Posts made by newpaintbrush

Awright guys, I think we can lay off dat wawawd cat.  Prollly he/she won’t be participating in a d***-size comparing contest for at least a little while.

For my part, I’d say KGF is correct, with play against Japan IF JAPAN ALLOWS IT, which Japan probably should.

Why I say KGF is “correct”?

1.  Most cost-efficient units on attack and defense are ground units.
2.  To get ground units into battle, UK and US need naval units.
3.  To get naval units into battle against Germany or Japan, they must be built first; UK and US both have weaker navies than either Germany or Japan.
4.  UK only has one industrial complex, close to Germany.  Building another early industrial complex near Japan costs IPCs, means a delay in production, and is limited to 2-3 units per turn (anywhere from Anglo-Egypt Sudan, South Africa, Australia, or India)
5.  Japan’s starting navy/air force is bigger than Germany’s starting navy/air force
6.  Japan’s outlying islands are far away from the action in Moscow; ground forces will need to be transported in closer, which means more naval/air battles.  In contrast, near Germany, units can be offloaded into Archangel, one step away from Moscow.

What about Japan “allowing play against itself”?

If Japan mostly ignores its outlying islands and withdraws its forces west to attack Asia / India / Africa, US can build a small fleet to mess with Japan’s outlying islands.  This will mean Japan either loses IPCs, or will have to pull some units back to stop the U.S.

If Japan doesn’t ignore its outlying islands, that’s less pressure on Moscow.

Either way, the Allies can see what Japan does and act accordingly.

The objective of this article is to explain turn-based game mechanics to in order to improve teamwork while playing most of the A&A games . . . (In Spring 1942, Russia) can however create opportunities for both the UK & the US to exploit against Germany . . .

Feedback: A few practical examples would ease first-time readers’ understanding.

For all of the following, I am writing only in context of the Spring 1942 version.

For my own part, I don’t understand exactly what you’re getting at.  It seems to me that you’re assuming the readers already have a firm grasp of how to apply force multipliers and initiative, and that you wish to initiate discussion of the unexplained theoretical principles that must be understood to make fully sense of your article - as well as, of course, the practical application of it all.

If I am right, then  :-D
If not,  :x

So what ARE these necessary theoretical principles?  Well, I’m just gonna throw a few words together, because I have to sleep so I can wake up to bake tomorrow.  And the day after that.  And then there’s all the packaging and ribbons and stuff.  What with Christmas coming up and all.  But I digress.

1.  Defense is more cost efficient than offense.

In other words, suppose you have UK (which goes after Germany) attack a German territory, kill all the German defenders, and take control of or liberate the territory.  On the attack, the attacker will have had to bring superior numbers of more expensive units.  For example, using 2 UK infantry to attack 2 German infantry will probably mean a loss (6 IPCs attacking 6 IPCs), but 2 UK fighters and 2 infantry attacking 2 German infantry will probably mean a win (16 IPCs attacking 6 IPCs).

Very well, the UK paid the price of having to attack with more IPCs worth of units than defenders, to make for a cost-efficient attack.

Now, US and USSR can move in infantry.  That territory will now have the “defender’s advantage” of cheap defensive units.

2.  It is my opinion that force multipliers should never be considered abstractly.  Hobbes acknowledges this in his quote

. . . can be useful to have a general idea of how the alliances can work, it will not represent the reality of an actual AAC/AAR/AA42 game, . . . an actual game will be a dynamic mixture of smaller scale situations,

, but I think it’s worth especial note.

In other words, in most situations, I’m not going to be thinking “I have units from three nations in that region!  With this mystical Triforce, I will SURELY defeat Gannondorf!”  (Zelda reference).  Instead, I’ll be thinking “I have Russian units of 15 infantry, 2 tanks, and 2 fighters, UK units of 6 infantry, 2 tanks, and 4 fighters, and US units of 2 infantry, 2 tanks, and 2 fighters and 1 bomber to work with in that area.  Germany has 1 infantry in Karelia, 1 infantry in Belorussia, and 20 infantry and 1 artillery at Ukraine, with 2 infantry, 10 tanks, and 2 fighters at Eastern Europe, 3 bombers and 2 fighters at Western Europe.”  It’s the numbers of units that I’ll be thinking about more than the numbers of national powers represented in the area.

This is why I object to the term “force multiplier”, since it seems to indicate one side’s forces will have some multiplicative effect by virtue of allied forces being in the area.  I’d say the practical application of using turn order to best advantage is less a “multiplicative” effect than it is a “manipulative” effect.  Namely, the attacking power of any one nation is not increased in an area in which multiple allied powers are present; rather, the presence of multiple powers and appropriate action in turn results in the attacking power of one nation being able to be bolstered by cost-efficient defensive reinforcements from its allies.

3.  Now I’ll address the application of turn order with what I’ll call the “Can Opener”.  Plenty of players have discovered this on their own; I simply call this “can opener” after a principle outlined in a paper by the now-dissolved Caspian Sub Yahoo group.  What I refer to with this is one nation’s attacking a territory to help its partner, whether to clear a path for that partner’s next turn, or to weaken that territory for its partner to claim.

To illustrate the idea of weakening a territory for a partner to claim, suppose Japan has a large force at Novosibirsk (adjacent to Moscow), but does not quite have the numbers or strength to make an attack on Moscow favorable.  Now suppose that Germany has a large force at Archangel (adjacent to Moscow), but also does not find an attack on Moscow favorable.  Germany might choose to attack Moscow anyways, just to weaken it.  In so doing, Germany could choose to trade 20 infantry and 20 tanks for a mere 25 infantry - normally, this sort of trade would be a disaster for Germany.  But if UK isn’t in a position to reinforce Moscow enough, Japan will probably be able to take Moscow on its turn, and those 25 lost Allied infantry could change the odds of success for Japan’s attack from 10% to 95%.  Again, the key is that the German attack would be a bad idea if Japan were out of the picture, but with Japan in the picture, the move is a good one - so it’s a “can opener”.

To illustrate the idea of clearing a path for a partner - by the way, this is useful against careless players, or even careful players because it forces them to consider additional attacking possibilities they need defend against - suppose, for example, that Germany has three subs at sea zone 7 (west of Western Europe), and three bombers on Western Europe, and that UK has a destroyer at sea zone 8 (southwest of London), and UK forces of two carriers, four fighters, and four transports at sea zone 2 (northwest of London).  Germany would like to hit the UK fleet with its subs and bombers, but the UK destroyer at sea zone 8 blocks the German subs in sea zone 7 from reaching sea zone 2.  Suppose, though, that Japan has a bomber at Western Europe, and that the U.S. and Russia have no naval forces in the Atlantic.  (This sort of thing may well happen in a KJF, or Kill Japan First plan).  In such a case, Japan could attack the UK destroyer with its bomber; if the Japan attack succeeds, Germany would be free to potentially annihilate the UK fleet on the German turn, before UK got to go.

To illustrate the idea of how a “can opener” can be inefficient because of turn order, suppose it’s Japan’s turn, and that Germany has 8 tanks and 2 fighters on Eastern Europe, 3 bombers and 2 fighters on Western Europe, and Russia has 4 infantry, 2 tanks, and 2 fighters on West Russia, with one Russian infantry on each of Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine, with 4 Russian infantry at Russia and 2 Russian infantry at Caucasus.  Germany would love to hit the West Russia stack with its tanks and air, wiping out Russia’s offensive capability, and forcing Russia to retreat to Moscow to stop the tanks from grabbing Moscow next turn.  All that stands in Germany’s way of crushing the Russians is 1 Russian infantry, whether at Karelia, Belorussia, or Ukraine.  Suppose now that Japan has a bomber and couple of fighters in the area.  Even if they clear, say, Ukraine, Russia goes after Japan, and before Germany, so all Russia has to do is move one infantry into Ukraine to stop the Germans from wiping out West Russia.

3. (part 2).A lot of Spring 1942’s play comes from the choices each player takes on his or her first turn, before other players have gone, in turn.  (This is part of why I like the game so much).  Some actions that a player may take may be considered “preemptive can openers”, although I don’t like the way that sounds (usually nothing’s being “opened”).  I suppose a more accurate description of the following Russian-attack-on-Norway would be “good teamwork”.

For example, the Russian player may choose to attack Norway with maximum force on R1.  This means the Russian fighter starting in Moscow must land in Karelia (if it survives), and inevitably be destroyed.  The Russian tank sent to Norway is almost always destroyed as well, by immediate German assault on G1 via the German transport in the Baltic.

If Russia manages to claim Norway (requiring at least one tank surviving), Russia’s loss of a fighter and probable loss of a tank are  offset by Germany not having the Norway fighter available to attack the UK battleship with, and losing Norway as a landing spot for its bomber.  These factors combine to mean the UK battleship will probably survive G1.

One G1 attack worth considering is German bomber, Norway fighter, and submarine from sea zone 8 attacking the UK battleship and transport.  With the Norway fighter, the attack favors Germany surviving with at least its bomber 95% of the time.  Losing the fighter cuts the odds to 53% or so.  Losing the fighter and the bomber from the attack (the bomber needs to land in Norway) cuts the odds to, well, pretty awful.

UK can then threaten a UK1 move of battleship and transport to attack Norway (assuming the Germans took it back), building 2 aircraft carriers for a defensive fleet of battleship and two loaded carriers (2 UK fighters and 2 US fighters).  Or, considering that Norway can’t be used

Even if Germany reclaims Norway, it can’t land air there, which means the UK can produce navy at sea zone 2 (northwest of London), only having to worry about 2-3 German subs and the German bomber, leaving the UK free to build 3 transports 3 infantry for a UK2/US2 landing at Algeria (Africa).

Personal note - I consider the Russian Norway attack to be at least moderately risky even if successful; fighters are very expensive (so I usually consider infantry a better buy for Russia), and Germany can push hard and early, making that loss of 3 infantry really hurt.  There is also the 21% “failure” rate of the Russian attack mission on Norway; 9% of the time leaving at least the German fighter surviving (having lost 2 Russian fighters and a Russian tank for nothing, and early retreat still loses a Russian fighter and a tank to a German attack in Karelia); 3% of the time everything dying (losing BOTH Russian fighters and allowing German air to land on Norway at end of G1, again with retreat being costly), 9% of the time leaving a single Russian unit surviving (if choosing to lose its second Russian fighter, Russia’s handicapped to trade territory; if choosing to lose its tank, Russia doesn’t take Norway and leaves the UK battleship/transport open to attack, which was the opposite of what was attempted with the whole costly attack in the first place; I consider either to be effective ‘failure’).

I did Amazon and Barnes & Noble reviews.

I know you want to play, so don’t be a wanna-be-player!

Be a PLAYER!  :mrgreen:

Looking at the board again, I see that you’re right about the Norway deterrent.  Clever.

I’ll have to think about the Norway/Africa situation again!

Red responses below.
@Zhukov44:

the chief rationale here is the Allies cannot make combined fleet movements from edit - probably Zhukov meant from sea zone 2 northwest of UK to sea zones 3 (Norway), 6 (Norway and Western Europe), and/or 7 (Western Europe) unless UK has sufficient protection to repel a Jap attack.  If the UK navy moves up to 2 in order to land in 4 afterwards, then the Jap figs can move to EEU.  Whatever happens the UK naval force has to be stronger than the Jap air force in order to land troops.  If the Japs keep buying planes, then UK will sink a hell of a lot of money into aircraft carriers.Response below.

-The Brazil route and the Brazil factory sound tempting, but are ineffective imho.  Unless you want to lose your starting Atlantic units, you gotta wait till USA2 to make your move to Brazil…and then you won’t land in mid-Africa until USA3.  I’d rather just mass in Algeria.Woah, I do not in any way advocate a Brazil IC.  To be clear, I predict that if there are lots of fighters in Western Europe, and few bombers, that what you should see is 2 US transports plus a light escort (1-2 destroyers plus carrier plus possible cruiser) dropping units into Brazil on one turn (since Brazil is still in range of the W. Europe bombers, the transports should be emptied), followed by the same transports picking up the Brazil units and dropping them into French West Africa/French Equatorial Africa/Belgian Congo as appropriate on the next turn.  Meanwhile, the UK builds up sea units northwest of UK.

To clarify, what I’m saying is heavy Axis investment in fighters keyed to Western Europe is, I think, possibly a mistake.  Those fighters have little flexibility against Russia (being limited to Karelia), and cannot defend Africa (being limited to countering against Libya).  The Allies can maneuver around the fighters’ limited range to achieve their objectives in both Africa (by routing through Brazil - again, NO Brazil IC!) and in Karelia/Archangel (by using its built up navy from sea zone 2 to drop into sea zone 4 on the first naval drop, then following with the cost-effective transport chain of Eastern Canada-London / London-Karelia or Archangel.  Once you have the Allies establishing that cost-effective infantry chain, it’s quite bad for the Axis.

If the Germans keep fighters in W. Europe, Allies drop ground to sea zone 4, Karelia/Archangel.  If the Germans pull fighters to E. Europe, Allies drop ground to sea zone 5, Norway, where the E. Europe fighters can’t hit them.  The same applies for Japanese fighters.  Sure, you protect Norway and Western Europe early on, but as far as I can tell, Axis fighters do not prevent the Allies from landing ground units in Europe!!!  What’s the point of guarding the barn door after the cow’s run off?

The limited range of the Axis fighters leaves the Allies free to establish the cost-effective Eastern Canada-London / London-Europe transport chain, while requiring only a single defensive Allied fleet for its London-Europe group (plus minor fleet escort for anti-bomber purposes for the transports in the Canada-London chain).  This is why I think the “correct” German response to KGF allied Atlantic transport fleet plan requires German bombers starting G2, or perhaps even on G3 - at any rate, after the Germans have seen the Allies commit to an Atlantic navy.

True, Axis fighters are a fantastic ground defense once the Allies start really messing with Germany, but I have last-moment German infantry builds to counter that, as well as a mass of tanks plus air to wipe out any premature Allied advance into Europe.  I think I’m already fairly well off in regard to ground defense.

It’s the naval defense that I’m concerned with, and as far as I see, Axis fighters in Western Europe do NOT fit the bill.

I think Germany will still want some fighters as fodder, but that bombers are the key to its defense.

Nice responses.  For those picking up this thread here, we are discussing German response to KGF.

I did not make clear the “Allied fighters to Moscow” shuttle idea, or the “committed infantry/artillery on G1” ideas.

1.  Allied fighters to Moscow is a bad move when taken in isolation.  As Hobbes stated, Allies cannot swap fighters for German or Japanese ground.

To clarify, I predict the situation to be that if the Allies did end up going KGF, that the US should have a minmum of 4 fighters, and the UK a minimum of 2 fighters.  The Allies should have built these fighters for three reasons.

A.  Destroy any German naval buildup in the Baltic area.  (There probably won’t be any real threatening German build in the Baltic anyways.)
B.  Landed on carriers to help protect the Allied fleet
C.  To trade territory with Germany and/or Japan together with Allied ground units.  (Early in the game, surviving UK ground forces from Trans-Jordan to India, and surviving US ground forces from China can be used to swap, using infantry/bomber or infantry/two fightes.  Later in the game, UK and US ground forces come from transports.)

So this is to say that the Allies should have fighters without having significantly impaired their Atlantic transport chain.  This is also to say that the Allies SHOULD have broken into Africa and/or have landed in Karelia/Archangel before Moscow is seriously threatened; it’s a typical KGF.  Soon, the Allies crack Norway and start threatening W. Europe in force.  It’s about now that the Allies can choose to send fighters to Moscow or West Russia.  Moscow based UK and US fighters reinforce against Japan’s final press from the east, while trading Russian territory with UK/US ground forces in the west.

That is, Allied fighters to Moscow is not a strategy of itself.  It’s a tactic the Allies should use as part of their overall plan to defend Moscow, and to buy more time for the Allies to crack Germany open.

2.  On the idea of a committed infantry/artillery build on G1 (specifically 12 infantry 1 artillery) - Russia goes first.  Russia does not need to (or, I would even say, want to) signal the Allied intentions towards Germany or Japan.  Next up is Germany.  My idea is that the Germans will inevitably want to push infantry on Russia, regardless of whatever they want to do.  Since that is the only given at this point (that you want infantry to press towards Moscow), that is what I think the G1 build should commit to.  On UK1 and US1 (AFTER the G1 turn), the Allies usually signal their intent to go KGF or KJF depending on the Axis build.

I’d say that if the Germans build a German bomber after the UK/US have already committed to KGF, that’s fine and appropriate.  But until then, I do not see a need for a German bomber.  So why build one, considering that every bomber means 4 less early infantry pressing on Moscow? UK1/US1 landing in Libya (in Africa) should already be easily covered by German fighters / bomber in Western Europe with German subs in the Atlantic.

I think that if you see an Allied fleet build coming, then you can counter with the necessary number of bombers.

There is no question that Germany CAN use early bombers.  It’s just that I think German has more need of early infantry, to open up Germany’s options by the time the first and second German-built infantry waves start hitting the Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine region.

@Hobbes:

Check the Fortress Europe strat on my signature. You might find it to your liking :)

Yeah, I just spent a few hours on a response.  :oops:  Well, you know how this bunny gotta p wrath and all . . .

Generally, I like the idea, but I think the Allied counters I proposed, if properly executed, should leave the Axis with - well not PROBLEMS, but not an out and out victory either.

Strat bombing is good in 1942 also, far better than Revised.  Bombers drop to 12?  Woaah.  I mean, yeah, I’d probably still want to use bombers against hard targets, but this is ANOTHER whole Craig Coburn thing where he takes these Jap bombers and I-Bombs Russia.  He never COULD pull it out in Revised, but 12 IPC bombers changes things, it really does - especially with the new costs, insta-death transports, and even sub fodder rules.

(starts humming Aladdin’s “a whole new worrrlllld”)

@Hobbes:

This is a strategy I have been following for my past games with Germany in AA1942 that has worked very well.

It has 4 goals to achieve victory for the Axis:

• 1. Disrupt Allied shipping on the Atlantic and force the US/UK to heavily invest in naval/air purchases instead of land units.

Impossible, you cannot FORCE the US or UK to do anything.  What you’re really saying is that you’re going to control the game to the extent that the US and the UK’s BEST option will be to invest in naval/air purchases in the Atlantic - and even then, that that Allied strategy will be a losing one.  But they can always switch to KJF; the Allies have the option of building flexible air first, which will be needed in either the Pacific or the Atlantic anyways.  Of course, it’s often pretty painful for the Allies to switch, and the loss in tempo can mean an Axis victory.  Short version - disruption, yes.  FORCING, no.

• 2. Prepare German defenses in Europe to make it impossible for the Allies to gain a foothold in Europe.

• 3. Decrease the Allies’ IPC production as much as possible (specially the UK) and increase the overall Axis income to at least keep parity with the combined Allied income.

• 4. Assemble German and Japanese forces to conquer Russia.

Conditions/Requirements:

• Russia’s opening round takes West Russia and Ukraine and/or Belorussia. An R1 attack on Norway will make this strategy harder if it is successful and the G fighter is destroyed. Likewise, if the German fighter on Ukraine survives it will be a bonus for Germany.

• At R2 it is clear that the Allies will not invest on a Pacific strategy against Japan, with the US building up its fleet off Western US and/or ICs placed on Sinkiang/India.

Turn 1 - Germany

Purchases:

• 1 bomber + ground units, specially infantry.

I think Germany can wait on building bombers until G2.  What’s the G1 bomber build going to hit?  If the Allies decide to mass air, or NOT hit Africa, not much.  On the other hand, if you see that UK and US made a commitment to a fleet, you can build bombers to deter a landing in Africa.  Response to UK1/US1 Africa?  W. Europe fighters plus bombers on G2 combat wipes Allied fleet.

• Or, if you want to try to sink any allied fleet on SZ2/8 on G2: 2 bombers and land units. While this buy might leave you shorthanded against the Russians it should prevent the UK from building any naval units during UK1. For more details read the section dealing with G2 Combat.

I’m not afraid of a UK1 fleet.  Anyways, once the UK sees the German, build, they shouldn’t be dumb enough to build a navy that can get blown up.  The real question is how Germany will use its resources when it does NOT see an early Allied fleet build.

Combat Moves:

• Ukraine with ftr (from EEur) and inf (Balkans).

• SZ15 with BB

• SZ13 with 2 ftrs (Germany/W. Eur.)

• Egypt with 2 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr (Balkans)

• SZ2 with ftr (Norway), bmr (Germany), sub (SZ8)

Probably as Allies I would have sent a Russian sub there; I can’t think of much else to do with it.

• Karelia with inf/arm/ftr from E. Eur

This is where things start to break down, because I start to have questions about the solidity of play on both sides. I’m still just starting with 1942, but I would say most probable scenario in Ukraine if it WAS taken by Russia is that there’s one Russian tank there.  With a 3 IPC territory, I’d consider two infantry and a fighter a good investment for the attack; I’d really rather not lose a shot at a Russian tank if I can at all help it. I question the validity of the Allied play as well, it looks like it is assumed units are left in Karelia.  I’ve never left units in Karelia at the end of R1.  They’d all die anyways. If Germany tank blitzes, I’ll blitz it right back, or maybe leave an infantry there on R2, depending on the German position.

You should be able to take all the territories and sink all the UK ships with the exception of the transport on SZ1. On average G will lose the sub and 1-2 ftrs from those battles.

Non-Combat Moves:

• Depending on the number of Germany’s subs and fighters that survived G1 (and their location on W. Eur/Norway) and the fate of the Russian sub Germany may have good odds of sinking any allied fleet on SZ2 and SZ8.

buncha cute numbers and stuff.  (I take it they are accurate, and am actually happy to see some hard figures, any time, in any article!)  But I don’t think you SHOULD see an Allied invasion fleet at the beginning of G2 combat move.  Again, why would the Allies build a navy that’s just going to be blown up, while not taking a lot of Germans to hell with 'em?

Turn 2 - Germany

Purchases:
As many infantry as possible, with a couple of tanks (this will be the standard buy for G for a few turns).As I mentioned a wee bit earlier, I think this is when Germany decides to build bombers or not.  Also, I would not make tanks this early, barring a very interesting Russian development.  Just infantry, perhaps a couple artillery.

Combat

• Retake territories taken by Russia (Karelia, Bielorussia, Ukraine).

• Keep pressure on Africa.

Non-Combat

• If the UK hasn’t build any fleet on UK1 keep the submarines out of range from any US destroyers like SZ7, otherwise if they weren’t used on attacking the Allies pull them back to SZ5 (Baltic).

• Land all planes on W. Eur. If necessary move additional infantry there on non-combat to prevent any Allied landings there.

This is where I start to seriously diverge.  I think the proper place for bombers is Western Europe.  (More on this in a bit)  Fighters belong closer to the Russian front in my opinion  You can switch some in and some out by putting a couple fighters on W. Europe and others on, say, E Europe.  The W. Europe fighters fly to Kar/Bel/Ukr and land in E. Europe; the E. Europe fly to Kar/Bel/Ukr and land in W. Europe.

Turns 3 to 5

Japan

• This strategy requires that Japan will move all of its airforce to W. Eur either through Egypt. One trick to speed it up is to keep the 2 starting carriers at SZs 60 and 34. Fighters built on Japan can then be placed on the carrier on SZ60 and reach W. Eur in 2 turns by moving to the carrier on SZ34.

IMHO this is your whole plan!  Not that it’s a BAD plan by any means.

• Japan can build a couple of planes to replace losses on J1 or to augment its airforce but ground units are also very important.

• The initial Japanese objectives should be to trade Yakut, Persia and Sinkiang while taking Australia/NZ/Madagascar  Take Novosibirsk/Kazakh if possible but don’t waste single tanks on positions where Russian infantry can kill them.

To emphasize, I agree trading is correct for this Jap air in W. Europe strat; nothing else is really possible for Japan without its air.

• Japan should also help Germany keep Egypt and take any available Africa territories as possible but only to draw US units there instead of Europe.

• Japan should be focusing on slowly advancing towards Russia, trading territories and slowly bleeding the Russians, without wasting units to Russian surprise attacks. This might prove difficult due to the absence of the Japanese airforce.

• After the Japanese planes are located on W. Eur their main target should be the UK fleet since the Brits will be hard pressed for income after the loss of most of their possessions in Africa/Asia. Since J plays between the UK and US by having the planes on W. Eur allows the Axis to take advantage of any opportunities provided after the UK moves.

. . . and this is where the WHOLE PLAN is explained.  Short version - Jap fighters to W. Europe or back in 2 turns.  2 turns means Jap fighters return in time to help counter any major U.S. Pacific buildup (when combined with Japanese defensive build).

• The UK & US will then be forced to increase their naval defenses and will have severe limitations on where they can move. One mistake can leave fleets without enough protection against the 2 fleets of Axis planes.

but of course, there should BE no mistakes in Allied play at this point.  Sea zone 2, northwest of UK, is where UK can build fleet without fear of fighter harassment (barring carrier builds).  Attacking sea zone 2 therefore means German subs and bombers (any other German navy will get blown up by Allied air).  There should not be any “mistakes” in Allied play at this point; the Axis plan is completely transparent.  I think at this point the Japanese contribution really breaks down to preventing landing at Africa.  Even then, the Allies can sneak down to Brazil, then to Africa in just one more turn.  As far as landing in Europe, the Allies move their main fleet from sea zone 2 to sea zone 4 when they’re ready to move, then start loading in sea zone 3 and offloading in sea zone 4, so Japanese fighters are no help there.

What’s the Japanese fighter response to Brazil-Africa?  Long story short, they can’t defend north AND south of the Sahara without Japanese carriers in the area.  And committing Jap carriers west leaves the U.S. free in the Pacific.

But more on this whole sad fighter story in a bit.

Germany

• Usually G should buy as many infantry as possible, plus 1 or 2 tanks. The aim is to build 3 stacks on W. Europe/Germany/E. Europe each holding enough ground/air units to defeat any combined UK/US invasion.

My opinion is that Germany should just buy loads of infantry and a very few artillery early, adding bombers as needed.  No tanks; I just don’t think they’re needed early on.
. . .
Turn 6 and after

• After turn 6 if the Allies haven’t managed to land a large body of troops anywhere and G has more than 50 ground units it is time to switch German production to tanks and then move a large stack of infantry armor to either Karelia or Ukraine that can defend itself from any Allied counterattack.

But what if the Allies have lots of fighters, and can fly them into Russia at the drop of a hat?  This is why I say you always want to build massed infantry ASAP.  Infantry built early are on the front lines a couple turns later; the more you built earlier, the more you have later.

• This move should be coordinated with a Japanese advance to Persia or any other territory (Kazakh, Novosibirsk) but be aware of counterattacks.

My opinion is that Japan should just grab whatever the heck it can get.  While not losing any Japanese tanks or artillery, of course.

• If the US is sending units directly to the Caucasus then G and/or J should investing in planes to stop it and cut off the US naval forces in the Med. If Russia’s ready to topple, of course, make with the tanks, not the fighters; I suppose this is just taken as assumed.  But I say there is no way the Allies should have any sort of real push through Africa via Algeria anyways, with all the proposed Axis air in Western Europe in this strategy.  Anyways, if the Allies have REAL control of the Med. and are feeding units into Caucasus, and Russia is not about to fall, probably the Allies won.  To spell it out - the Allies control Africa, and are feeding ground units into Russia.  Switching the Axis to plane production means better short-term hitting power, but in the end, piles of infantry will blunt the Axis assault - again, remembering that the Axis must have lost control of the game if the situation’s as bad as described.

• Taking Caucasus is important but for Germany it is even better to keep the army on West Russia, again to prevent the Allies from landing large stacks on Karelia/Archangel that can be moved to Russia.

• Or if the bombers and a few fighters survived this far, Japan is well placed to take Russia and there are enough troops to secure W. Europe - Germany - E. Europe then Germany can also switch to fighter/bomber production to restart the naval race.

Finally, on this strategy time is on the Axis side. As the time passes the 4 initial goals should be obtained:

• 1. The UK/US will keep spending money on fleets instead of ground units.

• 2. G will build its European defenses and assemble an unbeatable army.

• 3. Japan will continue to reduce Allied income, bringing economic parity and forcing the Allies to liberate Africa, giving even more time to Germany to build its forces.

• 4. The Russians will have to use their units to retake lost territories as its income is reduced.

Now, how do you defeat this strat?

@Plekto:

…What you need to do is rob Germany of Africa and place the IC at a spot that can’t easily be taken out.
The optimal place to put the IC is actually Egypt…
But you will need U.S. support, so you might have to wait until turn 2 to place it unless the German med fleet is badly beaten…
Russia can also of course send air cover for it if you decide to build it on turn 1.

Do I understand correctly that you’re proposing reclaiming Africa from Germany, beating up the German Med fleet, and putting an IC in Anglo-Egypt by turn 2?  And that you’re proposing sending a Russian fighter to Anglo-Egypt on R1?  (Giving Germany slightly better odds on a two-territory R1 attack?)

Response:  I pick up infantry and tank from Southern Europe, plus Libya infantry and tank, plus bomber, and probably 2 fighters.  This, versus infantry, tank, and two fighters.  My battleship must win versus your destroyer, but those are good odds.  You never get the Anglo-Egypt IC up, and I kill a precious Russian fighter, while keepipng most of or all of my air, probably leaving a tank ready to blitz through Africa.  Russian fighters are like gold in my opinion; they allow Russia to trade territories without committing ground forces to hold the territory (since the Germans usually take the territory right back, destroying any Russian forces there.)

Sure, this means the UK battleship and transports may survive, but Russian fighters are SOLID GOLD IMHO.

Alternative, I only have 1 fighter, and you overcommitted in Ukraine.  I still attack Anglo-Egypt, with slightly worse odds, but am compensated by obliterating Russian tanks in Ukraine.  This is an even better scenario for Germany.

Last alternative, you undercommitted to a Ukraine attack, lucked out, and won big.  Which just goes to show that in war, it’s better to be lucky than smart/valorous/other adjective.

I’m still curious as to how you intend to beat up the German Med fleet.  If Anglo-Egypt holds, yes, I can see the Indian fleet and the Anglo-Egypt fighter making a good case against the German Med fleet.  I just don’t think Anglo-Egypt should ever last past G1, though.

Re:  Australia IC:

The Japs want to put ground units into Asia anyways.  It’s my opinion that building up at India just gives the Japs a target of opportunity.  If India started with three more infantry on it, I think things might be different, but we’re not dealing with hypotheticals here.

==

An Australian IC is such a different topic, I think a separate thread should be created for it.

@Nix:

I also want to add that the additional IPC uk and US will have from Island hoping in japans territories should tip the initial lack of ipc into europe.

For example, india won´t be taken anytime soon by japan, africa is safer etc.

You’re saying the Allies show their plan on UK 1, when they drop Australia IC.  I take it that it is a given that an Australian IC is a strict KJF plan.  Anything else, I think, is just an expensive distraction.

Am I right in saying this?

My opinion on 1942 vs Revised is not yet fully formed.  But I feel confident saying that the Allies need a much more powerful navy in the Atlantic in 1942 (as opposed to Revised), as transports and subs may no longer fill the role of battle fodder (the last assuming the attacker didn’t bring a destroyer.)

The 1942 version brings to mind an acquaintance of mine, Craig Coburn.  His German bombers based in Western Europe were interesting in Revised.  In 1942, I think his strategy would be far more than merely “interesting”.  Pity he moved back to France as far as I know.

All in all, I vastly prefer 1942.

Thanks for the welcome back, Fox.  Reckon I’d better order myself a set of 50th anniversary & start analyzing it.  After analysis, I can start writing me some hot articles.  Yeah, you know how my editorial style’s all like Johnny Storm; “flame on!”

Reckon I’ll be quiet for a little while I work on all that.  I have to catch up with Caspian Sub’s articles too.  (Caspian Sub’s a Yahoo group about Axis and Allies, for those not familiar with those rascally rabbits)

Signing off for now - with my typical tongue-in-cheek humor -

Coincidence?

Or . . . conspiracy?  :lol:

(It really was just a coincidence.)

==

(edit) - just checked Amazon prices on 50th edition, and it’s $900!  Revised is at $134!  And 1942’s at $20.  So I reckon I’d better write for 1942 in hopes of hitting a bigger target audience.

Yeah, I called you a target.  Jolly good, wot wot?

So I took a break for a while, and now there’s Revised, 50th Edition, and Spring 1942 (in that order)

My questions are:

1.  If I were to go to a TOURNAMENT, what version would I be most likely to want to know?  (Also, what’s the bidding system used that you’d say would be most popular?)

2.  Which edition do you see played most face-to-face?

3.  Which edition do you enjoy playing the most?

Come on, a territory that’s adjacent to a sea zone that’s in turn adjacent to London?

That’s not useless, that’s a fighter base.  Mostly useless, maybe.  But not useless.

“Do you want me to send you back to where you were?  Unemployed?  In Greenland?”

I say NO to Brazilian IC in general.  Not always, of course - you know how I always say that everything has to be adapted to the situation, and I can see that in some cases you may want a Brazilian IC.  But in general - no.

Why do I say generally no?

The focus of the Axis attention is usually Moscow.  When Moscow is the focus, the Allies need to either reinforce Moscow or attack one of the Axis powers to the extent that there’s a real threat.  A Brazil IC is too far away from the action to reinforce Moscow or add momentum to an attack on either Germany or Japan.

Sure, a Brazil IC lets you have the ability to produce invasion forces on an instant.  But you have to blow 15 IPC on it to set it up, then you blow on the order of 8-14 IPC or so every time you use it, and that’s when you’re just setting up either an Atlantic or Pacific fleet.  Even later in the game, when most of the shucks are set up, I think I would typically want those IPCs for air units.

There are times when a Brazil IC may become important, I would think later in the game (turn 6+ or so) when/if Japan has set up shop in India and is dropping units into Africa.  But I think it’s situational; it isn’t something you shoot for from the start.

If I want to keep Africa with Allies early, I’ll either push infantry by dropping early to Algeria, moving to Libya then Anglo-Egypt then Trans-Jordan, but that often sees the Allies running into a Japanese wall at Persia.  Alternatively, I can produce tanks with US on US1, land in Africa US2, and race through Africa US3+ with light infantry backup following; US4+ sees the Allied fleet in the Atlantic moving north to set up the E. Canada-UK-Europe shuck.

Of course your post was probably about the second reclamation of Africa (Germany takes, Allies reclaim, Japan takes, Allies reclaim a second time).  But at that point, unless I’m facing a big bomber squadron, I’ll typically have attained my goal of reinforcing Moscow and/or threatening one of the Axis powers.  NOT ALWAYS, of course, and as I mentioned, I may see a use for a Brazil IC in some specific situations, but again - it’s situational, not something I’d gun for from the beginning.

@Rakeman:

What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?

The Axis and Allies Revised Pacific Theater Drinking Game, of course.

@captainjack:

Thanks for the help!  I’m at work right now, so I can’t download the program here, but I will as soon as I get home, and then I’ll post - Thanks again!

So Abattlemap, TripleA, and MapView are just 3 different programs that do the same thing?

Abattlemap = your well-intentioned three year old kid trying to make you pancakes in the morning.

TripleA = your robot butler from Paris making you pancakes with all the accessories in the morning.

@allies_fly:

Sounds like you were working for the Gore camp in Florida based on your vote observations.

Trying to make a new P&D forum are you?

SMITE!

@squirecam:

Just because they do doesnt mean its right.

mom?