Posts made by ItIsILeClerc

Good day to you, coolrunner!

The Taranto raid should not be disqualified too quickly. It is part of multiple allied strategies that back up this action.

The strategy you described also sounds valid. Why? Because it is part of a bigger picture -philosophy if you want-  that backs up your UK actions here by all the other allied actions. Same counts for Taranto. ‘Tobruk’ is also a valid action which normally should exclude ‘Taranto’ and requires the allies to adapt their actions elsewhere to make the big picture work. Note that I am assuming no bid and not too much of dice-gambling.

Just remember the big picture is made of a lot of smaller pictures and the Middle East is such a smaller picture. About winning the game if you control the middle east: this usually is true, but this still depends on who controls it and when -the big picture determines if loosing this theatre is bad. For example: if Italy can take the ME early in the game, this is bad for the allies if they cannot quickly take it back. Game loosing even. If the allies can make sure that Italy only has a very short control of the region, it is not that bad.
I have also seen a lot of Japanese take the entire middle east late in the game. Almost or just all the way to (but not including) Cairo and not win the game in the end. All because the allies had made enough gains elsewhere…

@Young:

Why not an American battleship off Washington? What are the 1940 US numbers for those?

US Battleships in July 1940:

Wyoming, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, New York, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexoco.

These battleships were either completed or so far in the construction process that it would be unfair to not count them as finished. In reality it took 2 years of construction to build a battleship (same for a CV), but in A&A they are built in just 1 turn, which I don’t think equals 2years. More like 6 months max.
That’s 19BB, about 7 more than Japan. So if you’d want a more historical representation of the numbers of these mighty beasts, the USA should start A&AG40 with 3BB total.

Because Japan had no real fleet superiority against the USA, Yamamoto launched ‘Pear Harbor’ in the hope to destroy enough US warships so that Japan would gain superiority. We know how that went for the IJN… Japan did a lot of damage to the USN, but no CV was hit and of the Battleships only the Oklahoma and the Arizona were permanently lost. The IJN had failed to gain superiority and only awoken the US’ resolve to fight Japan.

But Yamamoto was right to go for the gambit: he correctly judged that the USA would not stay neutral for long, if Japan was to attack the Commonwealth, France and the Dutch (not to mention the Chinese, who were already suffering).

Hi Witt!

Why, you wonder? I think it is for balancing reasons.
If the total number of carriers Japan historically had available to them in medio 1940 translates into 3 Carriers in the game, then certainly the USA should start with at least 2CV, yes.

I can’t think of anything else than balance, unless the devs didn’t do a proper history-research, but I don’t feel like that ;-).

Regarding the Pacific in this German Bomber Strategy, I like to stress out once again that the allies can stomach Japan taking India, China, large parts of Russia and all of the DEI, even uncontested.
In my humble experience, this is unavoidable if the USA focuses on the Atlantic first -but no more than approximately 2,5 turns (I’ll spare you the details for now). Requirement is that the Allies (USA!) can make economic gains in Europe, so their income reaches ~80IPCs/turn.

Even if the USA is making only 72IPCs per turn Japan will need to spend >>the combined USA + ANZAC income to be of any threat to Hawaii or Sydney (which would mean axis victory after Calcutta has fallen). So, Japanese investments into the Pacific ocean will need to be >>87IPCs per turn if ANZAC can manage to stay on 15/turn, >>82 if not.
With economic gains in Europe, these requirements increase by the amount of US gains in Europe.

In other words: Even after taking everything BUT Hawaii and Australia (Sydney), Japan can only hope to be a threat to Hawaii/Sydney if it spends nothing (at all) on Mainland Asia anymore. If they do so, they seriously risk loosing Calcutta again and this focus on the USA/ANZAC is no guarantee to take Hawaii/ Sydney if Japan cannot make much much more IPCs per turn than the combined USA+ANZAC income.

Having said all this, and correct me if you think I’m wrong, I think Japan cannot be stopped from taking everything except Hawaii and Sydney if the USA puts a focus on the Atlantic during the first 2, max 3 turns. If the USA puts their focus into the Pacific however, Japan is in very big trouble.
Thruth is, I now think that the USA is forced to go Atlantic first (to a limit) if they so much as suspect Germany will go for a bomberstrategy. Reason is that I think it becomes unreasonably hard for the allies to stop Germany once its Bomberstack has reached ‘critical mass’ and Russia has been reduced to a non-factor (which will happen if the USA puts their initial focus into the Pacific). Much harder anyway than it would be for them to stop a Japanese victory in the Pacific.

And if the only thing the allies can achieve by doing this, is to prevent Germany from building up their bomberstack to a critiacal mass, then so be it! Achieving this is still better than loosing the game because the Luftwaffe has become an unstoppable force.
If all the Axis are played right (and I am not saying I do that ;-), I am still learning every game I play and never cease to), there will always be an axis side (Euro or Pacific) that becomes an economic monster. Nothing the allies can do to stop that.
So in the end the Axis should always be able to make ~160IPCs per turn around turn 10.
1 -Allied KJF: GE(100+), IT(20+), JA(30+) versus USA(85+), UK(35+), RU(0), ANZ(15+), 150+vs135+;
2 -Allied GF: GE(60+), IT(10+), JA(90+) versus USA(75+), UK(35+), RU(15+), ANZ(10+), 160+vs135+.

It may be a personal preference, but I much rather have a monstrous Japan than a monstrous Germany (even though this is potentially better for the axis’ economies) -especially if the Germans also have been allowed to build up a bomberstack of ~30STR, due to the superior center position of Germany. It is too easy for Germany to kill London or Cairo from this position (depending on where the allies are not), while ignoring to assault Moscow, which has been made a non-factor already…

Hi SEP,

I consider Italy’s role a very interesting and important one.
As far as I am concerned, they should not act alone, but catalyse Germany’s actions instead.
Italy can can-open Russian defenses, paving the road for Germany there and be a very important factor in Homeland Defenses for both Germany and Italy. Italy can also play the same sort of role (can-opening, road-paving) in the Med/Africa/ME, should Germany decide to be more active there. They can do that, but there is a certain limit to that, since Russia demands a certain amount of ‘attentention’.

If your UK opponent lacks proper experience, taking Egypt can be done even without aid from Germany, but against a prepared UK-player Italy can forget about that. They will need help from Germany (Luftwaffe) and even then it isn’t certain Italy can get a decent hold of Egypt.

EDIT: +1 to what Frederick said.

I think the same as CWO and knp.

There’s however one thing left to say: we are not sure. Thinking it won’t work is not the same as knowing it. I’d say try this idea a couple of times and then let us know if (and how) it worked or not. Maybe we are overlooking something :-).

A tactic like this has to be part of a strategy that assumes a quick liberation of China and a subsequent drive through it by a third party.

I wrote that down too quickly!
I actually did assume ‘Taranto’ so I meant Italian cruiser ;-). You know, the contents of SZ95.

But I agree with Aequitas nonetheless.

Sometimes, depending on the plan I have in my head for the allies for that moment, I also do not go for ‘Taranto’. For example if London ‘scrambles’ to clear the Atlantic of all German warships (both literally in GE1 and also using the leftover air for that during UK1).

If not going for ‘Taranto’, I personally consider ‘Tobruk’, the ‘Gibraltar tea party’ and the run for Egypt Aequitas mentioned all good/valid alternatives to ‘Taranto’. All depending on the overall situation, of course. Some tactics just work better with some strategies and other tactics with other strategies ;-). For simplicity’s sake I am assuming no bid as well.

Imagine Germany builds a CV + 2TRS in SF, combining with a leftover Italian BB + DD + TRS. This is a huge threat to both Gibraltar and Egypt, because now the German Luftwaffe suddenly has 4 extra units as fodder, and Italy can move its fleet about without fear of loosing it (Germans follow). I learned that if Germany invests only 30-40IPCs in ships, with the rest of its money being used for land units, it is still more than capable to isolate Russia, even without much of their Luftwaffe.

So this is bad news for Africa and/or the Wallies trying to do something meaningful in the Atlantic.
The downside of this axis strategy is that Gemany is indeed putting a large enough focus on Africa so it must take it slow in Russia. They also cannot survive an early US Intervention of any kind so Japan must be able to wait -no J1DOW, no J2DOW and possibly even no J3DOW as well (they can get medieval on Russia and China in the mean time).

An axis game moving along these paths typically evolves into a very long and dragging economical game and will work if the USA has invested/moved into Atlantic positions first turn. Don’t know how well it can fare against a Pacific first focus of the USA (yet).

Personally, if Germany wants troops in Africa before the game has (most likely) already be lost or won regardless, I think taking Southern France for fleetbuilding starting on GE2 or building a fleet GE1 in the Atlantic are the best options.
Since the axis have the initiative, Germany and Japan can (and must) closely coordinate because Germany doesn’t want the USA to interfere. For example by preventing the Kriegsmarine from passing into the med through Gibraltar.

But whatever is decided, Germany must recognize that they should not focus too much on Africa, because Russia is the main enemy and it must be isolated at least. I think Germany can safely invest between 30 and 40IPCs in ships without loosing its ability to force Russia to retreat into Moscow. Taking Moscow early would be a bridge too far with so many ships built, but after turn 12 or so, this can still become an option again if the axis isolated Russia effectively enough (taking Russian economy down to <15IPCS/turn), without loosing the power advantage.

Good question.
I don’t think ‘India’ can build an IC on the European map, because a facility needs to be placed in an area that is controlled by the Power that builds it and although Iraq is cotrolled by the UK, its IPCs go to ‘London’ (if it is alive), indicating that London controls Iraq rather than ‘the UK’.

http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html

Great calculator!
Well, I guess it is more about the functions of it.

In TripleA games (which I do not play very often) I’d run it maybe multiple times for every single crucial battle, playing with some different “order of losses”. This can be very crucial. For example: the BC automatically assumes that STRat bombers in a defending army are taken as losses first (all of them). Changing the OOL into preserving the STR (more or less) will give very different results!
Little sidenote: I found out that the TripleA BC gives wrong results if simply changing the OOL (at least in this particular example). For a more correct ‘prediction’, I save a copy of the game and fight the battle through, taking all the losses myself from round to round to see the end results.

In FtF games around the table we never used a BC untill our playstyle changed. Instead of many smaller battles we now have fewer but much larger battles, where it is impossible to predict who will win. But we use a simple (excelsheet) BC based on pure LL only, just to have a rough clue about where the battle is going.
We found this necessary because in such large (crucial) battles, simply adding up attack factors versus defense factors isn’t accurate enough (for us). Also, comparing number of units (just a little more complex) is unsatisfactory because attacking with 100 vs 98 might give the attacker 90% chance of victory, but attacking with 1 less unit (99 vs 98) may drop the chance to about 50% and how can we predict where this treshold is? To make matters even more complex, the treshold shifts with unit composition too…
So in a FtF game, we usually use the (simple) BC for ‘Moscow’, ‘London’, ‘Midway’ or ‘Normandy’ battles. Sometimes the ‘Egypt’ battle as well, if it is applicable.
Winning or loosing these type of battles usually means winning or loosing the game, so why would we want to engage without a clue about who will win it  :wink:.

Like it is said before,
I find a J2 and J1 to be very close in economic balance. Taken everything together, from simple IPC-value of territories gained/lost, to NOs and PUs (value of units lost in the battles) lost or gained. I do find J1 to be more difficult and dangerous: Japan has a shortage of land units around Yunnan and they can make more mistakes that seem minor but are not. For example, if Japan takes their CA as loss if the BB in SZ37 scores a hit, the UK can be aggressive (attacking FIC) and Japan looses its offensive initiative early already, due to the mentioned lack of troops. I learned this the hard way the first time I tried a J1 ;-): Japan must take an air loss here. Just a small example.

But enough little details. If Japan knows what to avoid, they can make a J1 as good as J2 no problem. I consider it unwanted however, if my Japanese partner always wants to do J1 and does not want to do, or know how to do a J2. Or even a J3/J4DOW. If we are assuming no mistakes fom any Major power and friendly dice for all, Germany looses the option of doing SL with a J1DOW and their Barbarossa may be halted very soon as well, if the USA puts a little effort into the Atlantic (but never enough to loose the Pacific war!).
Global strategies are very situational and even Japan and Germany should at least make a plan together. If the axis want to try an economic victory, a J1 is not the optimal choice. If Germany wants to keep the threat of a SL open for a while (for whatever reason), J1 is far from optimal. And so on and etc. etc.

So, I’d say the DOW J1/2/3/4 really depends on what strategy Germany and Japan have agreed upon, and what they can see is the allied reaction to their plans.
A J4DOW can even be more profitable to Japan (and the axis as a whole) if they do it right, even to the balance of economy… There are certain conditions that must be met, ofc, but Japan can spot them in the early turns.

I consider it a strong player’s mark; the ability to know when to best do the JDOW considering the overall axis strategy and allied responses. And that is not always a J1. Well, unless the axis never try a different strategy together. Which play into the allied hands because you 'll become too predictable ;-).
J1 is as strong as any without a doubt, but its biggest strategical downside is that it gives away Axis intentions early and even takes away certain axis threats that would otherwise remain in place, requiring more cautious play from the allies.

@ChocolatePancake:

I also sometimes go south: west africa - egypt - persia - moscow

Out of necessity, I guess :-D?
I also do that sometimes, if I see Italy and/or Germany have the option of killing my RAF without loosing any aircraft themselves.

AFAIK, Garg and YG are right.
Consider 2 loaded CV in SZ102, and 3 STRBombers in EUS. No early JDOW, so USA has 20 IPCs less first 2 turns.

Germany can defend SZ110 with approximately 1CA + loaded 1CV (4units, 5hits). Sometimes they also have their BB left, but then the UK also has more ships left.
Anyway, with this warfleet and London captured, Germany can barely keep Russia out of Eastern Europe, especially if the Kriegsmarine is destroyed (no land units being retrieved from there). If Germany invests in a bigger warfleet, I am afraid they cannot hold off Russia anymore.

Back to the USA. They can have 7 aircraft attacking (indeed surviving STR landing in Eire) and 6 loaded TRS, or, at the expense of TRS, buy even 3 more STR (for a total of 10 attacking aircraft). All considering no early JDOW -and thus less income for the USA.

I think it is impossible for Germany to ward off both the Russians AND adequately defend its kriegsmarine.

@Gargantua:

I have often heard the argument “What else are they going to do!”.  And sometimes it’s just better to use units you can when the opportunity arises.

That said…  I like to send those 2 inf to Russia!  They matter!

I like that. And yes, in this game, every rat that can make it into Moscow matters :-D.

Disclaimer: I am not comparing Aussies with Rats. Any possible similarities are unintentional. At least I never found one  :lol:.

@Young:

(…) sorry IIIC, did see your last post before I uploaded the video, but you made some good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8MrQdo0hhI

NP YG. The video is awesome and ‘The Complete Series’ is a great aid for playing the game and for every A&A-fan a must see!
With your help, newer payers will be using veteran strategies much quicker :-D.

Absolutely correct!
I think on a 1:1 a B17 was indeed a worthy opponent to a Messerchmidt. Lancasters not so good, so they flew at night, while the B17’s flew day-missions.
I am thinking strategically here: if there are as many FTR as there are bombers, tactically the FTR should have better chances because of their flexibility, right? Even against B17’s, exactly because those are flying in Formation and stay in formation untill the bombs are dropped on the target or the mission is aborted.
If a formation has (in game terms) 30 STR versus just 12 FTR, and those FTR attack the formation from the rear then I think it is even optimistic to say that as much as 12 STR can fire back to defend themselves, but it depends a bit on what the formation is.

But that’s all too much battle-tactics ;-). We can understand that bombers flying at the far end of a formation cannot return fire (safely) and then the question rises: how many of them cannot. I took an arbitrary number of saying that only as much bombers can return fire as there are intercepting FTR, which is also very easy-to-use.

FTR can also just intercept/escort @1, if you prefer to take the B17 as model for all STR in this game. With Lancasters/Ju-88 as model however, FTR should better fight airbattles @2.

What I would find a decent way to prevent the historic abberation and also to not affect current gameplay too much, is if attacking bombers (TAC/STR) would work the same as defending AA-guns.
Meaning that bombers just never have more dice to roll than there are interceptors. That way, if the raiders want to play an effective economic game, they MUST send a decent amount of FTR along with the bombers.
Historic rationale: bombers do not actively scour the skies for intercepting FTR, but they will fire in defense if attacked.

Another thing I would be happy about, is if FTR escort/intercept@2 instead of just 1, like bombers. No need to explain that one. But I think this is less important than limited dice for bombers.

Some examples that are very likely to occur in real games:
1. Incoming raid consists of 12STR, intercepted by 3FTR. Raiders fire 3@1, interceptors fire 3@2.
2. Same as above, but now incoming raid consists of 12STR + 3 escorts. Raiders fire 3@1 + 3@2, interceptors fire 3@2.
3. Same as 2nd example, now with 3 additional interceptors. Raiders fire 6@1 + 3@2, interceptors fire 6@2.
4. 30STR raiding, 12FTR intercepts. Raiders fire 12@1, interceptors fire 12@2.
5. Last example: 7STR + 5FTR escorts, 12 FTR intercepts. Raiders fire 7@1 + 5@2, interceptors fire 12@2.

I think above examples perfectly illustrate that in such a system, bombers should usually not raid without enough escorts. FTR could even be given their normal combat values (i.e. @3 for escorts, @4 for interceptors), but that could be too bloody for game balance…

Me personally, I wouldn’t attack 1 Italian INF with 2ANZAC dudes when the UK can hit them so much harder and with much less risk, if there was no other reason than just plain and simple to remove the Italian INF from Anglo. I think that’s why oysteilo is asking.
I think the situations I described all qualify as harassing the Italians, with more purpose than just to remove that INF.

I can imagine that ANZAC sometimes can predict that Egypt is (temporarily) going to be abandoned next turn and their dudes there have to do something now (else they will be the sole defenders against Italy next turn). So then it is either attack south or retreat north. If their attack succeeds, the UK can land their aircraft next turn in Anglo, strengthening their position there.

If there is no immediate ‘retreat order’ on the UK for next turn, ANZAC emptying Anglo can also pave the way, i.e. ‘can open’ this area for the UK ARM + MECH into Ethiopia and Kenia.

Or, simply they provide a better landing spot for UK aircraft next turn.

Right now I can’t think of anything else.