Posts made by HortenFlyingWing

i think he is saying russia should buy armor with its IPCs.

Yeah, I know.

Building a fleet is an alternate strategy, but never a reliable strategy.

thr main strat is to go after russia.

(playing russia restricted)

Well germany has to take out the entire Allied fleet (its doable, I have done it.) and with 32 IPCs start building a fleet in the mediterranean (GB has 2 fighters and a bomber, they can take out any baltic fleet at that point.) Depending on where GB puts there aircraft (they might want to defend russia) makes it wheter germany puts a fleet in the medditeranean or baltic. the truth is that if the allies went all out on Germany, then a german fleet might not be plausible…but let me try.

Germany buys an aircraft carrier and a transport. Depending on what germany takes, depends on how much territory they control. the truth is that most people who play as germany never build a fleet, so the allies have nothing but transports. The allies would have to invest in expensive weaponry to combat germany, wasting precious time and IPCs which are needed for an invasion of western europe.

Germany, while throwing all available offensive forces in eastern europe continues putting forces in africa. If germany invests in a fleet, they cannot go on the offensive very long against russia…only long enough to split russia’s forces to weaken them. Germany can with its carrier from turn one fill it with fighters. They can buy another transport or two, a sub or so, and with their already existing battleship, have a sizeable fleet. If germany doesn’t go fullout against russia, it can keep its valuable aircraft for attacking an “Transport Only” allied fleet. If Ameirca and GB invest in a fleet to counter germany, the invasion of europe will be delayed. Russia cannot fully recover to attack germany until about turn 4 (by then they have an overwhelming amount of infantry.) If the allies invested in destroying germany’s offensive fleet, they couldn’t take western europe by at least turn 4 or 5. by then, an unthreatened Japan has complexes in india, siam, and manchuria, knocking on russia’s backdoor.

a smart allies would have to invest some ipcs to distract japan, or go full out against germany (and what if japan sends some forces americas way?) the truth is if the axis play smart, they can spread ally resources thin. Investing in a powerful offensive fleet against a power with aircraft on land is very expensive. Then the allies have to defend both Great Britain and Eastern United States, possibly even western if america moves out its pacific fleet.

Rommel rubs off as arrogant if you ask me. He sounds like he knows everything in his book Infantry Attacks, and he never listened to Kesselring (however you spell that guy’s name.) rommel over extended in Africa, plain and simple.

Japan

(OMG LPaG!)

yeah, the guys and I play with “neutral territory” rule. You can fly over a neutral territory, but you cannot buy or take one. (hey, for the sake of germany!)

On 2002-02-27 19:55, Ozone27 wrote:
A bit off-topic, but I take exception to the dissing of “French generals”. The French were defeated in WWII partly because of outdated strategy (massing troops in forward positions, over-reliance on fortifications, inadequate air defense, etc.), and partly because of political weakness. The 1st was a flaw most World Powers had prior to WWII that France suffered most from because she was one of the 1st states attacked by Germany; the second was one which all Democratic powers suffer from time and again–1939 was just a particularly bad time for it.

I would like to point out to all present that France nearly took over Europe in the early 1800’s (under Napoleon)and amassed an Empire (albeit briefly) that DWARFED Hitler’s–and “French Generalship” should be respected just as much as any…

Sorry, pet peeve of mine–I am not even of French descent… :grin:
Ozone27

The French at the time had the largest army on Earth!

based on what? i thought that the game just leaves it open to interpretation.

Building up for sealion forces both the UK and America to build defensive forces. That alone, germany can tie up the entire allies, while japan becomes very powerful. If there are no troops in eastern canada, germany can blitz DC as long as they have transports in the baltic or off the coast of africa.

Sounds like a cool strat. Shouldn’t japan take india in turn 1 though?

sorry about the double post!

my buds and I usually play w/no tech rolls and russia restricted (and “neutral territory.”) we find the games the best this way.

My America strategy is to throw everything you got against germany, fully before even buying one unit against japan (i’m trying to fiddle around to see what ratio of ipcs i should spend for each front.)

Western Europe can at times be taken in turn one, and if not, men can be thrown into africa. If Britain buys a carrier in turn one and transports, an America buys all infantry and transports, you can slowly castrate germany. Take norway, eastern europe, and with the bulk of your forces aim for Western Europe, outbuild germany, take southern, and then slowly outbuild germany and take germany itself.

Axis and Allies is a race between who can kill the other faster. If the allies can kill germany, and if russia can save itself from japan, the allies won. If Japan builds enough and to take russia before germany is gone.

Personally, every time I see Japan attack pearl harbor, they not only lose their entire fleet (one battleship, one transport, one bobmer, and two fighters if japan didn’t land in hawaii.) If japan doesn’t attack, they could draw the us fleet close to land, and with their giant airforce blow the Americans to smitherines. Just today, i lost a transport, sub, and fighter taking out the entire US fleet. The US fleet has to stay in the pacific to detur japanese forces from total domination of Asia by turn 3. But by turn 4, you have to pray Germany is hurting or the game is over.

ironically today, America poured over 90 IPCs into tech rolls, causing the Axis to win! I personally don’t like Tech rolls, though they were supposed to benefit the Allies anyway.

ironically today, America poured over 90 IPCs into tech rolls, causing the Axis to win! I personally don’t like Tech rolls, though they were supposed to benefit the Allies anyway.

In a game today, Russia was taken and Germany started to build a fleet in the Baltic sea. Germany wasn’t planning on taking Britain though, there was no men in Eastern Canada, or East U.S.! America planned to buy their new “Heavy Bombers” in west U.S. against me. If me and my ally didn’t get an IPC victory, we would of had a nice sneak attack! America admitted (after the game) that they didn’t see it coming.

I would think that america building a huge navy is better than building a huge strat force. strategic bombing didn’t make germany lose the war, it was truly the land battles. Axis and allies is won on the land.

P.S. If i were japan, any complex built in asia would be captured by turn two, and for those who read what i said about germany losing the war on land, not the air, is open to debate. one can debate germany literally ran out of gas (petrol) when the artificial fuel facilities were bombed, but germany’s peak year of production was 44- far into the allies strat bombing campaign.

ok… it is about a 3 :smile: good rollers make it even harder to strat bomb.

Don’t getme wrong, i’m an airforce kind of guy. but only for fleets and defense. i would rather buy a tank for land.

there is no question that germany HAS to take egypt turn one. as germany, i can take egypt, and destroy the american transport and entire british fleet (besides the sub and transport east of arabia.)

by turn two germany has to be ready for a full out attack on karelia/and or caucasus.

i always find it essential to take egypt.

britain can build a carrier in turn one, and if america helps out with the little resources they have on turn one to protect the carrier, germany would have to delay an attack on karelia if they diverted aircraft. all works ti the allies advantage.