I have to say I’m not a big fan of the geography on this map.
Paris is way to far to the west.
Munich is in Tyrol.
Poland has a coast line in 1914… that’s news to me. Prussia should boarder the “Livonia” province and Poland should be land locked.
The Aegean sea, and Turkey in particular are completely placed incorrectly.
I usually do 2 carries 2 subs and 1 dd us 1 99% of the time. I try to do a bit to increase both navies so it does not take 2-3 turns to get your atlantic fleet up. I never buy battleships or cruisers, aside for maybe replacing lost ones. They just never seem cost-effective. US2 and US3 are usually the same, maybe substituting a few ships for some fighters or transports.
I think the OP was referring to the Europe only board. In that case you would not have enough IPCs to purchase all of that (only 35 while at peace).
Well, if Germany does a G1 (or even G2), the Eastern front rarely requires much German air because Russia usually has to retreat slowly in that they cannot win a stack battle with the Germans.
Therefore, Germany puts its entire airforce in West Germany (yes, planes can land in Algeria or Gibraltar if Italy takes it). In my games Germany routinely takes southern France too- and places a sub or two there per round, which can move into the gibraltar fleet as well.
The German players I have played recently rarely bat an eye losing some air for sinking the allied transports. As a bonus, if the US builds enough in Europe to counter attack gibraltar or Morocco, less if facing Japan.
I suppose if Germany doesn’t commit much to stopping UK/US fleet at gibraltar, then you’re fine.
Maybe I’m just frustrated playing the Allies recently, because I can’t get anything to Gibraltar without being decimated before turn 6 or so, and by then russia is down to moscow (with 50 infantry, but still)
You could always build a naval base at Iceland with the UK, and move your fleet up there instead.
If Germany is going Barbarossa, I usually buy the following on the first three turns:
US1: CV, DD, Fighter save 1 IPC
US2: CV, Fighterx2
US3: TTx4, Sub
That way you can use 3 transports to pick up your 3 mechs and drop them on Brazil. Your other 2 transports and your other navy can drop the remaining US starting units in Gibraltar. This can be reinforced with a UK air base and fighters and any ships they may have available to protect against axis counters.
6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, from S.Germany into Slovakia
How about using those to strafe Yugo for 1 round and then retreat into: Slovakia.
Does Italy need this help?
What are the loss / kill chances?
It’s a common practice, but if you are attacking Russia round 1, you can’t take the chance that you accidentally score 5 hits and conquer Yugo since you need those units for counter attacks on G2.
It was always my understanding that the Graf Zeppelin was intended to be used in concert with surface raiders and U-boots. It would have given the Germans a fairly big advantage in reconnaissance in the early period of the war of the Atlantic, allowing U-boots and raiders to more effectively find and destroy British shipping.
@Herr:
Thank you, gentlemen, for the insightful responses. Reading them, I concur that against good German play, it’s probably something that Russia can’t afford to do under most circumstances. However, if it can be done, perhaps a G2 Barbarossa might just be the scenario where it fits in, strange as that may seem. It all strongly depends on the situation after G1, of course.
Imagine this: Germany prepares for a G2 attack on Russia, and for that purpose, buys land units only on G1. Germany also takes France and kills the British fleet, losing a few planes in the process. In addition, a few German planes are sent to Southern Italy to guard against a British Taranto attack. The Norway infantry steps into Finland, and as many units as possible are generally sent east.
Now Russia puts absolutely everything that can reach it, in Karelia. That’s 11 inf 1 art 2 AA 2 ftr 1 tac � and of course this shouldn’t be done if the entire Luftwaffe can hit it, but it’s quite enough to deter an attack from Finland supported by only a few planes.
If Germany ignores this on G3 and continues the invasion and the drive to Moscow as planned, then Russia can take Finland with relatively small losses. A few British planes can be sent to support the surviving Russian units, if necessary. Next round, the Russians will take Norway. There’s a big German force moving towards Moscow, but the extra income will allow Russia to build more while Germany builds less. Germany may counter by building transports G3, in order to recapture Finland if Russia takes it - but it would probably need at least three transports, and that would be money not spent on ground troops. Depending on the situation, Russia may then either still go for it, or take Finland with a smaller force and send some units back to Novgorod.Alright…. it’s probably a dubious plan, anyway.
As a response I would probably push up to Leningrad to trap your units and the SBR Moscow to reduce the income advantage you gained from the attack up north.
I tried this once in a face to face game with my normal opponent. The income was a huge boost, but I committed too many infantry to the attack and he just steamrolled his way to Moscow. I think it is a viable option if your opponent doesn’t reinforce the north beyond the starting army in Norway/Finland, because you can probably do it with 5 inf a few art, and your starting air can attack from Novgorod and fly back into Russia. The question is, does losing 5 infantry and several artillery for the income make it worthwhile?
Sevastopol borders Turkey?
That means a single giant tt from Crimea to Armenia, unless we’re talking about adjacent by sea.
Go look at the Map and then Larry’s reasoning for leaving troops in Sevastopol, it is indeed one giant territory.
If that is the case, I feel that Sevastopol isn’t really an appropriate name for the territory.
Wars conducted by industrial powers had changed rapidly between 1900 and 1941. The Russo Japanese War illustrated the power of machine guns and entrenchments. However, aside from the use of Rail, horse and horse drawn wagons, etc…was still most common in WWI. So how do you represent this in 1914 vs. other Axis and Allies titles?
I personally think the A&A system works best for WWI, rather than WWII. Area movement is fine for infantry and cavalry, but armored units with break throughs and lack of supply lines, etc…never made sense to me.
I agree with most of what you say here, however it needs to be mentioned that the majority of the German army in WWII was marching on foot, and using the horse and ox to drag artillery and supplies around. The Panzergruppen that spearheaded Barbarossa had an a large cache of wheeled transport (much of it captured from the French and British), however the advance was dependent on receiving supply from rail heads, which advanced at a much slower pace than the attack given the need to re-gauge Russian rail lines. One of the major reasons for the long stops after Minsk and Smolensk was the lack of motor transport. The Panzer divisions weren’t just running low on fuel, but also on ammunition and were in dire need of a rest and refit. Most roads in Russia at the time were un-improved and took a terrible toll on vehicle maintenance. As a result they had to wait for not only the foot bound infantry, but also the rail heads to catch up.
Paris was declared an open city on June 10th by the French government to prevent its destruction in battle, but they did attempt to defend the approaches to the city. The government had already relocated prior to its capture by the German’s, and the French prime minister did not want to surrender, but resigned due to lack of support in his cabinet. Petain became the new prime minister with promises of suing for an armistice.
None of Russia’s starting territory has a high enough IPC value to allow factories to be upgraded to a major IC.
All of their minor ICs are built on territories with an IPC value of 2.
The relevant text from pg. 27 of the manual: “The industrial complex to be upgraded must be located on an originally controlled (not captured) territory that you have controlled since the beginning of your turn and that has an IPC value of 3 or higher.”
Another factor is the 3 vs 1 lineup on the western front; that is France, Britain and later America each having a turn in succession between German turns. To be fair there’d have to be a way for Germany to reinforce its stack between turns.
Perhaps Germany could play separate turns for the eastern and western fronts, allowing them to transfer reinforcements from one front to the other during NCM.
I just have the feeling that the game might be too static without these little prods.
I hear that. Too many A&A games IMO end up being infantry stacks trading territories. I am getting a little sick of that, and I don’t feel it’s very WWII (that’s why I think mech inf were a great attempt at getting away from the stacks). It almost seems like the WWI game should be the slow one, and it would be pretty funny and ironic if the infantry stack/trade goes away in this one.
The massive infantry stacks could be eliminated in 1 of three ways:
1. Introduce the concept of stacking limits.
2. Place limits on the quantity of units that each nation can have deployed on the map at any one time.
3. Supply lines. If a quick armored thrust could pocket your huge stack of slow moving infantry, you would think twice about massing them all together.
Perhaps they could go with something like: “The War to End All Wars: an Axis and Allies Game”, or something along those lines. Keep the Axis and Allies branding, since it uses the same game system but clearly define that this is a WWI game.
This is basically what I’ve been advocating for years. I don’t even have limited movement points, railways could shift a lot of materiel. Of course the movement can only be between connected land tts, but you forgot to mention that, didn’t you?
I have a fairly simple idea for an implementation of rail movement:
Each country has a certain amount of strategic movement points (perhaps equal to, or a fraction of their IPC). During the non-combat movement phase a player can move units into any territory owned at the start of their turn. Strategic rail movement cannot result in a unit ending in a contested territory.
Good catch on the “connected land tts.” BTW, I would highly suggest everyone who is looking for a really in-depth WWI game to check out “The Guns of August” by Avalon Hill.
I have a fairly simple idea for an implementation of rail movement:
Each country has a certain amount of strategic movement points (perhaps equal to, or a fraction of their IPC). During the non-combat movement phase a player can move units into any territory owned at the start of their turn. Strategic rail movement cannot result in a unit ending in a contested territory.