it.  Meanwhile I am fighting Germany by myself because the US isn’t protecting Africa or UK transports which get killed by the Luftwaffe.  Am I wrong or does the US need to be in the Atlantic?  If someone knows how to crush the JPN fleet that would be helpful too.

I have to side with switch.  If Russia leaves 1 inf in Karelia as the blitz blocker it opens up options for the Allies.  The German player has to decide how much of their forces they want to commit.  On UK1 Germany loses Norway  99% of the time. 
    If the German player takes Karelia with minimum forces they will lose the territory on either R2 or UK2 so if they want to hold on to the territory they have to attack on the heavy side.  To me the more German troops that head to Karelia instead of Moscow and Caucasus the better. 
    Also I think that the more Russia can control where Germany attacks the better.  By leaving the blitz blocking infantry the German movement stops there allowing for an allied counter attack.

I prefer ARM over ART because of the mobility.  ARM staged in Russia as defense against Japan can reach several territories on the German front as either Offensive units or to bolster defenses. As for stacking in WR to me it makes the Germans choose which route they are going to Moscow.  Also if Russia holds WR and decides to go offensive via Ukraine and the UK successfully supports the attack by landing troops in Karelia or Norway and pushes south it puts a lot of pressure on Germany.

The only thing I have ever used greenland for is a place to land US fighters.

I would rely heavily on the West Russian stack.  Usually for the first few rounds I purchase 4 inf and 2 tanks to add to the stack or defend against the Japanese.  In the last game I played with my friends the German player in an attempt to counter the stack moved all his ARM that could reach into Ukraine and lost it all on R2.  This forced the front way off the border of Moscow and Germany was unable to recover.  I am a believer in the WR stack.

Sure the West Russia and usually either the Belorussia or Ukraine forces are dead too, but it is a war game and casualties are a part of it.  Also Germany starts with 16 IPC more (without bids) so anything that is destroyed can be repalced alot easier than on the Russian side.  I guess you could allow Germany to retreat but I think it goes against the design of the game.

In my last game as Japan I consolidated my fleet just off of Japan bypassing Pearl Harbor and it worked.  It scared the US player into wasting a lot of money on a navy.  When the US decided to go island hopping I would just reposition the fleet to be in striking range.  I know that most people consider Pearl Harbor a must but I disagree.  If you attack Pearl then the US can counter with their AF and BB usually destroying everything you have.  I guess it all depends on the US player.

Switch is right in most games Eygpt is German territory on G1.  The UK is just to spread out and weak to really be exciting.  The UK really has to rely on the US to keep it’s African IPC.  They are best suited to send troops into the European theatre via Norway or Karelia (Karelia’s best IMO) andsupporting Russia so they don’t fall fast.  The UK are setup men.  They keep Moscow from falling and open doors for the US to land.  It isn’t exciting but it is important.

I usually play in 5 player games and the advantage is definately Axis.  One of the allies players usually tries a hailmary strategy that costs the team.

When I began playing the game I thought Allies for sure, but now that I have some experience I think it favors the Axis.

It is more important for the UK to hold Africa and put pressure on Germany.  I was just looking for a way to slow Japan but you’re right India is a moneypit. So it’s back to the drawing board.

I have seen the IC in India fall but that was without Russian support.  If the Russians sen the fighter from Moscow and Inf from KAZ that could reach on R2 could India hold off a Japanese attack?

What do people think about an IC being built in India on UK1.  If the russian player sends the moscow fighter as added defense I think it would be difficult for Japan to take the territory on R1.  It could help keep Japan from beating down Russias backdoor, but at the same time if Japan takes the territory it is a free IC.  Has anyone tried it with success?

To play Germany successfully you have to buy infantry.  One of the guys I play with usually buys straight tanks, the problem with that is that when you run into a decent size stack of infantry w/tanks as the offensive punch you will lose.  Infantry don’t just defend territories they also defend your offense.  You are much better off going heavy on the infantry and throwing in a couple of tanks every round IMO.

I agree Germany trying to hold on to Norway is pretty futile.  The resources are better spent heading towards Russia.

If Germany does a naval build in G1 then with the resources that the US and UK has early in the game they should be purchasing naval units to counter this.  The UK doesn’t have to reinforce Karelia alone the US should be helping.  It is difficult for Germany to purchase enough naval units to keep up with the US and UK while putting pressure on Russia.  Also if you use the UK territory as the staging ground for UK and US fighters and Bombers you have increased the offensive punch of the Allied Navy if the Germans tried to block them in.  Every game isn’t the same and obviously what happens during the game dictates your actions.  IMO Allied control of Karelia is important.  If you have control of Karelia then you have cut any German forces in Norway off with the exception of troops ferried over by transport.  If the Germans want to keep control of Norway they would have spend resources to keep a multinational force out.  the Allies having control of Karelia keeps the Germans attention on the north.  This frees the Russian player to attack in the South if they have the resources if not it at least buys the Russian player some time to build a defense.  IMO Karelia gives the Allies the best options for pressuring Germany and giving aid to the Russian player.

I think that without allied support it is hard for Russia to be offensive.  If the Japan and Germany players are on the same page then they are gunning for you.  I agree with switch that the West Russia stack is Russia’s primary offensive weapon but without aid from the other allies they can’t defeat Germany or Japan.  I suggest defending on the Japanese flank and picking your fights wisely on the German front until the UK and US fortify Karelia or attack Western Europe.  No matter how offensive you want to be your primary focus has to be holding Moscow because 99% of the time the Axis will be coming from both sides.

I think that Karelia is the best staging point for an allied simply because it is on the border for Eastern Europe which is a vital German territory.  If you load infantry and tanks on to Norway you can only attack Eastern Europe with the tanks on the next turn, but if you drop them in Karelia you can use both to attack.  If Russia plays using the West Russia stack and the UK and US build up in Karelia then it limits Germany’s options.

I would go with 1 Battleship.  The shore bombard capabilities of the battleship make it a terrific offensive weapon when deploying troops into hostile territory.  Also unless it is a massive naval battle or the BB is left alone to be attacked it will generally survive the fight.  If your navy has plenty of fodder i.e. subs and TRAN then your rolling a 4 every round.  I play by the rule book so I guess I just don’t understand the DES argument of changing its capabilities.  Any piece in the came can become invaluable if you change its function.  If  you play strictly by the rule than the BB is superior IMO.