Posts made by Candyman67

It sucks to lose in such a fashion, but it always feels so good to win like that. Just as long as you went down fighting making it hard for the Allies, that is what counts.

The fact that the Axis have used the same strategy for the last 15 games and the Allies haven’t picked up on it shows something. I mean, the Axis stratey isn’t really complex or novel, it isn’t a really hard one to disect and find a flaw.

To phrase it out there for those Led Zeppelin fans on the forum, there obviously was some sort of “communication breakdown.” You just can’t have a Japanese fleet sail through the Panama Canal unimpeded. Did the US player have any sort of navy or airforce based in or near the US? This sort of baffles my mind.

However, if you play with two hit battleships, battleships are quite a formidable force.

Either a first and/or second turn attack/amphibious assault by Japan from Burma.

So you’re saying there’s a chance…

To the fighter question, yes; it still has two moves left. Though tanks can move two spaces, if a tank moves one space and is involed in a battle, its movement is done.

I’ve contemplated instituting some sort of winter rule in Axis and Allies Europe that kind of simulates the historic invasion of Russia. For example, designate the amount of turns needed for Germany to take Russia say around 5-7. If Germany doesn’t capture Moscow and hold it and Berlin with in the designated turns needed, then Germany can not make any attacks against Russia on the Eastern Front for three turns. Germany can still purchase stuff and send it east and can still conduct naval attacks. I’ve never tried it but it could allow for more of an interesting game and allows Russia to rebound and make its own attacks. It also creates more time for the British and US to prepare for D-Day.

Say for example, Russia attacks conservativley and destroys Germany’s Baltic transport; c’est tout. Now, Russia has 7 inf. in Cauc. and 12 inf., 3 arm., and 2 ftrs (Russia purchased 8 inf). As I see it, Germany does not have enough infantry to attack the Cauc. unless one amphibious assaults it but that would very much hurt your African conquest. As for an attack into Karelia, that would be frivilous. This setup by Russia enables him or her to defend both Karelia and Ukraine well plus it enables Russia to attack either Eastern Europe or the Ukraine well if Germany decides to hold both the Ukr. and E Europe by spreading out the forces on turn one. Germany has few good options.

I’m sure you probably could counterattack the Russians but why defend something when you know you will probably lose it? It makes no sense. Now, Germany pulls out of Ukraine and has a solid base in E. Europe. Now, I’m sure Russia will not sacrifice the defense of Karelia to fortifying Ukraine. Now on turn two you can counterattack the Russians in the Ukraine with enough forces to hold both the Ukraine and Eastern Europe (if you purchased a lot of inf. on turn one hopefully 9).

Now this probably slows you down a little bit and enables Russia to gain additional IPC’s. To make up for that, you can strat. bomb Karelia and push harder in Africa on turns one and two; even have Japan strat. bomb with you. This will surely make up for Russia’s gains and Germany’s loses.

[ This Message was edited by: Candyman67 on 2002-01-05 11:20 ]

Does anyone out there think it is wise to fall-back out of the Ukraine and settle in Eastern Europe on turn one?

Is this a sound strategy at all?

I’m partial to German commanders. I like Model, Kesselring, and Rommel in no particular order.

Either one, it fails. It would probably even fail in the Pacific version too.

If Operation Sea Lion fails, one has just wasted up to four turns and a large amount of IPC’s on a frivilous invasion. Most likely, you will be dead in a few turns. There is no way a german player will be able to consolidate their Western and Eastern front after neglecting it for four turns and spending IPC’s on a navy. You’ve probably been wiped out of Africa and Russia probably has gone more agressive in purchasing or has fortified its front against Japan. I see this operation as a selfish and ambitious maneuver that does not serve the Axis as a whole any good. ANd against an experienced player, one will never succeed in this attack.

I think the key for the german player in this case is to have an armoured reserve based in Germany. Russia will be tempted to go on the offensive and could blead their forces thin. This armoured reserve could be used for small counterattacks to keep the Russians off balance or could be used in a big counterattack.

I’ve seen it where Japan attacks Hawaii and be left with two battleships.

My question to the board is this…

Would you counterattack the two battleships at Hawaii?

I don’t know about that strategy. I think the key is to get as many forces on mainland Asia as soon as possible. An amphibious assault is futile in the grand scheme of things for Japan. Hawaii is only 1 ipc and there is so much in Asia. Plus, you use forces in an attack against Hawaii in which they could be used in Asia. Also, it does not do much as a diversion either. I also like attacking the US fleet at Hawaii and taking China. That is about it. This conservative attack will allow Japan to be aggressive in future turns. As for first turn purchasing, go with 2 transports and 3 infantry or buy an IC and 3 infantry(save 1 ipc). I like the first one better.

I only see that an attack in Karelia can only weaken Germany, not help it. In this attack one thrusts their precious tanks into battle with a very small amount of infantry. One risk is losing these tanks on a counter attack by Russia. Also, it leaves your other lands weakly defended.

Germany should hold out on the Eastern Front until Japan can get going on Russia’s back door. Germany should be expanding into Africa and possibly and attack into the Middle East. Germany should be building up lots of infantry and tanks. And when time is right, unleash them in fury against Russia.