Posts made by Lynxes

I think what Craig Yope is saying between the lines is that the NOs ended up being more pro-Axis then they were from the beginning. Applied to the China situation this would mean that Japan would lose momentum if it attacked say Yunnan since then India would be less threatened and an IC could be put into operation there with long-term drawbacks. Now with NOs as they stand this doesn’t really matter since the Japanese economy gets so strong it will dominate India anyway sooner or later but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case without NOs or with less Axis-biased NOs.

/Cmdr Jennifer

Would be interesting to hear from you on how you find '41 w. NOs to be balanced. Does this mean that USA and UK focus on the invasion of Italy ASAP and then onto France? And support of Russia in Karelia and Moscow with fighters? I’ve tried the IC in India thing with UK but not sure if it worked out. An IC in South Africa really saves you a lot of IPCs in Africa and gives you a reasonable income as UK. Overall it seems that the race to Berlin or Moscow is the name of the game, again.

I haven’t yet played '41 without NOs but with NOs I find it tedious, a bit like an “as if” scenario with Japan having the same industrial might as Germany or USA. I think I’ll find the '42 scenario more attractive in the long run, and probably without NOs. Here’s why:

1. Turn order. Means you can’t attack and make a hole in the Russian front with the Italians to exploit with the Germans. You can also kill off DD blocks in the North Sea as the Axis with Japan & Italy and be able to deploy subs out of the Baltic sea.
2. Set-up. Royal Navy and the Chinese Army is at least adequate and not non-existent as in '41 scenario, and of course US pacific navy as well.
3. Japanese strategy: with one instead of five transports you actually have to pick one target first and focus on that rather than be able to take ALL targets at your disposal. Etc: India, Australia, Alaska?

I also LOVE the optional rules over at Larry Harris Game Design forum, and has just started playing with them! The only other house rule we use is HBMBs attack at ‘5’ (still SBR at 2d6 which is not as horrible when you have interceptor rules).

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

But at first brush my feeling is that the US can provide the Pacific power much more safely and close to as effectively as a UK/Russian investment. And the UK and Russia are better situated to use their IPCs against Germany/Italy.

The problem with letting USA fight it out alone vs. Japan is that it gets very difficult to outproduce them. The idea with keeping India is to keep Japan honest, somewhere around 40-45 IPCs instead of those impossible 50-55 IPCs you see if Japan runs rampant. Then USA can mount a credible threat without dumping all their IPCs into the Pacific. My impression of the game is that USA is in the best position to bring Italy down. It’s hard for UK to send their fleet down into the Mediterranean since they usually have to keep pressure on Karelia in the early game. And due to the Luftwaffe, splitting up the UK fleet is also difficult, leaving it to the Yanks to destroy the italian fleet.

When Japan is hindered enough, you can then refocus all of your production to Europe for the final push against Germany (the early game you put 20 IPCs in Europe and ca 15 in India). Also keeping India means UK doesn’t drop down too low in production. South Africa as an IC is nice but it helps mostly to keep the African IPCs, hard to threaten Japan from down there.

As for Russia, they should pull out their expensive units, fighters or tanks, as soon as India is secure and bring them back to their home front. Fighters are great here since they can be based in India and take part in your counterattacks vs. Caucasus. The plan is that once Moscow is in danger, you should be able to withdraw them!

Well, I’ll now stick my head out a little and retract earlier statements about not being able to hold India. This is since a major experience playing '41 is that just allowing Japan to grow is really a high risk strategy: even if you go all out KGF you will have to be lucky to get to Berlin before Moscow falls and a lot of the time a Jap fighter horde will be defending Berlin. Rather than taking those chances an India IC gives you the chance to slow down the Japanese advance early and the whole dynamic of the game then changes.

So here are the advantages of going all-in for India:

1. Forces Japan to focus on an area and gives other areas of the board a break, esp. US navy.
2. If you keep building up UK and Russian forces there, UK IPCs will be more secure and also Japans production more normal -> major economic advantage.
3. Japan can’t just go through China and Russia since then UK attacks vs. south Asia will be robbing those bonuses.
4. You will have the time to finish off Italy and then invade France in good order. Esp. USA will be able to send forces both vs. Europe and Pacific. For example, being able to land US land troops and fighters in France after a UK invasion and with no Italian threat is a real pain in the butt for Germany since if France is then kept by the Allies, UK will build an IC -> game over!

Of course, there are disadvantages, such as:

1. Your allies must help you as the UK player. If the Jap plays aggressively, you will have to get 4-6 infantry and some tanks and fighters as well from Russia. In essence, Russia will have to bear losing Caucasus perhaps already on G2 and then retake it and keep playing in a more reactive way for the first few turns. And the US navy must be active and keep at least half the Japanese fighter force on carriers!
2. You will probably be forced to transfer the UK fighters to India via Arkhangelsk. This means building up your fleet will be a slower process as UK, you don’t get the boost of building a CV with 2 fighters transferred onto it.
3. You also commit some IPCs to the Pacific theater, again delaying a quick invasion of Europe.
4. Russia being committed in India, Karelia will probably not hold alone. Rather than invading France the first two-three turns, you might find yourself embroiled vs. Germany in Karelia. Perhaps you might be forced to give the Germans control of Karelia temporarily in order to invade it again when they move forward vs. Moscow. And keeping down Italy will be left to the US, who should build up its East coast navy on turn 1 to immediately threaten the Italian navy together with those 2 bombers.

But my thought know is that the pros really outweighs the cons and that India IC is a go! What have you found?

Japan can forgo the invasion of the Philippines as you describe, but I think they must at least sink the Philippines DD and transport with their BB. If I’m Japan I can’t send that BB to India, no matter what’s happening there.

Well, Japan can either attack that DD+trs with ftr from Formosa + DD from Carolines or divert 2 ftrs from the Midway force and forgo sinking the DD+trs off West Coast. But sending that BB to India is probably still very risky since it’s a big part of the Japanese naval dominance in the beginning-> USA will have a field day if only 2 CV+4ftr will be left vs. the entire USA Pacific fleet!

Yes, tanks are also a possibility. The only drawback is that if you strike back at Caucasus you will weaken India whereas fighters can land again in India. But yes, you can take 4 hits which is nice. You can also build 2 arm+1ftr. I assume you build 10 IPCs of extra defense units on R1.

When I think of it, Japan can’t even send their fighters from Midway west to strike at India on turn 2, they only reach Kiangsu! So the best Japan could do is to forgo the invasion of Phillippines and send those two transports normally used to invade there to prepare for India turn 2 invasion. Then Japan could have: 10 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 5 ftr+CA+BB shore bombard, for a total of 28 attack plus 7 shore bombard first round (assuming one ftr hit by AA), vs. that defence force of 28 for India (or 32 if you send in 4 Russian arm).

So, if you see a Japanese opening move of setting up all five transports to invade India, you should maybe not build that IC in India, but that seems to be the only counter to allow a J2 invasion! Maybe be could see some nice American strategy being developed to exploit such a scenario, such as aggressive naval builds which could really pay off if you have both the Jap cruiser and battleship off India!

/heavy deed

Not sure if JTDTM is dead that easily, Japan can still build a lot of aircraft to support the tank push. I’m thinking letting Japan go all the way to 60-70 IPCs is just impossible. I think the only place you can really stop the Japs is India. Yes, it looks hard but this is how you COULD do it (not tested out yet!):

1. Build 2 ftr with Russia, move 6 inf to Persia.
2. Move transjordan infantry to Persia, UK 2 fighters land in Arkhangelsk after killing Baltic fleet. Build IC in India.
3. Reinforce India w 6 inf and 2 ftr from Russia. You now have 9 inf, 1 art, 2 ftr, AA vs. probable invasion force J2 of something like 7 inf, 1 art, 5 ftr+ CA shore bombard, good odds.
4. Then you can use those Russian fighters to retake Caucasus from the Italians or the Germans or both and still land them in India -> only when Moscow is in danger will you be forced to withdraw them.
5. Turn 3 India defence force: 11 inf, 1 art, 3 arm (built on UK2), 4 ftr (2 from UK, 2 russian), AA. Can’t see how the Japs could top that!  :evil:

In order for this strategy to work you need the US to occupy those 2 Jap CVs off Midway and their fighters in some way, probably threatening Phillippines, and keep this offensive going so that Japan can’t throw all they got at India. Also, UK will be needed to really help Russia ASAP as a reward for saving India-> expect tough fighting for Karelia. You will probably have to build a BB or 2 CA along with 2-3 DDs instead of that CV when you send away those fighters, and USA will have to send some ships and bombers into the Med. to deal with the Italian fleet. From turn 2 and on, UK and USA will have to build fighters and store them up in UK in order to send to Moscow when the Germans come knocking! The crucial thing will of course be if the Russians can survive the sending of 6 inf to India but I suspect it can be done since in most games I’ve played it was the Japs and not the germans that ended up in Moscow…

PS. The only counter for this strategy for the Japs seems to be to send the Midway fighters directly towards India and forgo Pearl Harbor-> But then I would love to play USA! And those Russians can just march back to Caucasus and you build that IC in South Africa. DS.

The thing in -41 is, that japan doesnot need to choose….

They can take China, IND, AUS AND capture east russia…there’s not too much strat involved. it’s mainly to optimize piece usage…

The game we played last weekend I tried to just push all at Germany with UK and it didn’t really work out that well. The big problem was that I tried to go for France after having wiped out the Italian fleet rather than eliminating Italy completely. Also, my low IPCs after a few turns kept UK down and couldn’t build air force or enough naval units.

I do think that a South African IC is a really good deal. You can spend as little as you want if the Axis ignore Africa but otherwise its a good starting point to avoid UK falling to 20 IPC/turn which was really awful in our game! At least with Africa below Egypt you can stay at around 27-28 IPCs which is a minimum to be a threat to Germany.

As for Japan I think the choice in the '41 scenario is whether to focus on attacking the US mainland in order for Germany+ Italy to finish off Russia with US occupied defending West US, or to do the old JTDTM. A really good Allied strategy should be able to deal with both these strategies! Japan takes China, India and Australia, yes, maybe, but that needn’t be fatal if the Allies know what they’re doing.

Interesting discussion, I certainly agree Gibraltar fleet (sz12) and Egypt is a go for Germany. Japan WILL start-off very strong and I’ve found that a South African IC is the only safe place to build an IC for UK. You HAVE TO have Africa at least in part as UK or your production will be measly. So the only other option to a South Africa IC is a maximized Africa attack by USA.

For Germany:
sz12-> attack with 2 subs and 1 ftr
Egypt-> attack with 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 1 bmb
Then use Italian navy to take Egypt+Transjordan and help out vs. Caucasus.

For Allies:
Either:
South Africa IC+invasions of Scandinavia by UK, USA focus on Italy+bombers-> both D-day after Africa/Italy secure.
or
All-out US attack on Africa+Italy, UK focus on bombers + D-day.

I haven’t seen an India IC defended yet so I’m not sure about that!

These I think are the main reasons the cheapness of bombers won’t upset the game:

1. Bombers also do SBR, so throwing them at navies means you lose one turn of SBR and also might lose the bombers. Germany has bombed Russia with SBR very effectively in some of the games I’ve played, for example.
2. Transports are still needed for UK, USA and Japan to win the game. I actually think attacking over the Pacific vs. Alaska/West US might be the best strat for Japan, and then just land + air units + ICs won’t do it. You need lots of naval units to protect your transports= bombers won’t replace ships!
3. Air force is Germany’s main way of countering a KGF. Subs are not easy to use and any surface ships will probably be blown out of the water. So Germany being able to destroy Allied fleets is pretty much necessary otherwise it will just be a sitting duck waiting for SBR and invasions to wear it down.
4. Italy with NOs will get very strong if you can’t put them down, so cheap bombers here will be a counterbalance to an otherwise possible game-balance-upsetting big Italy.

Historically, enough has been said. The demise of the battleship was performed by aircraft.

/Je Gab Fan

I don’t agree. My idea is for a COUNTER-attack, you let UK invade and then wipe out his fleet with a combined attack with subs and aircraft at the same time as you destroy the landing force with your army. (If you want a fleet to defend with you buy one or two CVs, and even then you mostly hang out in the Baltic as the German player in order to shuttle troops to Karelia and protect from invasions.)

Subs are the cheapest unit for naval attacks at 3 IPCs / attack number, only bombers match this but with subs you get two hit points for each one you get buying bombers. The optimum attacking force is a combo of subs and air.

Only Germany can focus fully on attack since all other powers need to have defensive fleets and there subs are not that useful even though they can still be important additions for when you face an opposing fleet and need some more offensive power and more hit points.

/Holkann

See my “GUARD” threads in both 41 and 42 threads on German sub strategy. Basically it only works in 42 scenario and if you get Japanese air support lend-leased to Germany to kill off DD blocks by the US.

I’m with you IL on tanks but after the first two-three turns you should begin adding bombers. You will then replace that odd aircraft you’ve lost, be able to SBR Russia until you can push for the final Moscow assault and then use them bombers in that attack. Infantry should be built here and there to protect France, but infantry for the Russian front you might be better off building in those ICs you grab with your tanks. Exception would be if USA went Pacific, then you might actually have time to march infantry forward and then indeed an extra IC in France or Poland might be worth it. But if KGF is at you, tanks + bombers is the thing since only they kill off the Russkies quickly enough.

I’m with Romulus on the CV issue, especially since most nations have a surplus of fighters which gives more bang for the buck; for 14 IPCs you would get 10 defence value if you land two fighters on them (and even 34 IPCs for 10 def+3 hits is really good). CV is the backbone of any fleet in AA50, and the best defence vs. air attacks which is the MAIN threat vs. fleets now that bombers are so cheap.

Destroyers-subs are connected and I don’t think buying DDs if the enemy has no subs is worth it. DDs can never help out on land and therefore CAs are better, and even better CV+ftr if you can afford it since fighters can then even defend your land territory such as France or Italy or West US.

Subs on the other hand are cheap attack units and if you already have a CV defended fleet buying a horde of subs might break your opponent. Now with subs so cheap surprise shots WILL have an effect in that if the defender has DDs they must be kept alive and then the enemy will be FORCED to take capital ships as losses rather than cheap DDs or FTRs! Also there is a possibility for Germany to buy subs and keep as an attack force together with aircraft, either in the '41 scenario if USA goes vs. Japan or in the '42 scenario if you get some Japan lend-lease air units (USA can block a UK invasion fleet in English channelby a DD in North Sea, so you need Japan to destroy the DD and this is only possible in '42, or in '41 Italy could kill a UK DD block but this won’t work if USA is going forward due to the play order). This is thanks to the limit of attacking air vs. subs which means you may keep subs in Baltic Sea unlike all earlier A&A editions!  :-)

BBs will be the less common buy I think, they are still too expensive for most situations. USA will buy them if he wants to rival Japan in the Pacific, but only after one or two CV buys, that’s about it I think!

Title: Capital switch
Date: 22/11
Special rules: NOs+techs
Victor: Allies, ended with Germany, Italy and Russia being eliminated and Axis conceding defeat
Game length: around 8 rounds
Bias: me & Perry, we’re equal skillwise I think, in all four other games of the '41 scenario Axis had won and we played two each
Description (reprint from “My review” thread): The Allies went all-out KGF. UK shucked units into Karelia for the first three turns, after which Germany succeeded in bombing their navy to pieces, but then US took over the amphibious invading and UK focused on SBR. UK built a South African IC that helped to keep Africa. US invasions of Algeria, France and then Italy made things difficult for the European Axis. USA built cruisers, transports, land units and bombers after a first turn buy of a  carrier on the East coast. Japan mopped up everything and ended up grabbing Moscow AND Western US in the same turn (the second conquest was due to a mistake in builds due to fatigue on the US player part but didn’t really change the game). But by then Italy had already fallen and Germany fell to a US tank and bomber attack. Germany did dominate the Russians for most of the game, but was very hampered by a Heavy bomber SBR campaign and due to limited production narrowly failed to take back France which in hindsight was a gamebreaker since USA could then build an IC there. Techs was rampant: UK got Heavy Bombers on turn 1, US on turn 4 or 5 (as well as Super subs and Improved shipyards), Germany got Paras and Japan Jets and Long-range air.
Observations/recommendations: We concluded that the game was very difficult for the Allies and without Heavy Bombers it would have been hard to conquer Germany. But techs are now so easy to get that is actually not that random but rather a part of strategy. We can’t see right now how anything else than KGF is the way to go in the '41 scenario, but we might be wrong (?). NOs seem to be an advantage for the Axis. ADDED: me as the Axis player thought in hindsight Japan should perhaps have attacked West US/ Alaska earlier to force a distraction from Europe, also Germany might have pushed more aggressively vs. Russia with more tank buys and daring attacks since infantry buys are so EXTREMELY slow to the front which is a major problem if the Allies go KGF.

G erman
U -boat
A ircraft
R etaliation
D efense

Can we think up a strategy for Germany to buy subs? This one was shot down over on '41 strat forum by the fact that you could block subs with a DD in the North Sea but this can in turn be countered by using Italian and Japanese aircraft (interestingly only in the '42 scenario!). So the strategy involves:

a) Clearing Norwegian Sea and English channel and North Sea from enemy warships (not too difficult).
b) Building submarines in the Baltic to use as the first strike force together with air force.
c) Base German, Italian and Japanese air in Germany.
d) When UK/US invades France, all DD blocks in North Sea can be destroyed by air forces of combined Axis (i.e. Italy can destroy UK DDs, Japan can destroy UK and US DDs).
e) On the German turn, strike invasion fleet outside of France with combination of subs and air.  :-D

This GUARD shield is unable to be destroyed by air attacks as long as you keep all destroyers at a distance from Baltic Sea, and it involves buying one or two bombers with Germany as well as a number of subs. To be successful, this strategy must be less costly than buying a CV or two to have a surface fleet and also be sufficiently effective as to warrant those IPCs spent on subs. It is perhaps best used when the Allies goes KGF in order to delay an invasion long enough for Russia to collapse, and in this case Japan will not mind sending air units to Germany since that’s where the Allied forces must be stopped anyway. Yes, I know, the mechanic is a bit gamey, but hey, I don’t mind if it allows some kind of Atlantic war with German subs to be fought out!  :wink:

/nix

Thanks for resurrecting this old duck which I thought was a dead one!  :wink:

Actually, your idea works for the '42 scenario where Japan can clear a US destroyer block, according to this scheme:

3. Germany: builds subs in Baltic Sea and bases aircraft in Germany to strike at possible invasion fleet outside of France.
4. UK: invades France and puts a DD block in North Sea.
5. Italy: attacks DD block with aircraft.
6. USA: puts DD block in North Sea.
1. Japan: attacks DD block with aircraft.
3. Germany: strikes invasion fleet with sub+air!!  :evil:

/Flying tiger

Once we’ve played the game for a few months I’m sure we’ll be trying out some ideas if the Axis seem to be kicked in the butt by a KGF strat in a big majority of games. People right now I think are trying to play the game and optimizing strategies. In particular we should expect quick offensives by the Germans and Italians before American invasions take place, so that Russia can be made to collapse. On the other spectrum we could see Japan attacking Alaska from turn 2 and on so that USA can’t throw all at Europe.

I don’t think we need difficult changes though like changing major things, the simplest thing would be to just give the Axis a 12 VC victory condition which would mean the Pacific couldn’t be ignored. But again, we should try the game out more first!

Thanks for a good review! We found something of the same when we played the '41 scenario, opting for a South African IC, for example, and going for a SBR campaign.

But I differ in your judgments on these points:

1. USA can afford to hit Europe with invasions before Japan reaches Moscow. That Italian fleet is easy to hit with bombers and then you just need to worry about German air attacks which 1 CV+2ftrs+1 cruiser+1 destroyer usually stops (that’s just 26 IPCs of naval warships, the rest is transports). The strategic change is that there are more areas between Japan and Moscow, buying you more time.
2. Japan needs to have a more balanced strat than just taking all Pacific VCs and then going for Moscow. USA must be put off guard with moves such as invading Alaska or West US or Mexico or SBRing West US. If USA leaves the Pacific unguarded, it must pay for it!
3. We found matching the Jap fleet just as hard as you. But in the long run Japan will maybe be forced to put a lot of fighters into the land battles around Caucasus or some fleet units vs. Africa, and that might be the solution to the seeming imbalance fleet-wise in the Pacific.

Basically, the default strategy is “Europe first” (just as it was historically) for the Allies, and the Axis will win if it somehow forces a derailing of this strategy!

I’m intrigued by the possibility of a 12 VC victory condition for the Axis, whereas 13 VCs remain for the Allies. Of course we would then have to put extra punch to the Allies, such as tweaking the NOs or giving China the '42 setup in '41, or both.

The reason is that in the five games of the '41 scenario I’ve played so far, USA was always getting the advantage by just going for Rome or Paris rather than to defend Honolulu, in essence making the capturing of Moscow necessary for the Axis to win with a 13 VC victory condition. We will have to wait till we see that this is the result of actual gameplay when we’ve opted our strategies. For example, a Japanese early offensive through Alaska might change this picture and force the Yanks back into the Pacific before Rome or Paris is threatened (??).

/black_elk

Don’t agree: a UK IC in South Africa is fully doable in '41 and in '42 an India IC is a go (or even an Aussie one). Whereas that Karelia IC means there are more options for the Russian front, it becomes much more volatile and dynamic now rather than just marching towards Caucasus. Destroying ICs is a nice idea, but would also slow down the game which is unfortunate. We will just get used to the idea of UK troops attacking Karelia to support Russia, think of it as a sort of Lend-lease and I’m sure Churchill could have ordered that, he did it in 1918-1919…  :wink: