Posts made by Ozone27

bump…

Only reasons to take Australia w/ this strategy are that it hurts UKs economy, it throws off USA (hopefully) and it sets you up for a surprise attack on India next turn. Otherwise, go for India T1 if you want.

TG Moses–jeez I wish I could remember specifically how many TR’s/FTRs Germany had in our invasion (I was playing Japan). I THINK it was something like 4 TR’s and like 5 FTRs and a BMR. UK had like 6 INF and 3 FTRs I think…? Sadly I am not sure…I do remember we got pretty good luck with dice rolls in our attack and I’m POSITIVE that with the 2 FTRs Germany had just built in Germany (and which I told him couldn’t land in spite of my empty CV in the North Sea!) we would’ve won. It wsn’t “certain victory” that’s for sure, but it was winnable. I would’ve liked to have seen where the game went next had we won: we wouldn’t have plundered many IPC’s from UK but the startegical situation would’ve COMPLETELY CHANGED. Oh well…the UK player felt quite picked on toward the end!

Anyway, I am resurrecting my original post from the Archives. Feel free to critique as necessary–I know this is a freaky plan…

Ozone27

YES! 2nd Edition rules clearly state that an IC built on a captured neutral territory has 1-unit-per-purn production capacity. This rule was not altered for the “3rd-Edition” rules.

The “Japanese IC on Switzerland” is still a very clever “dirty trick”, but 3 INF gives them just a tad too much…

Ozone27

It is possible to take Karelia T1, under a wide variety of possible USSR 1st moves. But the problem is that if the USSR player has had an ounce of sense he has heavily built up Karelia AND another adjacent space (usually Caucases and/or Russia–or better, both). In this case you will be so weakened by the attack on Karelia that EVEN IF YOU WIN, you will be powerfully counterrattacked from one or more territories and will have your armor destroyed. Some Germany players counter this by building ALL (or virtually all) ARM the 1st turn, in order to launch a second attack T2, but no matter what you do, you are STILL GAMBLING that you will score better than the Soviets in dice rolls–a LOT better.

Take my advice–if the USSR builds up heavily in INF T1 try attacking Karelia (if you feel you must) and retreating (into Eastern Europe)when you start losing Armor. If you build INF and maintain most of your ARM (augmenting with some new builds) you will have a better effect in the LONG RUN. You hafta make a good showing in Africa and maintain your FTR/BMR force as a “force-in-being”. The ECONOMIC rather than the strictly MILITARY game is the consistent winner. Simple as that…

Ozone27

P.S.: To say the Germans lost the war in Russia because “their tanks froze” is just completely simplistic. The Germans lost largely (and this too is somewhat of a simplification) because they hoped for (and expected–some of them) a short war–one that wouldn’t last until the winter. They were perfectly well-prepared for a short war of annihilation like in France and Poland, and were not expecting–for instance–entire surrounded Soviet armies to keep on fighting practically to the last man…

You sell the Soviets far too short to suggest that “technology” (that is, tanks that can run in sub-zero temperatures) destroyed the German Army. The people of Russia themselves did…

Just my 2 cents…

I should add: the purpose of maintaining a fighter force in Europe (mainly in Western Europe) is to sink Western Allied (USA, UK) transports in the Atlantic. This is the most efficient way to prevent an Allied invasion. If you don’t, you are forced to adopt the much less efficient tactic of loading Western Europe with INF every turn: this tactic is generally a loser because in a relatively short time the Allies will outproduce you and kill all the INF. Plus fewer TR in the water means fewer invasion options for the Allies–fewer places to attack. By maintaining your planes in Western Europe, you maximize their usefulness. In Western Europe you can reach just about any place you’d usually want to (including Karelia–a lot of beginners don’t notice that) and when they fly back, they help in the defense of Western Europe. Just keep in mind to not build too many–save the planes you have because you’ll need most of your money to defeat USSR.

Ozone27

I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.

I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.

Ozone27

Eeeehh, that’s OK if you guys prefer, but I personally think the Tech rolls add a different dimension to the whole game. I’ve noticed that there are some people who like to roll for tech, and others (myself included) who usually don’t, but overall it doesn’t unbalance the game all that much. I guess it all depends on what you want out of the game. If “pure” competition is what you’re looking for, then Tech rolls are probably a distraction. But if you are like me and are just looking for an interesting game, you can’t do better than Tech–nothing else allowed in the game can cause such radical changes!

Also, I think Tech is pretty well balanced and not overly disruptive. Except for Heavy Bombers–which take a couple of turns to be effective usually anyways–none of the Technologies are particularly unbalancing to the game itself. Sometimes you get something useless. Sometimes (like in one game of ours where the USA player whose fleet was destroyed got Long Range Aircraft and subsequently dominated the Pacific) they are just what you need. To each their own…

Ozone27

No, I was talking about the 1st (stalled) Soviet offensive designed to push the Germans out of the Crimea and break the siege of Leningrad. I’m pretty sure it was Spring 1942. After disposing of this threat, the Germans advanced all the way to the Caucasus oil fields before being decisively defeated at Stalingrad. I’m pretty sure the Soviets launched a major offensive 1st after the winter of 41-42, setting the Germans back several months. Someone correct me if I’m mistaken…

Ozone27

miniphreak is right: this would be a good strategy if it weren’t roaringly illegal from beginning to end. You must perform all offensive movement on “Combat Move”, conduct combat on the “Combat” portion of your turn–there is NO WAY you can conduct a battle, then move into another enemy-held territory (occupied or not): it’s just not allowed (for good reason).

BTW; somebody correct me if I’m wrong–I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about world history, although dates sometimes confound me: I am sure there are some History majors on this site–but didn’t the first Soviet counteroffensive against the German invasion (a counteroffensive which failed) take place in Spring 1942? If this is the case (and I think it is), then historically-speaking the correct scenario in A & A should be the normal rules–USSR goes 1st, unrestricted. This is not an attempt to disparage Russia Restricted, just a thought…

Regardless USSR moves 1st, Restricted or not…again this is a basic rule (like the sequence of events in a turn) that should not be tampered with if you are playing strict A & A…

Ozone27

There are 2 basic strategies to winning the game as Germany by killing USSR. The 1st is a rapid, desperate, all-out strike designed to destroy USSR in a matter of a few turns. In this strategy, you buy mainly Armor (ARM) units, with some Infantry (INF) and launch wave after wave of assaults on Karelia/Caucases, regardless of losses in an attempt to wreck USSR before the Western Allies can build up an invasion force against you. An important part of this strategy is for Japan to frighten USA enough that USA builds most of her forces in the Pacific. After initial strikes against the UK fleet and in Africa, these become only secondary targets thereafter.

However, this strategy is very much a gamble in which you are betting you will receive vastly better results on dice rolls than USSR. Worse, it leaves Germany with no backup and no fallback in case it doesn’t work in the 1ST 3 OR 4 TURNS!!! After that you will have virtually no FTRs, no INF left in Europe, and the Allies will begin invading you–whereupon you will lose. So much for the “quick” approach…

Consider, though, for a moment the economic situation. As Germany (income 32 IPCs) you could just steamroller USSR (income 24) in a few turns if it weren’t for those pesky Western Allies. So the key to the economic game is to increase Germany’s income, and hold off the Western Allies WITH AS LITTLE MONEY AS POSSIBLE so you can crush USSR with the rest.

In this scenario, therefore, you commit a little more heavily in Africa to gain an increased income, and fight to keep it when the Allies come a-knocking. With the increased funds, you try to maintain an air force (and if possible, a sub force) while spending the majority of your income on INF with some ARM. The key is to watch what USSR buys and just buy MORE of it. Try Strategic Bombing USSR, especially with Japanese help, to further weaken the giant. Use your Air units (and/or SUBS) to prevent a strong Allied fleet from building up in the Atlantic. Don’t forget about the retreat option: if you are putting enough pressure on USSR, and have vastly more ARM, try “raid-style” attacks on Karelia (where USSR usually puts a LARGE amount on INF) and retreat when all your INF are gone–that way you can often use the ARMs superior attack capabilities without placing them in a situation where they can be counterrattacked. When the moment is right, steamroller the weakened USSR with a massive force.

And remember, you cannot win without the aid of your sole ally, Japan. Get Japan to launch attacks on the Soviet Union in the far east and start gobbling up territory. The USSR will be forced to divide their dwindling forces against the threat and will be more easily destroyed. That Japanese BMR doesn’t hurt either–well, it doesn’t hurt YOU anyways…

Hope these ideas help…

Ozone27

On 2002-03-12 17:01, bossk wrote:
And building an aircraft carrier also serves to take more resources from asia; how convenient. Just letting Japan have India and most of the surrounding territorys is always high on my list as Britian.

I’m assuming this is meant to be sarcastic. if so, I wholeheartedly agree…

Ozone27

On 2002-03-12 10:12, Candyman67 wrote:
I like to have two bombers with GB and use them until they have all succumbed to AA fire.
Just think of it, three to four straight turns of the US and GB bombing out Germany. This will have very good results for the Allies.

As a long-time Germany fan, I can attest that this tactic, while somewhat risky, can take the wind out of Germany’s sails right quick when it works…

Ozone27

Whaaaa….???

Ozone27

I get what you are saying, but the only FTR that can make landfall at Hawaiian Islands at all is the one on the CV, and it only has 1 move left afterward. Therefore, to make the attack you have to move the CV to the Hawaiian Islands SZ. This necessitates that you can only use 1 FTR TOTAL in the SZ battle, because all fighters must have a way to land at the end of the turn. If I designate both FTRs to land on the CV, that’s all I can get, 'cuz that’s all that can land (whether they’re destroyed or not). That’s why I use the Philippines FTR in the attack–Hawaii is just about the only place it can legally be used to attack T1.

If I hold a FTR in Manchuria or Japan HI out of any battles in Asia, then I can land it on the CV on NonCombat (providing that USA has destroyed the one I used to attack the SZ) for 2 FTR’s defensively. But I personally do not think the extra FTR is that necessary (though it is certainly desirable), for reasons stated above.

Alternatively if I chose to attack only the SZ and not the Islands (or to only attack the Islands with 2 INF or 1 ARM and NO FTR), then I could use up to 3 planes in the attack, since the one on the CV at the start of the game can land on an island nearby, if it must.The key is that all planes involved in an attack must have a legal landing place–or they can’t attack!

The BMR can land on Manchuria after an attack on Hawaiian Islands SZ–putting it in a position where it can attack Moscow T2.

Ozone27

[ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-12 17:57 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-12 17:59 ]

Oh now I get it–you meant instead of 1 FTR,
1 INF, 1 TR purchasing 2 TR, 3 INF instead! Yeah, that would be a good move. :grin: Sorry about my confusion…

Ozone27

An extra fighter from Japan HI or Manchuria would be cool, but you couldn’t land (the 2 FTR’s in Hawaii have 1 and 0 movement left respectively and the CV holds only 2). The other option would be to fly one in on NonCom but that leaves a FTR doing nothing on Combat Move, which I dislike.

The reason I’d purchase another fighter is basically that FTR’s are Japan’s ARM. You can use them on both Sea and Land Zones so they are a good choice for japan, whose involved in both areas. I suppose you could just save the 14 IPCs and get something else later, but I prefer to maintain massive fighter superiority. Its up to you.

My point though wasn’t necessarily “this is what you should do” only that it is possible to defeat both USA at Sea and build up on Asia T1 while sacrificing neither.

Ozone27

Japan should focus its naval resources against India and China. Attacking the US fleet is fruitless, because America could counterattack with fighters, a bomber and a battleship and more.

Which is exactly why you take Hawaiian Islands while attacking the SZ surrounding it! You can take China AT THE SAME TIME! Check this out:
Purchase 1 INF, 1 FTR and a TR. Save 2 IPC’s for later.
Attack Move: TR in Sea of Japan loads 1 INF from Japan Home Islands, 1 from Wake Island, moves to Hawaii SZ and lands them on Hawaii. 1 FTR from Carolines (on CV) moves into Hawaii w/ 1 move left.
1 BB, 1 CV from Carolines
move to Hawaii SZ. 1 SUB from Solomons joins them. Throw in 1 FTR from Philippines (4 movement points), 1 BMR from Japan HI and the BB from Sea of Japan.
Attack China with 2 INF from Manchuria, 1 INF from Kwangtung, 1 FTR from French IndoChina-Burma, 1 FTR from Manchuria, and 1 from Japan HI.
Battle is joined; Now you’ve got 3 INF 3FTR against 2 INF 1 FTR in China. You should win w/ 2 INF (maybe even lose a FTR on this one if you have to to ensure you keep the territory). You’ve got 2 BB, 1 BMR, 1 FTR, 1 SUB and 1 CV (not counting the TR, which is a very unacceptable casualty) vs. 1 FTR, 1 CV, 1 SUB in Hawaii SZ. Shouldn’t be a problem-lose the SUB 1st the FTR 2nd if you must–remember at least 1 FTR is virtually guarunteed to be landing on the CV shortly. USA’s best bet is to withdraw the SUB if possible. Finally you’ve got 2 INF, 1 FTR vs. 1 INF in Hawaiian Islands–should be a total walkover.
Non Combat: FTR in Hawaiian Islands lands on the CV there. FTRS in China land in French IndoChina-Burma and Manchuria where appropriate (though neither should be completely without FTR cover). BMR lands in Manchuria. 1 INF from Kwangtung moves to French IndoChina-Burma. 1 INF boards the TR in Philippines and moves to Sea of Japan. Loads an additional INF from Japan HI and lands both INF on Manchuria.
Place all units on Japan HI and collect 28 IPC’s. You now have 30 in hand.
If USA dares to strike, it will only be 1 BB, possibly 1 SUB, 1 FTR and a BMR (with maybe a TR for fodder) vs. 2 BB’s, 1 FTR, 1 CV and a TR. Do the math. Not only that, but you’ve got 8 INF in Asia–gearing up for a BIG push, plus a BMR within striking distance of Moscow. Next turn you can bring in 2 INF and an ARM for reinforcements.

You don’t have to sacrifice Asia to lay the hurt on the USA. Nor vice verse…

Ozone27

[ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-11 20:53 ]

Unfortunately (at least for Germany), the answer is NO. The move you are describing, seizing Moscow with 1 tank–while it is occupied by USSR troops or not–is considered a COMBAT MOVE since you are moving your unit(s) into a territory you or your allie(s) do not currently own. Since the Karelia battle has already been fought, that means the COMBAT portion of your turn is over, and NON-COMBAT MOVEMENT begins. On NON-COMBAT MOVEMENT you are not allowed to move offensively (that is; into enemy territory). Therefore, your ARM in Eastern Europe IS allowed to move, but not into any enemy-held territory.

One of my friends (who is an ex-football player) always refers to the COMBAT MOVE portion of the turn as “OFFENSE MOVE”, while the NONCOMBAT MOVE he calls “DEFENSE MOVE”. While not technically correct, this nomenclature, I’ve found, can sometimes be helpful for determining whether a move is legal or not. Basically, anything “OFFENSIVE” in nature is not allowed in NonCombat–that is anything after the COMBAT is over.

The only exception is if you have “rockets”–then you can launch a rocket attack at ANY TIME during your move. This is the only “offensive-type” move allowed after COMBAT.

Ozone27

I don’t disagree. I’ve never liked the way Strategic Bombing worked in A & A, especially 'cuz my favorite power, Germany, bears the brunt most of the time. There really is NO defense against it (except, as stated, to do it yourself) and often favors the Allies since they’re the ones who can afford to buy the bombers. Worse, it’s (IMHO) historically inaccurate as well. American Strategic Bombing (as opposed to Interdiction, or Carpet Bombing–which was called Terror Bombing when the Axis did it) of cities was notoriously ineffective against German Industry. Until the Bombers could fly all the way to Germany and back with full fighter cover, US bomber command took extremely heavy losses. But in the original game, AA gets one shot at you and THUMP–bombs away!

The way its handled in A & A Europe sounds better (with the fighters involved) but I dunno if my buddies and I are ready for a game of 1-against-everybody-else. The teamwork in A & A is very fun. But I dunno I haven’t played A & A E (or pac.) yet…

Ozone27

LOL @ CandyMan… :grin: !!!

“Axis & Allies Brand Crack: Mmmmmm…That’s GOOD crack!”

Ozone27