Posts made by kyrial

Also, though I will say aaFiendish does give an excellent analysis of what a strafe is, remember before trying that out with Russia that if you’re buying tanks for Russia it’s at the expense of INF which you will need to help hold off the Germans. Usually the only time you’re strafing Japan like this is after the UK/ USA have really started to move in on Germany and she (G) can no longer afford to launch massive offensives against Russia. Thus, without the need to constantly reinforce the western front, the Russian player can try and fend of Japan. By this time in the game, Japan is most likely in an all out blitz to take out Russia before Germany gets conquered or the US builds a fleet and starts to wreak havoc in the Pacific.

As I said, aaFiendish makes an excellent point; I only wish to re-iterate his comment that the strafe against Japan usually occurs when Japan is trying for that last storming of Moscow before Germany falls and thus trying to get strafes in the beginning against Japan are not the best advised.

As for getting the Caucuses early, it provides an excellent launching ground against Russia proper. If you can keep Caucuses, it most likely means Germany can mop up the rest of Russia and hopefully you have invested just enough to take most of Africa for the IPCs. This means Germany is loading up the cash and with that you can soften up Russia by launching small attacks every turn with tanks and a few infantry to soak up hits so ideally you are taking out basically what Russia is putting in there every turn given its low IPC count (btw, if Germany can take most of the western holdings in Russia, I would go with Japan all out against the rest of Russia as even the few IPCs it can capture can make the difference in the long run for Russian INF production which, as a purely defensive force, Russia is now most likely static with no spoiler attacks… they’re waiting to be saved by UK/ USA). I would probably go 4 tanks every turn in CAU but ONLY if you have the INF marching forward every turn from Germany proper to give you the fodder you need. You don’t want to set up a spoiler attack by what limited Russian forces might be left that could delay Germany just long enough to let the UK/ USA get in there.

Keep pouring the INF across to the east and eventually you should have enough fodder + tanks to launch the decisive attack on Moscow even if you are allocating a few INF every turn to West Europe. I would agree that it is optimal if somehow you can ensure that Japan is the actual one to capture Moscow as this will really help you out production wise, so if you can get it where Germany hits Russia hard and reduces them to rubble AND neither the UK nor USA can reinforce enough, try and take Moscow with Japanese forces.

It makes sense because the normal route either north or through the middle does tend to take a while, and good Allied players will try and put the hurting on Germany ASAP (i.e. landing in Africa on US1, Norway on UK1/2 at latest and possibly even Western Europe by turn 3 depending on German fortunes in Russia). As Japan you do need to take the heat off of Germany with the quickness. The backdoor to Caucuses is a fun way to go too, since Germany can pound on it and then Japan can finish it off before anyone can resupply (unless UK has somehow gotten troops into Russia via the north, but a good German player will counter that as well).

You know, though, I’ve seen games where if Germany does not take out Africa on G1, the UK player will ferry over everything to India and IC that and keep pressure on Japan, counting on the US to liberate Africa and start pumping troops across Africa to counter Japan. I know it’s tough to pull off, but in order to do it Japan seems to have to forgo any other offensives in order to bring about the forces needed to dislodge India (with the support from Egypt, again if it hasn’t been taken).

Let me ask, if Germany does not take Egypt but instead only kills all land forces (fighter remains), would you take the fighter off to India (and pull in the trans-jordan/ persia inf) or instead simply do the normal and pull all India forces into Egypt?

I haven’t seen this strategy fully implemented yet, but I’m wondering how the Allies actually win the game when using an Asian wall strat, and how hard it is to contain Germany when you’re spending so much money in Asia. Can Russia really hold off the Germans?

Well, it really isn’t spending THAT much money in Asia… it IS spending more than one might normally spend but let’s look at it from a purely statistical point of view: for those who have played a decent amount of games, I think we can agree that a key for the Axis is Japan ransacking Asia. Germany alone can go one-on-one with Russia but by turn 2 or 3 (at the VERY latest) the UK is pumping troops into Russia to help with defense and the USA has taken back Africa. With Russia strafing German troop buildups it’s only a matter of time before Germany starts to feel the economic heat, especially if either the USA or UK (or both!) also starts an SBR campaign even if it’s not all out… just enough to keep Germany from stacking.

The key to the vast majority of games is Japan vs. Russia. Japan has to put tremendous pressure on Russia from the East in order to stop Russia from being able to bring its full strength (admittedly not a whole lot but enough) on Germany. Without the Asian territories, Japan is in a lot of trouble economically plus besides which they will have a fun time slogging through Russia proper from Buryatia on the long way to Moscow.

Thus Asian Wall, if properly implemented, will give Africa to Germany if the latter wishes it (which can even be defended on US1) but will slow down/ stop the Japanese attack. Even spending money in Asia, the US can bring about a tremendous force on Germany within a few turns and the UK can keep pumping troops into Russia to aid in the defense.

Yes, we’re still going with a KGF overall strat, but I think Asian Wall slows Japan down enough to allow Germany to go down even faster plus it forces Germany to make some risky moves because Germany usually just tries to hold out until Japan can bring the uber-Economy and forces to bear on Russia.

can a fighter move 4spaces, attack, and then land in a carrier occupying the Sea Zone it attacked in?

Yes provided there was a carrier in that sea zone that could pick them up. They are not allowed to attack if there is no chance a carrier will be able to move the # of spaces to be in that SZ. The carrier does not have to attack (although it could be involved in the attack as well).

this is incorrect….this would increase the range of the fighter, which insn’t a legal move…you can’t launch the planes after the carrier has moved…

I have to agree with Mr. G here, you need to announce the launching of fighters before ANY movement with the AC. What you could do is not move the AC and then in the non-combat phase decide to fly the fighters their allowed four spaces.

This is why as I stated in my previous post you need to “launch” fighters before the AC decides to move; I think they made this to address the issue of fighters not being able to get an extra two moves (as they would if you could move the AC first and then the fighters four spaces).

Technically according to the rules you have to “launch” your fighters before you move the carrier or else they are considered as cargo. This is more of a technical point than anything else, especially if you are moving your AC into the fight as well.

So let’s say the enemy destroyer was 2 spaces away. You would launch the fighters off the AC and they would move 2 spaces to engage. The carrier would also move 2 spaces and engage and after the fight (provided the carrier wasn’t sunk) they would land on the carrier.

They make this point because the fighters can move independant of the carrier and can end up landing on a carrier that is not in the battle or on another carrier altogether (the first carrier mentioned being the launching carrier but in another SZ from the battle).

Amon-Sul while I do respect your decision to go all navy for Germany on G1 (I personally don’t but everyone has a different gaming strat) I think that Russia can be in trouble if there isn’t a lot of pressure put on Germany unless Japan’s player is new or just not very good. I think in most games Russia has to fight a delaying war in order to keep itself alive until the USA/ UK can bring about some forces to help it.

Personally I’ve never played a game where Russia gets taken out and the Allies win.

But we did have the discussion on another thread about how on G1 going AC and trannies can threaten a Sea-Lion and that keeps Britain from developing a navy or even going IC in India, which does help Japan from that point of view.

Well the vast majority of the time when playing Allies I (we) persue a Germany First policy and so the USA spends most of its energy/ resources sending troops to Africa/ Europe (along with the occasional fighter and bomber). In almost every game I play the person who is playing Japan is busy going into mainland Asia and there isn’t any threat at all to the West USA or the seas thereabout. Thus the troops go via the Atlantic.

It is difficult, although not impossible, to win as the Allies if you do not at least throw a modest amount of US troops against Germany because by G2 or G3 the Russian front will begin to feel the weight of Panzers and the UK will begin to feel the deprevation of African IPCs (plus besides which the Japanese are usually making good ground in Asia by now).

That’s what I was refering to with the factory in India comment, the Asian wall requires factories in Sinkiang and India, or did I miss something?

Yeah, exactly that’s why Mr. G said bad idea unless you use Asian Wall strat. If you are going to use it, fine. But what I think he means is that if you’re going to put the IC in India you must (or at least it’s highly recommended) follow through with Asian Wall.

The carrier and the fighters are treated as two seperate entities as far as attack is concerned. If I have a carrier with two fighters on it and I want to attack with the fighters I must “launch” them before the fight. I can then move the carrier into battle as well.

If you do not launch the fighters they are treated as cargo and if the carrier is sunk two things can happen: first, your fighters have the chance to land elsewhere but if there are allied fighters on the carrier then they are KAPUT.

Usually I don’t bring a carrier into battle (because there’s no real need for it) but on occasion I will do so because… well just because it’s an extra unit with the ability to attack (even at the paltry 1).

Mr.G, I must say that’s a great analysis of how to hold if Germany doesn’t attack Egypt and it’s proof-positive of how Germany does need to do that on G1.

Yes, I believe the rule book (tho I’m not near it at the time) refers to it as “launching” the planes from the carrier. The rule states that planes simply need to have a safe landing point (which may or may not be the carrier) so they cannot suicide. So in theory you could launch the aircraft and have them attack an enemy 3 spaces from the original point of the carrier and have the carrier move the two spaces to pick up the fighter on its one remaining move.

BTW, since the carrier and the planes can technically be involved in seperate attacks it’s possible that the carrier might be sunk during the combat phase in which case the planes will either have to find another safe point to land or else they will “run out of gas”… :(

I must say that I don’t think lend-lease is bad at all… I voted in the poll for mobile industry being the least feasible since I couldn’t really see the Russians moving ICs to the east… if anything the Russian player will have the bulk of his forces in the west to protect them.

With lend-lease the advantage I see is that the UK player can land some fighters which the Russian can convert to their own and use them to attack as a supplement for the tanks which are, without careful conservation, usually done for by R2 or so and which the Russian player can usually ill afford to replace. Normally the UK player will try and land some planes anyways to help shore up the defenses but if you could imagine the Russian player with 3 or 4 fighters attacking on R2 or R3 plus stacks of infantry and the odd artillery, well it really puts a crimp in the Germans plan. This isn’t even to mention when the US player gets rolling and can throw a few planes in as well… I would be very happy as a Russian player with lend-lease since it would allow me to focus on entirely infantry and STILL have the ability to launch effective offensives past R1.

BTW, I am interpreting LL correctly, aren’t I? Admittedly AAR is still new on my table so if I’m misreading the advantage in some way let me know :)

I do like the idea of the Katyusha rockets for USSR… not sure about the tanks boosting the inf to 2 as it supplants the purpose of bringing in a bunch of artillery as the unit was designed.

I don’t think the Russians need that much more advantage to put them on top. If anything, giving them too much will skew things and I think with their national advantages they are pretty much in a good shape not to mention now with the redesigned map.

My one suggestion for the Kat rockets would be along the lines of the Russians needing X amount of artillery in order for the advantage to trigger, since historically they had all those batteries… just one artillery unit would not be enough to get the desired effect. So make it something like “if the Russian player has 3 or more artillery in an attack they may use the Kat rocket advantage” and keeping the advantage the same as you described before, attacks on 3 in first and thereafter only 1 attacks on 3. I don’t know even if 3 is enough, maybe make it 4 needed to trigger, but I suppose we could start with 3 and see how that goes since most Russian players go heavy on the inf alone in the early part and then to tanks as they get a little more help from the allies.

I would think conscripts is an interesting idea except that I feel it would be better reflected as GG suggests by making Soviet infantry cost less. However, I don’t know about making it 2 because if you look at it that way w/ the original 24 IPCs you are essentially getting 4 extra infantry every turn by going all inf. Going with 2.5 also presents problems because what if I want to buy just 1 infantry? Not that it’s probable but it is possible.

Perhaps something like with every 5 inf you buy, you get 1 free to represent the conscripted/ “volunteer” (and we know that I use that word lightly) units as opposed to Red Army regulars. That way you are getting some additional units to represent the Soviets manpower superiority while at the same time not skewing things too much to their side because despite these advantages the Germans still made the Russians pay for every mile they took even up until Berlin itself.

I used to do this quite often… set up the board and just play out the game until either one side won or i got bored because both sides would just stack with minimal skirmishes here and there :)

Usually tho the games would end because I would miss something obvious with one side and then realise it playing the opposition and take full advantage… like for example forget to move troops to a territory as Germany and then take advantage of that with UK… it is tough to remember everything you’re doing with all the sides especially if you’re playing later at night and what not ;)

But it is fun… and fun to try some new strategies and see how the luck factor affects them (since the skill factor… well you know the strategy before you even play it!)

:)

I think Brazil is a location suited only to the Japanese trying for an economic victory, and at that it is something that can sort of be smelled out in advance by the Americans.

I am on the side of those who argue that the EUsa can and should be the embarkation point for those forces going to work in Africa. Brazil is something of a secondary point; it’s real value is realized when the Axis take it, but this can easily be countered by the US sending a few INF down there.

Rather than mess around with Brazil, I would advise the US player to simply get transports and then once enough of them are built get a few escort vessels to forestall any air attacks on your convoys and hit Africa from East USA.

As soon as germany starts loosing lets say even … 7-8 ipcs per turn they have to almost go into a completely defensive stance if they want to hold what they have.

My only warning for this line of thinking is not if Germany currently is getting 7-10 per turn from Africa and/or central Asia. Germany is quite capable of assaulting Russia with her normal starting economy; the bonus from Africa is gravy that helps. But unless you’re going to consistently take out 10+ from Germany it’s not going to make all that major of a dent in her economy, and since that requires at least a few bombers to take into account lousy rolls, you’re looking at a few turns minimum building the bombing fleet and SUD showed quite clearly how Axis will run the economic victory gambit before your bombing can do the intended damage.

I think this isn’t a bad strategy to employ as the war drags on because certainly once German and Japanese aggression is checked you can shorten things up considerably by bombing away, but I suppose the same could be said for going tech.

I have been messing with one new American strategy. It’s kind of an expensive strategy though. Build nothing but bombers and send them to britain. You end up being able to build 2 a turn while getting some extra infantry to defend the homeland. Bomb germany from england strategically. It gives japan free riegn though to do whatever they want almost.

I think you’ve hit a good note here, my only concern with this being that you’re basically giving Germany say 3 turns before you can start to really hammer away at their economy. Sometimes that’s enough for Germany to make the push into Russia, but if they haven’t taken her out yet by the time the USA gets 6-7 bombers going at Germany every turn you’re right it does really put a crimp in the German supply of IPCs.

I wouldn’t worry about letting Japan go “free reign” tho because let’s face it for the most part as the USA you’re not going to be going after Japan anyways nor are the other Allies (if playing RR there’s no Manchurian surprise either) so Japan pretty much has a free run of things for the first 2-3 turns anyways.

My only concern with this overall strategy of going all out w/ bombers is that I feel the Allies need American troops badly in the beginning and that this is pushing that off until at least US4 or later if you really want a decent fleet of bombers up and running. Letting Germany keep Africa any longer than really needs be is bad, as they get an xtra 3 or so INF each turn from that. Now buying maybe 1 bomber per turn and the rest going normal strat is not a bad idea, but hey if it works for ya then it’s a good strat :)

It makes the japanese decide whether they want to stay and defend against 24 infantry (what i usually end up attacking the far east with) or carrying on with attacking russia.

Yes but unless you have the transports to get 24 INF off of Alaska and into battle (which is 12 transports) they’re not going to do much more than just sit there and get cold :D But the idea of getting some troops from Alaska to possibly threaten the far east isn’t a bad idea. I guess it all depends on what the current game situation is.