Posts made by Ozone27

In my opinion USSR taking Manchuria on T1 is practically a death warrant for Russia. Why?

1.) You would almost certainly take heavy losses in INF before you prevail.

2.) Japan will be forced to take back Manchuria on T1. This will indeed slow down Japan’s advance in East Asia for a turn, but the tradeoff is not worth it because…

3.) USSR is forced to either leave the rest of their Eastern territories underdefended, or to commit signifigant forces from the West to shore them up. Either way you’ve weakened USSR far more than the measly 3 IPC gain for 1 turn or the setback of Japan are worth.

CAVEAT:I suppose with careful follow-up planning by all the Allies, the situation could be exploited for a possible edge on Japan. A case in point would be if all the Allies gang up on Japan T1 with concerted attacks, or if the UK wish to place an IC on India. The USSR siezure of Manchuria could then prove valuable to the overall Allied picture. But in general I believe it would be far more useful for USSR, if he/she is feeling aggressive, to hit-and-run Manchuria by scoring 1 or 2 hits & retreating with whatever’s left, than to actually take the territory & set in motion a chain of events that would be detrimental to the Allied cause…

Just my opinion…

Ozone27

@StrongBad1988:

but since he has the IC there now, i think he should utilize it at least by puting 3 tanks or 2 tanks and 1 fighter there

…definitely. Next game though, consider building the IC on T2 instead–by which time you should have a pretty good economy.

Taking China & eliminating the US fleet at Hawaii are good, achievable goals for T1…

Ozone27

Part of the problem, I think, was that 1st-turn IC purchase in Manchuria. Japan should usually avoid big-ticket items such as ICs or Aircraft Cariers (CVs) etc. until she’s expanded her economy a bit. Remember you are almost as poor as USSR on your 1st turn…

Ozone27

As is so often the case, SUD is correct. :wink: A slightly more succinct way of putting it would be that SBRs are a gamble, but the gamble sometimes pays off. The key is the gamblers’ credo: never gamble what you don’t want to lose. If you can’t afford to lose a BMR–don’t SBR! For instance, I like the idea of using both the Japan & Germany BMRs early in the game to joint SBR USSR. Your starting BMRs cost you nothing & if you don’t hurt USSR early, then you may never! Try flying the Japan BMR to Western Europe afterwards. The opportunity to do even more damage with it later may present itself…

On the other hand, I dislike the strategy of buying all BMRs for a turn and using them to SBR. This is a big investment and if you lose the BMRs, you lose big. Plus you may find an opportunity to invade a territory wasted later due to insufficient manpower. Vs. the opportunity to sieze a territory, SBRing loses big. Think INF first, SBR waay later…

Basically consider SBRing tactically, not strategically. Do it on a turn by turn basis and when the situation changes, cancel it. I believe strategic bombing is only worth it in situations where the target is vulnerable; that is, when they need every last dime to get what they need for the next turn. Germany is usually in such a state. Any power that is losing ground & falling back defensively may also be vulnerable. What you DON’T want to do is rely on a strategy of SBRs to win you the game. You may win some spectacular victories, but the strategy will eventually fail more often than it succeeds…

If you’ve got Rocket Power, the situation changes somewhat. Small SBRs on the same power you are Rocketing yield bigger dividends than normal due to the additional rocket damage. Consider this fact before moving…

Ozone27

What I said before is even more vitally important to you now: get troops to the continent at all costs! You have 2 TRs–you’ll need more, as many as you can afford with a corresponding # of INF to load on them. Also buy 3 ARM to put on the IC in Manchuria EVERY TURN! If you don’t start losing territory, then you will still build up on the continent faster than the Allies can (they have only what they started with on the board + 3 units–probably ARM–per turn from the IC). You need to start taking Allied territory NOW: that means you need a lot of land units on Asia pronto.

If you have to let India go for the time being, fine: they will continue to spend 15 IPCs on ARM for India each turn, which will help your ally, Germany, immensely…

Work with Germany! If you haven’t already, talk to your ally & find out what his plans are & what he needs from you. You may find he wants you to put more pressure on USSR, and simply block India for the time being. Do what he says–its no help to you at all to take India only to find Germany has since been eliminated & you are the only remaining Axis power! That may be what UK intended all along!

Ozone27

YES! The game is very well balanced when you & your friends are new to the game. Sometimes I totally wish I could go back to our “novice” period–there seemed to be so many more possibilities!

As far as general “novice” principles to win:

1.) Be frugal! Spend all your money each turn & buy only the units you intend to use the very next turn. Have a very definite purpose in mind for each unit, & don’t neglect to buy INF. INF are the most useful units in the game–this is a principle that–if you know it–will give you an advantage over your fellow newbies who buy all armor, fighters or research…

2.) Look a turn ahead when buying & also when attacking. Visualize what the board will look like when you finish your move: that is where you are stuck until your next move! Don’t leave yourself hanging out there in a weak territory–you’ll have to wait for 4 more players to move before you can rectify the situation!

3.) Attack when you are more-or-less certain to win & try to have enough forces in each siezed territory to protect it from counterattacks by the enemy. If you take a territory on your turn & your enemy takes it back, you gained some IPCs. If you prevent or eliminate a counterattack, you NOT ONLY gained IPCs, you prevented the enemy from getting them & therefore hurt his/her economy as well!

4.) Consult with & cooperate with your partner(s) as closely as possible! The closer you can coordinate your moves, the more powerful you will be…

Hope this helps! Have fun! :D

Ozone27

As I mentioned before, in San Francisco, the term “tranny” means something a little bit different… :o

But I digress…

If the TR survives USSRs attack T1 (or if Russia was Restricted) then you do have a number of options, but mostly I’ve found them to be dead ends…

You could use the TR to transport 1 ARM FINLAND/NORWAY->ALGERIA. I’ve done this before & been fabulously lucky in keeping the TR to join the Med fleet T2, but usually this just puts an extra ARM in ALGERIA & you lose the TR. This has worked for me & I think is a good move since the ARM in F/N otherwise serves very little purpose in the game.

You could reinforce F/N w/ troops from Germany, WE or EE. Helps keep F/N a little longer & threatens USSR with an additional reserve force in F/N until they or UK reduce it. But this conversely weakens EE and traps forces in an essentially indefensible territory. Fun, but not practical…

You could attack Karelia w/ additional troops from WE or Germany T1. If you’re nuts enough to try attacking Karelia T1, then you might as well throw these guys in & go for broke. Will make the game shorter, but otherwise forget it…

You could evacuate 2 INF from F/N to EE for additional defense. The theory here is simple: EE is defensible, F/N is not. You might as well move a couple more guys to EE & prepare for some land-trading. This is an unglamorous, but I think a practical, move. You’re not gonna leave that FTR in F/N, right??? :wink:

Using the TR for cannon-fodder in the North Sea attack is the most boring, but in the end, probably the most practical move. You’re going to lose the fleet anyway–might as well go out with a bang…

I think the whole way F/N is incorporated into the game rings false and is dumb. Looking at the board it makes no sense for Germany (before the game has started) to have taken F/N in the 1st place. I’ve considered trying to implement a “canal rule” similar to the Suez canal between F/N & and WE, but this seems to create more problems for Germany than it solves. In the basic game, adding a BB in the Baltic SZ would be more historically realistic, but in game terms, waaaay overkill…

Ozone27

Yeah, do what these guys say. Also, consider that Transports (TRs) are a better value dollar-for-dollar than an IC & Armor (ARM) for Japan, at least until you’ve got much of Asia under your belt. Put INF en masse onto the continent each turn & as alamein says, use your Fighters (FTRs) as ARM. But FTRs are better than ARM in movement & defense so be sure to deploy them defensively after your attack. Sink the USA Hawaiian Islands fleet 1st turn…

I am not a big fan of attacking India 1st turn if the Allies have built up there. Even w/ 3 INF, 1 FTR & 1 TR there you are in for a stiff fight & will expose yourself to Chinese spoiling counterattacks. Thats why IMHO its important to concentrate on loading INF to the continent using TRs the 1st few turns until you can put an IC on Asia. Due to the fact that UK is wholly dependent on their 3-point IC in India for troops, using INF, FTRs & w/ the addition of an IC for ARM, you ought to be able to bottle up UK until you are so strong you can crush them without fear of a counterattack. Now UK feels like a big idiot 'cuz they wasted 15 IPCs on an IC + who knows how much on troops only to be annihilated with no effect on the game.

Most important–work with your Germany player. I can’t stress this enough–if the player layout is as you describe (sounds like the best player is the UK player & the USSR & USA players are known to play aggressive early on) I’d suggest you & your partner meet well before the game & discuss strategy while you still have time. Develop a combined plan of action & stick to it. Talk frequently during the game to coordinate your moves. Germany & Japan must cooperate not just strategically but tactically (move for move) in order to win a game like this…

Hope this helps!

Ozone27

I read somewhere that until VE-Day, the US was spending 90% of its war production fighting Germany & only 10%(!) vs. Japan. In a lot of ways, this is because Germany was a more high-tech and economically powerful country. With just this amount of material, the US production capacity was so great that they could attack vast island fortresses w/ a preponderance of well-trained men & planes.

Of course in A & A 10% of anyone’s income is pretty insignifigant. But the principle is the same–use the majority of the USAs vast income against one Axis power. The easiest mark is Germany in terms of swiftness, but coming in against Japan (and I will receive criticism for this) is, I think, a viable option because a clever USA player can so distract Japan’s Asia buildup that the attack vs. Russia is slowed signifigantly. Basically I think each Western Power ought to fight mainly just 1 Axis power NOT divide their forces–USA and UK should each have a distinct target. Depending on the situation, I think Japan CAN BE a viable target for each.

Basically what I’m saying is its a tradeoff. By ganging up on Germany or Japan the Allies may be able to score a quick victory. But if things don’t go well, the other Axis power may be able to damage the Allies enough to prevent this. On the other hand, while I think fighting both Axis powers is therefore a good idea, you don’t want to divide your strength between them so much that you are ineffective everywhere. A good balance is best, if that makes any sense… :-?

Ozone27

The worst is when you take Karelia & STILL can’t take Moscow! This happens to me all the time whenever the Japan player hasn’t made signifigant inroads against Russia in the East. That’s where I learned to not bother to take Karelia (barring extremely favorable circumstances) until Japan is really wailing on USSR. If you take Karelia while USSR territory is still basically intact, USSR will turtle in Moscow and just keep cranking out INF until another Ally comes along to even the odds. They move before anybody, and so they will almost always be able to build more guys in USSR than you can move into (or build) in Karelia. The only way to prevent this is to cripple USSR economically BEFORE the final assault on Moscow–and the only way to do that is by Japan seizing a LOT of USSR territory.

See, the problem is that Karelia is always a vast USSR fortress. After you take the fortress, your assault forces are greatly weakened & must be reinforced in order to take Moscow. Therefore, USSR usually has a 1-2 turn “build-lead” on you from the start of the campaign. That’s fine if you’ve got say 46 IPC’s income and he/she’s got only 18-21, but you’ve first got to build the units, and then move them to the battle front. Then you’ve got to maintain your humongous income lead for several turns in order to win the buildup race–to do that you’ve got to defend all your territory in Africa & Europe from the Western Allies–that means some of those 46 IPCs have to go to defense. Usually it takes 2-3 turns AFTER you take Karelia to build up sufficient strike force to take Moscow–all the while the Allies are doing their best to prevent this.

There are two basic ways to win this campaign & seize Moscow–combine them and you’ve got an effective strategy: 1.) You’ve got to slow down USSR’s buildup. The way you do this is by taking as much USSR territory as possible & holding it–Japan is the obvious player for this job since he’s got the best access to USSR’s soft underbelly. Strategic bombing also helps a bit, but the 2 Axis powers need to work together for this to be successful since neither can afford to buy a fleet of bombers. 2.) You’ve got to plan ahead before you attack Karelia so that you can move the maximum # of troops in the turn after Karelia is taken. One way is to build all INF the turn BEFORE you attack Karelia so you can move them into Eastern Europe as soon as Karelia is taken. Then you build all armor so that the turn after Karelia is taken ALL the INF & ALL the ARM can move straight to the front. To do this you’ve got to be able to envision the situation up to 3 turns in advance–if this is you, you can call yourself an “advanced” A & A player. :D

Ozone27

I agree w/ TG that the Pacific theater often is not showcased enough in standard A & A.

As far as “nationality” is concerned, it has only a very very minor role in my A & A games. By the same token, when I play Silent Hunter II, do I enjoy seeing “American” ships sink? HELL YEAH! But its not real and that makes all the difference. I can have a lot of fun in A & A playing Germany, Japan, or USSR–all countries that, in the early 1940s, were detestable places. If playing Japan makes me feel like a tough guy–sure, thats cool–but fortunately its just a game. If it were real–I’d have a lot more to think about. Even as an American I don’t know if I could, say, sink a Japanese sub and cause the horrible deaths of dozens of men. I just don’t know if I could do it. But since in the game its just plastic pieces–let’s sink 'em!

Ozone27

@bangalore:

I like your suggestion Mose, strategic importance should be a factor in the value of territories. Plus, since Germany is uninhibited it would be good to help Russia out a little.

I disagree about the strategic value, but Moses is definitely right that some Far East territories should be worth more IPCs than they are, which might enrich the game in the Pacific Far East. As it is, you can hurt Japan by siezing valuable islands–but you hafta take a LOT of them to make a dent and there are usually easier pickings for the Allies elsewhere. If the IPC values were rationalized, maybe it’d become wothwhile in more cases.

For instance, say Borneo/Clebes were now worth 2 and East Indies worth 3. This would make sense because these islands were among the richest sources of natural resources (oil, tropical foods, rubber, etc.) in the 1940’s world. Now, to be rational, we’d have to take IPCs from somewhere. I’d suggest Manchuria is now worth only 2 IPCs (how much more valuable economically is Manchuria vs. Kazakhstan or Egypt, really?)
And take 1 IPC from Ssinkiang (which Japan usually ends up taking for strategic reasons anyway and is in reality little more than high mountains and desert).

Conversely, China should be worth AT LEAST 3 IPC’s–I mean it’s CHINA! But let’s leave that alone for a minute…

So if you made the above changes, Japan would start w/ 26 instead of 25 IPCs. But Manchuria’s only 2 IPC’s so USSR might be less likely to attack it in a “smash & grab” for 2 lousy IPCs (though you never know), while if you add up the 10 IPCs Pacific Islands are now worth (minus Hawaii), it might become more tempting for the USA to attempt a Naval strategy in the Pacific–and we all know how cool carrier battles are in the game! Best part is–it’s not drastically unrealistic; in fact it’s rational…

I’d just like to add as well that the oil from some of the fields in Borneo was so pure the Japanese could just pipe the stuff directly out of the ground into their ship’s oil tanks. Sure it was dangerously volatile (as they found at Midway) but man—that’s GOOD oil! :wink:

Ozone27

@cystic:

all your base are belong to us

:lol:

Ozone27

Ansbach is (as happens so often) correct. If you might indulge me a tad…

One year ago: I was our group’s worst USSR player. But as is so often the case, I became super-interested in USSR and stared at the board for hours trying to come up with the ultimate USSR strategy.

What I came up with was the ultimate “worst case scenario” strategy for T1 that enabled me under virtually ANY circumstances to live for at least 3 turns–if BOTH Japan & Germany attacked on T1 w/ everything they had. My strategy was based on judicious counterattacks to set the enemies back just long enough for a massive USA force to come charging in to the rescue.

The 1st (and only) game I tried this strategy, the Axis didn’t attack me from 2 sides T1–in fact, neither of them strongly attacked me T1 at all. Now I had this massive “counterattack” force just sitting there useless.

So I attacked Japan T2.

Needless to say, Germany swamped me T2 with massive forces and Japan (after defeating my “1-shot”) attack, came in T3. My reputation as the group’s worst USSR player was secure. :o

Since then USSR has become only my 2nd-worst country (after USA). But also since then I have learned the cardinal rule of Naval Combat (and by extension, any combat):

Never prepare for what you think the enemy WILL do. Rather–prepare for what the enemy COULD do…

Ozone27

@Ansbach:

Strategy and tactics count for very little in Axis and Allies - it’s all about the dice! ;)

Ansbach’s Golden Rules of Axis and Allies, #12:

“It’s better to be lucky than good!”

:lol:

Well, strategy & tactics count for a lot, but suffice it to say–rule #12? I’d say that’s rule #1! :D

Ozone27

@Zu:

6. if i got back the place which original belongs to my ally, then now, the place is belongs to me, or back to my ally?

I consider myself to be a liberal, understanding person who respects all cultures. I also appreciate the fact that my foreign language skills are pretty wretched. And yet I can’t help the fact that the way this is phrased is just SO–-DAM—FUNNY!..I’m very sorry–I’ll say 2 hailmarys before I go to bed…

Thanks for clarifying #5, S-U-D. I was one of those misguided people. Makes sense…

I’d also like to point out that w/ Submerging Subs, if the SUB moves out of the SZ on its Combat Move, it does not have to do battle with the adjacent units–just the ones in the SZ it is attacking…

Ozone27

@Candyman67:

1. You can not land air units on newly occupied and/or conquered territories. However, you can move additional land units onto a newly acquired territiory.

2. A battleship can not bombard coastal teritories unless it is used in an amphibious assalt. And if there is an enemy naval unit in the same sea zone, then the BB loses its one shot bombardment if you use it in the naval battle beforehand. Battleships can not carry any units either.

I hope I didn’t forget anything or just plainly screwd up.

Candyman is absolutely right on #1–many people get confused about the “Planes Can’t Land on Newly-Won Territories” rule and think it applies to everything. It doesn’t. The fact is this often doesn’t come up because if you COULD HAVE attacked with additional units, you usually WOULD HAVE, rather than leave some behind. But sometimes it makes sense in your contingency plans. You may move land units into newly-won territories on NonCombat Move, but planes (of all types) may NOT land there.

On #2 Candyman is basically right, but I feel some clarification is in order. In order for your mighty BB to bombard, a variety of criteria must be met. First, the BB must accompany an amphibious assault–that is, land units from TRs landing on an enemy-controlled territory on Combat Move. Second, the BB must be in the SAME Sea Zone (SZ) as the attacking amphibious TRs. Third, the BB must NOT have been involved in ANY sea battle that turn–that is, if any enemy naval units occupy the SZ the amphibious assault force is entering, the BB must do battle with & win against the enemy fleet BEFORE the amphibious assault takes place. In this circumstance, the BB gets NO “bombard” opportunity because it was already involved in the naval battle.
The trickiest rule is that one CANNOT voluntarily keep a BB OUT of the naval battle in order to bombard. So no matter how many ships are attacking the SZ (or how few enemies are defending it), the BB (s) can ONLY “bombard” if there are NO ENEMY UNITS IN THE AFFECTED SZ WHATSOEVER. If even a TR was in the way, the BBs would get NO “bombard” since the NAVAL BATTLE COMES FIRST.

Hope this fully clarifies the issue.

Ozone27

PS–Be careful when using the computer game as a reference to the rules. It cheats shamelessly!!! Case in point–the Suez Canal Rule where the computer floats enemy units up and down the canal with impunity–even if you own BOTH sides!!! :evil:

Cool. It’s fun to win as the Axis 'cuz you know the odds are against you. Sounds like you enjoy taking risks–perhaps you are a natural Axis player?

I remember my early games fondly because we were so inexperienced, almost anything was possible. I was not online at the time, so had to figure out for myself many of the “basic” strategies. I spent hours staring at the board setup and playing around w/ the pieces before figuring out how to sink the UK fleet T1. It took me many games to figure out how necessary that is! Interaction with more experienced players can really improve your game a whole lot in a short period of time.

Tell me–how did you handle East/West Europe as Germany in this game? Sounds like you barely moved any units at all! What attacks did you make?

Ozone27

None of them are official 3rd-Edition rules (except Submerging Subs), but they are tried & tested “House Rules” that a great many players use to even the odds & generally spice things up. You can add whatever rules you want to the game when you play with your friends, but these & many others–call them “semi-official”–have been “playtested” extensively and other players can tell you pretty accurately how they’ll affect your game.

In RR, USSR basically skips the Combat Move & Combat portions of their 1st turn, going straight to NonCombat from Purchase Units.

2-Hit BBs (grrrrrr :evil: )are exactly like GeZe said–all BBs have 2 “lives” as it were and must take 2 hits in a single battle to sink. In some versions, the BB hit only once is immediately “repaired” (restored to full strength) after the battle, in others, she stays with only 1 “life” until sunk.

Submerging Subs is more complicated. First of all, it is an official 3rd-Edition rule. In addition to its “Withdraw” ability, each SUB may also “Withdraw in Place”, that is, exit the battle after its counterattack (if any) without moving. The SUB is no longer subject to attack, but “pops up” after the enemy’s Combat round is over and remains in place until its own Combat Movement turn comes around. If it doesn’t move out of the SZ, it must do battle on its Combat round with the enemy forces. If another enemy force enters the SZ to join its allies, it must do so on Combat Move & combat occurs against your SUB–but without the other enemy units being involved since its not their turn!Otherwise, the maneuver is the same as Withdrawing, you just don’t go anywhere.

Ozone27

Very good response. I’d like to add that if you are talking about 1 TR (unsupported) vs. 1 TR (also unsupported), the defender will always win since the attacker has 0 attack value. I.E. essentially you can’t do it.

Unless you play with an always active AA gun, flyovers on AA guns on the Non Combat Move cannot be fired upon by the AA gun.

In any attack of the nature you described, the AA gun must roll one die for each attacking plane (that is, FTRs & BMRs) at the same time–attacker chooses losses. This concept is reflected throughout the game in various different instances. For instance, your dice in Combat are rolled by “column” on the BattleBoard. After you roll for all “columns” then count the raw # of hits, the opponent chooses what got hit (except in the rare case when multi-national defenders cannot agree, in which case the attacker chooses). In research as well, you can’t buy 1 Tech Die at a time and roll till you get a hit; you must decide how many dice you want and roll all of them at once.

Ozone27