@Panzer-V I also play solely with a group of friends and find that contrary to the consensus on the forums, the Allies are hardly at a massive disadvantage. This could simply be as a result of playing with a group of equally skilled opponents who know how you think, therefore granting an immediate advantage to the defender, the Allies.
Everything changes when you’re playing an opponent you don’t know.
My groups been playing A+A for about 15 years and G40 about 20 full games in the past couple years.
@DessertFox599 Yes that’s certainly effective. I personally like to take and hold a territory if possible though, because it gives that added level of threat to Germany and especially Italy.
Okay now you’re making sense. If Germany is sending the Luftwaffe to attack fleets though they are 1. Losing valuable planes and 2. Not sending those planes to the Eastern front.
My focus has always been getting as many ground troops into Europe as fast as possible, and damn the casualties. Any attention drawn from Germany is a positive.
@DessertFox599 I’m a Germany first guy myself, but 90% 😱 It just seems excessive. I believe you are correct in Germany being the primary threat but USA has to put some effort into the pacific because UK and ANZAC are usually steamrolled by Japan in 5 or six turns. You gotta save Sydney at least. Even if you put just 20 IPCs into the Pacific , Japan can’t be storming India, Australia, and protect its Islands all at the same time. Germany is already battling Russia with only a 10 to 20 IPC advantage, so USA coming with an additional 50 can’t be stopped without diverting valuable troops from the eastern front.
@DessertFox599 bit of a defeatist perspective I think. Your saying that the US landing 10 units on Gibraltar or in North Africa turn 3 isn’t going to do squat? What about when they invade Normandy and the Brit’s reinforce it? Now Paris will fall and you lose a victory city just before nabbing Russia. Catastrophic in my experience.
And how exactly are the allies on the verge of defeat when the wars just started? There is more hope than you realize my friend. They may be unprepared but with far larger economies they can rapidly close the gap. The Axis rely on speed and greater starting forces to achieve victory, so the faster the Allies can start attacking even if only in limited strikes the better.
@DessertFox599 Now are you speaking theoretically or from personal experience? I have NEVER won as the allies when the USA dumps everything into one theatre. I’m not saying split 50/50 because he who attacks everything attacks nothing, I’m saying do a 60/40 or 70/30 split. You must crate a credible threat in one theatre while mounting a serious offensive in the other. USA has the income to achieve this with prudent purchasing. If you divert German attention for one round away from Russia that can be a deciding factor.
What exactly is happening in your games? It’s not abnormal for the Axis to win 6 or even 7 or of 10 games, as most everyone on the forum will tell you the game is tilted in their favor. It would help if you posted some of your overall strategies and where specifically you’re having trouble so that we could cover counter strategies.
@Chrisx Well the USA isn’t just sitting there I hope, because by round 8 they’ve been in the fight for at least 4 turns so they should be pressuring both sides of the map and also increasing their enormous economy.
Focus 100% of attention on one theatre is a mistake in my experience. Always split your purchases and prepare to attack by turn 2 in case Japan brings you into the fight early.
If this still isn’t working then you are always free to make house rules regarding victory cities.
@Chrisx Perhaps, but the Axis must fend for themselves against multiple opponents, most notably the US which, is essentially the dual to all Axis powers once it’s actovated.
@Chrisx A valid position. I’ve had some cheesy games where one Axis power is obliterated but the other grabs that last victory city just before the allies switch their focus. The reasoning I think is that it’s necessary to prevent the Allies from simply destroying the Axis one at a time. If the goal was let’s say 14 victory cities on both maps together the Allies would have a strong advantage because they could lock down one side of the map .
My point being that axis victory is easier to achieve in the European theatre, at least in my experience. It’s easier for the Allies to stagnate Japan once America is involved.
Japan needs what, six victory cities? Even if they get Calcutta they still need Sydney or Honolulu. With enough focus poured into taking Calcutta the Aussies probably have Sydney well defended, and Honolulu gets harder and harder to take if you don’t strike it early.
@crockett36 So you would reinforce Egypt from the start then?
Of course this is a WAR game so objectives and scenarios are constantly evolving. It would have been silly for the Russians to reinforce Stalingrad in November of 41 when Moscow was the clear objective.
@Argothair A very good point, so we should put time tables on victory cities. London can fall before turn three but not after, Moscow after turn 7 but not before etc. etc.
@simon33 The end goal of course is Calcutta, but to achieve that it’s necessary to first target the UK economy. Once your economy is able to keep pace with the US you can essentially walk into Calcutta because UK has like 6 IPCs a turn.
@weddingsinger Okay, so In practice you can do something useful with your aircraft before parking them in Moscow.
I can say from experience that Weddingsingers Japan strategy is solid gold. I use essentially the same game plan whenever commanding Japan and it’s almost always successful. So successful that it actually forces UK and ANZAC to attack turn 2 so you get a free round without US involvement.
@Argothair Precisely my point earlier. If UK commits every plane to Moscow immediately then the Germans have a leg up taking London and the Italians can take Cairo.