@Deiganator:
Yes that was the move.
Odd how they are connected, other similar island are not. I wonder why Ireland is different?
I suppose it was done this way to clearly indicate that you don’t need a ship to move between Scotland and Eire, as they now share a land border.
Thanks everyone so far for the help!
You’re welcome. :-)
This was my thinking with the US as well. What do people feel is a good fleet buy for 74 IPC? He’ll have 4 CVs with a max of 4 tac and 4 fighters on them in the Carolines (less casualties from sea battle so I’ll still have the territory). He’ll also have a certain amount of ships scattered around Central Pacific because he’s worried my screens (3 DD) will link up with the Pearl fleet (SS, DD, CV) and hit his CVs. I also have 4 fighters sitting in Gilbert Islands.
The idea is I need to take out a portion of his fleet and somehow get down to Australia. I’m thinking 2 CV, Battleship, DD, 2 SS, with 2 IPC left for next round.
I’m assuming that you also have planes to put on those CV’s. In that case, it seems reasonable though I’m not a big fan of buying BB’s and would rather consider yet another CV (if you have the planes) and more DD’s instead of SS’s. I do like SS buys, but if Japan can only attack with planes (which seems to be the case here), you’ll need to guard against those. Generally speaking it’s of course difficult to say what you should do based on the information available, but if you want to guard Australia, then I’m not sure you need to actually attack his fleet. Consider parking the USN in SZ 54 (off Queensland) to just block him. Anzac fighters can go to Queensland to scramble if he should attack. Of course, you need to take care not to lose Hawaii instead.
In regards to Russia I think I can send some troops (like 3 mech, 3 tank) to help back east. He’s got his 80 IPC build next round but only has 26 factory capacity on the mainland (23 if UK takes Normandy but not France).
So I suppose Germany has 80 IPC’s for one round because it just took the UK money and he’ll then fall back to his regular income. He’ll probably be buying inf and art, and considering that he already has a few pretty big stacks, I’d be hesitant to send any Russians east. Don’t allow Germany to regain the initiative in Europe: the tide can turn against you if you lose those eastern European territories and/or Scandinavia which he might also attack with all those transports available.
I moved the Quebec troops to London and the Ontario troops to Scotland. Otherwise I lost the starting fighters but added 6 inf + Fighter UK1, 10 infantry UK2, and 9 infantry UK3. He had 4 bombers, 9 tanks, 1 fighter, 10 arty, 5 mech, and 24 infantry with bombards from cruiser and BB (IIRC we were playing FtF and he didn’t have time to send me a Triple A save before he went on vacation). It’s probably more than 20 units actually since I barely made a dent in the infantry.
He also managed a Calcutta Crush in the Pacific. He figures it’ll take him 4 turns to get Sydney. I put out some blockers in the central Pacific to keep his fleet off of mine which just took the Carolines but he’s working on a way to sweep them aside so he can do an air raid to wipe my fleet and non-combat move his carriers so they can land. I still have a small group of ships in Pearl and 4 fighters on Gilbert Islands so he’s worried about counter attacks. But he has clear shot at controlling money islands and just that Carolines fleet between him and Sydney.
For my part I’ve got Africa and ME. French fleet survived along with a couple of UK ships in Med so I’m convoying Italy. I’ve landed a UK tank in Southern France and I have some US troops ready to land as well.
Russia I’d been pretty aggressive with since there was no doubt about Sea Lion. I actually built a couple of transports and tons of tanks, mech, and arty. I took Finland, Norway, and Denmark as well as Poland, Slovakia/Hungary, and Romania. He used Italian blockers to stop me from blitzing further. The Balkans have like 1 or 2 Italian tanks left, and Italy only has a small stack of infantry (like 6) left on Rome. He’s got pretty big stacks on Germany and Western Germany but that’s about it. So if I can manage to take out his transports I can pretty much save Europe but not likely to get London back anytime soon.
So Russia, having captured all of those territories, would have an income of at least 60 and probably more. Germany, having lost the same territories, can’t have much more than about 35, and Italy is also in poor shape if you have Africa and the Middle East. Those “tons” of Russian tanks and mechs should soon be able to overrun the Balkans as well, making the Bear even bigger and adding to Axis woes (I’m assuming here that Germany has no way of recapturing the territories mentioned on a permanent basis without Russia stepping in again on their turn).
In other words, it seems like Russia should easily be able to overcome the European Axis all by itself. Which implies that while it may not “feel” right, there’s absolutely no compelling reason to liberate London in the first place. Within some five rounds, it may even become the last German holdout :-D
As for the US: as tempting as it may be to gain naval supremacy over Germany in order to liberate London and re-activate the UK as an income-generating Allied power, your description of the situation in the Pacific seems quite alarming. Therefore, I’d say that any further US effort in the European theater is waste of resources that should be used to stop Japan from going against the tide of the overall war by scoring a Pacific victory, So my advice would be to immediately go full-Pacific with the US, including anything that is now on the Atlantic side of the board, and save Sydney and Honolulu.
But, and I cant stress this enough, if true and strict neutral Sweden had been attacked, either by UK or Germany, then we must assume that not only USA, but all the remaining of the true neutrals of the World, including Mongolia, all would have joined the war, against whoever attacked true neutral Sweden
LOL…… I rather think that this was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the A&A rules that, as we all know, are a highly accurate representation of the reality of World War II. :-D
Having a problem in one of our games and something doesn’t seem right about this. Japanese player has 1 aircraft carrier with 2 fighter planes and 2 empty transports in SZ 56. Western Australia is controlled by Anzac with 1 tank and 1 infantry. Anzac turn 5 combat move 1 sub from SZ 62 -> SZ 56. Combat no destroyers present sub rolls and gets a hit, damaging carrier. Defending fighters do not roll and defending carrier misses. Attacking Anzac sub retreats from combat to SZ 61.
It’s not particularly relevant to the question at hand, but in that situation I wouldn’t have retreated the Anzac sub but instead would have tried my luck again. If the sub hits again it will kill the more valuable carrier, which is a gain already even if the sub also dies. And on top of that, if the then carrier misses again, the transports are also dead.
While I lack the expertise to comment on this strategy, I must say that I really like the well-chosen name you gave it.
With the German navy gone it’s a cake walk into Scandinavia for the Russians.
But I thought that conventional wisdom was, that Russia couldn’t afford to march into Scandinavia because the Novgorod troops would be needed to defend Moscow?
Welcome to the forums!
I’m nowhere nearby but I voted “yes” because I guess there are. :-D
But you’d better check this part of the forum: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=34.0
Good luck finding an opponent!
RUSSIA buying 6 ARMOR first turn is a must. It’s not a debate. If you take the pains to look at any of the game links I posted - against seasoned veterans; you’ll see what I mean.
But you actually bought those 6 armor only in the game against Wittmann, not in the other two…. why is that?
I’ve never used chips for IPC’s. Instead, if you have any of the older A&A games, you could use the paper IPC notes from those versions. If you don’t, you can easily find printable pictures them by searching for “axis&allies ipc notes” or something. Or maybe someone within this forum community even created note templates, though I can’t find any right now.
That would sure rain on my parade. :-( If that were a threat, the air units can be split between Cyprus, Syria and Malta to avoid putting all eggs in one basket. That’s if they even survive.
If it’s worth it, you might consider reinforcing Syria with the mech from Egypt and planes from India. Problem is of course that those planes can’t make it back to India next turn, so it may weaken India too much.
Thank you. Good to learn a bit about ideas for the Allies.
Ik ben misschien wat laat, maar heb er ook wel zin in. Is er nog plaats?
I’m going to call this one the “heavenly kingdom”.
More unorthodox than surprise, but still an interesting idea to consider and I like your name for it :-D
I will keep it in the back of my head in case I spot a good scenario to test it in.
Maybe this could work if Japan is making a heavier than normal rush of land units in the early game and it’s obvious that China won’t be able to make a good exchange in Yunnan?
This has been discussed before, see: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36062.0
Back then, people also agreed that it was probably not a great idea as a general strategy. There was an interesting post by Nerquen though:
I found the strategy of saving Chinesse income working pretty well in my hands, see here for an example: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35735.135
I don’t strictly save all Chinese income from the very start. Instead I first buy as much as I can to hold Yunnan as long as I can. Once Yunnan cannot be challenged anymore and Japan is strong enough such that it is just question of time it will conquer all China I stop purchasing with China and simply back up into the west corner. Japan is still forced to send a large force to kill my remaining Chinese as he cannot know if I will not buy 10 inf last moment possibly reinforced from Russia. So if Japan sends too little force I place my 10 Chinese in west. On the other hand, if opportunity arise, as it did in the linked game, US sends a TT to Manchuria and China builds 10 inf on top, then anzac lands fighters and Russian forces from Amur join the party to form a mighty allied stack in the back of Japan. The stack does not have much offensive power but can’t be eliminated cheaply.
USA moves up to SZ 112 Takes Denmark and Norway and if the Axis are really sleeping at the wheel take out Western Germany.
You don’t need to take Norway. To move through the straits, only Denmark needs to be in Allied hands at the start of the British turn.
@Bjn:
Hello everyone…
First post on the forum, so please bare with me….
No, thanks. I’d better keep my clothes on.
But otherwise: welcome to the forum! :-D
There is no repair in the UK Pacific economy if Calcutta is lost and no repair in the UK Europe economy if London is lost. This is not the same as the Pacific map or the Europe map. The UK Pacific economy is defined in the rules as “all of the territories controlled by United Kingdom on the Pacific map”, and the UK Europe economy is defined in the rules as “all of the territories controlled by United Kingdom on the Europe map” (italics are mine). (Of course, there are a few exceptions regarding individual territories, as specified in the rules.) Territories controlled by other Allied powers are part of neither economy, and that’s why repairs are allowed there if either UK capital is free.
So then it follows that:
(1) A UK ship in a port controlled by UK Europe is in the UK Europe economy;
(2) A UK ship in a port controlled by UK Pacific is in the UK Pacific economy;
(3) A UK ship in a port controlled by another allied nation, is in whatever economy the UK chooses its to be;
(4) A non-UK allied ship in any UK port is always in the economy of the nation it belongs to.
I hope I got that one right!
The assumption is that the cost (too small to be represented by a full IPC) is borne by the UK Pacific economy.
If you let repair cost 1 IPC that would have solved a lot of rule issues. And honestly, 1 IPC aint that much
Hardly. The debate is not about the cost itself, but about which economy is supposedly paying it. Everybody agrees that even when the cost is 0, an economy that has lost its capital can’t pay that “amount”.
In the case of UK, the picture is complicated a bit by its dual economy. The requirement for the physical repair capacity is the same, but the source of the resources is different. Per the rules I quoted above, an economy that has a captured capital may not do repairs, and the two economies make their own separate purchases and repairs. If the repair is being done at an allied naval base, it doesn’t really matter which economy “pays” for it (the units don’t belong to a specific economy once they’re on the board), so this can be done if either capital is free. However, the rules I quoted prohibit the repair of units by an economy with a captured capital, as well as the use of resources from one UK economy with the facilities of the other, so that rules out repairing at a Europe base using Pacific resources, and vice versa, if either capital is enemy-held.
So, just as an example, suppose that India is held by Japan but the Philippines are still held by the US and Kwantung by the UK (admittedly, this is quite unlikely). Now if a damaged British battleship ends its turn in SZ35, next round it will be auto-repaired by the US naval base, and we’re assuming that London pays for it even if the amount is 0. However, if the damaged British battleship ends its turn in SZ20, it will not be auto-repaired because for some reason, London can’t pay for it now. I think that’s quite strange - if London is doing the repair at the US base, why can’t London be doing the repair at the UK base? I really see no reason why Calcutta (which admittedly can’t do repairs at that time) is now suddenly supposed to provide the money. They own the base, not the ship.
All in all, I’m glad that such events are unlikely to happen frequently.
Thanks, Krieghund and P@nther. It’s good to know that it works this way. But, having said that, I can’t really figure out why it works that way.
In the example given:
(a) A non-British base on the Pacific side of the board can repair a British ship, so apparently, the UK repair capacity is unimpaired (we’re assuming that London pays for it);
(b) Also, a British base on the Pacific side of the board can repair a non-British ship, so apparently, the repair capacity of the base itself is also unimpaired.
So while I’d be the last one to challenge the authority of the two of you, I really see no reason for it other than this specific rule.