Posts made by Elsaß-Lorraine

@simon33:

@taamvan:

its too bad you only have 1 sub to hit 1 CV 2 FIG, since its too dicey to send him in alone… but you want to make those planes crash…

guess you can dream of an axis bid!

You don’t have anything better to do with the sub. If you lose, the Luftwaffe hits the CV. But what idiot loses the DD and Cruiser before either of the planes that came from London? Or puts an extra plane on the CV which could make land? Something isn’t right if you’re getting this outcome.

Maybe an “idiot” who would rather roll for defense against the Luftwaffe at a 4 rather than a 2 or 3. Maybe an “idiot” who simply didn’t see that sub move coming. It’s all dead anyway.

But yes, definitely land your planes somewhere else if possible.

@NotEvenJail:

Its starting to feel like this guy is just trolling us with these “essays.” I mean come on, man. Many of these statements are way too out of touch. Can’t be serious.

I would hesitate to jump so far so quickly. He/she probably is just discovering this forum and/or other sources of strategies, and their game group has probably been disconnected, if you will, from the most effective strategies that the wider A&A community takes for granted.

I will note that in his first essay (the Barbarossa one) he mentioned how G40 had recieved “little attention on this blog”, which I take to mean the main axisandallies.org website (which most definitely does have a lack of G40-related articles, last I checked) as opposed to the forums. I knew about axisandallies.org the site long before I knew about the forums, so maybe that is what happened here.

@weddingsinger:

I guess you could start shuttling Germans on G2 (3 transports), G3 (4 more) to Scotland, but, yeah… that doesn’t seem like you’d end up with enough.

The OP’s plan said for a 3 transport build (with other stuff) on G3. With only 8 ground units, you’re gonna take HEAVY air losses and you might not even take London at all. AxisandAllies1940, I would like to hear your rationale as to how 4 transports is sufficient

On G4, Germany has 4 transports.

Ok I’m assuming you meant G3 here but my point remains valid: How on earth can you expect to take London with only 4 transports?? I mean sure, it’d be fine if they put literally nothing on London but most people know that you have to fortify London on UK1 and even a little on UK2. Expecting your opponent to make a mistake or an oversight, especially one of this magnitude, is always a bad move, a bet that you’ll lose many more times than you’ll win

@Marshmallow:

#1 The US or UK would have to have a ground unit in each of the French territories north of the Sahara.

Ok that makes sense, and I assume who controls them (France vs Britain/USA) wouldn’t matter, right?

@Marshmallow:

#2 Historically, Japan considered the Solomons strategically important and so did the US. It’s only in the current game incarnation that Japan does not value it. Alternately, we could remove Japan’s NO for controlling the Dutch East Indies – does controlling 15 IPCs worth of territory really need a reward? However, I actually like the direct conflict bit. Oh, #2 should also say “While the US is at war…”

I understand the historical aspect of it but I just don’t see how it’s feasible for Japan to get and hold the Solomons from a strategy/board geometry perspective. Japan doesn’t value it in this game because it’s not worth it; they already generally do fine income-wise without that objective. You’re at least 2 turns away from your reinforcements (the only important Japanese territory in range is the Philippines which can’t have a factory to provide direct reinforcement) if you send a chunk of your fleet down there. If it’s a large chunk, America will head around you provided their fleet is big enough to withstand whatever you left behind plus your air force (which is now not killing China and India). If it’s a small chunk, you’re sending it to its grave – America can easily destroy it.  I think it’s an interesting and historically accurate idea but it wouldn’t really change the Pacific fleet battle in any meaningful way

@Marshmallow:

I have actually been wondering if the game imbalance could be resolved by adding two new national objectives:

1. For the United Kingdom (Atlantic): 5 IPCs if the Allies control all of North Africa, from Egypt through Morocco, with at least one US or UK unit in originally French territories.
2. For the United States (Pacific): 5 IPCs if the Allies control the Solomon Islands. (This might be expanded to also include control of the Caroline Islands – still pondering that one…)

This puts the Axis and the Allies into direct conflict over a national objective in each theatre:

1. In the European/Atlantic theatre, Germany now has a reason to support Italy’s efforts in Africa, which should eliminate some pressure on Russia.
2. In the Pacific theatre, the US and Japan both need control of the Solomon Islands to achieve an objective. Right now, Japan rarely if ever seeks that objective, but if the same territory also became important to the Allies it would provide a potential boost to Allied income and provide Japan with an incentive to deprive the US of that income.

I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this idea.

Marsh

I like objective 1, just have 2 questions:

Would the western Allies have to have a unit in EACH of Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia or just one of them?

Would it matter if the USA/UK controls any of French North Africa rather than France herself?

I can’t say I like objective 2 because it forces japan to go rather out of position to take it and hold it. I feel like ANZAC could also put a bunch of troops there and make it much harder for Japan. I think Carolines might be better, as it forces America to actually take land instead of having it presented to them on a silver platter like all their other objectives (minus France and Philippines).

Also do you think this would still require a bid?

@WILD:

Welcome to AA.org, but I’m surprised that you are having trouble finding strategies on this site. You should look up some of Young Grasshopper’s u-tube videos, he has some pretty awesome “essays”.

Unfortunately, YG removed almost all of his content a few months ago, including his G40 strategies. So you won’t find much strategy content there. However, I can recommend Siredblood, GeneralHandGrenade, Hunter Jones, Variance Axis and Allies for good strategy content. (That list is by no means all the A&A channels, there are many more good, albeit smaller, channels that you can look for)

On the OP’s strategy, I don’t see a reason to place a mIC in Finland considering you generally get one in Leningrad one or two turns later that is both free and closer to Moscow. And if the Russians decide to stack in Leningrad, no big deal you just go round them and force them to retreat, otherwise they lose their capital. Leningrad is a bad spot to retreat from if you’re Russia (it’s 3 spaces to Moscow as opposed to 2 from Belarus, Western Ukraine, and even the factory in Ukraine itself) so it would be rare to see the majority of the Russian army in Leningrad as Germany starts its advance into the USSR.

With Paris, I would much rather use my planes against the British Navy than risk AA fire in a place I’m gonna take without my planes anyway. The Paris battle is upwards of 95% in favor of Germany if they send every ground unit in range to Paris and no planes. Even if you’re being a little greedy and you’re going for southern France or Normandy at the same time you will still take Paris 9 out of 10 times without planes.

@weddingsinger:

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

Except Japan not controlling those island is a huge annoyance but it isn’t a gunshot to the head for Japan.

True its only worth about 20ipcs for japan and 15 for the allies.

Umm… an extra battleship a turn or 3 tanks on the mainland seems like it’ll add up quickly to me.

Its why, as Japan, I always self-debate between J2 taking the money islands (if I did a J1 I already took Borneo) or taking Malaya (I really like having a factory and an airfield there to cover the money islands easily and still launch tanks/mechs at India).

I’m interested in what you think makes Malaya worth losing a turn of money islands income for. Land-wise FIC is the same distance to India, plus you probably took FIC J1 which means you can have a factory pumping out units there on turn 3 rather than turn 4 with Malaya. I guess there’s the naval base but still FIC seems like the better option IMO

If it’s still there, the cruiser off NZ can move 3 spaces using the naval base to the Hawaii sea zone

If G1 or G2 DOW, you are correct. After that however, Britain can get there and activate NW Persia beforehand allowing Soviet mechs/tanks to move and attack Iraq.

By no means am I saying that German transports in the Baltic are bad, not worth it, whatever negative adjective you want.

A few German transports will, like GHG and Argothair stated previously, provide Germany with flexibility to go for SeaLion or attack Leningrad and/or shuck some troops to Russia, whatever fits. Buying a full transport fleet G2 is more than bluffing, it is showing your hand. If I see Germany go build 8-10 transports on turn 2, I’m gonna max defend London and then laugh when Germany doesn’t go for London because they just wasted a whole bunch of money.

HOW is Germany going to have the production capacity to fully utilize those transports against Russia (shucking troops), and WHY would they want to shuck when they can build fast movers and then use the minors the Russians so kindly give them to build more slow fodder at the front? I don’t want to go off-topic here (this was an Allied strategy thread after all), but to me the fast movers you build in Berlin/W Germany will better serve you in Russia because of their flexibility. PLUS, you’re going to be putting money into your Western defenses, so not every single unit you build in the West is going straight to Russia

Every buck counts in this game and having 70 sitting in the Baltic waiting to be destroyed by some British planes after you choose to not attack London is not using that money effectively.

I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO

It’s not like a Dutch territory either, even though it states in the rules that the Dutch should be treated as an Allied power who’s lost its capital or something, even though the allies can walk in and take control of the islands. Not sure about the exact wording of that rule

Yes, which stipulates that a country that has lost its capital can only have its territories taken control of by its allies if that territory has previously been controlled by the opposing side

Well there is a rule, previous posters have been pretty clear on that matter. FIC is treated as any other French territory. The USA does not take control of Morocco if Italy/Germany hadn’t taken it beforehand if it lands there now does it

I have not considered that either. My group rarely ever does anything aggressive with Russia; the most aggressive I’ve ever seen someone play Russia (myself included) is buy 7 inf 4 art on the first couple of turns before they are brought to war, but it is usually just turtle turtle turtle.  It’s boring but somehow effective. Maybe that’s just a testament to a need for improved German play, but I digress. I will consider trying one of these “new & different” Russia strategies the next time I play that nation.

Oh. Well if that is the case, my comment is even more irrelevant than it already is.  Darn

@Ichabod:

Or 5 tanks for 30 IPCs?

I get your point…next think you know the UK is buying stuff on SA and a factory in Cairo on UK 1.

No, buy 6 tanks, and try to pull one over on your unsuspecting friends!  :-D  :-D :-D

Kidding of course

Yes, that would make much more sense to have all Chinese territories have the Chinese color, then have Japan put their control markers on coastal China, rather than having the somewhat ambiguous Japan color but China emblem on the coast

@Arthur:

In most of my games taking Moscow is not an option as it has received some reinforcements from the UK.

@simon33:

Germany has a big enough stack of infantry that USSR can’t take them down very easily and slow movers bought G2 will arrive early enough for a G7 attack on Moscow. Unless you are targeting a G6 take down, of course.

Yes, ABH, if you say that Moscow on G6 isn’t generally an option in your games, you might as well go for those slow-moving artillery on G2 which might give you the edge on G7, right? Or are we missing something?