Posts made by PainState

On turn 1 I would always advise ANZAC sends it TRS and puts troops on New Guinea and move them over in turn 2 so they can fulfill a NO.

The money Islands is a different beast and is totally based on what Japan does. IF you know before hand that Japan is going on a J3 or a J4, then, yeah, UK should take as much IPC as they can.

IF they go on a J1 well that plan is out. You could bait a J2 by having some lone TRS sitting around the money Islands.

Allies should put no combat surface ships in range of Japan early. They will just get destroyed and thus no point in less you like losing navy early in the game with no IPC to replace them.

Well the OOB rules for victory when compared to a total annihilation victory do work together.

Think of the OOB rules for victory as the benchmark or middle point of the war.

The game moves into turn 12.

Axis have not even sniffed getting the OOB victory conditions taken care of. Is there any question that the Allies will not win?

New game, we go to turn 10. Axis Europe have all of Russia and moving on Cairo. Japan has Calcutta and moving on ANZAC. � Well now we have a game if the victory is total annihilation.

So the OOB victory conditions are a good bench mark. OOB rules basically just stop the total war at the mid point. Axis have no chance to achieve victory and they concede. Total annihilation rules do not change this out come if the Axis are just stomped and cannot achieve even the meager OOB Victory conditions.

We can all agree that if the Axis do not achieve at least the OOB victory conditions then it is pointless to carry it out to the final conclusion of Total Annihilation, which I alluded to early is a worthless victory condition for the Allies.

If there is any “beef” with the OOB victory rules it is that the Allies have to accomplish total annihilation to win and the Axis just have to reach X Victory points to win.

NOW

This is the main issue with all WWII games. Axis start strong, blow up the Allies, they either win outright basically or get dragged into a prolonged middle game struggle when the balance is at its zenith, usually 2-4 turns in A&A. IF the Allies tip the balance, Axis have no chance, the game is over.

I propose then a different victory condition on the Allies.

We use OOB rules, Allies must take Berlin, Rome and Tokyo.

The Allies must achieve this goal by the end of turn 30. IF they fail to do this the “game” is called a draw.

The Axis are definitely under the gun of “time”, they have a finite amount of turns to accomplish their goals to win a OOB game. Why do the Allies not have the same constraint?

Lets remember we are playing a game not real life. I think the victory conditions should be some what equal in a game. If we are going to put the Axis under this “gun” of you have to win in under X turns and then the tide turns then why should the Allies not be under the same “gun” that they have to defeat the Axis in under X turns or the game is a draw.

It is a GAME.

If we look at China in AA 1940 the main issue is that the game is the main problem, keep the game simple. If you introduce terrain into the game then China becomes a totally different beast to handle.

Kansu, Suiyuyan, Tsinghai and Shensi are basically a huge desert wasteland, high altitude and very nasty winter weather. In the real war Japan had 0 interest in marching a army over thousands of miles of desert wasteland. Then again in 1940 that is the ideal path for Japan to help against Russia.

Sikang, Szechwan, Yunnan and Kweichow are dominated by mountains and steep valleys. It is treacherous and not a very fun place to mount combat operations in. Once again in real life Japan had 0 interest in getting into a massive fight with entrenched China soldiers in mountains. But in 1940 not a big deal, in fact the path to India goes through Yunnan.

In real life there was basically no desire or effort to take out all of China. All the important areas of China are found on the coastlands and not in the mountains. Japan was perfectly content to play a defensive war with China and keep them pinned up in their mountains. Then maybe the Communist and Nationals might just start fighting each other in the process.

The simplicity of Axis and Allies is the main hang up with China. China was not simple for Japan when it comes to terrain and climate. Which has 0 effect when playing A&A.

In the real war Japan got around the nasty mountains of Yunnan by going through FIC, Shan State, Burma. They by passed all that nasty terrain and went through South East Asia. Japan was held off at the border of India for the entire war.

How did India hold out the entire war against Japan aggression on its Eastern border? Oh, yeah, there is this nasty mountain chain that runs between Burma and India and when you get close to the coast line it is all river/swamp/jungle fighting.

Axis only get to much money if they earn that money by taking out Allied areas and taking NO’S……thus, No, Axis do not get to much money if the Allies are playing smart.

When we talk about Axis getting to much money it is almost always based on Japans Income. If Japan is going hog wild, well, then the Axis have the game in the bag, IMO.

In 1940 based on the board it is assumed that Russia did attack Finland and took Vyborg, that is why they have it to start the game.

From a game mechanic the Russians cannot invade Finland until they are at war with the Axis.

Well to answer the question it is very obvious.

USA blows into Denmark from SZ91 with their massive stack and then the UK follow up with their stack into Germany to take out the capital or reinforce the USA push into Denmark. Just like Italy opens up Russia for Germany.

SO

If you are playing Germany do you stack Denmark every turn with 2 INF and leave Normandy or Belgium the weak area on the W. Front?

How do you defend S.France from the USA bridge plan of attack? USA blows in, UK reinforces, and now threatens Pairs Liberation or North Italy?

1940 is the exact same in the big picture of classic A&A. Contain Japan and the Axis cannot win. Germany needs to take down Cairo or London once they take out Russia. That does not happen though until 9+ turns into the game. More than enough time for UK/USA to fortify and push back.

Japan though is the major issue. IF you let them get off the chain, take the money islands, crushing Calcutta, blowing up into Russia and producing 70+ IPC, now the Allies have issues.

USA should always go Kill Japan First and contain them. Germany can wait until later.

That being said the USA still needs to send some stuff against Europe once they are at war and I would say do the traditional Africa landing and go after Italy. It is amazing how you can destroy Italy economically with STR Bombers on their factories and convoy them.

My gut reaction, on how I like to play is to go into Morroco/and then on USA2 start moving into Tunisia and Algeria. Then on USA3 have the Bombers show up and totally decimate Italy IC on USA4.

That is just me though

If Germany builds a CV on Turn 1, I know with out a doubt they are not going Sea Lion.

UK though still needs to build the standard 6/1 or 9 build just make sure Germany turns to the East.

@variance:

Yes we can assume UK has built enough that Germany has decided against sealion.  The question is what is the best thing USA can do in the pacific having built all bombers on turn 1?

Well, then the USA builds all navy on Turn 2 on the west coast and sends the 5 bombers to London on T2 Or send all 5 STR to Hawaii for Japan to contemplate, reflect and decide what to do about that.

my issue with dealing with rockets is what does it mean it can fly 3 squares? Is that 3 movement from, like a air plane? Or is it just 3 zones where the sea zone and the land are considered one zone?

Does the rocket get the bonus of +1 MA from a airbase?

It is just all fuzzy and not really explained.

IMHO regardless of what is happening on the globe that the USA on turn 1 builds 2 CV and one BB OR 2 CV one CA and one DD.

Get the navy pumping. USA can move to a more balanced build approach once they are in the war and pumping out 70+ IPC.

USA Bombers in Amur can strike IC all the way down to Hong Kong, very powerful.

Bombers on the Phillipines can hit every single IC on the main land.

Bombers on Iowa Jima can hit Japan.

The main benefit of a island based Bomber plan of attack is that the only way Japan can stop them is to send in navy with a Ampb assault or a kamakazi strike of air power onto the island.

I prefer that the USA island hops to Iwo Jima or Okinawa because Japan can only really stop it with navy.

USSR bases can be stopped with a land commitment from Japan, which is in their wheel house.

Make Japan stop this crap by having to commit navy. That is one thing Japan never wants to do. Which is good Allied play, make the Axis do stuff they do not want to do.

@wheatbeer

Ok, let me explain what Iam talking about.

It is SOP that Japan throws a DD out into SZ16, in order to prevent the USA from going from Hawaii to Japan on one turn.

It is SOP that USA throws out a DD into SZ25, Midway, to prevent Japan from doing that to Hawaii.

Here was the big point I was trying to make.

The USA has a Airfield on Midway. On their very first turn they can put 2 DD a Sub and 3 FTR on Midway. That force alone will keep SZ16 open for the entire game. Japan has no interest in just losing DD in SZ16 to the Midway attack force.

That is what Iam saying.

NOW

IF SZ16 never has a Japan blocker in it. The USA will always have the opportunity to jump from Hawaii to Japan on one move. Now it is up to the USA player to take advantage of that or not, up to them. Iam just stating that with 0 effort the USA can deny Japan from putting a blocker into SZ16 with no effort at all.

So, how does Japan react to a situation where they cannot deny the USA from jumping from Hawaii to Japan on one turn? Regardless of the answer the power of Midway is that the USA can make Japan make that choice and it requires no effort or purchases from the USA to accomplish that goal.

Midway Island can deny SZ16 to Japan which opens up another path to Japan for the USA that Japan has to take into account.

@wheatbeer:

@PainState:

Does Japan commit enough naval power into that SZ16 or give it up and retreat back to the home waters and turtle there?

I would say, neither.

Japan only needs to make sure the Americans can’t hold Korea or convoy SZ6 … you don’t need to turtle in SZ6 to achieve that.

What?

Korea and SZ6 convoy route are on SZ6. Japan can turtle in some other SZ and prevent the USA from convoying 6 or taking Korea?

I think a lot of players over look the power of Midway Island SZ25.

So Japan blocks SZ16 with a DD and the USA throws out their DD in SZ25 and we all move along.

But Midway has a airfield, SZ16 is open ocean.

On USA 1 they can put 2 xDD 1 sub and 3 FTRS on midway.

So Japan pushes their DD out into SZ16. USA comes in with a Sub and 3 FTR and kills their DD and moves the air craft back to midway.

How long does japan want to keep just throwing out a DD into SZ16 knowing full well that the midway task force will just kill them at will?

Japan goes at Midway, well now they have a fight on their hands, air craft can scramble and Japan will take some hits and most likely get a counter attack from the main USA fleet in Hawaii or W. Coast.

So by stacking Midway with 3 FTRS, a sub or two and 2 DD, you can project a lot of power on SZ16. Does Japan commit enough naval power into that SZ16 or give it up and retreat back to the home waters and turtle there?

If you are feeling your oats on USA1 the Hawaii TRS takes 2 inf from Hawaii and puts them on Midway and the W. coast TRS brings down the INF/ART to Hawaii.

We have discussed the relationship between Germany and Japan in relation to a J1.

J1 is almost by definition a term that means Japan is going all in on the Money Islands and taking Calcutta.

What if Japan goes with what most players would call the sub optimal plan, go all in on Navy with your focus on Hawaii, ANZAC and the Money islands and play a defensive plan on the main land. Yeah, that plan, the plan that Japan tried to pull off in the real war.

J1 with its focus on taking out the pacific fleet and the Phill.

J2 mop up the remaining loose USA islands. Set up for a J3 on Hawaii or Queensland from the Caroline islands.

Now you really put the USA in the pickle. Japan is going all in with navy and pacific island hoping and Germany is going all in on UK.

Which way does the USA go? They cant go both.

Looking at the board the USA almost has to go after Japan because all they need to do is take Hawaii and Sidney and the game is over.

So, if Japan does this type of opening move, it is going to be really hard to defend Sea Lion if Germany knows the USA is not going to stack SZ91 with a huge liberation fleet/army.

@taamvan:

Youre saying its a “tell” (indicates what your opponent intends to do) but how can it be, when you do it every game, no matter what your Allied plan is?

If Japan enters the USSR without killing those 20 pieces, awesome, now they have 26 new problems on a front pointing away from the real war.

Good point.

Russia on R1 should pull all their troops west for one turn. DO NOT LET JAPAN attack your Eastern Front in Amur. Russia just needs to keep presenting a threat on Manchuria. At some point, as the Russian player you have to decide when to really attack them, usually R6-8.

Stacking Amur on R1 sometimes has the effect of Japan going J1 on the Russians and totally destroying all Russians East of Moscow. This is usually no bueno for the Allies.

** Side Note **

I have never scene the Axis lose when Russia stacks Amur and Japan goes J1 on Russia and kills off all Russians east of Moscow.

@zergxies:

Besides liberation, one of the other reasons J1 and SL don’t mix well is that the US can get a fighter and 1+ bombers over to London before G3 easily.� � With the amount of fodder on London the fighter alone will probably take out 2-3 German aircraft.

Usually on a J1 Attack that is against UK/ANZAC and not USA.

This is a key point.

IF Japan J1’s against only UK/ANZAC then USA is still neutral until the start of their production phase, which they can then declare war. This is very important because the USA cannot non combat troops/air power forward into UK territory until they are officially at war…that happens on USA1 during production. Which mean USA units cannot enter UK territories unit USA2 non combat phase.

IF that is the scenario, USA can not arrive in UK until USA3, which will be to late if there is a G3 Sea Lion in effect.

Once again I will stress this point.

Japan/Germany have this tug and pull on the first 2 turns. Japan is the key nation when it comes to Sea Lion and the USA response.

Japan goes J1 and declares war on the USA…Sea Lion is off the table, that is the bottom line. If you are the Germany player you need to dust off that G2 against Russia plan of attack.

*** Foot Note ***

Let me clarify and be clear for new players on this point.

IF japan declares war on the USA on Turn 1. What that means is two fold.

#1 USA can now non combat move into any allied country on both the Euro/Pacific map. USA declares war on the Euro Axis powers at the start of the USA1 production phase.

#2 USA Production ramps up to full war status on USA1.

USA can get 1 FTR and 1 STR bomber into England on USA 2 for the FTR.

USA builds 3 FTRS on USA1.

USA2 3 FTRS fly to Gibraltur.

USA3 3 FTRS are in London.

You have now forced Germany to go into London on a G3 invasion or it is all over.

*** Side note ***

I hope your Japan partner is not a friend because some German players will come unglued on a J1 against USA.

Just letting you know.

:lol: 8-) :-D :evil:

lets look at it this way.

Germany/Italy has to take Cairo OR London + take out Russia.

lets just say UK decides the best plan is to not allow Germany to Sea Lion UK.

They do not scramble any FTR on G1. They do not do the Taranto raid and leave all air power in the UK.

Well, if it makes Germany balk on G2, decide to hell with that, goes all in on Russia, no real threat on London any more. Is that not a great plan for the Allies on the Europe map?

UK/USA focus on Africa in the early game to secure Cairo as the Moscow crush is in effect.

Iam not a fan of UK/USA sending everything they can to Moscow. I prefer sending everything to Cairo/middle east and deny Germany from winning on the Euro map.

The upside of this plan is IF the USA/UK have not lost focus, they can take Rome which is a VC. So, now Germany has to take out Cairo and then retake Rome to win the game if they do accomplish their goal of taking out Russia.