@TG:
Anyone agree/disagree?
disagree. in '41, I think without NOs, the allies have the favor, with them, axis does. Its not balanced either way. With NOs, Allies are forced to slow down Japan in some fashion. You cant have an unchecked japan earning 70 IPCs a turn!! But without them, You need not worry too much about japan, as it will take some time for them to threaten Moscow. You can focus solely in the Atlantic and med. Italy will die pretty quickly without NOs.
How about 1 bomber 1 fighter and 5 inf instead? I love the German bomber r1, it threatens a landing in sz12 immediately. Also you have more r1 inf. Also, bombers are great for swapping eastern territory with Russia as they hit at 4, and have longer range, so you can keep your fighters home in France.
Yeah dude, OP bumped a severely old thread!! My bad, got to remember to check dates next time i reply!!!
@Cmdr:
Axis, there is a difference between Revised and Anniversary. You cannot pull arguments made in one game and try to use them against that person in a completely different game.
My bad, i forgot that the ability of the US to get equipment to Russia is completely different in this game then it is in Revised. Thank You for pointing out my error.
@Cmdr:
–
Thanks A44, my point as well. You can also move them to Karelia, Caucasus and Russia too.–
If Russia is being nailed for 20 IPC a round, I think losing 5 from the NO is worth having the American radar gun. Just me though.
You know, it’s quite humorous that you argued against these very points that I made in the Axis SBR thread. I’m not going to search for your exact quote, but something along the lines of, the US could NEVER get aa guns to russia in time if you were the Axis player. :roll:
to jeffdestoyer and daggaz –
first off my comments assume Terr turn limits for SBRs. Yes Sbrs can be effective on Russia, but i feel only in the end game. They can be effective early too, but i think that for it to be, its dependent on good dice. I will make some of the points I have made in other threads on the topic of SBRing Russia. Daggaz, u said that if u are aggressive with russia, they will have 24 ipc production, and u can reduce that with an SBR campaign. But an SBR approach on Russia is NOT free of cost. There have been claims by other posters on this forum that bomber bought by Japan and Germany are absolutely free of cost. As if they could buy all they wanted with no repercussion. this of course is hog wash. When you buy a 15 ipc bomber with germnay or japan, you are sacrificing the opportunity cost that 15 ipc could buy you. So when you buy axis bombers, you pass on buying axis ground units that battle russia on the fronts. And you aren’t as aggressive as you may have been otherwise. Yes, the idea of a bomber purchase is that it will pay for itself by eliminating more Russian units in future turns. An investment you hope pays of in the future, (and doesn’t get shot down the very first SBR!!). However, you sacrifice some position and leverage early with ground troop strength, you get this bomber. And it isn’t always clear how much that costs you.
oh well, i have just tried the strategy against an experienced player and i was destroyed terribly. SZ 12 IS NOT A SAFE PLACE R1. You would not have 2 UK trans in most cases. I played against bid 9 so there was one sub more from the start and an AC on G1. Any kind of convoying system is necessary for US but next time i am going to make sure that i control the atlantic solidly first. I made some childish mistakes too, but if the germans put an effort to contesting the atlantic you cannot just build trannies. You have to sink their ships first and you have to do it quick and as cheap as possible.
Btw if the convoying system is to work smoothly you need for US actually three sets of transport ships, two wount do.
Early allied shipping losses can really hamper your game plan. It is always vital to protect not only the transports, but that British battleship! If Germany invests 24 ipcs in the water, you will have to wait a round or two to be safe, however, thats all right, as Germany took away 24 ipcs from the Russian campaign, you have time to get going.
I have a couple of points on this thread.
First off, if there are other targets of opportunity on Japan r1, i don’t hesitate in letting the US pearl fleet live. i don’t think the pearl is a must hit in every situation. Cases where the allies are stacking India, maybe an IC built there, and stacking bury. When there is a red stack of inf in Bury, i like nothing more then destroying them. But if better targets arent available, you have to kill that fleet. AC and fighter are too juicey to pass up.
Second, producing only 3 tanks and 1 inf per round isnt going to generate the kind of pressure in asia you want. If the allies decide to put up resistance in India/China/bury, you wont be able to push with those forces alone on that, and if they don’t resist that strongly, you need more force at moscow/cauc doorstep than that. There will be several rounds you swap terr with Russia. And as a previous post noted, you want to swap inf with them instead of tanks. Russia will give up and inf for a tank anyday.
Third, As I have stated in other threads, i think a r1 Factory buy is a mistake. You already have one factory that produces 8 units per turn. when you buy the second, you can produce 11 units per turn. Japan isn’t ready to produce 11 land units to asia per turn by r1. So why buy the factory if you have not yet maximized the production potential you started the game with?
Fourth - I think your example assume the us is building navy to kill you with? otherwise, if the usa has pulled out of the pacific, no reason to turtle them. Even if they are building up navy, you still have time to do things like take Australia.
That is true, if UK sends bombers after the navy they will sink it, but Germany will take 2-3 bombers and also tie up the bombers for a whole turn. This gives extra time for Germany to produce more units and time for Italy and Japan to take over UK lands reducing UK income and making it more difficult for UK to replace destroyed bombers.
Germany time to replace the units they already wasted in the water? Think they call that sunk cost …
@Cmdr:
BTW, in the interest of a friendly environment, I’m going to ignore Axis’ last comment that struck me as a personal attack. I’m hoping he didn’t mean it that way and was just trying to be humorous.
This is fair. I wasn’t attempting to personally attack you. Only to make the point that there is a thin line between talking about Axis and Allies the board game, and the historical events that happen in WWII. You have characterized the Japanese motives as murderous. this may or may not be the case, but the comments can be taken as “unfriendly” to a certain portion of the community. Perhaps readers of Chinese or Japanese decent?
@Cmdr:
Lastly, I think it’s important to note that one country can do 200% damage now, so you don’t need bombers for everyone. America could sit there and build nothing but bombers and do 32 IPC damage to Germany/Italy each round allowing England and Russia a chance to do the hard work of taking the soil.
Ok, i see your point now, that only one of the allies has to take on a SBR campaign in AA50. Where as in Revised, both UK and USA had to commit to that. I honestly don’t like the Germany restricted in AA50. One IC? sure, maybe its designed that they get Karelia. But UK can deny them Karelia if they wanted to. And when you play with NOs, Germany is earning 50+ and 10 production spots. Its work for me, as I like buying bombers with Germany, but I also end up buying a lot more tanks in AA50. It seems like Germany is pigeoned into a panzer dash to moscow framework. The options seem way more limited in this version for the Germans!!
@Cmdr:
Wouldn’t the desperate nature of almost being obliterated by a race of men who wanted to murder all of you drive recruitment up, not down?
Anyway, not saying you are wrong, just wondering what drugs Larry was taking at the time and where I can get some.
Be afraid for the day when the true racism, human emotion, and horror of one of the worst events in human history can be truly recreated. This is a game Jen would play!!
While playing the MB Classic version years ago Japan lost Pearl Harbor II. Japan lost all its units and USA didnt even lose a single unit.
Japan brougt in:
2 battleships
2 fighters
1 aircraft carrier
1 submarine
1 transportsUSA had
1 aircraft carrier
1 fighter
1 submarineI cant even fathom how astronomical the odds of this happening could be. The tripleA battle calculator says that japan will win this battle 100% of the time with 20,000 simulations. The calculator doesnt even show that USA would win a single battle. What is more incrediable is that USA didnt loose a single unit in our game.
ummm wow. This is the winner so far. Did u surrender right there?
@Cmdr:
I think it is more effective since now one country can do 200% damage than they could before.
Before Germany could only be hit for MAX 10 IPC. Now they can be hit for MAX 20 IPC.
This is incorrect. Germany could be hit 10 IPC MAX, per countries turn. This was potentially a 30 IPC Max on Germany per round if Russia somehow SBRed as well. But realistically, 20 IPC max. In revised, this was 20 IPC in real money, in the new game, Germany doesn’t have to spend the full 20. And if they don’t, the max damage is even less next round.
@TG:
I think the reason why people (including my sister) gravitate towards the United Kingdom so much is because they’re generally seen as the “weakest” link. (Though I think that’s changed with the inclusion of Italy). UK just has to show up for the Allies to win. Whereas if you’re USSR or Germany, there’s room for error. This gives the British player more freedom to experiment with new strategies. A crucial power like Russia is expected to do well for the Allies to win, but as a weaker nation, it is a bonus for the Allies if UK does well.
Hmm. cant agree with this. You are inferring that the Allies can compete if the UK “doesn’t show up”. that’s not the case. Without UK, Russia is toast.
In 1941, with the exception of Russia sending 6 inf, and building two fighters and sending them to india as well, Japan can force its way to India on J2. A factory there is a gift. It might be possible for Russia to devote such resources to making the India IC viable, but I highly doubt it.
I don’t think japan will normally have enough trans in position to take India in r2 using the 41 setup. that extra sea zone at Burma makes all the difference. And remember, Japan goes before UK now.
@LT04:
I am supprised to see that the UK is doing as well as they are.
LT
Actually, I think UK can be very interesting to play in the '41 scenario. They start with alot of money, and options. Almost calls for an IC somewhere.
A few points on the OP. first off, it isnt a bad strategy, but there are some trouble spots:
Axis counters –
1) When I am axis, you should be very wary about landing in alegeria rd1. I like buying a German bomber in rd1. this alone should make an African landing r1 too risky. I can hit sz12 with 4 fighters from france. 1 fighter 1 bomber from Libya. 1 bomber from germany. This typically wipes out the allied navy of 4 trans, 1 dd, 1 bb with a lose of ~ 3 fighters. Well worthit for Germany. UK, will have trouble replacing capital ships, and will never be able to replace the battleship. I have also been known to do things like move the baltic fleet to sz7, move the med fleet west time to time. All these things should deter a r1 landing in africa.
2) Your strat never calls for buying capital ships. As I have said above, i buy an extra bomber with germany, and can buy a few more fighters as well. this air force will make shuttling troops to europe tough on you.
3) Ignoring africa is a mistake IMO. The Continent of Africa is worth 11 ipcs. If the allies want it, the Axis cant stop them from owning africa. So you are sacrificing a 22 ipc swing in your games, because you are hoping for a quick knock-out punch on berlin by r6. You wont knock-out a good axis player by round 6. ESPECIALLY if you are allowing Germany to earn 50+ ipcs/turn.
4) If you move into EE on r5 on my germany with force, i gurantee you can can take that force out. There is no way you get an uncounterable force into EE on me by r5.
USA alternatives –
The US can choose to shuttle troops to the North or the South in the Atlantic. It depends on what you want to accomplish, and how things in africa are going. I do think that ultimately, its on the US to ensure africa is secure. Sometimes that wont take much effort, maybe the first three rounds you will have enough gear in africa to secure it for the allies. So at that point you can switch to going north if you prefer. However, I have found games in which the USA bases it operation in north africa/med, and the UK bases is its opertaion in Karelia/Baltic, this puts max pressure on germany. If you have both the US and UK in the north, you certainly have 1-2 punch potentially that makes Germany have to guard WE/Berlin/EE. However, if you have US navy in the med, Now Germany has to worry about SE/Baltics/UKR as well. Now Germany cannot do much but turtle, cuz they cant send alot of force east to russia without leaving themself open to landings in all of their originally owned territory. And SE is big. The germans cannot afford to let the amercians hold that more than one turn. If the US gets to build 6 tanks there, Germany’s days are numbered.
For revised, it has always been Germany. I am still undecided on this new game. Does anyone else feel that the German options have been limited in AA50? When I play '41 with NOs, it ends up being bombers and tanks every round, and turns into a panzer dash. Because Germany is earning in the 50’s but can only place 10 maybe 12 units per turn!!
Rd 4 - 1 IC + 10-11 ground units (I only buy the 2nd IC if I can get to the 10 unit mark, otherwise you don’t need it).
Just curious, but after you buy the 2nd IC, you have 3 Ics total, and 14 unti production/turn max. With 1 IC, you have 11 unit max. If u arent ready to produce more than 11 units, why do you buy the second IC?