Posts made by newpaintbrush

Infantry, period.

Let’s say I’m attacking you with a horde of tanks.  Let’s say you have a load of infantry.

My 5 IPC tank attacks on 3, your 3 IPC infantry defends on 2.  For each dice pip, I pay 1.67 IPCs.  For each dice pip, you pay 1.5 IPCs.  You got the better deal.  For each casualty I take, I lose 5 IPCs of units.  For each casualty you take, you lose 3 IPCs of units.  Every unit I lose costs me 166% of the cost it costs you.

Oh, but that’s just DEFENSE, you say.  Tanks are SURELY better for offense.

No.

5 inf 3 tanks (30 IPC) attack 7 infantry.  74% success rate, average survivors:  3 tanks (15 IPC) (when they DO win)
6 tanks (30 IPC) attack 7 infantry.  57% success rate, average survivors 2 tanks (when they DO win)

So you see, when you have equal values of units attacking, the fact that infantry are cheap makes a big difference.  You can afford more of them, so they can absorb more hits.  In the example battles, an infantry-tank mix had a higher success rate for a battle, and higher expected IPC value of survivors, than a simple tank-heavy build.

Tanks have a logistic advantage that cannot be denied. Some game plans (tank dash to Moscow) use almost nothing but tanks.  Tanks are great for Africa.  Tanks are great for Germany, when it needs to switch between defense of Eastern and Western Europe, or for the final push on Moscow, when later-produced piles of tanks catch up to earlier-produced piles of infantry for a rather nasty combined arms attack.  But with all that can be said for the tank, infantry are undeniably useful for offense AND defense.

So that’s my feeling on infantry and tanks.  Infantry are always useful, in greater or lesser quantities, so long as you can GET THEM TO THE BATTLE.  Tanks are the hitting power that are protected by an infantry shield that soaks up hits; tanks also have a great logistic advantage with their move of 2.

Artillery are useful in some situations, but I don’t use them a lot except with Russia.  For Russia, they can provide extra attack power that Russia lacks because of its lack of air.  (For example, Russia might want to trade 4 territories on its turn, but with only 2 fighters, its attack power will be lacking.  Tanks are expensive.  So for battles with low numbers, artillery are a cheap alternative.)  For any other power, artillery have the problem that they need to get to the front.  If I had to get artillery to the front, I might as well have produced infantry instead, and tanks later.  Besides, other powers that trade a lot of territories usually have a lot of air (Germany or Japan), or only trade a few territories a turn at most (UK/US).

AA guns are useful to discourage strategic bombing and repeated trading of territory for air-power nations.  For example, if Japan pops an industrial complex on India, and Allied bombers are on Moscow, that India complex should be bombed to pieces if there’s no AA gun.  The Japan player WILL want to use it at full capacity, so a bomber run equates to a free shot on Japan’s economy.  (The only time a bomber shouldn’t hit such a complex is if there’s an even better target - in which case it’s still bad for the other side!)  As far as repeat trade - say the Allies have massive airpower and just a few ground units, and want to trade Western Europe every turn.  If Germany sticks to infantry and artillery to retake Western Europe, and sticks an AA gun on Western Europe, the Allies will have a tough choice.  Either send more ground units and have them bled out by the Germans, or use air power that will be whittled away by the AA gun.  The German player will obviously be bleeding strength into Western Europe heavily, but it IS an option for the German player.

Used to be AA guns were a strategy, with OOB (Out of the Box) Revised “Rockets” technology rules abuse.  No more.

Both sides start out with plenty of AA guns, neither should have to build more.

(edit) - Basically, the idea is, Axis and Allies is a combined arms sort of game; in the sandwich of A&A, infantry are the bread.  Of course, as the Bible says, man cannot live on bread alone.  So if the BIBLE says you should build infantry AND other things, then you had better do it.  Or else.  Dun dun dun . . .  cough fighter bomber carrier sub tank transports (/edit)

@strategic:

What skills are needed in a German player, and what skills are needed for a Japanese player?

Ability to think tactically and strategically, and to get along well with others.  The particulars can be learned, but 'tis best to start with a strong base.

It is not enough to be a “good German player” or a “good Japanese player”.  A “good player” should know the tactics and strategies for all the powers, including knowing how powers can combine their forces for strong effect.

Take, for example, the not-immediately-obvious Japanese air to Ukraine/West Russia/Caucasus trick.  In a sample game, say Germany can put 16 units on one of those territories (a few infantry and a lot of tanks), but the Russians can counterattack with 21 units.  This is often a trade that’s going to end badly for the Germans.  But say Japan flies 4 fighters in to land on the newly captured German territory.  Suddenly, Russia can hardly dare to attack.  Russian infantry, artillery, with some tanks and fighters may be enough to destroy a German force composed mostly of tanks, if the Russians have superior numbers.  But once you drop four fighters on the German territory, the Russians simply often don’t have the attack power to match - they can kill a lot of tanks, but German tanks will survive, and Russia’s power will be broken.

But this never happens if Japan doesn’t remember to work together with its ally, and plan accordingly.  If the Japan player just keeps fighters wherever, those fighters will probably not be in position to reinforce German positions when needed.  The Japanese player has to watch the German front, and for an opportunity.

Re:  India/Sinkiang ICs.

Question:  Kwangtung transport.  If alive, 4 inf plus air to hit India on J1.  If not alive, then UK down a cruiser, fighter, or AC in the area.  No other possibilities.

If Kwangtung trannie alive, B-ship carrier plus air easily kills 1 AC 1 carrier 1 cruiser.  More conservative Japan uses 2 trannies for 6 units on India, next turn East Indies brings attack on India to 8 ground plus air.

If Kwangtung trannie not alive, you still see 6 ground plus air to India on J2, and Jap kills UK fleet in area anyways, without as much air required.

Granted, is VERY easy to defend India first few turns.  But point is not simply defense of India, must break Japan.  Subsequent turns see buildup of inf at French Indochina and China.  If Sinkiang or India attacks, Japan easy to defend.  If not attack, Japan continues inf buildup plus tanks, and funnels units to north to gain easy territory.  Almost same result for Axis.

If India is strong, Africa MUST be weak, so Germany claims.

Now second node is US goes ATL, or goes Pacific, or split.

If ATL, then Japan unstoppable, cracks one IC then other.  No other possibilities with good Jap player; Allied d at Sinkiang and India invariably cost-effective but slow infantry; Germany applies pressure from east, forces three-front defense for Moscow at Sinkiang, India, Moscow/Caucasus front.  Not good for Russia.  One will fall.

if PAC then Germany controls Africa.  It takes a long time for UK to build enough fleet solo to challenge German superiority, particularly Mediterranean.  US starts grabbing islands from Japan, but it takes a while; Japan drops infantry to Asia and ICs at French Indochina, then sub/air/fleet stalls US.  But key here is Germany is strong, and that Japan can race to hit India/Sinkiang ICs before US fleet reaches.  US logistic line is long.  Japan’s is short.

if SPLIT then US takes longer to reach key islands at Japan.  Possibly too long, giving Japan time to crack ICs.

@The:

My version of the polar express involves taking Alaska first

So no polar express doesn’t fail

Spring 1942:  Central US adjacent to Eastern Canada, allowing US E Canada units and E US units to consolidate at Central US.  Western Canada cannot be reached with one transport trip from Japan.  Double whammy gives US plenty of time to react.

The timing is completely different.

If you’re going to set preconditions for Polar Express, like no US ground units in US, then you should mention it, because it’s so unusual.  It’s like saying Germany should take and fortify Caucasus on G1 and Japan fly 4 fighters in.  Against a Bel/WR opening, or WR/UKR opening, that’s nonsense.  After a failed Russian triple attack, though, with 3 ground units surviving at Ukraine, and an 8 infantry Russia build, it’s an entirely different story.  In one case, it’s suicide, in another it wins the game for Axis.

I’m reading a few comments in this thread on how US sinks Japan’s fleet at Hawaii.

Sub/cruiser/2 fighter/bomber kills the US fleet and doesn’t risk Japan’s battleships or cruisers.

W. Canada is no longer a landing spot from Japan in the v4 map.

Polar Express, Spring 1942.  Fail.

Exception - if Japan has 7+ transports, or 5+ transports and a lot of air, maybe.  But I still doubt it.

There is no tech option in Spring 1942.

Explanation of bid - say you think the Allies have a better chance to win.  Say you want to win, that you don’t particularly care if you play Axis or Allies.  So when you play, you will want to play Allies.  If your opponent has the same ideas, but thinks Axis have a better chance to win, everyone’s happy.  But suppose you both think Allies have better chance to win.  Then who plays Allies?  Since you both agree Axis is the underdog, you put an IPC value on how much you think Axis needs to compensate for their starting weaknesses.  Obviously if you bid 400 IPCs, the Axis will roll right over the Allies.  So you bid less.  Someone makes a starting bid to play Axis - maybe using a ridiculous number like 400, then the other player undercuts the bid, saying maybe 200 (still obvious victory).  Then you go on, to 90, 40, 20, 10, whatever, until someone’s nerve breaks and he/she won’t go any lower.  Then whoever made the lowest bid starts with Axis and that many IPCs.

How are IPCs spent?  Different systems, some put IPCs in the bank, some put pieces on the board, some put half in the bank and half on the board, some put pieces on the board but limit it to one per territory.  My favored system is to put pieces on the board, no limit on placement.  It makes the game far more interesting.

My opinion on bids - I think the Axis needs a bid in Spring 1942, but that’s just a general impression; I don’t have solid numbers and examples to back that up, but it is what I think.

I would prefer a bid of at least 7 to Axis, with no limitation on the number of units placed per territory, IPCs may be allocated to either Germany or Japan (Axis player decides before Russia’s first turn) and bid may be used to place units before Russia’s first turn; unspent IPCs remain in the respective country’s bank.  If the bid required half bank half placement, I’d say 14 IPCs.  If requiring one unit per territory, I’d say 8 IPC bid, which makes the game even more interesting with a potential Axis destroyer lurking around at the beginning of the game.

Other than that, there’s the question of how games should be played.  Best edit the original post and put a link in, so people know how to play online.

I would prefer using a rating system to determine position rather than percentage of wins.  Simply using percentage of wins to determine ranking would result in some players looking for babies to beat up on to inflate their standing.  Although I’m all one for beating up babies, I think it’s really something that’s best left to my dungeon, rather than an organized play environment.

What rating system to use?  Elo, TrueSkill, I can’t say, maybe we can get some feedback from players.  How to implement it?  Ideally we could set up a website to minimize long-term administrative and clerical work (a website could apply to all leagues, not just this one of course).  I don’t have the skills myself, but I suppose I could pick them up if someone would point me in the right direction.

OK, so we establish G1 London oriented Sealion fail on odds.  So what is the POINT of a G1 Baltic naval build, if it is NOT to invade London?

Again, this is Spring 1942.  Transports are noncombatants.  Important.

The theory now, as I understand it, is that the carrier gives fighters landing zones.  This carrier therefore allows fighters to threaten the spaces around London, preventing a London naval build.  If US sails a fleet in, Germany uses its range to kill it.  Only solution, US sails fleet in, then UK reinforces, or UK drops a huge navy.  But US doesn’t have a fleet that can take that damage in range until US2.  (US1 build, US2 move).  UK can’t afford that kind of navy easily either, particularly on UK1.

Germany uses that carrier to protect the transport that feeds infantry directly from Western Europe or other inconvenient places to Karelia.  So the time delay in building a carrier is offset by the saving of a turn’s worth of movement for infantry.

Additional compensation comes with a far stronger grip on Norway, giving Germany additional income and denying it to UK or Russia, both of which are key early opponents.

So you see, Germany is not peeing its pants trying to invade London.  That’s not the point at all.

So you SHOULD see Germany trying to crack Anglo-Egypt Sudan, plus most of the other “usual suspects”.  The single difference is that you typically won’t see as many German tanks on G1, allowing Russia to make some early progress, and that you may see 2 fighters at Anglo-Egypt Sudan (IF the Med fleet headed west to Gibraltar, which there’s a good chance it did; the 2nd fighter allows the Germans to commit less ground to the battle.  This makes holding Ukraine with its German fighter another possible precondition to a G1 naval build.

But the problem with Russia is not Russia’s early progress, as the UK and US.  Once the UK/US transport chain sets in, you have 12-16 units, at least, being dropped into Russia every turn, on the German side, in a territory adjacent to Moscow.  The Axis cannot withstand that.  Every turn, 16 ground units get dropped closer and closer, if the Allies get it going, the Axis cannot hope to win, completely impossible.

Germany’s G1 build is only meant to STALL the Allies while Japan slaughters Russia from the east.  If Russia’s running rampant in the west, it matters relatively little as Japan pushes from the East.  Russia is forced to retreat the bulk of its forces east to deal with the threat, and Germany can press forwards again - very little, but enough.  Germany can let the Allies move into position in the Atlantic to get time to make the final push.

So that’s how you’re SUPPOSED to use a German Baltic build.  I still say a German Baltic build is no good.  Too easy for the Allies to counter too quickly, because Baltic zone is only place to put new units, and it’s a dead end.  Far more, I prefer the idea of a Mediterranean carrier, which I haven’t seen yet in play, or even an article on.

So I will call it the “Bunnies Carrier Plan” with pride.  Although I know d*** well others have tried it.  Not that I’ve seen it, but I can hardly think that I’m the ONLY one that has been struck by the following.

1.  Mediterranean women are hot.

Wrong list

1.  Mediterranean is adjacent to Ukraine, Balkans, and Caucasus.  Baltic only Eastern Europe and Karelia.  Using transports from S. Europe to Caucasus saves TWO turns of walking, not just one.  And Caucasus is a key target.  No matter how far the Russian lines stretch, Caucasus can never be lightly defended with the possibility of German capture and Japanese fighter reinforcement.  (This is around J3-4 of course; J1 requires targets be hit, J2 fly back to Asia, J3-J4 they start to get in range.)

2.  Mediterranean is adjacent to Africa.

3.  Southern Europe produces units AND has an easy zone to retreat to.  Two, in fact.  A threatened fleet can retreat while Germany puts down a destroyer block.  Control of AES means the German fleet can literally just get out of there completely if necessary.

4.  Mediterranean battleship easy to destroy with air.  Mediterranean battleship and carrier much much less so.  Particularly with Japanese fighters in the area.

5.  Mass sub builds to control Mediterranean fail to destroyer/air normally, but battleship/carrier can protect subs.

So you can see how 2 transports, carrier, and a battleship could really wreck Africa and the Caucasus, while with Axis control of Africa, would restrict Allied landing zones to the point of being quite difficult to cap out the German fleet.

Granted, carriers are expensive.  But if the German battleship is going to be destroyed soon, and the Germans are having trouble in Africa, why not?

Additionally, the Germans can start shuttling units into Libya (not Anglo Egypt Sudan).  Doing so leaves them in range of any heavy Algerian landing, and protects any sub builds.

Where do the Germans get the paycheck for all this?  Hopefully Africa.  With 2 transports, it should not be long before Germany runs through Africa.  With subs, they can stall an Algeria landing.

That doesn’t deny that the E Canada/London - London/Europe chain is the one that’s really a problem.  Africa’s nice to have.  But Archangel/Karelia are the game.

Still, as far as the Baltic goes, I think it’s a dead end, for reasons I have posted elsewhere.  Briefly - minimal German build risks air / sub attack, massive German build risks destroyer block with mass subs on UK2 (even after a UK1 air build).  Barring extreme G3 naval build that leaves Russia in a great position after a weak G1 and G2, I think the Baltic fleet drops.  This is not an awful thing for the Axis, in that Allied subs are useless against German ground targets.  But it isn’t nice to drop 3 carriers and a destroyer either.  That’s a LOT of infantry.

–

BTW, Sealion Baltic often includes transport to threaten 3 transport invasion of London with Med fleet.  That threat must be taken seriously by Allies; they cannot skip straight to mass air response.  Ground units must be built.  My feeling is that the UK1 response to the 3-transport threat allows some air to be built with the ground, forcing a G2 Baltic build or potential sacrifice.  You’ll then see the Baltic fleet pinned in place; if it moves, it gets whacked, if it doesn’t move, the Allies just keep building up against it.  Again, contrast with Mediterranean, where control of the canal allows the Axis to slip away at WORST.

To be serious, though -

In Axis and Allies Spring 1942 edition, Sealion fails to take London against any sort of skilled Allied player.  But it is not the purpose of Sealion to take London.  Saying Sealion “failed” against you because the Germans did not take London is like saying an XBox 360 fails as a hammer.  It is entirely besides the theoretical point of the Sealion, aka German Baltic navy build to take London.

Evidence of fail?  G1 build is limited to 5 transports.  Say precondition is Russian fighters out of range to fly to London.  So grant this much.  After the 5 transport build, UK sees invasion coming a mile away, so responds appropriately.  So will US.  In particular, US response is to block the Med fleet and move in 4 ground units.  Germany can stop this 50% of time with sub vs cruiser and two transports at Eastern US.  But UK can also use its battleship to block.

So let’s say Germany gets REALLY lucky and both kills the US cruiser AND sinks the UK battleship with fighter and bomber, taking no losses.  This is all really loaded dice for Germany, but let’s just pretend, for this wonderful fantasy.  Germany then has 2 starting transports of material, plus all its fighters and bomber, plus G1 build.  What is G1 build?  No carrier means UK kills entire fleet, so 14 IPC on that, then 3 transports is all Germany can afford.  So that’s 5 infantry 5 tanks 6 fighters 1 bomber, against 1 AA gun, 2 bomber, 3 fighter, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 tank, plus the UK1 build, which is limited to 6 inf 2 tanks (so defense 2 bomber, 3 fighter, 8 infantry, 1 artillery, 4 tanks  But remember, this involves a lot of dice fracks for the Germans.  But OK, let’s say AA guns have no hits.  Now we say UK builds infantry and tanks.  The battle is now 32% odds for Germany.

And just what did the Allies do that was so smart?  Fighters to London and reinforce, obvious!  And what are we assuming?  Favorable odds for Germany at everything!  50% sub vs carrier.  16% odds killing UK battleship with no loss.  28% loss no losses on AA gun.  Carrier is mandatory, 4 more ground units on London drops German chances to 2%.  Avoiding air loss is useful, but not completely mandatory, dropping a single fighter still cuts Germany’s odds to around 18%.  So we’ll just fudge numbers and assume 1 fighter got lost between the battleship and AA guns, which is frankly ridiculous (considering the 16% odds on the UK battleship), but that still means a 18% battle and a 50% battle, giving G1 Sealion a 9% chance.

And remember - the Allied player doesn’t have to not be stupid to win Sealion.  All Allied player needs to do is

1.  Make sure Cthulu doesn’t roll dice
2.  Feed cat.  Important to feed cat.

Another exciting post coming up.  yeh i kno u can hardly wait!  :roll:

Allow me to ask you a question.

What do you think of an XBox 360?

Well, you may say, um, it’s an entertainment system.  Perhaps you don’t care for it.  But you know what it is, and it’s good enough for some people, even if not yourself.

But I say bah.  Because WHEN YOU TRY TO USE IT AS A HAMMER, IT IS NEAR USELESS.

Yes.  It may surprise you that this supposedly amazing piece of technology UTTERLY FAILS AS A HAMMER.  But I can assure you that is the case.  As far as I am concerned, it costs 300 times as much as a hammer, and lasts mere moments.

But I do not say that I am an authority in these matters.  If anybody thinks he or she can offer an, ah, strategy that will let me use an XBox 360 as a hammer, I would be most interested in your view.

On a related topic, AN XBOX 360 IS ALSO NOT MUCH USE AS A GUN.

I have tried loading it with revolver bullets, shotgun shells, even BB pellets.  But it simply will not function.  In fact, the only way you can use an XBox 360 to fire shells is when you jam the shells into the disk tray, and throw the XBox 360.  I ask you, is that any way to build a gun?  When you have to throw the gun to get some real effect?

XBOX 360 = FAIL.

I have spoken!  :-D

Fortress Europe (original article by Hobbes in Article section.) - i.e. Jap air to Europe; my take.

Always remember that the Japs need to work together with the Germans.

With the Allies, working together’s more a matter of forming a plan, getting units together, and blasting through the Axis.  With the Axis, working together’s more a matter of looking at how the Allies are focusing on your buddy, and exploiting holes in the Allied defense.

So for example, say the Allies are going a typical KGF with focus on Africa.  That means they will have to pull resources away from India, meaning Japan can capture it faster.  Say the Allies are going KJF with a focus on India.  This lets Germany drive through Africa.

Supposing the Allies went KGF, Japan can use their fleet and air to move towards Germany to help out.  Two battleships, two carriers, and escort is a lot.  Also key, Japan can use its place in turn order to screw with optimal Allied naval strategy.  Noted that Hobbes wrote a good bit on Jap airforce in Europe in his Fortress Europe strategy.  Re-reading that article, I think the best point of the strategy is not clearly spelled out.  I didn’t see it myself at the time, anyways.  But I will spell it out here.

Usually, Allies wait until the Germans finish their turn, then move the UK fleet, then move the US fleet to reinforce.  By the time Germany’s turn comes up again, Germany has to face the combined UK and US fleets.  This lets UK and US switch between Norway, Karelia/Archangel, and Algeria without suffering much.

But with Japan in the area, UK moves its fleet and the US fleet gets destroyed by Japan air.  Germany may then be able to destroy the weakened UK fleet on the German turn.  This is no problem at all for the Allies if they keep dropping to the same target.  Say if the Allies have a combined fleet dropping to Karelia/Archangel.  So long as both navies stay at Karelia/Archangel, they are safe.  But if the UK fleet moves from the Karelia/Archangel sea zone to drop to Norway, for example, Japan blows up the U.S. fleet, then Germany blows up the U.K. fleet.  So the Allies will be stuck, without being able to receive ready reinforcements, which can be a real problem against a German sub build.

Hobbes says the Allies need to make a mistake for the Axis to capitalize on their error, which is why I discounted the idea of Japanese air to Europe.  But on reflection, I think it isn’t really that the Allies need to make a mistake.  The Allies are pinned in place by the Japan/German threat.  The only thing for the Allies to do is to do a quick naval build so their fleets are strong enough to break away from the lock.  Until then, they’re stuck in place.  While they’re stuck in place, Germany has a LOT more freedom of movement.  Imagine an Allied fleet at Norway.  Normally, they can go to Karelia/Archangel, or threaten Western Europe, Berlin, or Eastern Europe.  But with Jap air in the area, say UK makes a move.  Japan obliterates U.S.  UK is then stranded, and Germany blows it up in turn.

Granted, sending Jap air to Europe will not help the Japs trade territories.  But I think the Japs don’t NEED to “trade” territories.  They can just TAKE them.  If Russia screws around with low IPC territories in the far east, that’s less resistance for Germany in the west.  If Russia doesn’t screw around with those territories a lot, Japan just walks in.  If Russia offers a token resistance, Japan takes and holds with a chunk of tanks.  Soon, any Moscow attack will have to decide between defending Caucasus and Moscow.  At that point, Japanese air can move east to Moscow (since they were on Western or Eastern Europe.)

Jap air to Europe is not without its costs, though.  I think if pursuing such a strategy, the Japs need every IPC they can get to build air.  But with its air going to Europe, Japan will lack hitting power at home.  Maybe Japan should just send its starting air force, and build a bomber or two when possible, restricting itself to a SINGLE industrial complex expansion.

Jap fleet to Europe is a bit risky too.  US builds a few subs, and Japan’s forced to break off and build defense.  U.S. could even build a small fleet of transports and start grabbing islands.

Still, there are obvious pluses as well.  Doing all this would disrupt US’s transport chain, and Japan would have some time to respond.  (US builds subs, Japan moves all transports near Tokyo and performs Buryatia drop.  US moves subs in, Japan moves all transports to French Indochina drop.  US moves in again, Tokyo subs drop to Buryatia, and builds a defensive fleet.  US surface ships are vulnerable to Japanese air, and as Hobbes outlined in his article, Japanese fighters can get from Western Europe to Japan in two turns (although only two at a time, it’s still pretty fast; after the US1 build Japan keeps its fighters at home and pulls the ones on the midpoint carrier back, plus moves more from Western Europe back, plus possible naval build.  Next US turn sees 4 fighters plus Japan response to the original US build, probably enough to crush anything but a very serious Atlantic build that pulls the Allies away from pressuring Germany.

Japan moves, assuming Axis are focusing on Germany

J1 build: 3 transports, destroyer.

Sub, cruiser, Caroline Islands fighter, bomber to Hawaiian Islands.

East Indies fleet (not air!) whacks assorted UK naval targets if possible.  Remainder of air whacks Burytia, China, and India, but only if there is resistance in the area.  India may be skipped if there’s an AA gun on it.  A lot of naval and ground targets may be ignored.  Japan’s goal is not to take territory, but to destroy Allied units in the area, allowing it to blast through on subsequent turns.  Certain targets “cannot escape”, so can be safely ignored.

Noncombat - place transports and destroyers east of Japan, joined by Caroline Islands carrier, plus couple fighters.  Japan now has battleship, destroyer, carrier, and two fighters as a defensive fleet.  Without a lot of Allied power in the area, and with Allied landing zones restricted with the loss of China and Buryatia, Japan can withstand a two-unit attack quite easily.  So if the only threats in the area are the UK Solomons sub and, say, a UK cruiser that destroyed the Kwangtung transport, Japan does not care.  They can run in and die.  Or they can run away, in which Japan can run after them and kill them with fighters that land on its carrier.  An early destroyer is VERY important in freeing Japan to start grabbing infantry off its islands.

J2, Japan picks up infantry from Okinawa, and drops 2 infantry to Buryatia.  The other 3 Japanese transports pick up 2 infantry from Phillipines, and Tokyo infantry/tank to French Indochina.  Alternative movements are possible, such as recapture of Borneo if necessary; the important things are to send 4 units towards French Indochina as quickly as possible, and send the tank with them.

This is where things start to diverge.  If Germany looks like it’s completely failing to contain the Allies, I would usually build another 2 transports plus infantry with Japan, attempting to hit Allied Pacific targets quickly to increase Japan’s income at Allied expense.  But Japan may want to instead build an industrial complex on the mainland for a J3 tank build, using three transports to shuttle tanks and infantry, and the fourth transport to snag spare infantry off the islands, then to be used as tank transport.

J3 is when things start to get interesting.

On J3, if you went mass transports and infantry, you will start with 4-6 infantry and transports at Tokyo, and 3 transports at French Indochina.  Since you won’t have the units to fill transports, you only have 3 transports that need stick near Japan.  The fourth picks up infantry from East Indies.  These four will be used to maintain units from Japan next turn.  5th goes to Caroline Islands, to pick up at Solomons, then hit New Guinea next turn.  6th goes to  Africa (where Japanese tank blitzing is very useful) or picks up Borneo and New Guinea infantry, emptying the islands, to hit Australia next turn, then French Madagascar, then Union of South Africa.  I think I would save IPCs for an industrial complex at India.  Japan’s transports can shuttle between India and the African coast with a single trip.  With the industrial complex closer to the key territory of Caucasus, Japan can quickly respond to Allied moves with 3 infantry, 3 tanks, or 3 fighters, all immediately in a threatening position (rather than, say, 3 inf, tanks, or fighters at French Indochina that probably can’t do anything immediately, that have to commit to the India or Sinkiang routes, which can then be seen coming and responded to by the Allies.)

On J3, if you went industrial complex/tank, you will have an industrial complex and 2-3 tanks to work with.  Your build is 9 units, that is, enough to fill three transports and produce at your industrial complex while your fourth transport scrounges for infantry on the islands.  Allied resistance at any point will consist of infantry.  If you run into an infantry stack at Novosibirsk, you switch targets to India.  If you run into problems at India, switch to Novosibirsk.  The mobility of tanks lets you do this.  Using transports allows you to switch targets between India quickly as well, although you’ll have to maintain infantry reserves at Yakut, China, and French Indochina to be ready for a push, backed up by tanks.  Later rounds see Japan switching to tanks ONLY, with the fourth transport moving back to help move more tanks in; extra income can be used for another transport or industrial complex.  The idea is to use the mobility of tanks to break the Russians; if the Allies move to India or Novosibirsk, Germans press on Caucasus and Japan runs to the other front and breaks through.

Whether building infantry or tanks, the Japs want to press hard on Moscow, to break it before the Allies can establish an infantry chain to Kazakh/Novosibirsk.  Using Japan’s fleet and running all over the place wastes a lot of time and only helps the Axis a little and hurts the Allies a little.  (Particularly, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Alaska combined are only 6 IPC worth.  French Madagascar is worth 1 IPC.  Granted, that’s more for the Axis and less for the Allies, but the question is not IPCs in the bank, it’s whether or not Moscow is going to fall.)

For this reason, I think most of the moves here are best combined with . . . Japanese air to Europe!  Yes, it’s Hobbes’ Fortress Europe plan . . . more in my next post.

By J1, a lot of things could have changed.  Potential loss of Borneo, potential loss of New Guinea, loss of French Indochina, almost certain loss of Kwangtung transport.  You might even have changed your underwear.

Here’s some things to look out for.

1.  JAPAN NEEDS TO HELP ITS BUDDY.  German control of Caucasus with very light Russian forces in the area.  Japan has four fighters in the area at the start of J1 that can help hold on to Caucasus.  For various reasons, a German-held Caucasus at the beginning of G2 probably means game over Allies.  I will not get into further detail on how Caucasus may be controlled early, or how its control is best exploited; that’s more a Germany topic.

2.  ALLIES ARE FOCUSING ON YOU, PARTICULARLY UK.  Good signs are UK fighter/6 Russian infantry on Buryatia.  (Alternate is UK fighter on US carrier at Hawaii, or possibly China).  UK bomber NOT on London (particularly Yakut, Novosibirsk, Italian East Africa or Trans-Jordan).  UK sub at Solomons.  UK carrier near Tokyo.  UK sub at Solomons or Northwest of Australia.  UK transports floating around.

Granted, you will not often see all of these, especially as a lot of these involve UK giving up power in Africa.  But you may see it even in a Kill Germany First strategy, and you have a good chance of seeing it in a Kill Japan First strategy.  The idea is that UK gives multiple targets to the Japanese.  If the Japs split their forces to hit everything, UK inflicts more casualties.  If the Japs annihilate a few targets, UK uses surviving elements to threaten a counterattack, combined with the U.S. fleet.

If you ignore the threats, UK threatens you with carrier/sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber vs navy.  There’s a lot of shenanigans UK can get up to, so be careful.

3.  ALLIES ARE NOT FOCUSING ON YOU.  If Japan doesn’t need to help its buddy, and if the Allies did not focus on restricting Japan’s movement, Japan should run around kicking ass.  This is usually the case, so this is usually what I focus J1 moves on.  Sadly, this post is running a bit long, so I will write those moves in the next post.

Text walls are so intimidating . . . unless you can break it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo

can’t touch this!

Some Japanese expressions:

Sugoi - great
Yutta - yay!
Saikou - the best

And here’s some Perfume, out of Japan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykt-e6xPtZU

–

I think Japan’s timing controls A&A, so I’m going to write a few hundred words about them.  Now I know you probably have to pee because you’re so excited, but it’s not just going to be about Japan.  It’s going to be about Japan, Germany, UK, US, and Russia.  And the lessons we learn growing up in life.  And maybe a puppy, because puppies are cute and increase sales.

Doubt me?

Which would you rather have?  The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction?  Or . . . The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction With Puppy package?

See?

–

That said, I’m going to concentrate on the strategies and tactics I employ as Japan, and what responses and preemptive measures I take as the Allies.  Because let’s face it.  First, if I keep on commenting on Hobbes’ play, I’m going to turn him into a paranoid wreck that stares at squirrels and pigeons.  (or IS he paranoid?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5gxiOtRZY)  Second, because let’s face it, I don’t know what Hobbes’ might be thinking.  I only know what I’m thinking.  Well, I know what I’m thinking most of the time.  Some of the time.  Alternate Tuesdays.

–

As Japan, I usually see a KGF (Kill Germany First) strategy.  This is usually implemented by UK and US fleet builds (specifically, a UK1 carrier/2 destroyer build northeast or northwest of London, landing as many US fighters as possible. US1 build is carrier/destroyer/transport/2 tanks/1 infantry.  With US’s starting cruiser, that’s a UK2/US2 fleet of 1 sub 3 destroyers 2 carriers 1 cruiser 4 fighters, which is quite sufficient in most cases.  Barring that, a UK2/US2 build certainly sees a UK3/US3 landing in Africa, unless the Allies got careless with their build.  A German sub build at Southern Europe can keep interesting.  One thought I’ve been toying with is a G1 carrier/transport at Southern Europe.  At any rate, UK and US drop infantry/tanks to Africa and storm through it, reclaiming it.  They then divert to the Norway route IF Japan is pressuring Russia.  If Japan is not pressuring Russia, Allies may have time to sit on the Africa chain, which means Axis lose.

Why is an “Africa chain” an Axis loss?  First, the Allies need only build a single defensive fleet for west of Algeria.  They should have airpower and destroyers to hit any subs sneaking up.  It’s fueled by the combined UK and US economies.  UK’s income is strong because it controls Africa.  Only one set of transports is needed for UK, and only one set of transports for US.  This means UK can put 8 ground units a turn in from London, and US 8 ground units from US (even as many as 12, but just 8 is bad enough, and leaves US income to keep building subs and fighters and more carriers to completely dominate the area in spite of German efforts).  16 units a turn march through Africa and up through the Middle East.  There is just too much for the Axis to stop; Japan can’t march into the face of 16 units backed up by another 16 units backed up by another 16 units.  Nor can Germany.  Once the conga line reaches Caucasus, the Allies balloon outwards.

The forward wave hits around UK/US7, depending on German stall tactics.  I think a German carrier and transport at Southern Europe, shuttling units to Libya, may be the way to go, combined with sub builds.  The idea is that the Allies usually manage to kill the German battleship with air early, but the carrier provides a lot of staying power, especially if Allied landing zones are very restricted because of German control of Africa.  Allied landing at Algeria is threatened by subs built at Southern Europe.  The Allies cannot counter with just conventional carriers and minimal destroyers, because any light UK/US destroyer build can be seen by Germany and responded to with an appropriate number of subs.  Eventually the Allies win by mass destroyers/subs along with their carriers, but all this delay gives Japan more time to develop, and Germany more time to storm through Africa.  The Allies may divert to the Karelia/Archangel route, but Germany will simply have to move out and stall that as well.

At any rate, the Japs have to get moving.  Next post - my J1 moves!

Mm.  Without a whole lotta explanation, I’d agree with Hobbes’ last assessment.  BTW, all that carrier stuff - it’s not that it’s Hobbes’ pet strategy - it’s just that Advosan brought it up, so I threw in a reply.

Germany may be able to use clever builds to stall UK from building in sea, but I see no way to race Russia’s ground from the east (at LEAST requiring German infantry) and a combined UK/US fleet.  Japan takes a while to get going, and early gains by the Russians translate to IPCs in the bank.

Best, I’d think, is the strategies Hobbes alluded to.  I think implementation comes down to either 5 tanks 5 infantry G1 build, 8 tanks G1 build, or bomber/infantry mix, possibly building only infantry early, possibly concentrating on bombers early . . . I can’t say which.

I’ll comment more in another thread.

As far as this thread being an exaggeration - well, it is quite modest for Hobbes not to toot his own horn, and perhaps he doesn’t himself believe that he’s a juggernaut.  But I’d say that even if he got schooled in Revised, I’d say he improved.  Certainly, I’d like to see the implementation of his Axis strats.

This thread shouldn’t just be in A&A Global 1940.  I suggest creating a main thread, and stickying a sub-thread in each forum that refers to the main thread.

Nice first post.  Good looking custom avvie, pix, all that stuff.

Hello i was curious about how Industrial Complexes work?  Well they’re complexes, so it’s complicated.  But generally I just load them into a small slingshot.  That tends to work the best.  Some people use airguns, but then you have to worry about cat pee.  Don’t ask.  Just trust me on this. I mean can you spawn unlimited ammount of IPC’s? Each player starts with a number of IPCs based on the territory they control.  The number of IPCs a country STARTS with is listed in the upper right hand corner of the setup card.  Russia gets 24 starting IPCs, Germany 40, UK 30, Japan 30, US 42.And also how does IPC’s work? I bought the game for Christmas and had some of the buddies come over and well we have put hours of time to get everything right and were still struggling with the IPC’s? and the Industial Complexes and how they work?  At the beginning of your turn, you have a number of IPCs in your country’s “bank”.  You purchase as many units as you like, so long as you have IPCs.  The cost of the units can be found in the lower right hand corner of your game board.  For example, infantry cost 3 IPCs, tanks cost 5 IPCs.

so basic things like…

1. How many units can spawn on a complex? (saying the Complex is in Moscow which = 8 )  A complex on Moscow can normally produce 8 units a turn, never more than that.  A complex on Caucasus can normally produce 4 units a turn, never more than that.  If your industrial complex has been damaged by enemy industrial complex bombing, your industrial complex will not be able to produce as many units as normal.  The rules for industrial bombing are on page 14 of the rulebook.  Damage on an industrial complex stays until the damage is repaired. 
2. IPC’s are they just the #'s on the territories? No.  For example, say Russia starts a turn with 24 IPCs (Industrial Production Certificates) and purchases 4 tanks costing 20 IPCs.  It then has 4 IPCs left that it has not spent.  Say at the end of the turn Russia controls territories that produce a combined value of 28 Industrial Production Certificates.  (The territories PRODUCE IPCs, but they are NOT THEMSELVES IPCs).  Russia will then collect 28 IPCs and have a total of 32 IPCs, even though it only controls territories that produce 28 IPCs worth.  If Germany takes some of those territories from Russia later, or if UK recaptures that territory from Germany, makes no difference to the IPCs the Russian player holds.  Once the Russian player holds the IPCs, they don’t change, until the Russian player either uses those IPCs to repair industrial complexes or produce units. 
3. I love Russia and want to dominate but… how can i over come both germany and japan?! (its like a sandwich) There’s a few ways, have fun with it.  Browse the forums, ask questions.  Since most of the game is about answering this very question, and since it’s a fairly complex game that involves a lot of chance, it doesn’t have a simple answer I can give in a short post.  I’m not sure I even know the answer.
4. How many complexes can be bought in total? (like you can only buy whats there? or more?) You’re probably asking because you’re concerned about strategy limitations, such as when trying to control the number of houses on properties in Monopoly, to prevent other players from accessing hotels.  This much I can say - you get “enough” industrial complexes with the game.  (Unlike chips.)  Industrial complexes are expensive and take a while to get any use out of; if you build a lot, your opponent will just beat you up and take your territories.  So you generally build just a couple, if any.  (If the Allies are strong in Europe, an industrial complex usually goes up in Western Europe and/or Norway. If the Allies are strong in the Pacific, an industrial complex often goes up in Borneo, or one of the other high IPC islands.  Japan often builds one in French Indochina and either India or Kwangtung.  Germany sometimes (rarely) puts one in Ukraine. In some games, UK puts one in India, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Union of South Africa, Australia, or even two of those.  But these are far from common.  Usually you only build industrial complexes if you’re extremely strong, or if you’re extremely weak and you have time to build the industrial complex (takes a turn) and mobilize units (takes another turn) before your opponent runs up to you, beats you up, and takes your territory and industrial complex away.  A good example is India, UK is pretty weak there and finds it hard to get forces there, but it can build an industrial complex to put new units there immediately.  Japan starts weak in the area, so UK has some time to reinforce.  (Eventually, though, if the Japan player is good, India falls, and UK has given up 15 IPCs for an industrial complex that Japan uses.  It’s like giving up 15 IPCs worth of units, and giving your opponent 15 IPCs to build an industrial complex with.  Bad.)
5. Russia what Navy do they have? and how can i get more IPC’s? when Germany get more then me and keeps bringing in new units while im just trying to stay alive. Then i have Japan coming from behind but i can’t do anything because im focused on Germany i need HELP! xDRussia has one submarine, as listed on the setup card.  This is not a mistake.

P.S. Also just curious who gets the red dice and who would get the black dice? Naturally, redheads get the red dice, and brunettes get the black dice.  If there is any question of who should get what color, this is usually easily answered, so long as the questionee is not of a prudish nature.  Bald people and blonde people can use whichever they like.

any helpful LINKS and such that would clear this up would help too!  afro  I think this is pretty much as helpful a forum as there is out there.  I haven’t found any better.

–

So you want help for Russia do you?

I’ll help you.  Help you DIE!  (Simpsons reference)

Yeah, well, maybe this is good advice, maybe not.  Try it.

First tip - Allies need to work together.  You can be the best Russian player in the world, and if your UK and US allies are bad, you’re gonna go down.  That’s all there is to it.  It’s best to just accept this as true.

Second tip - pretty much forget the east.  The territories in the east are of low value.  Look at all those 1’s.  Do you really want to die for a bunch of 1’s?  Look to the west.  See all those 2’s and 3’s?  Go west, young man.  Go west.

Third tip - for your first turn (I’ll call this “R1” for Russia’s 1st Turn - “J3” would be Japan’s 3rd Turn, US7 would be US’s 7th Turn . . . - build 4 tanks and 1 artillery, and send 2 fighters and the 3 infantry from Karelia to hit Belorussia, and everything else in range to hit West Russia.  You will win at West Russia unless God hates you.  You will probably win at Belorussia, but be careful.  If your fighters are in danger, run away.  Russian fighters are extremely valuable for trading territory, and very expensive, you can’t really afford more.  For noncombat, move everything in the east towards the west as quickly as possible (2 infantry from Kazakh move to Caucasus, not Moscow, remember “west”, and move the Russian sub to join the UK battleship and transport.  Land fighters in Moscow.  Move the antiaircraft gun from Caucasus to West Russia.)

On Germany’s turn, Germany may attack West Russia, but you will win.  Germany may industrial bomb Caucasus, but you’re about to have a huge income, and there are better targets Germany could have hit with that bomber anyways, so be thankful.  Russia may blitz a tank to Archangel.  That’s fine.  You would have lost Karelia anyways, so all Germany really did was gain a 2 IPC territory with that tank.

On R2, produce 5 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank - basically at least 1 tank, lots of infantry, and a couple of artillery.  Kill the 5 IPC tank; you’ve got plenty of power to spare.  The tank gets a 50/50 chance to kill a 3 IPC infantry.  If it does kill your infantry, Germany broke even on the IPC trade, except for the fact that Germany just wasted a forward placed tank for stuff that’s near the heart of your territory, where you can quickly and easily replace units.  If Germany doesn’t hit, Germany just traded a 5 IPC unit for a 2 IPC territory and a extremely slight positional advantage.  If you have a load of tanks, you just reposition them next turn and Germany basically just looks stupid.

You need a lot of infantry as Russia, because although tanks are strong and mobile, they are expensive.  If you can lose a 3 IPC infantry instead of a 5 IPC tank, it’s much better for you.  Since you start with a load of infantry, you move the tanks from West Russia along with your R1 build of 4 tanks to some forward territory.  You can use fighters and infantry to trade weakly held territory.

From there on, keep moving infantry and tanks up, until Germany starts pushing back.  Then do a fighting retreat.

If you see a load of enemy units on a territory, think how many casualties you will take attacking that territory before you can claim the territory.  If you think your units will all die before you can take the territory, don’t attack it.  If you think you can take the territory, think about what units the enemy has that can retake the territory.  If the enemy can retake the territory and kill a lot of valuable units, then don’t move all your units in. Either retreat, or send enough units to probably kill all enemy units with a couple extra for safety - if the enemy responds in force, your reserves might be able to wipe him/her out.

In the meantime, UK and US should be building TRANSPORTS and CARRIERS, and a couple DESTROYERS and maybe a couple SUBMARINES to act as cannon fodder.  UK and US need to get ground units through the Atlantic in to help Russia, or Russia is toast.  If UK and US do things like build a lot of battleships or fighters or bombers, but don’t build any ships at all for a few turns, you’re probably going to die because your allies aren’t very skilled at playing the game.

It’s OK if UK/US go to Africa before they reach Europe.  But if they built no ships and no transports in the Atlantic after UK2/US2, that’s a bad, bad sign.  You might see the US building fleet in the Pacific while UK works in the Atlantic; that’s OK.  But you should see transports being built.  US should have at least 3 by US2, UK should have at least 3 by UK3.  Often they should have more, earlier, although skilled Axis players can take preventative measures.

Of course, it is not diplomatic or even in most cultures polite to point out that your allies don’t know what they’re doing, even if they are ignorant slobs.  How you get them to produce transports is up to you.  Don’t forget they need escorts too, and a strong fleet of escorts at that.  Transports are expensive, and useless in combat other than to transport units.  If there’s a fleet with a lot of transports that gets wiped out, first the value of all the escort fleet was lost.  Second, the value of all the transports was lost.  Usually if an Allied fleet gets wiped out, that’s a blow the Allies will not recover from.

Details on particular strategies - well, go ahead and ask in a thread titled “Allied Strategies”; check out some of the articles in the article forum.  But watch out for the articles I write; I often leave out stuff that people would think important.

Like how?

Me:  Wouldja go to the store and pick up some donuts?
Buddy:  Isn’t your car in the shop?
Me:  Yeah, I got a replacement car, keys in the ignition outside
Buddy:  Woah, a Shelby Cobra?!
Me:  Yeah, I just stole it.
Buddy:  There’s a bunch of cops right outside.
Me:  Why didn’t you SAY something?

So you can see, REALLY, it’s OTHER people that leave out the important stuff.  But you’d be surprised how they say it’s me that doesn’t tell them what’s important!  :roll:  But I just smile and take it all in stride, because you know everyone’s got their own individual style, and you don’t have music unless you have Melody AND Harmony.  :lol:  Ask Hef if you don’t believe me.  But anyways, sometimes, the best thing is to just get along.  Which, when playing a multi-player game of Axis and Allies, or even with just a single opponent, is always good to remember.  Especially if you owe the people you’re playing with a lot of money and your chainsaw wasn’t hanging in its usual spot on the wall when you got home.

Hobbes is a good player with excellent manners.  If I was a woman, I would introduce him to my daddy.

Hobbes beat me in a game of Spring 1942 on TripleA.  He beat me like a rented mule.  And although when I rock myself to sleep sucking my thumb blaming dice, programmer conspiracies, medications, and varying theistic pantheons, deep down, I know the truth.  Truth is he, outplayed me.  And I can’t accept that.

I can’t accept that as a player, I can’t accept that as a man.  He rocked my core, made me question my fundamental worth as a person.  Because if you can’t beat the crap out of people in games, what use is money, power, or women (or men, or maybe farm animals if you like that sort of thing)?  No, at the end of the day, I feel empty inside if I can’t beat a man like Hobbes at his own game, because there just isn’t any petty thing that I can lord over him, to prove how superior I am.  I can’t even compare, ahem, shoe size.  Because you know how it’s sometimes said that someone fills a big pair of shoes.  Hobbes strikes me as such a man.

So rather than trying to beat Hobbes man to man, it is clear to me that the only thing for me to do is to categorically deny my inferiority complex by stooping to petty revenge schemes - like, oh, taking his a copy of his avatar and screwing with it to make a new avatar of my own - or perhaps blabbing his strategies and what I think would be effective counter-strategies like I’m going to do later in this post.  Rather Ayn Rand-esque, isn’t it?  But some people have no shame, and I’m - proud, really, just so very proud, to be able to say I’m one of them.

Comments on Hobbes’ play -

I think it may not be so much that he has a set plan, as that he may have the intelligence and/or experience to best capitalize on opportunities.  In my game, I split the German destroyer at the Baltic to Western Europe to force UK to split its air attacks.  He responded by whacking the German destroyer and flying to Africa with a fighter.  That set him up for a high-odds UK2 attack on the German battleship in the Mediterranean (along with his other moves).  Worked, too.

But in spite of his admittedly superior play, I do not fear Hobbes’ power.  At best, he is a man.  I will pry and chip away, and one day, I will be the Paris that strikes his Achilles heel.  Then, I will disappear into the night, to live forever in legend, like great Cthulu.

On to the dry analytic part.  How dry?  Just ran 10K without drinking any water dry?  Gobi Desert dry?  Your fashionista girlfriend’s panties in an auto shop dry?  Let’s just say it’s pretty dry.

Re:  3 ACs in Baltic - refers to a G1 build of carrier, and potential G2 build of 2 carriers.  I can now think of five answers, which may be used independently or together.

(following not one of the five answers) I considered a R1 Norway attack, to help preserve the UK battleship, creating a much more powerful early UK navy in the Atlantic.  With one Russian fighter at Norway, the odds are reduced, with two fighters, Russia drops a fighter to a G1 Karelia attack.  Destroying the German Norway fighter stops it from being used in the attack against the UK battleship on G1.  Capturing Norway prevents it from being used as a landing spot for the German bomber, preventing it from being used against the UK battleship.  Even NOT capturing Norway probably prevents Germany from landing the bomber there.  But I do not think preserving the UK battleship is sufficient answer to a G1 carrier, in light of a G1 sub attack on Eastern Canada and moving two German subs to SZ7 southeast of London.

A.  R1 tank build.  If Germany builds a carrier, Russia will make early territory gains.  If Germany does not build a carrier, Russia will probably still make early territory gains.  Germany can build pure tanks to push Russia back, but without infantry, Germany’s staying and trading power are badly compromised.  (I think probable best for Germany in response to a R1 tank build would be infantry and tanks, but I haven’t practiced it yet.)  This can combine with anything; I think a R1 tank build strategy’s solid, barring a Ukraine attack.  (If Ukraine’s hit, Russia loses most of its existing tanks, making its tank threats against territories far weaker on subsequent rounds.  The difference effectiveness in claiming territory between a 4-tank Russia and an 8-tank Russia is huge.)

B.  R1 fighter attack against Baltic fleet.  Using 2 Russian fighters drops one of the fighters to the G1 attack on Karelia, but has at least one fighter surviving 95% of the time.  (It doesn’t matter too much if a Russian fighter is lost in combat on a 2-fighter attack, since one is doomed anyways.)  Using 1 Russian fighter to attack offers 50% win with Russian fighter surviving, and about 25% of mutual destruction.  I do not favor losing, or even taking a chance on losing a Russian fighter, but if Hobbes’ strategy can stop the Allies from setting up a transport chain in the Atlantic, a R1 attack may be the best answer.

C.  R1 Norway attack, to help preserve the UK battleship, but Norway MUST be captured, denying the Germans Norway as a landing spot for fighters.  This reduces German attacks on G2 against a UK1 built fleet at sea zone 2 to 2 fighters, 1 bomber, and subs.  Assuming 3 subs, a UK1 build of 2 destroyers 1 carrier gives a defensive fleet of 1 Russian sub, 2 UK destroyers, 1 UK carrier, 1 UK battleship, 2 US fighters (8 hits, 19 defense) vs 3 subs 2 fighters 1 bomber (6 hits 16 attack).  This favors the Allies, but there’s two extra negative conditions on the German attack.  First, leaving any German fighters alive will require the German carrier to come out of the Baltic, where it is subject to a UK2/US2 attack.  Second, the UK battleship can absorb hits and repair each round; if the attack fails, Germany will find it even harder to recover.

D.  A threatened UK sub counter using a destroyer to block Germany from hitting the sub fleet.  The UK destroyer block/sub build can be countered by a Japan bomber hitting the UK destroyer, leaving Germany free to hit next turn, so UK must watch for this.  This does not work on UK1; on G2 a destroyer block will be destroyed by German air as the German subs return to the Baltic during noncombat movement for a defensive fleet of 2 subs 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters (6 hits, 16 defense); UK’s best response is 3 subs 3 fighters (one from Indian fleet) 1 bomber (7 hits 19 attack), but the Germans can see the attack coming.  A response of 2 carriers plus 1 sub fodder leaves the German defensive fleet at at least 13 hits 37 defense.  That’s enough to absorb UK’s attacks while obliterating them.  Given this, UK will not attack, so the 8 IPC destroyer block will have been wasted.

On UK2, UK can build 1 destroyer 7 subs for a threatened 1 bomber 3 fighter 7 sub attack (11 hits 30 attack) if appropriate, particularly if Germany moved its subs out of the Baltic area on G2.  (too far away to sail back in to the Baltic Sea to act as fodder.)  It depends on the G2 turn - and really, the G1 turn, particularly if Germany built a Baltic transport threatening invasion of London, as I think Hobbes’ plan called for.

On G2, Hobbes’ plan called for the threatened unification of the German fleet, with G1 Med battleship and transport west, capturing Gibraltar to prevent UK air from destroying the German battleship.  The two threats are invasion of London with 3 infantry 3 tanks 4-6 fighters 1 bomber plus battleship support shot, and the unification of the German fleet for 2-3 subs, destroyer, carrier, 2 fighters, and battleship.  The Allies need to defend London, so find unification far more difficult to stop.  On G3, the combined fleet can sail north, dropping units at Norway and threatening a drop to Karelia/Archangel next turn, or moving straight in to drop a load of units into Karelia, offsetting the progress Russia will have made to this point.

Africa is lost to the Allies at this point, but experienced Allied players often stop Germany from progressing in Africa anyways.  Without pressure at Africa, the Allies can switch their attention to India, but Japan has plenty of power in the area, so inevitably pushes the Allies back.  When Japan reaches Africa, Japan easily claims it, as its transports allow it to hit any number of target territories, making Allied defense impossible.

Remember on G1, Germany’s only made a 21 IPC investment - the cost of the G1 carrier and transport.  Only if the Allies have beefed up in the Atlantic does Germany turtle with a 2 carrier build in the Baltic.  If the Allies built in the Atlantic, Japan is free to run around.  If the Allies built in the Pacific on US1, Germany can switch to infantry and tanks, using its transports to catch up for lost time, and its carrier to continue to threaten the sea zones around London.  Since this presupposes a lack of US help, UK is stuck for a bit.

E.  UK1 2 fighters 1 bomber vs the G1 defensive fleet of 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters.  (German subs can’t defend against air).  This hurts UK and Germany, but Germany’s probably going to have to decide whether to lose fighters or carriers very quickly.  If Germany drops the carrier, UK’s work is done and it can run away.  If Germany drops fighters, it’s weak for subsequent rounds of combat.  If UK wins the battle, it snags an extra 7 IPCs worth of transports.  At any rate, UK can at worst usually hit Germany’s valuable air force.  (edit - Germany can pre-empt this with an extra destroyer, but Russia can really press on Germany quite hard on R2 if it built tanks and did not hit Ukraine.)

@Subotai:

TripleA is the better one, since it is a game, and not just a map.

But the TripleA AIs are nowhere near good enough to be playable against humans, and it won’t be until someone spends a few millions of $ in AI development, and even if that happens, I doubt very much that someone will be able to make a decent A&A AI before the year 5010…

To answer the OP, my opinion is that TripleA is the way to go.

To Subotai - you really think so?  Hm.  Maybe I should try writing an AI . . .

Lol, Hobbes beat me the f*** up last night in Spring 1942 (v4 map on TripleA).  But I’m learning.  I’m gonna get you, Hobbes.  And your little dog, too!

I’m like a Terminator.  An angry, furry Terminator with a bladder problem.

Couple things I noticed, he likes building early destroyers with Allies in a KGF (I do that myself, but it’s a good thing to mention), and he sent UK air to Africa to whack the German battleship on UK2.  I have never seen that before; it makes me think twice about splitting the German destroyer from the German transport in the Baltic.

I screwed up by not diverting to kick the Allies out while they were weak, and I should have done G1 and G2 infantry builds.  BUT it’s not like I’m saying the game was mine to win or lose; Hobbes just pwnt the hell out of me.

If Hobbes is like “wtf I not play Bunnies P Wrath last nite?”  It’s an anagram for newpaintbrush.  ^^

Yeh, I’m like a ninja.

While you ponder those words . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5gCeWEGiQI