If R1 buys a sub, they waste 6 IPC. If they have average or worse dice in taking WR and Ukraine, you should seriously consider forgoing africa and full-pressing Russia. Maybe attempt to take and hold WR, as in case blue:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25203.0
But I found that just forgoing africa and attempting a take and hold of ukraine can also work wonders. Use your transport to take 2 units off africa, and land in europe. Build mainly tanks and a few infantry.
Maybe I should have added that I assumed that G1 would use bomber + fighter + ss to take UK BB+ transport. Combining this with G1 egypt is a bit risky if ukraine fighter is lost.
But maybe G1 chooses to attempt the US fleet with ss. In that case, egypt is not a big risk because the bomber can be brought, as you said. But most people I play prefer to take the UK BB, because it will force UK to invest heavily in naval defense in the first 2 turns.
The ukraine fighter does mean something: With it, G1 egypt can be taken with high probability; without it, G1 egypt is a big risk. At least, that is what I found.
This doesn’t change my policy to withdraw from the R1 ukraine attack if I can afford it.
I believe you made the right decision too. Your 3 tanks are very valuable. However next time, I would always do the WR attack first. Precisely because it helps you decide when/whether you can retreat from Ukraine. Â Especially if you take WR with many losses, you need to be very cautious about an all-out counter attack on WR during G1. In those cases, taking as many german units from ukraine as possible is more important.
Thank you hobbes; why didn’t I think of that…
I was in huge trouble in a game lately when G1 took egypt without losing a single unit, meaning he had 1 tank, 1 artillery, 2 inf there at UK1.
My R1 opening was West Russia and Ukraine. I was lucky: I took WR losing only a single unit, and decided to discontinue Ukraine after taking every G unit except fighter, without taking a single hit myself. Then, G1 made a mixed tank-infantry build, and took UK fleet in med+ (BB+Tr) + egypt, without any losses in egypt.
I decided to try to retake egypt with india fleet + bomber, but I am not sure whether that was a good decision. In hindsight, it was surely bad: I lost 3 infantry + fighter + bomber, and G still had it’s tank. What would you do if G1 takes egypt without losses? My reasoning was that since Russia was in a very good position, I should pressure G as much as possible. But maybe I should have conceded africa for the first few rounds, and concentrated on landing in europe?
Me neither, but it would greatly enhance playability over internet.
To speed up playing of the game, especially over internet, one could try to make it fully turn based,
as the decisions made in other players turn are not huge (assigning casualties).
I was wondering whether you guys would think that assigning casualties according to some fixed rule would greatly mess up strategy and/or the balance of the game.
I.e.,
The biggest issue seems to be submarines, and when to submerge them? I have not come with anything satisfactory for that, it often depends on the specific situation and the dice.
A possibility to mitigate this is to use the above fixed rules, EXCEPT when a player declares some other order in his own turn. But maybe this defeats the whole purpose of speeding up the game.
I guess the greatest mess-up would be the beginning of the game, as submerging US sub near hawai and the UK fleet + R sub above UK are better done dynamically based on the number of attacking units. Later on, both sides would adapt their unit placement based on the static rules.
I understand correctly that you recommend either going all-pacific, or all atlantic?
I used to do go all atlantic, but I didn’t like that the BB “wasted” it’s first turn, while it could have allready pressured J by moving to SZ 44 (assuming J took SZ52 “light”), or even retaking SZ52 (even though this will probably involve losing the BB in the J2 counter attack). Against my opponents, giving Japan a lot of concerns early on, and making it choose how to divide is resources, regularly led them to take on too many things at once. But maybe I just played inexperiences players.
You’ll have to go full Pacific (US only building to defeat Japan), otherwise it’s a waste of US resources.
[When] would you recommend going full pacific?
I’m having trouble understanding the dynamics of the pacific. Mostly, I will put the bulk of my US resources into building an atlantic fleet, and start shuttling forces to africa and eventually, if all goes well, europe.
But you start out with a BB +transport on pacific, and I don’t know what to do with it. In my games, J1 will mostly have destroyed the us force on SZ52, either all out, but often “light”, e.g. with cruiser, sub, fighter, and bomber.
So, my question is: What are good options for BB+transport during US1-3, and any additional forces you may keep/build in pacific, and in what cases should I prefer what options? Also, what to do with the destroyer (I mostly take that to atlantic)?
Options that I have tried:
-move BB +transport to atlantic side:
Pro: more/earlier pressure on atlantic/africa/europe
con: No pressure on Japan, leaves it free to make its own plans.
Makes it easy for japan to take alaska, which in my experience will cause a drop in the efficiency of atlantic campaign because it forces you to defend, while the costs for Japan are quite limited.
-Try to take/presssure one of Japans expensive islands (philipines/ borneo/east indies).
pro: Forces japan to defend, taking and holding one of these islands will be very painful for J.
cons: Less pressure on atlantic.
Is hard to pull of with just BB+transport+air. May require you to build some additional forces on pacific, which will further weaken / delay pressure on atlantic.
I never tried landing forces in Soviet far east/buryatia, or pressuring Japan itself, but I imagine the first may be a decent option early on?
@Bunnies P Wrath: I like the idea of foregoing africa to increase the effectiveness the follow-up on this strat. But I am not sure whether this is mandatory.
The thing is, I am not sure that there is a considerable risk of losing/ being effectively strafed in Ukraine R2 after listed moves for R1 (“Norwegian gambit”). By attacking Norway, Russia loses a lot of effective firepower against ukraine during R2 (in comparison to R1 WR + Ukraine). (They focus on Germany’s rear, instead of germany’s front, as you commented).
I am not sure about initial setup, so please correct me if I am off significantly (and go easy on me with the lightsabre if you do ;)), but I remember something like this:
Under listed moves they will attack WR with 3 tank+9 inf + 2 artillery. Say they lose 1 inf. That leaves 3 tank+8 inf + 2 artillery at WR. With 3 tank 3 inf build, they will have 6 tank 2 art 13 infantry (2 from Kazakh) and 1 fighter versus Ukraine. Even while taking africa, ukraine will have 11 infantry + 5 tanks + 2 artillery + 2 fighters (+1 J fighter). Russia will not be able to effectively strafe that. (And if they conquer ukraine, their position will be even worse, since they put their entire military in reach of G1 built tanks). So you keep russia from 3 income, and you will be able to effectively strafe either Caucasus or WR G2. You will not be able to do so if you keep back to eastern europe…
@Hobbes: I read your post regarding a G1 WR attack. If you decide to take WR during G1, after listed moves of R1, they will be able to counter during R2: Since they returned 4 infantry to moskow, and 2 to caucasus, their attack force will be 3 tank+ 9 infantry. Will you be able to take that out G2? I guess it depends on airforce losses G1.
Say R1 attacks norway with 1 tank 2 fig 3 inf, and sends all his other available forces to WR. Takes WR losing 1/2 inf, takes norway losing all infantry and possibly 1 fighter.
(Builds A. 1 tank, 1 art, 5 inf or B. 3tank,3inf). Noncombat 2 inf kazakh towards caucasus, and all other infantry to/towards russia.
Now what are the German options to hold ukraine during R2?
If they take Egypt & leningrad & UK fleet except sz 2, and build only tanks, and move all their infantry and some tanks/fighters towards ukraine, perhaps keeping some tanks in eastern europe, it appears hard for R2 or R3 to take and hold/ effectively strafe ukraine. Especially with build A.
This means they need to either
1. defend both WR and kaukasus against all G tanks, infantry and airforce.
2. abandon WR, in which case the fork for next round will be russia/caucasus.
Basically: by not taking ukraine R1 but opting for norway, will R be able to hold the lines vs G? Would you recommend a A or a B build for R1, when attempting norway+WR?
(I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).
Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?
Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?
Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).