I certainly don’t specialise in allies but I don’t agree the game is not balanced.
I can play you here with battlemap if you want as long you are in no hurry.
Between work, my son and my current tournament of planets4, it does not leave me much time without talking of working on the house.
I could probably manage a full round per week ( 3 nations turns ) from work. Just start a game if interested as you will be axis , no bid.
While I totally agree bids are for weak players, I’d say the best way is to simply bid 0 and play allies to avoid any whining from the weaker player.
Also, It’s always great to beat someone who is convinced axis are too strong when not only you let them play them, but you do so by the book in conditions he would not dare to play allies. It’s like adding the cherry on top of the sunday or taking a candy from a new born baby ( I would not do that to my own son, mind you :roll: ).
Moral of the story is if your opponent ask for a bid, you know you already won. Agree to his terms, bid 0 and watch his world fall appart. :evil:
What you say sound good. I guess it’s a question of style.
Myself I keep far away from DDs and CAs, I prefer ACs as the fighters are easier to replace on sea ( can also be shard with allies ) and offer better power projection.
You have to consider that on turn 4, you’ll have 10 fighters in the phillipine sz while it’s a long journey from WUS for any pack of dd’s ( 4 move for fighters and 2 for dds. ) You won’t be able to swap fighters either to reinforce the IC on land and/or any new 2 AC buy from it.
But YES. We might be able to improve that 3rd turn I suppose, as long as overall turn 4 does not suffer too much ( You must hold phillipine sea zone on 4th). However, something about buying DDs as canon fodder does not suits me well. If we want to get 42 defense on turn 3, might as well go with 3 BB / 1AC / 2 transports. Add the starting 2 dds, 1tr, 1AC, 4 fighters plus UK DD/TR and you end up with:
3BBs / 2 ACs / 3dds / 4 fighters / 3+1 transports ( 42 defense + 3 soak/bombard )
Hey, I like it I think :P It’s one of thoses rare instances where a battleship soak/bombard can be of use ( Still a big NO on Cruisers for me ) since we have many here. Might even be able to strafe the IJN :) What do you think?
I don’t get the US Sub in sz50.
The US sub won’t fight if Japan don’t bring it’s lone DD to sink it,
2 fighters vs 1 BB is a tough fight without the DD to soak the hit.
You got to make a choice, bringing that CA along won’t do anything extra to be able to hit that sub. The choice is where do you send your single DD? To kill that sub or to pearl harbor? Do you kill USA sub and commit 3rd carrier also to Pearl Harbor, which case UK ships survive?
Not killing the sub means Borneo / Sumatra transports are in deep trouble. Having a lone AC in sz37 is not good either if Japan went after Indian UK ships. That sub will cause head aches for sure.
Bardoly, you have 2 bombers and 4 fighters in range of midway and hawai.
If Wake and Solomon were taken, you can always retake Solomon instead of Caroline. You’d still be in range to Phillipine/Borneo/Sumatra trough sea zone 46(Solomons).
In all cases, the 2 IJN transports that were used to take thoses islands should be dead meat.
DathMaximus, you forgot the 2 US bombers.
Also, the fleet you described is not modest since what you described is the whole starting IJN minus one AC that is probably busy in Indian ocean. Japan normally lose 2 fighters out of 9 in initial turns, so 4 out of 7 fighters are sitting there.
Then by all means USA should attack it with everything. You don’t get many chances like this in a game to waste the whole Japanese fleet. 5 fighters, 5 AC, 2 bombers, 2dds VS CA, BB, 2 AC, 4 ftrs should win. I am assuming the Australian DD is still lurking somewhere too to reinforce the US fleet after battle. Victory also means the Island is taken and Japan fighters cannot land on it and an air attack is impossible unless assisted by more AC . The US 3rd turn buy will of course be planned ahead to replace losses and should be adequate in relation to the upcoming carolines battle/trade .
Yes Japan could try to retaliate and set up a ‘‘trade’’ but Japanese income on J1-J3 is’nt that great, a J3 buy with around 40 ipc could try to send a counter force on J4.
But that doesn’t sound too promising and will stall Asia operations. Japan would need to commit all remaining fighters and 2 more AC that will be sunk on USA 4th turn.
That trade could go on but I suspect USA would get the upper hand pretty fast since Japan must deal with Asia. Worst case, it become more and more easy to slip past a token force trough sea zone 46 to retake Borneo/Sumatra and why not Phillipine. Hell, the australian transport could do that by itself at that point. I don’t sea India falling, I don’t see any pression on Russia either in this scenario. It’s not the ideal but I’d certainly would not complain of such a turn of events since I’m keen on an Indian IC.
Assuming following USA income:
Assuming 4 starting fighters , 2 bombers, carrier, 2DD and atlantic tansport lived.
The strat:
1st round, no build. All cash kept. We don’t want to show our hand to Japan right now. Surviving sea, air and land units start moving toward Pacific and West Coast IC.
2nd round, 88 IPC in hands.
BUY: 4 carriers, 2 transports, 1 artillery, 1 fighter. (2 ipc in hand, making 50ipc next round ).
At the end of second round, the following result should be:
3rd round, 50 IPC in hands: The taking of caroline Islands.
BUY: 5 fighters
4th round, 48 ipc in hands: Mc Arthur returns to Phillipines
BUY: Up to you, I’d say more fighters for further reinforcement. You will need them.
5th round: 55 ipc
Build an IC on phillipines, 3 bombers.
Land 4 fighters/ 2bombers as 4 new ones fly in from WUS. Start bombing japan ICs to Dust.
Note: On round 3, you are in range of many important assets. That IC should pump new ships, it’s one of the rare instance where a BBs comes to mind. If Phillipine cannot be secured, you might have a good shot at a Frindo IC and placing a solid foot for USA in Asia. There is also Borneo and Sumatra. It’s up to you to separate or not the 3 transports.
Also, I did not spoke of what can UK and Russia do to support this strat. Don’t count them out even if they mainly concentrate on Europe, especially if an India IC exist and a Buratya stack was agressive early ( backed by a caucasus bomber ).
Another thing, to get the use of bombardment, you need to drop a land unit for every single of them. The more CA you have, the harder it is to use them all to their potential.
On long run, if you get there, 20 Fighters don’t need 20 infantry to strike on land. You could even send them without land fodder if you’d wish to.
On long run, even if you could fuel your CAs every round with land units, the more the games goes, the more fighters become cost efficient even spending for an AC each 2 fighters (And I mind you, past a point, you simply don’t need to reinforce the fleet, simply going with bombers ).
EX: 9 cruisers bombard at 3 vs 6 fighters at 3 EVERY battle round. On the second round of battle, the fighters already rolled 3 more dices… that gaps get bigger and bigger the more units you get and simply disproportionate as soon you can buy bombers without worrying about fleet defense.
On long run, 1 AC + 2 fighters will always be better than 3 cruisers on defense. Once ''unsinkable" status is achieved, 3 bombers will always be better than 3 cruisers.
On the long run, air units versatility cannot be match by any boats. For exemple If Russia is suddenly about to collapse, you can’t send the CAs to defend that gap while you could always retreat the fleet to safe sea zone while sending all fighters to correct a end game situation. V
Understand me here: It is not that the cruiser is a bad unit, it would be balanced in regard to ALL other units. The Truth is that it is air units that are totally unbalanced in this game. A supposed flaw that prevent them from landing after an attack actually makes them the best unit there is as they don’t need to sit there to take the counter attack. Their fly range is out of proportion, in WWII , crossing the english channel was more then often a one way trip for BF-109 and Spitfires… the same goes for bombers flying over Germany. There is so many things wrong with thoses 2 units, I could go on and on and on. On the other side, they effectively were then end of conventional naval warfare but do we really want to reproduce that to the uselessness of most other units?
The end result remains, they are the best at almost all aspect except land fodder ( hey, they are only 2 ipc more than a DD whe it comes to sea). To make matters worst, the best technologies applies to them. This in itself should be a thread.
It’s all great but in my experience, nothing beats air power.
Air power can pull out anytime in an amphibious battle. If you know what you are doing, they are as safe as that cruiser doing a strafe.
A cruisers does 1 bombardment at 3, a fighter does it every round at same.
A cruisers have a defense value of 3, a fighter defend at 4 both on land and sea.
A cruiser has a range of 2 VS 4 ( which can be complemented by AC ) for fighters when it comes to power projection.
A cruiser can move in water vs fighters which can move over land and sea.
A cruiser finish it’s move where it attacked. Air power retreat to safe territory.
Last, but not the least: Cruiser cost 12, fighters cost 10…
If you only looking for the ‘‘bombard’’ ability, buy a bomber for the same price which is even better than the fighter.
The way I see it from the allies view UK/US, there is 2 boats and a half in this game.
When I play germany, I buy infantry / fighters, more fighters and then bombers as soon I get the upper hand. Japan can actually go all the way with infantry and bombers as they already got whatever they need for sea defense ( in doubt, an AC and fighters ).
So yea, cruisers are useless. There is no way any boats in this game can compare to fighters for versatility and even less to bombers when it comes to attack value.
I’ve played lots of game and air units are simply the best buy coupled with the best versatility roles ( sea and land ), best range and being the only units that can actually retreat after an attack is completed. All you need is the infantry fodder, which is the same for cruisers bombard and pretty much any serious strats.
But why do you all feel the need to deploy half complete navy?
It takes at least 2 full round buy to have a decent navy, so just keep the money in your hand and buy the fleet when you are ready…
This is a basic concept you ALL should know.
Of course, take into acount your production and prepare your land/fighters units in advance if need be but in any cases, a prod of 8 to 10 is normally enough to deploy all your boats in one single turn.
1 carrier, 1 transport and a DD each turn is simply wrong if your intent is to wait until 3 carriers, 3 transports and 3 DD to send them into action. Just wait 3rd, and deploy it all at once.
The same goes with thoses UK half drops I see every games… 8 units… what do you think you can acomplish with that against a decent Germany player who have air power and 10/16 production ? When you drop, you drop… It’s way better to drop 16 units once per 2 round than 8 per rounds that will get invariably whiped clean… And that even if it means a transport over buy.
I never tought allis needed a bid but I’ll take one if offered to me when I play them.
Just place a US submarine in the phillpine fleet.
Japan only have one destroyer and 4 jets for the pearl harbor operation . Normally you use the DD as fodder + 2 jets on BB and send 2 jets after west coast DD/TR.
Now, if you don’t take out that USA sub, you’ll have some real problems since targets won’t be lacking. This force some very hard choice to be made.
Most probably, Japan will have to let go the west coast DD/TR
You could acheive something similar with a UK sub in India sea zone but it’s harder to back up that sub afterward
You need a no bid option as well as axis bid options.
Personnally I find that axis are weaker than allies.
I saw a movie called The Tuskegee Airmen which was the story of a black american fighter squadron.
Maybe there is a book of the same name.
Poland was a freed country only since WWI, so barely 20 years old at that time.
Prior to that, it was divided between 3 major powers and it had been like that for around 150 years ( since 1772 if I remember )
So did they had any chance? None at all.
However, I’d say Poland as a country is not 70 years old. It was formed in 996 so you should really say 1014 th anniversay :-o
It has a great history prior to that, notably in 1683 when the hussards of Jean III Sobieski saved Vienna. Also against the Teutonic Knights, great reading there.
Considering they endured trough all theses set back, being still a country after a full millenium, I’d say that they certainly had the spirit to fight. However, 20 years of new found freedom was just not enough.
But eh, at least they are a free country today. As a resident of Quebec in Canada, I can’t say as much :cry:
The flaws in your strat is not the idea of landing in Europe.
I see them as follow:
If UK decides to land in Europe, it must only do that and nothing else.
I’ll give you one of my UK strat and you let me know what you think after:
Corbeau’s stovepipe special
Assuming boots in place between UK and Canada: 2 tanks, 3 infantry, 1 art
Assuming worst case: 43 ipc round 1, 30 ipc round 2 and only 1 transport survived with either DD or BB
USA has 1 DD/TP 2 inf/1art bringing middle usa infantry ( 4 fighters )
On the round 3 drop, as UK lands in Europe, it can also deploy warships if really needed in sz 7 but it’s rare Italy is ready for this. From experience, 1DD, 1BB, 1CV, 2 fighters is enough at round 2 to defend against Germany airforce since you deploy thoses transports after Germany R2, so you should have a clear idea of what awaits you. Most of the time, having no landing force to prevent R2, many players commit thoses german fighters toward Russia to only see the transports pop afterwards on UK2. It’s a good way to lure the Luftwafte somewhere else :roll:
I was not too keen on sharing this strat, it’s really one I put lot of tought into, but there you have it:
14 UK ground troops on round 3 followed by 6 USA troops + AAgun + their 4 fighters to hold the fort. Land in the Bombers if you must. Ya, it’s over 25 allied units on Germany’s doorstep R3. :-o
What I learned over many games and why I say allies are stronger than axis:
Most people fail with allies because they trade every turn with UK when it’s Russia’s job to do that. Not only that, they play Russia defensively, worsening the problem. The idea for USA and UK is to land in force and hold their beachhead. You can’t do that with a 8 units drop and you won’t accomplish anything if you get pushed back into the sea.
Vareel, you can’t foresee that in advance since Germany is first to play.
So if Egypt is still alive and Germany did not go all tanks: I would maybe try it with both ICs depending on the position of Japan fleet. I think it should be a priority for any decent player to avoid Japan taking India J2, IC or not, by moving/buying enough russian troops to counter it ( usually 5-6 units in range ). Tanks offer a good flexibility for this kind of action as you can move out fast before J3.
I would stack Buratya first turn to try lure Japan there ( prolly won’t work but would place Russia in range of Manchuria. ) If you proceed, you’ll need to buy a bomber on turn 1 with Russia to give that stack a real offensive punch.
A Russian bomber turn 1 in caucasus CAN reach Manchuria round 2 AND also is in range to give some headache to Japan in Indian ocean, possibly meaning 1 less transport to threaten India. This is what your opening is lacking I think. At least that bomber won’t be cuting myself other options later on. I’ve see people go with 2 bomber early on, I find it a bit reckless but eh :lol:
However, my view is still that Russia need to answer every german tank with tanks her own when possible, so I’ll refer again to my first paragraph.
If german Bomber is in Norway:
So, I’m not sure why you make Finland a priority on turn 2? For Karelia, If it’s not taken round 1, you can defend it round 2 with UK fighters or simply deadzoning it. A decent Russian player won’t have Germany holding Karelia firm by round 3 in any case.
But yes, if that bomber is there in Norway and is defended: Use sz8. Consolidate in sz 6 the next turn with new builds. You should really be happy if that bomber is there, as I mentioned Finland will suffer, Egypt will survive so UK/Russia are not in a bad shape.
Get the 10ipc Russian No.
I have yet to lose using Russia agressively, and without any bid.
Russia need to push hard and real toward Berlin.
Uk need to take/hold Baltic sea and cut down german supply routes so it cannot counter attack Russia effectively. Exemple, by trading Poland every turn. France is a great bonus if it can.
USA need to take Norway by turn 2, place an IC there rnd 3 and pump out warships to bolster UK fleet round 4. I facepalm myself everytime I see a UK player take Norway…
Thoses are basic moves. Once Russia reach 50 ipc, you got to get diced hard to lose.
Yep, only planes can’t land on a territory you just conquered. Inf / art / tanks are fair game :)
It’s really what you could call a Blitzkrieg:
If well executed, it can be a game ender or at least enable you to bypass a deadzone.
You can check my game vs Butcher.
I did a similar opening:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15189.0
I went to Karelia with 4 fighters, 3 inf + art, cruiser’s bombard.
I splitted the rest of my attacks between to hit all UK’s fleet, hoping to end up at least even. It was not a very successful result in Atlantic, I could have cut down my losses by foregoing seazone 9 where I was a bit greedy and sending it to sea zone 12.
All in all, as you can see, Italians are very strong despite foregoing Egypt G1 and bad results in Atlantic. Nothing prevents Japan from sending ships, fighters and bombers to Europe. A fact many axis players ignore.
Not sure what game you guys playing, I lost way more games as axis than with allies.
I always felt allies were stronger in both scenario. You just have to know how to play Russia agressively.
When I see players build stacks of russian infantry without any offensive pieces, I get very sad. :cry:
As for the topic, while I don’t think any kill x faction strategies are viable ( except perhaps killing Italy ), I certainly think it’s very possible to stall Japan so it does not have impact on Russia.
