Posts made by PainState

IMO using real WWII rationale for China VS Japan does not compute in Axis and Allies because A&A does not use terrain. The #1 reason Japan did not take all of China in the real war was because of terrain. South West China is all mountains. North West China is dessert that is the second largest desert in the world. Also that desert is a nightmare scenario in winter. There is also this huge mountain chain coming up the west side of the China that is ignored.

SO

If you want to change up the status quo in China in respect to Japan I would offer this. Using game mechanics in the game.

You use Impassible territories.

You put up a Impassible territory between Khazashistan and Novobirisk. The only way Japan can get into Russia then is to invade Timguska.  So, you now force Japan to focus on the north which brings into play the Russia far east forces to resist them. It also forces Japan to diffuse their air power to the north. Which then brings up a choice Japan has to make. Go north with air power and leave India to build up and resist Japan.

I think the #1 lesson I learned on the forums and actually playing the game is this.

UK1 YOU ALWAYS BUILD: 6 INF + 1FTR or 9 INF on London.

If Germany is going to go ahead with sea lion make it a honest attempt. Defend London to the best of your ability on UK1 and UK2 and see what happens.

UK gets in trouble when they do not defend London to the max on their first 2 turns and goes off script. UK cannot afford to miscalculate the situation and be under manned on the first 2 turns on London and let Germany waltz in and take it.

UK2 Your purchase is a response to Germany. If they go Sea Lion build you MUST build more defense on the island. If they go with a Russia build and no TRS that is when you can build that minor IC somewhere and start looking at areas to annoy the Axis.

One dynamic of this game that fascinates me is the relationship between the USA and Japan on the naval struggle for the Pacific.

Why I find it interesting is that Naval power is expensive in terms of IPC. Neither nation just wants to throw naval power into a combat and lose their force. Both nations want to shield their navy so they can focus on purchasing more land/air power. Yet, both nations realize at some point there is a moment that they have to commit to a large naval engagement with a lot on the line. The loser is set back many turns, a ton of IPC to replace lost units and might just lose the war in the Pacific.

So, lets talk about this. I would like to see some more seasoned A&A players chime in with their wisdom on this subject.

Now I will lay out some scenarios that are common topics on the threads and discuss them. I do not want to lay out a wall of text so I will keep this as brief as possible and hopefully it turns into a conversation of tactics not just for the USA but also Japan.

Lets talk USA

Right off the bat the USA has to make a choice. All in on Japan /  a balanced approach to Europe and Japan or the All in on Germany/Italy plan. All three approaches in the grand scheme of USA strategy has been discussed but the focus of this discussion is USN VS IJN. So, for this topic we will assume that the USA has for gone the all in on Germany/Italy approach to the war.

So, the USA is focused on the Pacific map. The #1 topic is how do they disperse their forces?

• One huge stack of naval power slowly moving towards Japan.
• Split their forces, one focusing on the south to contest the money islands and one to go central Pacific looking to island hop to the Philippines.
• Ignore the south and let ANZAC deal with that and go Central Pacific (Caroline Islands) and far north to establish a USA presence in Russia.

Each plan has its pros and cons.

The sole goal of the USN on the Pacific map is to totally destroy the IJN and neutralize Japan. The Pacific war at its core is a naval game, unlike the European map which is a land focused war.

Thus the question at its core is what is the best way for the USN to approach the war to accomplish its goal?

Well, you could say the best plan is just to stack as much USN into one location and send them straight into the heart of the Pacific and force the IJN to engage them. Force the huge battle early in the game. USA can out produce Japan in terms of naval power so this approach has it merits. Yet, if the IJN comes out on top of this huge battle it gives Japan 3-4 turns of breathing room which the USA can not afford to give them.

Another option is to split their naval power. Force the IJN to commit to one force or split their forces also to cover as much space as possible.

Lets talk IJN

IJN in the early part of the game is focused on South East Asia with their eyes on the money Islands and India and maybe ANZAC. Thus Japan home waters is not guarded at all with naval power and their vital convoy routes are open to interdiction.

Do, you ignore the USA and their threat on the mainland and hopefully force the focus of the Allies to the money islands. Make them engage your forces to the south?

The Offense is superior to the defense in A&A because you can retreat, also the naval units besides the subs and CV have the same A/D values so they are good at both. Do you use your large force to attack any naval power in their reach? Do you send in the entire force against the allies in a 50/50 battle at sea?

I have scene some IJN players who screen their main force with DD and force the USA to go after them, look at the situation and then decide where and when to attack in force on the USN. Let the IJN decide when the major battle will occur and on their terms.

The main benefit the IJN has with it islands is that it could commit some of

the air power in china to the Pacific and use the Islands to project more air power at sea with out using CV. Islands with air fields are really nice to park your naval power in with 3 FTR sitting on the island. Also Islands with a port/air field are key. You can take hits on CV and BB on the defense and have them repair at the start of your next turn. Also CV air power can land on the Island so taking CV hits is free shots.

So, what do you guys think? any advice?

I will post some ideas I have later on this subject.

@Afrikakorps:

Afrika Korps focuses on getting Egypt and Southern Russia fast because of the $$.

I like how you talk in the 3rd person about your plan….reminds me of the Rock.

Well, to clarify my thoughts on this here is what I would do.

Tac remain the exact same and bump to a 4 Attack if combined with FTR or ARM

STR bombers would have their Attack value dropped to a 2.

Now, does this mess with some of the meta of the game, sure. Does it screw around with some time honored tactics and plans, sure.

But it balances out a game issue that should of been dealt with a long time ago when they decided to split the old bomber unit into a STR and TAC bomber.

One thing about Axis and Allies that has always confused me is that Strategic Bombers where horrible in a tactical role. They should not have a attack value of 4 and instead have a 2 or 1. Their role is to blow up Industrial complexes and airfields/naval bases. At the start of the 1945 the USA 8th air force basically ran out of targets to blow up. They would sortie each day to just double down on their strat warfare plan and maybe kill off the rest of the german airforce who came at them.

I think Tactical Planes should be the focus of the 4 attack role when it comes to land combat. The main reason is that is balances out the game in the terms of combined arms combat and moves the meta from just produce Strat bombers and use them as Tac when it comes to land combat.

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Moderator’s Edit: Added tag [Global 1940] to title.

@taamvan:

The most dangerous thing about this idea is that if you give Turkey to Germany, or have to fight over it, I don’t see Iraq (then Egypt) holding out once Russia is down.�  Turkey is a straight road to the last Allied marshaling area.

Then that’s VC win on the Euro map.

Japan in our last game has 3 original territories, subs all over its money, its still making 56+

I agree that the Spanish Beach Head plan of attack could be the end of the Allies.

The plan though has HUGE upside if executed at the right time and the UK/USA are poised to pull it off and continue to make advances in the following turns.

When is the right time? no clue, that is totally up to what the “board” looks like, what strategies did the UK/USA set out with on Turn 1. There are so many random variables.

The UK/USA cannot switch the plan up in mid stream on lets say turn 5 to go Beach Head when the UK is not prepared in the Middle East and the USA has no shuck up and ready to SZ91 to keep funneling troops into Spain. So, when the game starts the UK/USA player have to have a discussion that they will attempt to at least build the necessary units to perform the Spanish Beach Head and be able to support it. That does not mean that is the #1 plan but have it in mind.

It is no different than the plan that the USA stacks up SZ91 and has troops ready to go to invade Denmark and then the UK follows up with its TRS/Units in England to jump into the Baltic and take a unguarded or lightly defended Germany on a one two punch “Can open” move. If the UK/USA do not make the efforts to at least set up this situation or the Beach Head tactic then during the mid part of the game they have no chance to switch over to those plans.

@sjelso:

Hi,

If Russia invades Turkey, does it get the 3 IPC bonus for occupying a Pro-Axis territory (as an invaded neutral become Pro-Axis)?

if no, then what about the next one it invades, as all neutrals become Pro-Axis?

Thank you, SJ

The Russian NO of taking Pro Axis neutral’s is limited to the countries that start the game pro-axis. IF the true neutral’s are invaded by the Allies they become pro-axis at that point BUT the Russian NO states it is only concerned with countries who start the war pro-axis or Axis held original territories.

That is why some sneaky gits want to invade Sardinia and Sicily with Russian ground troops to get the +6IPC bonus.

@Cow:

I like the spanish beach strategy from time to time.

I agree but I also would state that it depends on the group you play with. If you have a closed group of friends who have played multiply games as Axis or Allies and the group is exploring these tactics it could be you do not want to do Spanish Beach Head because your friends are set up ready as the German/Italy player for this tactic because of previous success.

The Spanish Beach Head is a great tactic by the Allies in G40 against the Euro Axis powers. If they can take Spain, reinforce it and get the minor on it….Germany and Italy have a hard time against it. Also it relieves a lot of stress from Russia.

BUT

The problem with G40 is that is a Global game and Japan can win it for the Axis with good play, from Japan, because the USA and UK are so focused to push the beach head towards Paris and putting a lot of resources to the beach head. USA has gone all in on a KGF tactic and it becomes a race against time.

Which leads into the idea that the victory rules of Global are out of whack. Italy and Germany fall in the same turn that India and ANZAC fall…AXIS WIN!!!

So two colonies of the English Empire are taken out and the UK and USA just call it quits…OMG!!! Australia and India are gone!!!

( I realize it is just a game and there must be very defined rules for victory or defeat. I just think that the rules for that are un balanced and favor the Axis over the Allies in the OOB rules)

The other option Japan has it this.

You build 5 TRS that only have one purpose, to shuttle units onto the main land.

SO you spend 35 IPC for the TRS instead of the 36 for the 3 factories. Now the TRS have the advantage of mobility. Also Shangai is a 1 turn shuck from Japan so in theory you could drop 10 units a turn from Japan onto the mainland.

Now the drawback of the plan is TRS can be sunk and the Factories cannot.

Here is the main issue I have with a MIC in Korea.

If we ignore its location, which is sub optimal for India and only really threatens USSR and northern China.

The real issue is can you actually use it to its full potential?

Lets say you have a MIC in Korea a minor IC in Shanghai and look at building a minor in Hong Kong or Singapore. Now Japan has 3 factories that could produce up to 16 units. That is a lot of production that will out strip your IPC production every turn. It is not possible for Japan to build 16 units a turn on the main land once USA starts their push into the Pacific.

3 minors can really stretch out the IPC for Japan even if they have the money islands and so forth. 3 minors is a minimum of 27 IPC to produce 9 INF on the mainland. If you add tanks/mechs/art it increases the cost per turn to produce 9 units and then you find Japan is spending 50+% of its income on land units and they get stretched out with their Navy as they cannot produce enough naval units to replace their losses. Once Japan starts losing its air force then the entire situation becomes un tenable to maintain.

You have to much production and not enough IPC to replace land units, air units and naval units.

@Bob77:

It works in theory,

Well, it actually works out by the math so there is no theory behind the house rule. The only hang up is some guys might get their panties in a wad if the attacker says the INF hit on a 3 instead of a 1 and roll 12 dice and hit 5 times……THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS IN THE RULE BOOK!!! READ THE RULES MAN!!! ONLY 1’s HIT!!!

:-D

@Bob77:

It works in theory, but i can see it leading to confusion and posible arguments if someone doest hear or remember correctly. Better to kiss

Well Bob it is not like this house rule is universal and just in our group and if any one else allows this to happen. The reality of the day is that if some jack wad says 1"s are now 4’s he is still going to get hosed by the dice. That is just how the dice roll man.

We already have guys in my group throwing dice against the wall, cussing and screaming and going ape &^%$ when they can’t roll a stinking 1. How would this change up the dynamic when he said 5’s are the roll, no one else hears him and we check the dice and he did not roll a 1 or a 5? In that case he might just up end the board and rage quit at that point.

That is what Iam trying to avoid…dice rage!!!

@fairhousing:

uk incomes/purchases aren’t separate euro/asia
usa can enter war whenever they want
if strict neutral attacked, all other stricts don’t flip to favor other side
uk starts with the troops and income from pro allies neutrals brazil, greece, yugoslavia and persia (14 inf and 8 ipc)
germ start with the troops and income from pro axis neutrals iraq, bulgaria and finland (11 inf 5 ipc)
can build minor industry in territory of 1 ipc or more and on islands
no scrambling
transports attack @ 1 and defend @ 1
subs can convoy disrupt off the coast of any enemy territory, doesn’t have to be a convoy symbol off coast
destroyers can bombard
other house rules as well…

main problems imo:

uk has too many resources on euro side, with all the pro allies neutrals their’s and not having to separate money/purchases

usa can attack a japanese island turn 1, to place a minor industry there next turn. usa could capture strict neutral portugal turn 2, to place
a minor industry there turn 3. usa can also place a minor industry on hawaii. not to mention they may meddle/reinforce in the atlantic on turn 1.

all strict neutrals not flipping when one attacked seems to favor allies, as they can go for a beach head in portugal/spain and gain more ipc’s by invading south
american neutrals without penalty.

Holy Batman what type of game do you normally play that all of this happens!!! ???

mind blown

The Undead Zombie known as Vann’s D8 proposal rises from the grave to terrorize down town Derry Main once again…!!!

RUN IN FEAR!!!

This is what happens when some one necro’s a dead thread

:-)

We are all human and go crazy when it seems over a series of rolls we can only roll 4’s or a mix of 5 and 6.

Well if it makes you feel better I propose this rule.

Lets say you pick up 10 dice and rolling for INF to hit on a 1. Well, before you make your roll you can declare that the INF now hit on a 5. The odds did not change and it makes you feel better because you just know that today is the day you are just rolling 5’s.

You can do this for any attack value as long as every one knows what you are doing.

Armor attack on a 1-3, well you declare that your 6 rolls of 1-3 now hit only on odd results or even results or they hit on a 4-6 result….same odds of the attack.

Now of course when it comes to dice rolling what ever you say your “number” is you will most likely still be crestfallen when you still cannot hit crap. But at least this way you feel good that you can call your own shots.

now for the top level question.

What is the purpose of using a d8 system? To level out the odds of a very lopsided battle result? make the results fall more to the mean or average? Reward combined arms for better results on offense?

as an example.

World in Flames went from a d6 to a 2d10 system to average out the combat results and reward combined arms types of combats. The two games are not apples to apples but the principal is the same……average out the results of combats but still allow for that glorious roll.

I agree with wartorn…the chart seems to contradict the rule that all units have their attack/defense increased by 2 and +1 for combined arms.

Ok, here is the scenario.

Germany moves 2 subs off the coast of UK to hit a convoy route. UK has no DD in range to conduct combat with them during UK’s combat phase.

UK purchased a DD and places it on the convoy route. That sea zone now becomes a contested sea zone…

Germany rolls 4 d6 on convoy disruption on the UK collect income phase.

Roll over to next turn

Germany at the start of conduct combat phase has a choice to make since they have a contested sea zone.

#1 during combat move phase they take the 2 subs and move them away. (retreat)

#2 stay in the contested sea zone and attack the DD with the subs and any other assets they have in range (air or sea) and of course UK could scramble air assets in defense.

@Gargantua:

Painstate - I proposed something a few years ago quite similar.

Russian Doctorine: RED DRAGON
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38118.0

Also - as opposed to sending the Russians north, I would propose going south, to try and get your mobile Russian force in towards Calcutta.

Very interesting ideas you proposed. We are both on the same page of thought on how Russia can tilt the balance in China / Pacific map. Just went at it from opposite sides of the rope on tactics.