Posts made by PainState

PainState staggers off to the local pub and gets drunk at this point, muttering to himself about how does Germany take Moscow on G6 again? He is sure that 8-10 TRS in the Baltic is the key to that plan.

Back to the SZ 102 discussion in regards to Sea Lion.

The USA does not start with the units necessary to contest SZ110 and help London.

That is a choice the Allies have to make, during a live game and if they choose wrong it could cause problems over the next few turns for either side.

The Axis have the upper hand at the start and force the hand of the Allies. The SZ102 carrier build is an example of the Axis forcing the USA to build 2 CV, move 4 planes and build bombers on USA1.

Germany could pivot on G2 and go Russia or Egypt.

It is the give and take of the first 3 turns of Global.

BUT

The Axis have the upper hand of this give and take exchange between the Allies.

Iam against a passive approach to Sea Lion. You either do it or fake it or move on with another plan of attack against Russia.

I can see how you can do a middle ground approach of building a few TRS, and then the rest for Russia. I just do not think the UK is going to buy into the idea of Germany going Scotland and then see what happens and go Sea Lion on G4. If the UK does not buy in and they are right….well we are back to square one of using German TRS to shuck to Russia.

The middle ground approach I will admit is good for Germany to hold Norway, present a Leningrad threat / shuck plan and a London threat later on in the game if the UK are caught napping.

I just think Germany does not have the time to dick around and feint this and feint that and drag the assault on Moscow until turn 12.

Germany has to have a solid plan from Turn 1 and go for it. A G2 9TRS build is part of that plan to present a bold front against both UK/USSR… It allows Germany to go both ways, UK or Russia with strength.

You have to choose, attack with conviction OR mess around with middle ground / hedging our bet plans of attack.

@Elsass-Lorraine:

I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO

What?

Hold on.

Lets just say the Baltic fleet has no worries.

You have Leningrad.

You build 10 INF or 5 Inf/ 5 ART in Germany. You can shuck those 10 units + your 3 builds in Leningrad every turn. You have in essence cut down the time of travel from Germany to Moscow by 2 turns with Inf/ART with those wasted TRS.

You see no benefit in this?

FOOT NOTE

My G1 build always has 1 DD in it. Germany needs a DD to stop those pesky Russian Subs.

@simon33:

I totally disagree with PainState. Bluffing SL without following through is a massive waste of resources which could be being used against USSR.

Fair enough.

BUT

If you do not fake Sea Lion and spend your G2 build on a all in tactic on Russia are you not letting the UK off the hook? Letting them build that factory in the Middle East, building up in South Africa or rebuilding their navy?

9-10 TRS in the Baltic Sea is a serious threat to Russia also. You can get all your units from Western Europe to the Russian front on G3 OR if you are feeling really crazy you could stage the TRS in the North Sea and threaten to go south with all those TRS and hit Gibraltar and go all in with German Med fleet fully loaded with troops going at Egypt.

With out a full commitment of the G2 TRS purchase you are letting the UK off the hook on UK2 to do what ever they want to do.

@taamvan:

You don’t really have to bluff SL, though its not so bad most games.� � �

I totally disagree good sir.

On G2 the game is still in the set piece portion of the game, where strategy videos are made and so forth. There are not strategy videos on how the Allies defeat the Axis on Game turn 19.

So Germany builds the 9-10 TRS on G2 and UK call your bluff that your are going into Russia and not UK because Sea Lion is a total waste. Well, if UK does not spend their first 2 turns defending Sea Lion and Germany calls the bluff and goes into London, takes it, and has 9 units left….Lets just say strategy videos do not cover this scenario.

Germany having a 9-11 TRS fleet in the Baltic is never a bad thing for them.

SO bottom line for me.

YOU MUST always bluff Sea Lion on G2 with TRS purchase and go through with Sea Lion on G3 if the UK thinks you are bluffing and does very minimal to defend London.

The TRS purchase on G2 for Germany is not a waste. It is a very valuable asset that can be used against Russia and UK.

Ok, Iam going to start this from going in reverse order based on GHG video.

Why it is a total waste of time building 2 Air Bases to defend SZ110?

Now the idea of defending SZ110 is to prevent the USA or UK from coming into that zone to contest the conquest of London. Deny them a immediate response and give Germany 1-2 turns to build units on London to hold it.

The bottom line is the bigger picture of the war. The Europe map is really a struggle between Germany and Russia. For Germany to achieve a global victory on the Europe map they MUST take out Russia. UK/USA are the spoilers in this big picture plan. They are trying to distract Germany and attacking them in such a way to make the “gaze” of Germany turn west and give Russian some respite.

So

Is Sea Lion a total waste of time and IPC? Well, I would agree with GHG that Germany going all out on Sea Lion is most likely a doomed strategy for Germany.

Thus if it is a doomed strategy you must go all out against Russia. That is Germany’s entire focus and just hold off UK/USA on the western front as long as possible.

Waste no time or IPC against the UK/USA besides bulking up the fortress Europa against them and everything else goes all in on Russia.

Now on G2 you still build the 8-9 TRS. Threaten Sea Lion and have the Allied players scampering around looking at You Tube videos on how to defeat it on Japans turn. You then take those TRS and move 18-20 units into Russia on G3. Make the Baltic sea a massive TRS shuck to Leningrad for INF and ART. That saves Germany 2 turns of movement to get INF/ART onto Moscow.

Bottom line for me is then Germany MUST fake Sea Lion on G2 with the TRS purchase to make the UK/USA react accordingly. Which means their focus is saving or liberating London ASAP and not doing crazy plans like middle earth or sending 12 FTRS to Moscow.

Fake Sea Lion, they have to respect it. Go all in on Moscow and crush them under your tanks.

By doing this you buy Germany/Italy 2-3 turns on the Europe map by making the UK/USA doing all the moves necessary to save London and not doing crazy plans on turn 1-2 like killing off Germany early and the Allies winning the game on Turn 10.

Very nice video GHG, I enjoyed it.

I think you missed my point of the double AB plan but there is no need to go into that.

Actually now that I think about it.

There are at least 2 threads I could start on how bad you missed the point.

and one thread on how 2 AB is a total waste of time, IPC and air power.

Give me time….

@ShadowHAwk:

CV are better then airbases in any case.

That is a bold statement good sir. There are no cases where it would be preferable to have a AB defending a SZ with 2-3 FTR than a CV?

@ShadoHAwk:

The AB cannot move to protect transports somewhere else, and it does not increase the range of the planes that much.
CV can be used in an invasion of gibraltar or novgorod or protect western germany, an AB is just sitting there.

Lets just look at Germany, specifically their FTR and TAC.

The AB in W. Germany can hit Novgorod and have units land in Baltic states.

The AB in W. Germany covers the German Fleet in two SZ

You can hit Gibraltar from Algeria with FTR/TC OR build a AB in S. Europe and FTR/TAC can hit them and go to Northern Africa. Plus now you cover every SZ along the Med for a Allied invasion.

I seem to be confused. Is it not the Dark Skies Axis plan of attack that uses all this AB ability for Germany/Axis to project a huge amount of air power all over Europe?

I simply propose buying a few AB in some key spots to double down on this projection of power and all of sudden it is the death of Germany.

Iam discombobulated by the power of SZ102, a total mind blowing experience.

:-o

@GHG

Dang man, I had no idea that the Axis have no chance to win this game in less they are in a tournament, time limited, format.

Stack SZ102
Perform middle earth
Hawaii shuck
S.Europe shuck
Use the vague nature of the rules to ones advantage

So, we stop sea lion, stop the Moscow crush, stop the Calcutta crush, stop Japan from taking Sydney or Hawaii and in essence the Allies win the game on Turn 15-20.

Makes all these Axis plans off attack seem, so, newb? Axis need a bid of 40?

:-D :-o :lol:

Well that is very true, Iam making some assumptions.

#1 if you have a CV you need two planes. Regardless of bought or on the board.

#2 If you have airbase it has 1-3 planes on it regardless of bought or on the board.

So, that is a total wash. The planes have to come from some where.

#3 A CV’s defense in a naval stack is of no importance. So, you have a stack of navy with a CV and 2 FTRS. You replace that out with 3 FTR land based units and remove the CV from the defense you are actually better off for inflicting CAS. Now, I will concede that a airbase on the coast cannot take a hit and absorb one CAS against you. That is the one advantage a CV has over a Airbase on the coast.

#4 Where again is this German CV moving again? It is not like a German CV is going on a rampage across the Atlantic headed for USA. It is sticking to the coasts of Europe or the coasts of the Med, where they also have Airbases to guard them.

Bottom line for me

There are very few places a German CV is needed because land based units on a Airbase perform the exact same function on the Europe map.

The Pacific map is a totally different beast and requires CV to move air power forward to project a threat. FTR and TAC on the Pacific map almost require a CV to move them into a position to attack.

I think we are looking at SZ110 the wrong way.

Lets make the assumption that Sea Lion is a go and Germany is going all in.

Why are they building CV again? You can spend 30 IPC for 2 airfields, one for Normandy and one for Belgium and have 6 planes able to scramble into that SZ and provide the same as 3 CV in FTR protection on that SZ.

The idea that Germany needs a CV to be able to provide FTR protection of the fleet is not needed and can be covered with Airfields.

SZ112 is covered by a airfield SZ 113 is covered by a airfield. There is no need for CV from Germany to cover the fleet. Germany with the purchase of just one airfield can cover SZ110.

Maybe it is just me but a CV can be sunk. A Airfield who does the same role, protect the fleet, does it better with 3 aircraft scramble, cannot be destroyed in less taken by land units on a invasion is the way to go.

Hey, I get it, having a German CV looks cool on the board but in the big picture is a total waste of IPC in the early game. Land based aircraft on coastal Airfields is all Germany needs.

@simon33:

I think the real problem with the floating bridge is that it doesn’t really contain Japan.

Well that is true because the Pacific war is at first a naval war. Europe is not like that and Navy does not play a big role besides protecting TRS to shuck troops onto the mainland.

Over in the Pacific you have to get rid of the IJN first and foremost. The land units are just there to take advantage of openings to take Islands and move closer to the main land. Considering how most players play Japan by never reinforcing any of the islands with any size of force. The USA can have 3TRS with 6 guys and do some serious IPC harm on Japan and their islands. It does not require a huge TRS fleet in the Pacific until late game.

Now lets look at the 18 TRS shuck to the Philippines. So you are sending 12 troops a turn to Manila. So, you wait one turn, now you have 12 TRS sitting in Manila with 24 Units, and you can threaten the entire mainland of China, from Singapore to Tokyo. Since you broke the shuck you then have 2 turns later another 12 units come from Hawaii to reinforce.

IMO the fastest way to neutralize Japan is to kill their IPC economy and that is found in the South Pacific and the coast of China. I understand the idea of going north but I do not think that is the best way to take down Japan. Taking Korea and all that stuff is end game moves for the USA to finally knock out Japan on their main island.

@WILD:

The OOB rules have the axis and allies playing two different games IMO. The Axis play for a VC win, and the Allies are playing the longer annihilation game (must take all 3 axis capitals, that’s going to take a while lol). That’s why the allies rarely win OOB, and a bid is often used. Seems to me that the bids don’t necessarily allow the allies to win in the short term, but rather we are placing units on the board to stop the axis from achieving their victory in the first 10 rounds. This gives the allies time to where they can over power the axis at some point (forcing an annihilation game).

Well, in my experience when you have a group of players who are new to 1940 the Allies have the advantage in a OOB game.

Once players get more experienced they realize the Axis have to go on a singular focus plan of attack…J1, Calcutta Crush, All in on Moscow, so and so forth. The Axis cannot win the game with a balanced approach and take their time.

Thus as we move on and experienced players are at the table the Allies need a bid to stop these singular focused attacks and give them a chance to win.

Now at the end of the day around turn 8-12 if the Axis have not achieved their victory conditions the Allies are on the move…the game is basically over. Now, it is up to the players, specifically the Axis if they want to drag it out to Turn 29 for the Allies to win a total victory.

IF the USA wants to play games with Japan and threaten SZ6 “Home Waters” or go far north in USSR, Iam totally fine with that, I can handle that. What I cannot handle is the USA going into the south Pacific and messing with my Money Islands, Singapore, Hong Kong, Hanoi and Manila IPC money. � That very small region on the board is worth 30 IPC in conquered territory IPC value. The exact same IPC level Germany starts the war at.

It is the most important region on the map and if Japan controls it and the USA ignores it….That is cool.

Well, the best way for Japan to get troops on the ground in South East Asia is minor factories. Japan can get units into Northern China from SZ6 from Japan. Every turn then can dump X troops (MAX 10 troops) from Japan into Manchuria for free as long as you have the TRS lift capacity.

The USA on the other hand really has no choice but to use TRS to move troops across the globe, thus it requires a plan.

Here are the 3 most common plans the USA comes up with.

#1 The GHG Southern France TRS shuck plan of attack.

Floating Bridge Plan of Attack

So, this is how that one works. USA has 5 TRS on East Coast USA, 5 TRS in SZ91 and 5 TRS in SZ93 off the coast of France. You can then “Shuck” 5 Inf + 5 “other units” every single turn into S. France. It is the only place on the map the USA can do this particular plan of attack.

So SZ101 moves 10 Troops to SZ91 and drops off. Next turn you build 10 units in Eastern USA. Following turn you move the 10 troops from Gibraltar from SZ93 to Southern France and the next 10 units move from SZ101 to SZ91…Rinse and repeat forever. Always bringing 10 units every turn into Europe.

It is very effective and also gives you some flex if you so desire to pivot from SZ91 to Oslo or Rome. SZ91 is the most powerful SZ in the game, USE IT.

#2 the Norway option

So we have 3 TRS in E. USA, 3TRS in Iceland to shuck back and forth. Now we have 3 TRS in Iceland and 3 TRS in SZ125 off the coast of Norway. So it is a 12 TRS “shuck” to move 3 INF + 3 other units. It requires 2 turns to prime this shuck. Now the nice thing is once you take Norway you can put a minor on it, keep shucking 6 units + the 3 build units from the minor.

IMO the downfall of the Norway plan of attack is that it is not a direct attack on Germany and in essence they can ignore it for a few turns and focus on beefing up Russia in the north to contain it.

NOTE: You can go to SZ91 instead of Iceland but it does require you to build a port in Norway to perform this “shuck” and a delay of one turn to build the port.

#3 the Spanish Beach Head

The easiest way to get troops on the ground in W. Europe but is does break the neutrals. � Real simple, 5 TRS in SZ91 and 5TRS in SZ 101, shuck 10 units into Spain every turn + the minor factory you can build in Spain.

This is actually more powerful than the GHG option #1 and it includes the UK into the plan. The UK can shuck from SZ109 to SZ104 every turn and drop up to 10 units a turn from London onto Spain on a single move shuck.

So, in theory the USA + UK could drop 30 INF in one turn on Spain. 10 INF from E.USA, 10 INF from C.USA and 10 INF from England. And do that every turn if the Axis cannot retake Spain, plus the three units USA builds on the Factory.

When it comes to the Pacific the plans of attack are based on the same principals.

W. USA to Hawaii, Hawaii to Caroline or Queensland. Queensland/Caroline to Philippines. So it is a 3 leg shuck. So lets plan on 3 TRS shucking 6 units a turn. You would need 18 TRS to fill the shuck supply line.

Well the idea of collecting income at start of turn is an interesting variant. It is a 1940 version of contested territories in 1914.

Japan swoops in and takes all 4 money islands in one turn. Well, they do not collect on that IPC windfall until after the Allies have a chance to respond. It creates interesting back and forth battles for key terrain where neither side is collecting income on that territory until one side wins and holds for a turn.

Well ANZAC subs are one approach to being a nuisance to japan. It forces Japan to us DD to hunt them down all across the money islands and might open them up to counter attack and destruction if Japan is not paying attention. Losing DD is a bad thing for Japan because it means they will have to rebuild them, which is the last thing they want to be spending IPC on.

I prefer this approach with ANZAC. Lets just say for this discussion it is a J3 Attack.

ANZAC

Turn 1: TRS
Turn 2: TRS + 1 INF

Turn 1: ANZAC brings over the INF from NZ and puts them in Sydney.
Turn 2: Move the ART from Queensland back to NSW.

So, here we go ANZAC turn 3.

Most likely Japan on a J3 Japan will not have Java. If that is the case you move 3 TRS, 5 INF and the ART into Java and land.

Now moving the DD/CC with them is optional if you are feeling “froggy” even though you will most likely lose the entire ANZAC navy.

Now, the goal of all of this is to make Japan have to invade Java and not just with 2 INF. This goes back to the idea that if you making Japan do things they do not want to do because of ANZAC, you are doing a good job.

IF on Turn 4 Java is still in your hands, has not been invaded, you could if you so desired be a real pain in the butt and put all 3 FTR on Java then.

Every turn you hold Java you deny Japan 9 IPC in income. That is huge over a couple turns.

Just wondering about the “pulse” of players when it comes to Tech. I agree it is a gamble that does hurt you if you fail repeated attempts using the OOB rules but the upside is big. Germany/USA/Japan have so much up side if they hit on one or two of them that I think it is worth the gamble.

If you like tech using the Variant of Tech Tokens makes it so every nation, beside China, can spend 10 IPC and every turn get to roll 2 dice for a tech, I think that adds some fun to the game, some insanity, element of luck and makes it worth while to buy Tech for every nation, even if it is just one tech token for ANZAC and every turn they get 1 die for a chance until they finally “hit” on a Tech.

One thing I do not like about the Tech rules is that if you roll, lets say, 3 dice and roll triple 6. You only get to roll 1 die to see which one you get. I wonder why they changed that from classic which allowed you to roll 3 dice and pick which tech you wanted from the ones rolled?

Moderator’s edit: added tag [Global 1940] to title.

@taamvan:

terrain, weather, fog of war, spotting the enemy, logistics, etc. are all things that are probably better not to model in a “simple” wargame like AxA.  Â

However, hit the House Rules forum if you want rules or inspiration;  all of these have proposed rules from the community!

Well the appeal of A&A is it simplicity compared to other games even though it drives some, like me, insane that Japan can take out China and march to the gates of Moscow. I would never propose putting all these extra layers of complexity on the game because it would ruin it. If I want that I will go play SPI WWII, World in Flames, VG’s Pacific War and games like that.