Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. mikecool70
    3. Posts
    0%
    M
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 11
    • Posts 62
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by mikecool70

    • RE: An Axis Naval Strategy

      Wow, I’m a bit surprised that this thread has got over 150 views but no responses.  When I wrote this strategy I didn’t actually have the game set up and I had forgotten how much each side in the Pacific started off with since it’s been a long time since I’ve played Pacific.  After actually realizing that UK starts off at only 16 IPCs per turn and after looking at the board, I think this strategy actually has a good chance of succeeding.  I mean, Japan can take Hong Kong, Malaya and Borneo and reduce the Pacific UK down to under half its starting income in a couple of turns.  Then it would take four subs to keep them down to zero due to convoy disruptions.  Keep a few surface ships/planes nearby to prevent any destroyers from coming from S. Africa.  Or even invade Africa since all those infantry in India are now useless.  If I counted correctly, Africa is worth 11 IPCs to the UK… five subs total can knock all that out.  Surely Italy and Japan can build five subs between the two of them.  Actually, as my original post mentioned, you should let Italy do it to let them have some of the fun.  At this point, with national objectives, Italy is at around 25-30 from Germany allowing them to take some of the neutrals, Germany is at around 50, and Japan around 60.  They are only sending about 10 IPCs each in land units to hold off Russia… that’s around 90 IPCs in naval units each turn compared to USA’s 80.  Not to mention that they start off with such a huge advantage in naval units compared to the USA.  Russia can forget about building nothing but naval units to counter the Axis… the 30 IPCs of land units the Axis are building will see to that.

      The one thing the Allies will have going for them is that those Axis naval units will have to spread themselves out thin in order to disrupt all those convoys.  But can they take out enough subs before they get hopelessly behind in production?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • An Axis Naval Strategy

      Here is a generalized Axis strategy for those of you who like building naval units.  My explanation of the strategy won’t explain every detail, mainly because I haven’t actually used the strategy so I don’t know all the details and secondly even if I did know most of the answers I still wouldn’t tell you because most of the fun is figuring these things out for yourself.  I’m not sure of the best way to explain the strategy but I figure I will simply tell you what each of the Axis countries should be trying to do, either singly or collectively.

      Collectively, the Axis players have some essential goals.  In any strategy that involves primarily building a navy, the Soviet Union is going to be a real threat.  But don’t worry, they won’t be unstoppable and they won’t be growing into a monster.  The Soviet Union economy can be kept at around 30 per turn as long as the Axis players are sending around 30 IPCs worth of land units each turn towards the Soviet Union (and actually, it probably doesn’t even have to be that much).  The rest of your money will go towards naval units, as well as the occasional transport and infantry to load up in those transports.  Now, you won’t be playing totally defensively against the Soviet Union.  In fact, your first few turns may be highly aggressive against them.  I’ll go into more detail about that when I’m discussing each Axis player singly.

      Another collective goal is for the Axis players to deny the Allies as much of an economy as possible by occupying sea zones with convoys each turn.  Just look at the map.  There are a ton of sea zones with convoys in them.  But don’t overdo it with the surface ships.  You’ll have to figure out the right balance of surface ships along with transports loaded with infantry.  In order for this strategy to work, you must force the UK, ANZAC, and to a lesser extent the USA to build infantry to protect themselves from a possible invasion.  You can’t do that without transports.  The thing is, while they are building infantry, they most likely would really like to be building a fleet in an attempt to take out your navy and bring the battle to your shores.  Your transports can then pick off small islands as well as places like Brazil.  Your economy needs to be growing each turn while theirs needs to shrink each turn.  Once you dominate the seas and are making more money each turn than the Allies are, then you can switch to building more land units to take out various victory cities.

      If you are playing with the optional technology rules, then obviously you should be going for chart 2 technologies,  Every one of these technologies will help you, even radar (to shoot down more Soviet planes).  Don’t go overboard.  Perhaps buy 1 dice roll per turn for each Axis player.  Germany should not be greedy: let the Italian player pick up some of the neutrals so that their economy can get to around 25 so that even they can afford a tech roll each turn.  The Italian player should be allowed to have fun too.  With one tech roll per turn per player, statistically that is one technological advance every other turn.  It should make for a different game every time.  Of course, the Allies may be tech rolling each turn also but they won’t be able to afford it as much due to their convoys being disrupted.  However, if the Soviets get some really good chart 1 tech advances, then they could very well turn the game into an Allied victory.  Hey, there are no guarantees if you use tech rules.

      This naval strategy actually makes it more likely that the Axis will violate strict neutral territory.  As long as this strategy is working for the Axis, there is no way the Allies are going to be able to send transports to South America, Spain, or Sweden to activate them.  The transports will get sunk as soon as they are built.  The Axis can use their transports and infantry to take out one neutral after another while using their planes and bombardments for extra punch.  Admittedly, the Allies would be able to easily activate Turkey, Mongolia, Afghanistan and all of the African neutrals, so I’m not saying the Axis should definitely violate strict neutrals.  It really depends on the situation and how fast the Axis players think they can take out the neutrals to get extra income.

      Ok, now for single objectives for each Axis country.

      Germany.  For the first four or five turns, buy nothing but naval units, including enough transports to force UK into building a lot of infantry to prevent an invasion.  Build a few carriers and land fighters on them to protect your fleet.  Build a ton of subs to convoy raid.  With the plunder from France as well as your national objectives, you can afford a very large navy in four or five turns.  It’s going to take the Soviets that long to finally match the tanks, planes, artillery and infantry that you have.  Plus, since your goal is to dominate the Atlantic, you can send every land unit to the Russian front to try to stalemate them.  Destroy as much of the UK navy as you can on turn 1 and prevent them from rebuilding their navy while you start taking out their economy by disrupting convoys in the Atlantic.  You may even consider attacking the Soviets on turn 1.  I read in another thread about attacking the Soviets on turn 1, not to conquer them, but to destroy enough of their infantry and force them to spend a turn or two rebuilding their infantry before they can get around to building up more offensive units.  I’m not sure how many Soviet infantry you can take out turn 1 if you are also taking out France and the UK navy but it may be worth a try.  Be sure to occupy SZ 125 to prevent the Soviets from gaining their national objective.

      After the first four or five turns, start building more infantry each turn to stalemate and/or trade territories with the Soviets.  At first, you may be doing most of the sending of infantry to the Soviets, but as Italy builds up its economy they can contribute more.  Use your naval bases and transports to pick off islands such as Cuba and bigger prizes such as Brazil.

      Italy.  You may have to totally rebuild your navy depending on what UK does.  But with all those German naval builds, it may actually be a mistake for UK to destroy your navy.  Who knows.  At any rate, your primary goal is to activate/conquer enough neutrals to get your economy rolling and build one or two subs each turn.  Your subs will mainly be used to disrupt convoys all around Africa while Germany is taking care of the Atlantic convoy territories.  Like Germany, an occasional transport build here and there to actually take out territory will be useful.  Try to relieve Germany by sending as many infantry as you can afford to the Russian front.  I think this is a really cool strategy for Italy since they actually will get to do something.

      Japan.  You will probably have the hardest role to play in all of this.  You have to get your economy large enough to really crank out the naval units and start disrupting convoy seazones in the Pacific.  You also have to make sure that the Soviets ALWAYS have at least one original territory no longer in their possession or they will gain 6 IPCs for EACH original German territory that they control.  You have to put enough pressure on India to make sure they don’t go through the Suez canal and crush Italy.  And you have to do all this while putting enough pressure on the USA to force them to build infantry and/or fleet in the Pacific theatre so that they can’t use all their money to crush the German fleet.

      Notice I haven’t mentioned Japan taking out China.  That’s because I highly doubt they can do all the above AND still take out China.  In fact, I doubt they can do all the above and even keep the original Chinese territories that they control.  If you can, more power to you.  But perhaps it’s more realistic to plan a slow retreat out of China  as you gain other territories.  Where should those infantry go?  Probably, most of them should go towards India just to keep the UK from going wild against Italy.  With a large enough navy, it should be fairly easy to take out  Honolulu and Sydney, giving you an extra 10 IPCs in national objectives.  The USA can prevent this by building mainly in the Pacific, but then Germany has an easier time in the Atlantic.  Also, remember you will be sending a few infantry each turn into the Soviet Union in order to force the Soviets not to focus totally on Germany.

      As Japan, you won’t necessarily be trying to take out every territory that you can.  It may suffice to allow the Allies to keep a territory while your naval units are disrupting convoys and denying them from actually benefiting from owning the territory.

      Ok, that is the summary of my strategy.  I’m sure I’ve left out a few things that I’ve thought about discussing but it will have to do.  If the Axis can actually pull off a win using this general strategy, then it will certainly make for a different game compared to previous versions of Axis and Allies.  Also, there are many questions that need to be answered before anyone can say that this strategy definitely won’t work.  Here are some questions I can think of off the top of my hat:

      1.  Should Japan attack UK/ANZAC/USA round 1?  Or should they position their units better?

      2.  Should Japan attack the Soviets on round 1?

      3.  For all of the Axis players, what exactly is the ideal mix between attacking naval ships versus transports?

      4.  How many neutrals can Germany allow Italy to take so that Italy can actually do something without compromising its (Germany’s) position?

      5.  How much money should be spent on tech rolls?

      6.  Should the Japanese navy try to link up with the German and Italian navies if the USA invests heavily in the Atlantic?

      There are many questions that need to be answered in order to perfect this strategy.  I have no idea if this strategy can win the Axis many games but I do know that if you lose with this strategy, you will be able to ask yourself, “What if I had done this one thing differently?  Would the Axis have won the game then?”  It will take many games before you exhaust all the questions that can be asked about this strategy.  And this is just one naval strategy that I’ve thought of.  I’m sure there are many other strategies that will be thought of for both the Axis side and the Allied side.  This global game will really take years to master.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: A brief after action report of a (temporarily suspended) game between Blitz and

      @dannyboy2016:

      .
      On G2 Germany spent 45 ipcs on techs. No 6es. So he complains about this and I was feeling merciful and hold him to roll again. The result was improved mech infantry and improved artillery, which he would use to monkey stomp Leningrad in a few turns. I’m regretting that now, and may insist that Russia get 9 free dice to roll.  As its only fair.

      A player can only receive one technological advance per turn.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: My Impression of the Game So Far

      @The:

      Strict neutral invading is a good idea for the Axis around the middle east as it will connect them together with the invetable J3 India crush and followed up by a J4 attack on west india and then unite around africa and the Suez canal.

      #4 on the original post i don’t agree Africa will be all that important there is only 1 territory in there the Axis will want and this is Egypt because of Cairo and the Suez Canal so the Italian fleet can expand and maybe work on stealing all the African IPC’s. Britain should be more worried about the Eastern front. Even though there is a large amount of territories between Moscow and the Germans because they should worry about the fall of Stalingrad and Leningrad so the British should support the Soviets after the threat of Sealion has passed (G2).

      Well, what I meant by #4 in my original post is that since UK won’t lose much of its income unless Africa is taken out, it will probably be best for Italy, with the help of Germany and/or Japan, to try to actually take it out.  Otherwise, you are looking at a UK that can transport around 10 infantry into Russia every turn, at least once they get 5 transports and enough surface fleet to protect it.  That doesn’t even take into consideration what the USA is bringing in.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: My Impression of the Game So Far

      @calvinhobbesliker:

      @Imperious:

      2. Speaking of strict neutrals, I’m wondering if the Axis taking out Turkey is a good option.  Actually, I found the rules about the Turkish strait confusing, so I’m not sure after reading the rules if land units are capable of moving from Greece to Turkey.  If it is possible, then perhaps Germany can build a bunch of infantry to hold off Russia while German tanks go into the Middle East/Africa/India to help out Italy and/or Japan.  It could be enough to swing the game in the Axis’ favor.

      Yes this is the old 2nd edition trick coming back to the fold. You don’t need a medd fleet if you can move into Turkey from Europe and Panzers can get to Africa easily.

      Problem is you got everybody else at war with you ( all the neutrals)

      Yeah: Brits get 4 African inf, Americans get all of South America, Western Allies get Spain and Portugal(invadable from EUS), Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia

      Yeah, but how easy will it be to actually activate all those infantry?  Plus, even activated, without transports they are not going anywhere very quickly.  As an Axis player, I may even wish that the Allies are distracted by building transports to move infantry when building a different type of unit might be in their best interest.  It probably all depends on the timing.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • My Impression of the Game So Far

      I just got the Europe game today.  I have the Pacific game also but only set up the Europe side of the game.  Here are some of my first impressions of the game, in no particular order:

      1.  First of all, I think with the map being so big, with the neutrality rules, and with the optional tech rules, this game has so many options.  So many spaces being between Germany and Russia allows the other Allied players time to really get units into the game before they have to worry about Russia falling.  With Germany and Japan having so many units to start off the game with, I think tech rolls will benefit them the most, at least early in the game.  Perhaps buying a couple of tech dice a turn with Germany and Japan is a good option.  I think that violating strict neutral territories is actually more of an option for the Axis, especially if Germany does it in the first few turns.  The opposing team doesn’t automatically get the remainder of the neutral infantry… they still have to activate the territories, and may not have the transports to actually get the infantry anywhere fast enough to count.  Other strict neutrals, such as Sweden, are going to be really hard for the Allies to get to as long as the Axis control the surrounding territories…

      2. Speaking of strict neutrals, I’m wondering if the Axis taking out Turkey is a good option.  Actually, I found the rules about the Turkish strait confusing, so I’m not sure after reading the rules if land units are capable of moving from Greece to Turkey.  If it is possible, then perhaps Germany can build a bunch of infantry to hold off Russia while German tanks go into the Middle East/Africa/India to help out Italy and/or Japan.  It could be enough to swing the game in the Axis’ favor.

      3.  Germany is going to have to put as much pressure as possible on the UK for the first two turns if Italy is to have any chance of securing the Med and taking out Egypt.  The UK fleet off of Gibraltar and north of Egypt can take out the Italian battleship, cruiser, and transport, especially if the carrier joins the fight, allowing another UK fighter to join in the fight.  The threat of a sealion will probably at least force the destroyer off of Gibraltar to block Germany’s Baltic fleet on G2.  But it may not be enough to stop UK from destroying the Italian navy anyway.  If Italy retaliates with the rest of his fleet and airforce, then the French navy can attempt to finish off the remainder of the Italian navy.  The UK can use the transport off of Egypt to either activate units in Persia or Greece, causing even more problems for Italy.  If Germany builds up enough surface ships/transports, then UK may be forced to send their entire Gibraltar fleet to UK, thus saving the Italian fleet.

      4.  Even if UK loses a few African territories, these territories aren’t worth that much and UK is still going to have a large enough economy to really help out.  Italy won’t be able to keep Africa without Germany and/or Japan reinforcing it.  So it seems to me that Africa will really matter in this game.

      5.  I suppose Germany and Italy could give up on Africa altogether and go all out against Russia, but then UK will quickly secure all of Africa/Middle East and then be able to just transport infantry into Russia.  So it doesn’t seem to me that it would work, especially with Italy not gaining any national objectives.

      6.  I think that which way the game goes will often depend on which country, Japan or USA, can get enough units to reinforce their respective allies.  So the other countries need to hold out while Japan or USA comes in to save the day.

      Well, those are just a few thoughts that I’ve had about the game so far.  I like playing with tech since I think it can really change a game and make each game different.  It really seems like there are going to be many different strategies to try out with this game, making it worth the cost.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Subs in battle

      @elque:

      Assume that your naval force includes one or more submarines and your opponent has a destroyer and engages you in battle. Can your submarines submerge (exit in mid battle) at your option once your opponent takes his destroyer as a casualty?

      You would be able to submerge your submarines the following round of combat since there would no longer be any destroyers to negate the sub’s special abilities.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Ok We Give Up

      @MaherC:

      I don’t have the board in front of me, so bear with me.  I’m not getting how a T2 Airbase in the NT helps Anzac’s fighters get to India faster.  They can already be in Western Australia during T1?

      Western Australia and Northern Territories are both 5 spaces away from India; therefore, you would need an airbase to reach it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Ok We Give Up

      @MaherC:

      An Airfield costs 15 IPCs.  Anzac starts at 10.  So no first round buy, 2nd turn you’re putting down an airbase?

      Yes, assuming that Japan is going after India and that they are not set up to take out India on turn 3.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Ok We Give Up

      @MaherC:

      Assume a J1 attack.   What are you buying with US Turn 1, 2, 3 ?

      Again, my group feels the game is Jap win 100% of the time (with 9 games played showing those results, different players etc. playing Japan.)   But I keep reading how this is an ALLIED game.  I’d like to see what you are buying / doing that we are missing out on.

      Assuming a J1 attack and a kill India first strategy by the Japanese, the USA should build pretty much nothing but destroyers so that by the time India falls the USA and ANZAC should rule the sea.  Whoever rules the sea should ultimately win the game.  Also, get as many ANZAC and USA starting planes into India as possible.  A turn 2 airfield by ANZAC in Northern Territories should get most of the Allied air force into India by turn 3 (of course, Japan could build all transports turn 1 and take out India turn 3 but I think that would be a mistake since it means they won’t be owning all of the Dutch West Indies and the USA and ANZAC will now have a bigger fleet.  The point isn’t to prevent Japan from taking India but to make it as costly as possible.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Kill USA First

      @KH:

      I’m with Stoney. Mike, will the UK really fly it’s planes in US direction starting turn 1? Agreed, it’s theoretically possible they arrive in time in the US, but they would only make it if it’s 100% clear what the Japanese plans are in turn 1. If not, I take UK easy.

      I do like the pro’s and cons of this strategy, and I’m not saying this is the ultimate thing. Crap neither. I’m totally sure this will work as a strategy now and then against any player.

      What a game…

      I agree that India can be taken if you build so many transports; but I disagree about it being easy.  Just as so many planes can reach WUSA by turn 3, a lot of planes can reach India by turn 3 if ANZAC builds an airbase in Northern Territories on turn 2 (save 5 IPC’s on turn 1).  ANZAC won’t have to do this unless you start moving all your fleet towards India so they won’t be wasting their money.  However, it does give Japan the advantage of forcing ANZAC not to build any fleet on turn 1.

      Also, USA can move their entire air force to Johnson Island or the carrier off of Johnson Island, threatening to get their ENTIRE air force to India by turn 4 (depending on where Japan’s bombers are, UK may be able to block the Japanese navy enough to delay an attack until turn 5).  These planes in Johnson Island can make it back to WUSA by turn 3 if Japan decides to go with the Alaskan attack on turn 2.  Admittedly, the Japanese player would probably take India on turn 4 but their situation would actually be worse than had they taken WUSA on turn 4: they get less money from taking India and the USA are still in the game.

      Interestingly, I actually set up the game last night and allowed the Japanese forces to attack WUSA on turn 4.  I did not make any strafe attack on Canada on turn 3 with the USA.  Also, I decided to use the ANZAC transport to take out Dutch East Indies instead of moving infantry to WUSA.  All four ANZAC fighters and two UK fighters landed on WUSA for defense.  Under those circumstances, the  Japanese actually had a slight advantage on round 1 of combat (I did not actually carry out the entire attack but assuming low luck dice their advantage would increase on round 2).  So yeah, they probably would have taken out the USA and then taken Mexico and Hawaii the following turn.  The problem is, UK was almost at 40 income (Japan got lucky on UK’s turn 3 and held a couple of Asian territories, China was at about 20 income and ANZAC was at 15.  Japan was at around 40.  The entire USA navy (minus 1 destroyer to prevent Japan bombarding WUSA on turn 4 and 1 transport from Phillipines that landed 2 infantry in WUSA on turn 3) was actually still alive since it retreated turn 3 to Hawaii.  Even with Japan taking USA’s money, I don’t see how they could overcome the IPC disparity as well as the fact that UK and ANZAC were building nothing but naval units.

      Of course, all of the above is only viable assuming that Japan does not attack turn 1 AND that they move most of their fleet off of Japan on turn 1.  I would actually hope that Japan took USA on turn 4 since it would still likely lead to Allied victory.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Kill USA First

      Now Jap says “fake out!”, and takes hawaii, Philipines, Ind, and Nsw, and NZealand which are now all ripe for the picking!  If the allies respond to a KUF in such a way that they lose if Japan decides not to go through with it, then it’s still a working strategy  :wink:

      I agree that the Japanese player should try to set up situations where they leave the Allies guessing.  But moving the entire fleet to Japanese waters on turn 1 means that the entire Allied fleet will survive.  The Allied starting surface fleet isn’t that much smaller than Japan’s (and the 3 extra transports they start off with largely offsets any Japanese advantage in my opinion).

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Kill USA First

      @KH:

      Well Vareel, you mentioned some good points. I’m not saying the game is broken, because a blockade is possible (not likely though). So if we would play a game announcing this is the Jap strat, for sure you’ll win as allies. Now I’m practicing the same strategy with more camouflage in it. Meaning; it’s not clear Japan turn 1 goes straight for KUF. That includes, Japan could decide to act different in turn 2 and also has the opportunities to do so (position of units, planes and ships). I earlier stated in turn 1, I land all my tac bombers, bombers and fighters (except those on the AC’s) in the coastal landzone north of Kwantung. This does not look as a KUF strategy, correct? All planes are in reach of Japan turn 2, Alaska turn 3, US turn 4. My main problem to hide my KUF-plans for turn 2 are the J-1 movements of ships and units at Caroline Islands. If I’d move them to Japanese waters directly, the US gets really suspicious, if I don’t I could head for great difficulties in turn 2 and 3.

      That said, it’s absolutely not completely idiot and it’s not a trap only newbies would fall in to. It’s just a nice puzzle.

      Greets!

      Personally, I think that the Allies can stop Japan from taking WUSA even if they don’t use their fleet to block Japan from taking Alaska on turn 2.  The Allies start off with 20 planes (19 if you don’t count China’s since it can’t leave China).  Of those 19 planes, the Allies can get up to 16 of them on WUSA by turn 3 (10 USA, 4 ANZAC, and 2 UK fighters (UK lands them in Northern Territories turn 1, then the USA carrier off of Johnson Island on turn 2, then WUSA on turn 3).  The USA transport moves to the ANZAC naval base turn 1, and can reach WUSA with two infantry on turn 3 since they gain access to ANZAC’S naval base on turn 2 after Japan attacks Alaska.  UK could even build a bomber on turn 1 and get it to WUSA turn 3 to use as cannon fodder.  Turn 3, USA builds 9 tanks and 1 fighter.  I just don’t see how WUSA is going to fall.  Even if they somehow do manage to take it, Japan’s economy probably won’t even be 40 due to their loses elsewhere.  UK’s economy alone will probably actually be greater than Japan’s (Dutch East Indies, Siam, French-Indo China, both National Objectives, plus any 1 IPC islands they manage to take).  It would certainly make for a different and interesting game, but still a Japanese loss.

      posted in Axis & Allies Pacific 1940
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: The Official "Looking for AA50 Opponents" Thread

      If anyone is interested in playing AA50 on TripleA Saturday evening/night, then send me a PM and I’ll give you my IP address if you want me to host.  I have the unstable module downloaded.

      Michael

      posted in Find Online Players
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Find Opponents Here!

      If anyone is interested in playing a game of AA50, 1941, no tech, on TripleA, then PM me.  I prefer playing the Allies but it doesn’t really matter.  I can host the game and send you my IP address.

      posted in Find Online Players
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: KJF Revisited

      @Subotai:

      Mikecool70, I think it was a fairly good analysis, but after playing AA50 for some time, it is the consensus that the NOs are a very significant factor in AA50. I think every thread should state if you are playing with NOs or not. Be it balance or strats, NOs on or off must be included in the premise of the post.

      As for playing triplea against myself, been there, done that  :-)

      With 6 nations, the human factor and dice, after one rnd everything can happen, so any analysis after the first rnd is imo not very useful.

      As allies in 41 with NOs, I have had problems with securing Africa, even with all 3 allies!

      When playing w/o NOs, the only thing needed to win as allies is a little experience. If playing with NOs, I think we should start talking bids, how high and where to place the bids…

      Yes, I should have been more explicit and stated that my strategy assumed that NOs were being played with.  I agree that they are a very significant factor in the game.  I also agree that after turn 1, a KJF strategy might not be feasible if the Axis had too good of a turn.  But on the other hand, if the Germans/Italians had too bad of a turn then it might be a good idea to abandon the KJF plan and go after one of them first.  Even under the best of conditions, my KJF strategy could easily go on for 10 turns before it was clear who is going to win the game.  Some people might not be willing to play that long.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: KJF Revisited

      @Blaarg:

      @mikecool70:

      4.  Despite the USA building nothing but fleet and sending it all to the Pacific, Japan can STILL get very powerful.  I’m talking about close to the 60 IPC range.  The problem is, in order for Japan to get that powerful they need to use their navy to escort their transports and assist in battles; this allows the USA to secure Caroline Islands fairly early and get them up to 53 IPCs, which is very close to Japan’s IPC total.  If Japan is actually fighting to take back Caroline Islands every turn, then they are sending a lot less units to the mainland; I think this is actually to the Allies’ advantage if Japan does this.

      I’m confused, how does taking the Caroline help the US economically?  I understand, if nothing else, it gives the UK their 5 IPC/turn NO, but you speak as if it helps the US achieve a NO?

      Thanks for pointing out my mistake.  Yes, taking Caroline Islands helps out UK, not USA, if you are playing with NOs.  Makes it a little bit harder to pull off a KJF strategy.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      M
      mikecool70
    • KJF Revisited

      Ok, I installed TripleA a few weeks ago and have been playing against myself and have tried my best to come up with a KJF strategy.  Obviously, how one proceeds depends on what Germany does first turn, so I’ve looked at a number of forum games to see what a lot of the people are doing on G1.  I’ve tried my best to have Germany be as aggressive as possible against Russia while still having enough infantry to hold off UK and here are some of the conclusions I’ve come up with:

      1.  I’ve had a lot of success when having the Allies each choose a different nation to focus against.  I know that doesn’t sound like a KJF strategy but you first have to contain Germany and Italy before you can have everyone focus on Japan.  Russia should focus on defending against Germany.  Notice I said defending, not attacking.  You should build mostly nothing but infantry unless Germany does something like build a fleet which would allow you to build more tanks.  Use your infantry to hold out as long as possible.

      2.  UK should focus mostly on Italy UNTIL Italy is out of Africa and the Med.  I don’t care how you do it: build bombers or submarines; exploit it when Germany leaves both of your transports alone by securing Algeria with four units; leave the German cruiser alone for one turn and send those fighters to Gibraltar; or a combination of all those things, I don’t care, just destroy the Italians preferably on turn 2 but no later than turn 3.  After Italy is contained and the last Italian/German land units are destroyed in Africa, then UK can start sending tanks against Japan by building an IC in Egypt.  Two tanks only cost 10 IPCs, so UK can still afford to bolster Russia’s defense with fighters (or land units once you’ve built up enough protection to protect your transports).  Or build mainly infantry in Egypt and use the air force to trade Persia with Japan.

      3.  The USA must send all builds towards the Pacific.  Don’t waste any builds on transports until you know that you can actually take and keep a territory.  Otherwise, you just wasted a 7 IPC transport in order to either stop Japan from getting a NO or to allow you to get a NO.  Doesn’t make much sense to me.

      4.  Despite the USA building nothing but fleet and sending it all to the Pacific, Japan can STILL get very powerful.  I’m talking about close to the 60 IPC range.  The problem is, in order for Japan to get that powerful they need to use their navy to escort their transports and assist in battles; this allows the USA to secure Caroline Islands fairly early and get them up to 53 IPCs, which is very close to Japan’s IPC total.  If Japan is actually fighting to take back Caroline Islands every turn, then they are sending a lot less units to the mainland; I think this is actually to the Allies’ advantage if Japan does this.

      5.  The goal of the USA is to force the Japanese navy away from the UK islands and follow up with a transport or two to take back the islands.  If Japan builds nothing but fleet to stop the USA, then they are not building much in the way of land units and will lose any gains they made on the mainland.  If they build a combination of fleet and land units, then the USA will eventually force their fleet away from the UK islands but they can still get very powerful.  In one game I played against myself, I built an IC in Manchuria on turn one, an IC in India on turn 3 AND managed to build 6 tanks a turn to use against Russia while holding off the USA navy until around turn 5 before they were finally able to keep and hold Borneo.  Then I screwed up with the USA and moved my fleet within range of 7 Japanese subs that had been build the turn before and I got my fleet destroyed, which brings me to the next point:

      6.  Do not move your fleet within range of Japanese builds until you are very sure that you can survive an attack by them; this depends on how much money they are spending on navy/air force versus land units in Asia.  Eventually you will be able to take and hold the Phillipines and a turn or two later you will be able to wipe out the Japanese fleet completely.  Again, how long this takes depends on how much navy Japan builds but be comforted by knowing that the harder the Japanese try to keep their fleet alive the quicker Asia falls (be sure to use any USA land units that survived taking back islands to land them in Persia/India and have your massive fighter carrier force help out so UK can secure India sooner).

      7.  Once the Japanese fleet is destroyed, their remaining forces on the mainland are screwed.  Once Japan is reduced to its home island, it’s just a matter of the Allies doing bombing runs while the USA builds up its transports and land units to invade Japan.

      8.  None of the above matters if Germany takes Russia.  The UK MUST prevent Africa from being taken over by quickly taking out the Italians WHILE still sending enough units to Russia.  Keeping Russia alive is more important than going after Japan.  Realistically, you may not even be able to build an IC in Egypt until turn 4.  Be patient and remember that once USA secures the Caroline islands your income will go up by 5 IPCs and once your Pacific islands are secured you will be back up to 40 IPCs.

      Well, those are the points that I wanted to make.  The above assumes that technology is not being used.  It’s by no means a guaranteed strategy, especially if the Axis win some lucky battles, but it can work.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Lack of German naval strat: problem or not?

      I think that destroyers are overpowered since one destroyer can negate an unlimited number of submarine special abilities as well as allow an unlimited number of planes to attack all the submarines in a single sea zone.  Perhaps each destroyer should be limited to negating ONE submarine’s special abilities as well as allow planes to attack ONE submarine.  This would force the player to buy more destroyers in response to the enemy buying a bunch of subs.  I have no idea how this would play out in an actual game, so who knows if its a good idea or not.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      M
      mikecool70
    • RE: Japans Set Up in 41

      I agree with Jen on this one.  Although Japan has more fleet than USA, especially after a typical J1, if all 8 of those Japanese fighters are just sitting next to Japan on carriers then they are not going to be very useful once Japan takes most of China since they won’t have the range to help out against the rest of Asia.  Plus, the USA can afford to build almost nothing but fleet the first 3 turns (except for maybe one transport and one tank to give them a total of 2 transports, 2 infantry, 1 art, and 1 tank to go island hopping).  If Japan does the same and builds nothing but fleet then they are going to run out of infantry eventually and will lose their gains in Asia.  If they build a combination of land units and fleet then the USA should gain an attack advantage over Japan around turn 3 or 4.  Plus, perhaps more importantly, Japan can’t start to consolidate their fleet until around turn 3 (and not completely until turn 4), IF they are using their fleet to take out Australia and India on J2, so there is no real way IMHO for them to stop those turn 1 USA fleet builds (along with the USA air force) to move to Solomon islands and force the Japanese fleet back from Australia or risk losing carriers.  If Japan loses its one destroyer on turn 1 AND does not build a destroyer on turn 1 to replace it, then a 6 submarine build on USA 1 and a 8 submarine build on USA 2 can be quite effective at preventing the Japanese from ever moving its fleet away from the Japanese sea zone after turn 3.

      Perhaps I’m going overboard with the submarines and perhaps a combination of destroyers and carriers so those fighters can reach farther would be better, I don’t know, but I just don’t see how Japan can compete with the USA AND still send a significant amount of forces against Russia at the same time.  And while the USA is bogging down the Japanese, Russia and UK should be able to hold off Germany while UK takes back any parts of Africa that they lost (shouldn’t be much since Japan can’t send any transports there).

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      M
      mikecool70
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 2 / 4