Topics created by MarshmallowofWar

Twinned games - one where I’m axis and one where I’m allies.

@Marshmallow:

You win. I play Japan horribly and that cost me the game. I’ll go post and start a new game.

Marsh

I think I won the game when I used the Kiwis to retake Sydney.

I just posted  a games vs abh, I lost that one because I didn’t pay attention when Germany took Russia and Uk was almost empty… im so fixated I just don’t pay attention enough

Ill set it up

@Argothair:

Taking the original question in a different direction (strategy instead of math), I noticed recently that I always try to send just enough force to a region that it would be inefficiently expensive for my opponent to challenge me.

For example, as Japan, when invading eastern Russia, how much force do you need to send? If you are much, much stronger than Russia, and you can sack the capital, fine, do that. Not interesting. If you are much, much weaker than Russia, and you are not going to even be able to keep an active beachhead, fine, stay home. Also not interesting. The interesting case is the middle ground, where you are strong enough to be a real pain in Russia’s behind, but not strong enough yet to be seriously planning an attack on Moscow.

In that case, you want to send enough force that it would cost Russia more to repel your forces than to just let you sit in Kazakh and Novosibirsk and Evenki. If you are conquering, e.g., 5 IPCs’ worth of territory, and you expect to hold it for roughly 3 turns before the global strategic situation changes again, then the stakes are a 30 IPC swing (5 IPCs * 3 turns * 2 players), so you need a force that’s large enough that Russia can’t kill it without losing at least 30 IPCs’ worth of troops. Depending on Russia’s force mix, this could be more or less than 30 IPCs’ worth of your units. If Russia has almost nothing but infantry, then even a small Japanese force of, e.g., 4 infantry and 2 tanks (24 IPCs) might be a fair match on defense against 10 attacking Russian infantry. If Russia has plenty of artillery and air support, then even a large Japanese force of, e.g., 4 infantry and 5 tanks (42 IPCs) might get crushed by a Russian counter-attack of 6 infantry, 3 artillery, and 6 fighters – Russia’s not going to lose more than 30 IPCs on that battle, and the planes are not really going to be taken away from their positions, but Russia can still repel your 42-IPC force.

So you want to think about what it would actually cost your enemy to repel your forces, and then make your invasion force just large enough that your enemy will lose more money from building or diverting the counter-attack than it would lose by letting you have the extra territories. That way you set up a win-win situation: if they let you have the territory without a fight, you win because your income goes up and theirs goes down, but if they fight you for the territory, then they lose so many resources that holding the ground winds up being a net economic loss for them.

The reason why you don’t just go in with everything you can afford to build is that you might need some of those forces to set up a similar no-win scenario for your opponents on another front – sticking with Japan, if you send too many assets into Russia, you usually won’t have enough cash left over to make sure that the Pacific islands are too expensive for America to take, and so on. There are exceptions; sometimes you can just steamroll everyone at once – but in those games, you don’t need a strategy guide!

Bumped. I don’t want this be burried too fast in past page.

The Allies certainly have the option for waiting until turn 2 before stacking Yunnan if Japan fails on J1.  The Chinese will easily have enough units to retake the territory and likely will just use minimal forces if Japan did not issue a DOW on J2.  at the end of their Chi2 turn, they easily could have 14 infantry + 6 art + 1 fighter stacked in Szechwan.  That is an impressive army against the weak Axis forces in Asia.

If this is a no-bid / non-mod game, the Axis still can come back to win the game by capturing Moscow or heading down into the oilfields.  I don’t think that I could come back for a win with BM rules.

Dutch are part of the Allies, they are not neutral. Dutch territories have always been valid landing zones for Allied aircraft.

Rule “change” is a clarification and not an actual change, I agree.

@klykke89 No, Southeast Mexico only touches sea zones on the Europe board, Mexico, and Central US. It follows the same intersection logic as Sea Zone 10.

From the 2nd edition FAQ:

Does sea zone 10 connect to sea zone 64?
A. No. The border between sea zones 10 and 11 should connect to the Pacific map edge at the
southern tip of Mexico. Sea zone 10 is adjacent only to Western United States, Mexico, and sea
zones 1, 9, 11, and 12.

Source: https://axisallies.com/rules/axis-allies-rules-europe1940-corrections-faqs.pdf

@Narvik:

To me it looks strange that you can force a man to fire his guns against his will……

… but this does not change the rules ;-)

And as ChocolatePancake said:

@ChocolatePancake:

… If the player does not want to do the convoy disruption he/she has a very easy way to do that: don’t leave ships in the convoy zone.

@ChocolatePancake:

That’s right, you can be at war with France all you want, but attacking French Indo-China, even a failed attack or an attack against just some British units, even if it’s just planes, counts as an attack.

Yep, the idea is that you are always attacking the territory, never just the units inside.