Posts made by larrymarx

Also, on J1 no planes can reach Hawaii. The battle rests on 2 BB, 1 CA bombardments + 3 inf, 1 art and 1 tank. The odds of winning are 77.6%. If you win, you will have only a few land units and the US can hold Central America quite easily because once again, no planes can reach the battle. I think Japan should hold off until turn 2 if taking Hawaii, then Central America is the plan. Or you could do it anyways and see if you get lucky with good dice and a US player who can’t see your strat.

I love the post-Sealion Nenetsia dump because it makes the Russians scramble to defend their capital and takes pressure off of Berlin. Germany can follow it up with a southern thrust because the Russians won’t be as concerned with defending that area.

Another possibility is diving into the Mediterranean on turn 4. You have to be sure that whatever’s there isn’t going to fall to attacks from American submarines and/or carrier-based planes that turn, but if you survive then you’ve gotten away and can start wreaking havoc. Make sure the Italians have all their business taken care of, reinforce Gibraltar, or push through to India and give Japan a hand. Make sure to leave 1 land unit in Egypt for the bonus.

OK, so I did a trial run of the mech inf idea and it turns out to be something I won’t use in my games. I found that if the Russians build nothing but infantry and enter a full retreat from turn 1, they can hold on turn three at Bryansk. Just to make the German attack stronger, I upgraded four of the mech on turn 2 to tanks and bought two bombers on turn 3. Here’s the attack on Bryansk I came up with:

Germans-

17 inf
8 mechs
5 art
11 tanks
4 fighters
3 tacs
3 bombers

Strength: 109 Hits:51

Russians-

35 inf
2 mechs
3 art
2 tanks
1 tac
2 fighters
1 AA gun

Strength: 98 Hits: 45

So, the Germans will likely win this battle. In fact, the battle calculator puts the odds at 96.9%. But, it won’t matter, because bordering Bryansk the Russians had 11 infantry and 7 artillery (the latter I built on the previous turn to prepare the counterattack). If the Germans win the battle and take the territory, they’ll likely have a stack of tanks left, but it won’t be enough to stand up to that. If they pull out before winning, the Russians will consolidate even more and there will be no reinforcements to fight them. If the Germans don’t take the battle, the same thing will happen.

Meanwhile, in this test game, the British were rampaging all over the Italians. Because I wanted to save the Luftwaffe, there was no counter on turn 2 for the Taranto raid, and the British were able to pump 3 transports out of their Egypt factory. They had brought in all of the aircraft from India and they decided to land everything in Yugoslavia that turn (because it was attacked and not captured, it converted to a friendly space that the Allies could land in). There were 7 fighters and 2 tac guarded by 4 Slavic infantry on the continent that the Italians could do nothing about and which the Germans were too preoccupied to deal with. There was no way Italy was going to be able to stop Britain from capturing Rome - on turn 3!

All in all, I don’t think the strategy is actually a bad strategy. It’s pretty close to what the Germans actually tried in the war. I simply believe that this game is too far in favor of the Allies. It seems that without special strategies and counter-strategies on the part of the Axis, Britain and Russia can hold them off on their own. If the Axis get too devious, however, they’ve probably delayed themselves a turn or two and America is already on top of them. It’s up to Japan to save the day, but they’re on the other side of the world. The Allies are always one step ahead.

@ pelanderfunk

I intend to try out your mech inf idea, but I have a few small points to raise:

1. You can’t hit the Russian navy with the Norway fighter. It has to be one of the ones from West Germany.

2. Why not try to take out the Battleship + destroyer stack so that you can send a sub to steal Russia’s bonus for a few rounds? Any units you lose in Paris as a result of lacking air support are made up for by fewer units that the Russians can buy, plus having your subs around longer means the UK is making less too.

3. Why not make use of your starting transport by at least purchasing an artillery on the first round to ship to the front on the second? One more artillery adds three pips to the battle of Moscow, but a mech adds only one. I do realize your path to Moscow doesn’t take you through the Baltic States, but it may be worth diverging a tiny bit.

4. I tend to prefer using Italians to defend Europe so that Germany can focus more on the Eastern front. For example, if the Italians did this then Germany could purchase 4 tac bombers on turn 3 instead of defense for landings to add 16 pips to the impending battle. Surely this would have more of an impact on the Russian stack than Italian suicide attacks?

You suggest making fortress Europe with Germany and waiting for Japan to bust through China and take the city, but I think Japan’s role should be to keep the US occupied as much as possible so the Germans can push harder on the Eastern front. It’s better to have a single strong attack than two weaker attacks. Japan can harass the Americans in the pacific or they can fly their massive air force into Europe to make the Allied navy retreat for a turn or two.

As far as tanks and mechs go, I would suggest using them to push the Russians back but waiting for your infantry and artillery before you make the final strike. Consider building another minor factory next to Stalingrad to begin pumping infantry in preparation to take Moscow. Remember that as long as Russia is confined to a single territory, they aren’t a threat. Make sure you count up the pips and wait until the battle is good before you take it. Even if the battle is good, consider holding off for more reinforcements so that you’re left with as much force afterward as possible. Your army isn’t going anywhere and taking their capital isn’t going to suddenly win you the game. You’re in it for the long haul as the Axis.

If Japan lands a tank in Jehol on turn 1, they can blitz into Novosibirsk on turn three and land bombers in Suiyuan, allowing them to bomb on turn 4 without having to build an air base. Russia can stop this by getting a few infantry into Novosibirsk, but then you could take out the infantry with the tank, mech and bombers so you’ve still accomplished your goal of reducing the stack. You may wish to hold off bombing til turn 5 anyways because you may want to bring at least 1 fighter escort to soak interceptor hits.

Also @ Chompers

I like your strategic bombing idea and I’ll try using it in my “moscow crush” strategy. I sill like using my planes to knock out the stack on J2 though because from J3 onwards I’ll need them elsewhere on the board; either I’ll knock out the Chinese stack on turn 4 with them or take them and throw them at America as discussed above. Britain and Australia will be rampaging if I go through with this so I’ll probably want to use the planes against them eventually as well, if only to pin down the British stacks, stop them from entering China and/or take them out.

In OOB, you’re attacking with 14 at 3 and 14 at 4. This results in a pip value of 98, which means on average you’ll kill 16 infantry. If Russia left one to block a blitz, that’s 17 firing on the first round and 1 firing on the second for a total pip value of 36, which means on average you’ll lose 6 planes. If they didn’t block the blitz, you can add a tank and a mech to the attack, eliminating 17 on average in the first round and taking the cheaper land units as the first two casualties. If the dice don’t behave as they should you might lose more, but I tend to make plans based on what ought to happen. The Axis can’t afford to play conservatively.

@calvin

I’m sure this wouldn’t be as good of an idea in Alpha setup. However, in OOB, if you use all 28 planes you should on average be able to eliminate all but one inf on the first round if if the Russians retreated 17 inf and left a blocker to stop the tank/mech blitz. That means they’re firing 18@2 total over both rounds, which will take out 6 fighters on average. That’s a loss of 75 ipcs including the air base in exchange for taking out 54 ipcs worth of infantry, so the Russians gain 21 on you. I think it’s worth it given that the planes have little else to do on the second round if Japan is holding off the war declaration and considering that Japan now gets to grab Siberia, make up the ipc disparity after a few rounds, stop the Russians from reinforcing Moscow, and eliminate the threat of the Russians liberating China. Japan could then focus entirely on China, eliminating them and making the Brits and the Aussies the only threats left (barring American intervention).

I’ve been thinking about a strategy to try in my next game as the Axis in which Germany and Japan both pull out all the stops to take Moscow.

Here it is:

G1:

Build 1 factory upgrade, 1 infantry, 1 artillery, save 3.

Attacks:

sz106: 2ss vs. 1dd
sz109: 1ss, 1ftr vs. 1dd
sz110: 1ss, 3ftr, 3tac vs. 1bb, 1dd

The purpose of these attacks is to eliminate Britain’s transports and destroyers while saving as much of the luftwaffe as possible for later use in clearing out the med and/or attacking Russia.

sz115: 1bb, 1ca, vs. 1bb
baltic states: 1inf, 1art (amphibious), 1bmr, 2inf
eastern poland: 5inf, 3arm

By starting the invasion on turn 1, you can take out 6 Russian infantry at minimal cost and begin reducing their income.

France: all available land units.

Non-combat moves:

All unused land units march towards Russia. 1 submarine moves to sz125 to block Russia’s national objective.

Placement:

Upgrade Germany factory, place 1inf and 1art in Germany. These units will be shipped to the front next turn.

Japan’s turn:

Build 1 air base, 1 transport, 1 artillery. If Russia moves their 18 infantry to Amur, replace the air base with something else.

Do all the normal China attacks except bring only 1 bomber to support the Yunnan battle. Hit Kweichow with 3 bombers if feeling lucky. Bring entire navy to sz6 and land all fighters and tactical bombers in Manchuria. Bring all available land units into Amur. Land the bombers as far north as possible. Place 1 air base in Manchuria. On the following turn, Japan will be able to hit the entire Russian stack unless they moved the 6 Buryatia infantry to Yakut on the previous turn.

Italy will try to accomplish its normal goals, but may wish to take Gibraltar as well to hold Britain back a few turns.

On Germany’s next turn, use the Luftwaffe to help clear the Med for Italy, if applicable. Build 9 armor, an infantry and an artillery. Continue pushing into Russia.

On Japan’s next turn, build a major factory in Kiangsu and hit the Russian stack. Take as many Russian territories as possible. Dump 8 land units into Korea and keep your entire Navy in the sea of Japan. The purpose of the Navy will be to keep America honest in the Pacific. If they ignore you, you can hit Hawaii and/or British Colombia on the next turn and move your entire air force to Japan in preparation for a follow-up landing. If the Pacific is barren, you should be able to do the British Colombia strike and land about 22 aircraft on the following turn, causing major headaches for the US. They should be able to fight you off eventually, but they won’t be hitting Europe in the meantime.

On future turns, Japan and Germany will push as many land units as possible into Russia with the goal of surrounding Moscow by turn 8. If the battle of Moscow looks bad, don’t take it. Better to keep them penned in and not a threat than to give them the chance to come back. Pump a few infantry or artillery a turn until the battle looks good, devoting all other resources to fighting off America and the British and to helping out Italy.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Has anyone tried going hard after Russia with all 3 axis powers? Germany could stall Britain using available subs and air and take the +5 bonus away from Russia. They could do the Romania factory and take Leningrad on turn 3 followed by Stalingrad on turn 4 or 5. Meanwhile, Japan could push into Siberia, building an air base in Manchuria and eliminating the infantry stack on turn 2. They could use their navy to force America into the Pacific while pressing towards Moscow through both Russia and China. By the time America could make landings in Europe, Russia would be penned in and unable to pose a threat, allowing Germany to focus on defending itself with a fairly large economy. If America goes after Japan, Moscow falls earlier.

@Canuck12

I understand the goal of threatening the US isn’t actually to take any territory, and I do believe that it’s a good idea, but it doesn’t present a long term solution to KEF.

However, your plan of moving through the Panama canal is something I hadn’t considered. Maybe an even better idea would be to swing around the tip of South America. Japan could take Brazil on turn 4 with their starting navy…

The United States is the thing that breaks this game wide open. Until the US gets in, the Axis are pushing forward slowly but steadily. When the US gets there, they tend to cave in.  I think if we want to suggest fixes we should look at reducing US income, forces or capabilities in some way. I realize that historically our production was the same or even higher, and historically with the US in the war the Axis didn’t have much of a chance. To give the Axis a chance, we need to change history.

We could reduce the wartime bonus and/or the income from the original territories. We could make rules such as the U.S. may not build any new factories or may not collect income from liberated territories. We could restrict the territories on which the US may land or rule that the US must split its money between theaters in some way. We could even say that until the US is at war, it may purchase but make no non-combat movements (I like this last idea the best). Players could potentially bid for control of the Allies by accepting higher levels of restriction on the US.

As a side note, what’s with all the hostility on this thread? If someone bothers you just ignore them. All they are is words on a computer screen.

@ Frank T

The only Axis win that my group has seen resulted from a couple oversights that allowed me to Sealion a turn early and then take Moscow a few turns before I should have been able. They retook Moscow, but losing all that cash was enough to cripple them.

It seems to me that if the Axis want to win legitimately, they have to play perfectly for the first few rounds and reach a point where they’re making enough to actually thwart allied invasion attempts. This will result in long, drawn out games as was the case with yours. I can’t see a way for the axis to win quickly unless the Allies make mistakes, but the Allies are pretty easy to play well. With the Axis, not so.

If China and Australia both get out of hand, wouldn’t it be better to deal with Australia first, since China can only defend themselves and it’s much easier for them to do so?

@ Gharen

I intend to try your suggestion about keeping the US honest the next time I play Japan, but I don’t think it’s the only option. If they want to, they can take care of any realistic threat in one turn by building 20 infantry. If Japan masses enough to threaten even that, they can just build another 20 infantry. It doesn’t seem like a long term way of stopping KEF, but it would buy Germany a turn or two early in the game I imagine.

What if Japan did that followed up by an Australia invasion on turn 4 while focusing on eliminating China and then eventually flying their air force into Europe? They would slow the US down, gain income, and round out Fortress Europe quite nicely. Of course, meanwhile, the British are rampaging out of control.

The axis strategy I’m working on now is a combination of Sealion and a J4 India crush.

If America puts enough money into the Pacific, Japan will attack early and take the money islands instead of India. If America puts early money into the Atlantic, Japan will hold off and buy some cover for the Germans to pull out of England and throw everything into Russia without needing to buy more fleet to defend the transports. Germany will maintain the transports in SZ 115 as long as possible, using them to defend Norway and Leningrad using units bought at an upgraded Germany factory.

If America guns for Europe, I’m hoping that Japan can take pressure off the Eastern front using factories in Persia and Iraq and help Italy take out Africa. In this way, Germany can focus on defending itself.

Thanks for the responses. The fleet move to take Persia and Iraq probably isn’t a good idea then. Now here’s another question: if Japan declares war on Britain while already at war with Russia, can the US player then land his aircraft in Russia? Russia is not yet at war with Germany or Italy.

So, in your game, the axis spent the first few turns smashing nearby territories like Gibraltar and Egypt while constructing massive fleets and armies, then exploded, conquering two nations and brushing aside the forces of the only power with a hope of putting a stop to their madness?

If that’s what you mean when you say “verry defencely”, then yes, I have played that way before. It works pretty well for me.

Suppose I take my Japanese fleet to India on turn 2 in order to take out Persia and Iraq on turn 3. Sensing my intention, the French player throws a destroyer in front of me to slow me down a turn. I haven’t declared war on Britain or the US, but what about France? Can they block me?

It sounds like you’re in favor of gaining income rapidly, then hitting the Allies. I’ve found the KEF to be so effective, however, that Japan’s efforts may come too late. Italy, in particular, is hard to defend if the Allies focus on it.

It seems a great deal of Allied players like to focus on hitting Germany and/or Italy first, leaving Japan relatively unmolested. This strategy seems to weight the game in favor of the Allies, because each major power is able to focus most of their income into the European theater, while for the Axis, teaming up is much harder. I imagine many of you, as I am, are trying to solve the problem of what Japan should do in a 100% KGF and/or KIF scenario.

On turn 1, the US can pull their pacific fleet into sz89, and with additional purchases can be ready for action with a fleet of 2 loaded CV, 6 loaded TT, 1 BB, 1SS, 2DD, and 1CA. Britain can accomplish Taranto and fly 3 fig and 1 tac to British Somaliland from India, and possibly build a factory in Egypt or pull more troops using the Malay transports depending on the board situation. Russia can build 9 artillery and begin marching them to the front. Germany and Italy will have their hands full from the start.

If the Allies make these moves, how should Japan respond?

The most instinctual answer is to simply smash the entire Pacific side of the board, becoming a monster as the European Axis gradually dwindles. This has worked in previous editions because Japan has then been able to save the day by throwing tanks at Moscow. This edition is different, though. Russia is bigger, meaner, and farther away. Japan’s optimal play might be different. Perhaps they should sacrifice rapid income growth in favor of rapid assistance to their partners to the west.

The most obvious way to do this would be to punish the United states for ignoring them, perhaps massing a huge invasion fleet or perhaps conducting a polar express. However, there is little income to be gained in the long run taking this route.

Another possibility would be to start producing massive amounts of land units as quickly as possible, pushing through to Russia and drawing pressure off the Eastern front. China will be eliminated around turn 4 or 5, and then Russia will have a new front to deal with.

Some players have proposed flying in Japan’s massive air force to save the day. There are logistical problems to this plan because of the limited range of the aircraft. The best method I can see that avoids an early DOW is pushing through China to Tsinghai or Sikang, then landing the aircraft next turn, then flying in to Romania. The earliest they could arrive would be turn 5; turn 6 or 7 is more realistic given the propensity of the Chinese to screw things up as much as possible.

A final possibility would be for Japan to fake a standard India crush, then blow right past them and start rampaging on the European half of the board. They could take Persia and Iraq on turn 3 at the earliest, then build 2 minor factories and use them as a base of operations. Depending on the board situation, from there they could put pressure on Russia’s southern flank, help Italy in the Med, start taking Africa, or some combination of these.

Which option is best?

You may feel that a combination of two or more of these would be ideal, but the purpose of this poll is to determine which single Japanese strategy is generally most effective for responding to KGF and KIF.

My initial instinct was to choose Italy, but then I considered that the game is balanced in favor of the allies. The axis needs the best players in the group working together to make the game even. Italy matters a lot, because their income, or lack thereof, is what could potentially turn the tide of victory or defeat for the axis. For this reason, I selected the least important major Allied power: the UK. In my estimation, the UK is just there to stand in the way in the beginning and then support the US and Russia with whatever they do. For a beginning player, this would be a great trial and error country, because even if England falls, the game goes on. Consider giving the new player UK Europe and France, then give UK Pacific to whoever controls ANZAC and/or China.