/corbeaublanc
Hey, why didn’t you say that thing about Italy destroying the blocking DD before? I wouldn’t have to edit my own post away in anger at my own stupidity… :-P
So, Italy should buy a BMB and then have a FTR and BMB ready to destroy that DD block. But that leaves the field for the US to send in a DD as well, and they move AFTER Italy! The plot thickens.
/squirecam
Thanks for the update on Nat objectives! If you have more you remember then please contribute to that thread, I will update my original post as more info comes in.
/corbeaublanc
I’ve now changed my first post and made it more of an open question if the Germans will buy subs in the game at all. The idea for my strategy was not to defend the Baltic but to delay an invasion to win the war against the Russians.
This is a bit embarassing, but I actually didn’t think of the DD block in North Sea counter… :| Perhaps the idea of subs actually being a worthwhile buy for the first time in Axis & Allies history got me carried away and stopped my brain from working correctly!
This was the only strategy I could think of where Germany could use subs in a constructive way. So, if sub rules stand as they are with regard to sub movement, this strategy fails. Yes, subs can survive in the Baltic, but if they won’t get further than the North Sea the game is still flawed… :-(
Krieghund, if the rules haven’t been printed yet, send Larry an email and ask him to change sub movement… :wink:
German
U-boat
Atlantic
Retaliation
Deterrent
Originally, my post presented an idea for an elaborate strategy involving sub and air attacks vs. an invasion fleet. As my fellow-forumers pointed out, however, a single DD can block subs from getting farther than the North Sea and then UK can safely land in France or Norway and only have to defend vs. air units on their own. So, will AA50 be a change from A&A Revised when it comes to Germany and naval builds? I rest my case here on a sub strategy and leave the floor open! Can you help me out?
Ps. This is not a game-breaking thing for me, I’ll buy the game and enjoy it even though I won’t buy a single sub as Germany, it’s just a thing I hoped AA50 would adress in order to come closer to history where subs were a real danger will into 1943 for the UK. Ds.
/greandstone
See the German turn 1 strategy thread where I posted a strategy where you can actually build a sub or two as Germany! I there use the air force and subs to kill off those destroyers turn 1. The air force can be used for a few turns vs. the Royal Navy because the big clash on the Eastern Front will wait until you get extra inf forward as Germany just as in Axis & Allies Revised.
As for IC repair, I think the idea is that Germany needs this to counter a big air offensive from the Allies. Now research on Land/production might be worth it for the German player. US, UK and Japan will almost always choose from the naval/air chart, I think, so the fact that they won’t have any use for IC repair isn’t a big factor.
From looking at your post, Lynxes, it looks like you are assuming that you will play both Germany and Italy. It this correct? Or are you assuming that you are playing all of the Axis? I am hoping that we see more multiplayer games, where 3 Axis players have to cooperate like the 3 Allied players do. Having the Axis being played by one player sort of defeats the purpose of adding Italy.
Well, of course you might not agree but my ideas are usable as a kind of negotiation. Such as the German saying to the Italian player: if I strike the UK fleet west of Gibraltar and attack vs. Egypt, will you then support me in the Black Sea after you have taken Egypt? Or the Italian saying to the Japanese: I suggest you destroy that UK fleet off India, then you can send transports vs. Borneo and NEI without escort ships and we will be able to take Africa and India easier in the long run. Negotiations like these are things you do in the game to win it.
As for your strategy. When I look at the image on Boardgamegeek that everyone is assuming is the 1941 setup, the UK has 2 infantry, 1 armor, 1 artillery, and 1 fighter in Egypt. I do not see the artillery included in your computations of force ratios. How are you accounting for its absence?
Go up the thread. I start with the German turn 1 attack on Egypt, which destroys 2 inf and 1 art on average.
As for your other comments on Allied strategy, they sound good. Sub buys for US will be seen alot in the game. I still think you need a carrier and some other surface ships though, you need to DEFEND Hawaii to keep that VC from falling. Subs will then be good as a strike force.
UK sending a bomber to Africa, that’s quite vulnerable. Also, sending an invading fleet to Morocco is dangerous in this game now that the Italian fleet is so strong. Maybe we will see a combination of South African IC and landings in West Africa to block the Axis advance, and then a later landing in Morocco to turn the scales when the UK and US have superior fleets after a few turns?
But again, that’s a fine move and if Japan takes out the trans UK will abandon Egypt before Italy has the chance to take it. But in this situation UK has the chance of taking Egypt back on UK2 since Italy can only get 4 ground troops there, and UK can still shift their bomber down. That would also open the door for more stalling once the SAf inf made their way north, with air cover to support their attack. And by that time, with Italy alone concentrating pretty much everything on Egypt, the UK/US should be able to make a solid enough landing in Morocco to push east, and more or less seal off N. Africa. This is the problem of not having any German Med. support, and seems to be a big problem to me.
/03321
I’m sure the TRS in Med will be cherished by some German players, we will see when the game gets played more. I don’t think Egypt will hold the first turn though, and India will need every unit to survive if the Jap’s launches an assault on turn 2 or 3. The battle of Africa will be fought all over the continent, and I think this will be where the Italian units will be used mostly. It’s hard to combine two powers, and most games you will see the Germans fighting in Russia and the Italians in Africa. Remember the Italians will have 17 IPCs/ turn if they take Egypt and keep the Med free of enemy fleets, so they can keep two or three transports pumping units over the Med.
/03321
Ah, yes, you’re right about restricted shore bombardment, that makes these attacks slightly less strong.
But, Japan moves before UK and I think destroying that Indian fleet will be a standard move. They have 2 ftrs on a CV outside of Formosa who can destroy the fleet easily.
So, if Japan does it’s job you would have:
Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 2 CA= 6 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13
Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.
That German TRS will probably be a most debated subject… I actually thought of using it in the Black Sea. Maybe shielding it in the Central Med with the Italian fleet is a good move, but too defensive for my tastes. This is a balanced strategy I chose, in order to keep the subs alive a little longer. If you think the battle of the Atlantic is a waste of your energy, you should of course send that BMB vs. Egypt. But I think this is a mistake since UK will then gather the Royal Navy in one sea zone and it will be difficult to attack at that stage.
I think we’re getting closer to the real thing now, but one country is still a bit in the dark: UK. I haven’t got a single one of my suggestions confirmed. Let’s just explain my choices:
Gibraltar, Egypt, Transjordan, Persia
India, Burma, Hong-kong, NEI, Borneo, Solomon Islands
These two just represent that defending their empire was a major priority in the war. UK had a defensive strategy and this was unavoidable due to how stretched out it’s empire was.
France, Northwestern Europe, Norway, Finland
UK had a commitment to liberate all democracies of Western Europe, which was why Norway was a target in Churchill’s view and probably similar when it comes to “Market Garden” offensive vs. the Low countries.
Italy, Balkans, Libya, Morocco-Algeria
This was due to Britain’s commitment with the Greeks and the Yugoslavs, and the need to counterbalance Soviet influence after the war. The US was more concerned with winning the war as quickly as possible, whereas UK with the european perspective thought also of the political situation on the continent.
/03321
Well, let’s see what will be the case on Italy1 when they make the jump versus Egypt. We assume my proposed attack and the survival of 1 ftr and 1 tank. Two scenarios:
Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 4 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 17
Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 arm, 1 ftr.
Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13
Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.
I doubt if UK actually can take 2 inf from India and build an IC, since then it won’t be defended. And I wouldn’t pour troops into India to be killed and lose India in the process. UK will fight Africa either from a South African IC or from landings in North or West Africa.
So nr 2) is the probable scenario, and here Italy can afford to leave the BB outside of Italy and build a TRS safely and not fear attacks by that BMB, and still win the fight.
I can’t see why Germany needs to get troops into Africa. This is an italian theater of war!
against a battleship? how is this gonna win/ Suicide mission. Battleships do fire back against subs? or is their some trick?
Hey, I mean the DD and TRS off Canada of course, I change my post for clarity!
The idea not to attack that BB is trying to kill off: 1 CA, 3 DD, 1 TRS (43 IPCs) instead of 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TRS (35 IPCs). Then UK won’t be able to attack your subs with the RAF and you will get a turn or two to attack with your subs.
Egypt is simple: it’s going to fall on Italy’s turn anyway and in the long run a German campaign in Africa is too much waste of resources, it should be an italian theater of war. I prefer using that BMB vs. the Royal Navy!
(Sorry for messing the thread with historical excuses, deleted that one, back to subject… :oops: )
I do think we should try to discuss what National objectives means for the game. I’d love some updates to the rules, but what we have now is probably quite close to the real thing.
From other threads we have two basic conclusions:
Are there more points to how it changes the game? Or should we try to go more into each country and how it changes the play? I would like to add that I think the advantages very much outweighs disadvantages for both points above, and think Nat Obj’s are one the great improvements to the game!
G1 strategy ’41 scenario Axis & Allies Anniversary edition
Objective: get as many infantry as possible into Russia. Harass UK without risking too heavy losses, especially air units.
Builds: 8 inf, 1 sub.
Combat moves:
Baltic states: 1 inf from Norway, 1 inf from Northwestern Europe, 2 inf, 1 art and 2 tanks from Poland, 1 cruiser bombarding.
East Poland: 2 inf from Poland, 2 tanks from Czechoslovakia/Hungary, 2 tanks from Roumania/Bulgaria.
Ukraine: 3 inf, 1 art from Roumania/Bulgaria, 1 ftr from Poland, 1 ftr from Germany.
Egypt: 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tank from Libya, 1 inf from Morocco/algeria, 1 tank from France.
North Sea: 1 sub from Baltic Sea, 1 ftr from Norway.
Azores sz: 1 sub from Bay of Biscay, 1 ftr from Northwest Europe, 1 bmb from Germany (abort attack when sub is destroyed!).
East Canada sz: 1 sub from Bay of Biscay.
Probable results: 1-2 subs survive, 0-1 of 3 UK destroyers. In Egypt: either taken or Uk survives with ftr or ftr and tank.
Non-combat moves: 2 inf, 1 AA from Germany to France, 1 inf, 1 art from Germany to Poland (if you hit that transport in Labrador you can send one more inf to Poland). Fighters: 2 land in France, 1 in Poland, 1 in Roumania/Bulgaria. Bmb: Germany.
Placement: 8 inf in Germany, 1 sub in Baltic Sea.
Follow-up: Italy should attack vs. Egypt and put some inf in France, build an extra transport so that it can amphibious assault both in Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Turn 2 Germany buys an AA, more inf and art and another sub. From turn 3 onwards, add tanks, ftr and bmb to your inf builds of at least 6 / turn. Use your subs as casualties in conjunction with air attacks in the Atlantic, stop building them when the Royal Navy gets too powerful. In Russia, take Karelia turn 2, trade territories until your inf arrive from Germany and then put pressure vs. both Archangelsk and Caucasus. The latter should be attacked by the italians as well. If using techs, start putting 5 IPCs/turn from turn 2 on and aim for the Land/Production chart, increase this to 10 IPCs/turn if the Allies build a lot of bombers or get heavy bombers tech and stop when you get Radar or IC repair.
/ Krieghund
Thanks again, edited my post! Keep it coming. So this bonus is about the integrity of the continental system that Germany envisioned, it is a good counter to sacrificing France or NW europe to mini-invasions or to use the eastern territories as buffers since that would have made German government of those areas impossible. Germany now has an incentive to switch the war over to the Atlantic and to Russian soil, which is great for historical feeling of the game.
As a Swede by the way, I like that Scandinavia is of more value now. Norway’s value was to guarantuee Sweden’s malicious iron and industrial transports to germany in wintertime, which went via Narvik. Taking Norway would probably also have stopped shipments altogether as the Swedish government at the time bowed to external pressure, and the same for Finland. I thus take the now 5 IPC value of scandinavia to include Sweden’s resources, unashamed of my egotistic focus on a country that is impassable… :-D
Hi Perry,
From what I gathered from BGG the only truly new pieces for the game are:
German cruiser (also used by Italians)
Japanese cruiser
UK cruiser (also used by Soviets)
US cruiser
German figher (Messerschmitt 109 from Bulge game replaces Stuka from AAR)
UK tank (a Matilda II replacing the Sherman)
Italian infantry
Italian tank
Chinese infantry (the only specific piece for China)
Otherwise the Italians use Japanese art and bmb and German ftr, trs, sub, DD, CV and BB. Most of the discussion has been around the Italians, that people think it’s cheap not to give them more unique pieces. I must say that the look of the game is stunning, and these things are minor to me!
When it comes to the change to how SBR works, I can think of two reasons for this:
Radar and IC repair has been added to counter HBMBs, and playing the game will show if they are worth the cost to acquire. The general sentiment on this thread right now seems to be a clear ‘NO’, for me it seems unclear. And we haven’t discussed larger strategic issues: Perhaps the US player HAS to put all their IPCs for several turns vs. Japan to even stop their advances towards a VC win. Perhaps Germany gets such a nice boost by the National objectives, reaching up to 50 IPCs by taking those five Soviet areas, that they can afford a lot of research. Perhaps UK alone can’t cope with Italy with half their income being tied up defending India and the US must send fleet units to their aid to stop the italians from gobbling up all of Africa and threatening the Atlantic. I’m sure there are more such possible scenarios!
You’ll see many more ICs in this edition. If you look at the start-up for the -41 scenario on the pics at BGG, you’ll see that UK can safely build an IC in India and keep it for several turns. Japan would have to forgo Phillippine Islands to even have a chance of grabbing India on turn 2! IC in India on UK1 will a standard move in -41 and probably also -42 scenario. Remember that Russia can still throw a tank or two down India’s way if needed.
As for Australia, that’s more risky. Maybe some games will have an IC there built on turn 3 or 4 when an invasion looks unlikely and you want extra pressure put from the south.
Great for the game that Subs are finally IT! I love the thought of subs being bought and sneaking around unable to be attacked if out of range of destroyers and waiting to attack in conjunction with air units…
/Krieghund
Yes, you can buy 5 normal bombers for 60 IPCs. But on average, US also gets two out of Rockets, Super Subs, Long-range aircraft, Jet fighters or Shipyards. Not too bad. I’m only worried for game balance though, I don’t have any qualms with the US being technologically superior since that is very much in line with history and character for a WWII game. After all, if you count the B29 as the HBMB you could argue that the US historically got Shipyards, Heavy Bombers and Long-range aircraft, requiring that 60-70 IPC investment!
