Posts made by Nippon-koku

@WILD:

@Nippon-koku:

Your correct Marsh, Russia has to be at war first.  I’m assuming a G2 attack (which is the most common scenario I run into in my group).  But yes, otherwise they’d have to wait.

I wouldn’t sweat the Russian troops in Turkey.  The planes make it back easily, and any two move units brought to the battle can be back in Moscow by turn 4.  It’s worth it if Turkey gets hit hard and Spain is taken by the US early.

I agree, we also see a lot of G2 Barbarossa and it comes with a devastating J1 attack. This allows the USA to go to Spain early, but the USA also has responsibilities in the Pac to deal with. Opening up Spain creates a two front war for the Germans as they press Moscow, but the USA faces a similar scenario.

The Germans will still have their starting super stack pushing into Russia, but they will stall w/o reinforcements and the Luftwaffe. Early Anglo landings in Spain will force the Germans/Italians to spend on the western front (cutting back on purchases generally made in German held Russian factories). It will also tie up the German air force which is essential for any attack on Moscow.

With an Allied neutral crush pretty much every major power will have multiple fronts to fight, it makes for a very different game.

Great points Bill, and a solid example of how thinking a little differently can produce solid results.  Who would think that a US2 attack on Spain would be a great slow down move against a JDOW1?

@JeroldTheGreat:

Id like to challenge YGs solid defensive line and propose a new idea of Defend the North, Attack the South. The focus of this strategy is to overwhelm the axis with too many fronts, forcing Germany to distract too many of its forces away from Leningrad. By focusing power into Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and even Greece, many of Germany’s early game infantry and artillery will be wasted or extended too far south in an attempt to regain valuable Russian NOs. This strategy needs an unpopular UK Greece landing to help with pincer attacks and a lot of offensive buys but could prove to be a valuable fresh blood strategy if done right.

I’m intrigued.  Let me ask, what’s the counter if Germany basically says “Screw it, take half that force to the South and we’ll take Moscow virtually uncontested?”  Russia can’t bring significant force South AND hold Moscow.

@ShadowHAwk:

But that russian horde is a lot stronger if you buy ART iso ARM since you dont want to dash forward with your tanks alone.
Tanks can be good if they are the only units that can get to the front next turn and they swing the tide of war for just 1 turn so germany cannot advance but that is about it.

When you dont have to move far and you got plenty of inf art adds just as much punch then arm does but at 66% of the price.

My thinking exactly.  Tanks would still need the protection of infantry, so why would you buy six tanks for 36 when you could buy 5 inf and 5 art for the same (save a buck)?

Gotcha.  I think we’re talking about two different things though.

My understanding was the other poster was saying “Placing fighters in CUS is no different than placing them in EUS” which of course wouldn’t be the case.  I see your point though and I agree  8-)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no air base in CUS, meaning the planes couldn’t reach 109, 110 or Gibraltar.

So leaving them on EUS means they can reach all the same Pacific spots, plus being able to reach further in the Atlantic.

Hmm, gotta say Maddog: I’m all about ignoring the conventional wisdom in A&A, and I love to see something different.  But the heavy tank buying from Russia has me befuddled.

I get the idea of keeping your options open for a counter attack if Germany presents the opportunity.  But then you have to protect those tanks, which means you’d have to bring a large force to any attack, leaving that force open to a German counter attack.

I’m definitely curious to see how this would look (and I’ll probably give it a try), but I feel like the end result is an under-defending Moscow.

@cyanight:

@Nippon-koku:

@Arthur:

I also fell in love with the fighter + inf purchase.�  I like to be able to send out a lone infantry + planes to take out advanced Axis troops, protecting your backside.�  It is also good to protect Russia from devastating bomber runs.

100%�  � Normally, I’ll do inf and a fighter the first three turns (as always, depends on the board) before doing that artillery buy.�  By the end of R3, the Soviets should have, at minimum, five fighters in Moscow.�  Definitely makes the prospect of a bombing raid harder for the Germans.�

Id rather have +10 inf than +3 fighters.  The difference in the percentage chance is around 50%.

There’s an argument to be made for that, but you have to look at the other benefits of the planes.  ABH mentioned the lone inf and planes that can be used to hit German troops, as well as the protection against raids, which can be huge.  If those early fighter buys dissuade Germany from early bombing raids, the extra IPC’s not spent fixing a factory can easily lead to infantry that may not have been purchased otherwise.

@ShadowHAwk:

@SubmersedElk:

There is no reason to ever build fighters in Central US.

I trust no explanation is needed.

If you want to build 1 carrier + 2 fighters + 3 other units and place them all in ZS101( german side ). But it is not clear if you build the fighters in central or eastern US as they end up on the carrier regardless.

EUS would still be the better option simply because it gives you more flexibility.  What if you change your mind after the next German turn and decide “Actually, I need to send these to Gibraltar, or a CV in 109 or 110, etc.”

Always pays to give yourself options

@Arthur:

I also fell in love with the fighter + inf purchase.  I like to be able to send out a lone infantry + planes to take out advanced Axis troops, protecting your backside.  It is also good to protect Russia from devastating bomber runs.

100%  Normally, I’ll do inf and a fighter the first three turns (as always, depends on the board) before doing that artillery buy.  By the end of R3, the Soviets should have, at minimum, five fighters in Moscow.  Definitely makes the prospect of a bombing raid harder for the Germans.

I like to go 9 inf and a fighter the first two Russian buys.  From there it’ll depend, but usually a heavy artillery buy on turn 3 or 4.

Having the extra planes really comes in handy.

Your correct Marsh, Russia has to be at war first.  I’m assuming a G2 attack (which is the most common scenario I run into in my group).  But yes, otherwise they’d have to wait.

I wouldn’t sweat the Russian troops in Turkey.  The planes make it back easily, and any two move units brought to the battle can be back in Moscow by turn 4.  It’s worth it if Turkey gets hit hard and Spain is taken by the US early.

@Juan_de_Marco:

I disagree with taranto on a different level: positioning and denial of objectives. It’s worth a lot more for the british to keep a larger fleet alive in the med than to kill the battleship of the Italians. And if you get all the good defensive units together at Malta seazone, the Italians have to split up their fleet if they wish to clear it. Now if you can make sure you keep some air units around, the transports will sink too.

I’m with you.  Not very big on Taranto.  Not only what you said, but I feel it thins the UK up a little too much by having to bring planes down from London.

Other than the first game of global I ever played as the Allies, letting the Italian fleet be has never been the difference between an Allied win or loss.  The way you keep them at bay is by getting a solid US/UK force to SZ91 early in the game.

Simon: good point as well.  I’ve always been a believer that, even if Japan gets off to a good start because of early US attention to the Atlantic, you can catch up over there.  They still have to come take Sydney or Hawaii, not easy when the US is spending the majority of its money there from US3 onward.

Elk: valid points, but I can’t get passed the thought “Hmm, would I rather have 4 BB’s or 8 subs and 4 DD’s on the board?”

@ChocolatePancake:

I would think that attacking the neutrals that early would be risky unless the UK is also ready to hit Turkey at the same time.
Otherwise, if Germany/Italy has anything in range of Turkey, that could get dangerous for the middle east real fast.

I’ve actually found Russia can put together a solid R2 attack on Turkey, even if it’s just to weaken them.  I usually go 9 inf and a fighter on R1, so by R2 they can hit with (doing this from memory) something like 4 inf, 2 mech, 2 tank, 3 fighters, 1 tac.

@blacky:

I never played this simply because the US has enogh to do to fight Japan. Sending 16 ground Units and 8 Transports + Navy to Gibraltar leaves the Japanese ungarded. I think an experienced Axis player will love that Allied strategy.

With a large Atlantic US1 buy, as well as a little maneuvering, the US has plenty of resources to go for Spain while still putting plenty of time and money into the Pacific.

Let’s say the US buys 3 transports, 1 inf, 1 CV and 2 subs.  Bring the 2 inf from WUS over to CUS, load the transport in SZ 10 and move it, along with the loaded CV and a DD, to SZ 89, swing the fighter in EUS over to WUS to replace the one you’re taking from that CV.

Place 3 transports, and 2 inf in the Atlantic, and the rest in the Pacific.

The US now has 5 loaded transports, a loaded CV and a bombardment hit ready for Spain on US2 (they could even get the bomber there if they felt it could safely land in Morocco or Gibraltar).  US should survive that battle with 7-8 ground units.

The buy for US2 could be either one transport, one inf in the east, with the rest of the money going to the pacific.  From there on out, you have 3 transports coming and going between 91 and 101, dropping six units a turn (4 inf and 2 art for 20 IPC) while spending the rest in the Pacific.

So in return for one turn of the US going heavy in the East, they can drop 6 guys in Spain a turn (9 if they buy a factory) while spending most of their money in the Pacific.

A little help from the UK will go a long way to helping with this.

@Private:

@Nippon-koku:

I have to agree with the no BB crew here.�  Every BB equals two subs and a DD you could have bought.�

I also agree with whoever said helping Russia is priority one, which is why I’m such a big believer in the heavy US1 Atlantic buy.

That was me!

And I agree re the BB vs 1DD & 2 subs point. The latter have a 75% chance in attack and 55% in defence against the BB. Cannot think of when I last bought a BB (or a CC for that matter).

Exactly right.  I know this has been talked about plenty, but I would love to see the price of battleships and cruisers drop.  16 IPC for a BB is totally fair; a CV may only defend at 2 and not even attack, but it can hold two planes, and as we all know a loaded CV is as good as it gets in the water.  So that being the case, why not drop the BB cost to match a CV?

Has a cruiser ever been purchased in an A&A game?  The cost either needs to drop to 9, or keep it at 12 but give it AA ability (not my idea, I just forget who originally suggested this).

I have to agree with the no BB crew here.  Every BB equals two subs and a DD you could have bought.

I also agree with whoever said helping Russia is priority one, which is why I’m such a big believer in the heavy US1 Atlantic buy.

Welcome to the boards!

I’ve mentioned this several times before, so sorry for anyone who has to read it for the millionth time.  I like to buy heavy in the Atlantic first couple of turns, then catch up in the Pacific.  Typical US1 buy is 4 transports, 1 CV and 1 DD.  US2 I will do something like another transport, a few inf and maybe another CV, rest in the Pacific.  From there on it’ll be generally 80-20 Pacific.

Having that force early on really helps the Atlantic campaign; six loaded US transports in Gibraltar by turn three is a nice force.  Hell, if Japan attacks round 1 or 2, the US can have 5 loaded’s there by US2.

@simon33:

I’ve never had much success with going after India as Japan. I’m wondering if it is better to just contain it.

BTW, I don’t think you should send the 2 UK fighters to Malaya as the Allies. You need 3 fighters to defend against SBR by 2 bombers.

India can definitely be taken, but the Pacific Allies can definitely make it a pain for Japan.  I’ve lost India, but never within the first five or six rounds.

@axis_roll:

@Narvik:

I don’t believe this game is designed to favor the evil Axis. I believe it just takes longer time to learn to play the Allies properly.

I second this notion to some extent, mainly because good coordination is required to fully utilize the allied powers.  Not too often are Germany and Japan able to greatly help each other achieve the same objective.

Amen.  The Axis are not overpowered, the Allies just take more coordination, whereas the Axis never truly have to work together