Posts made by PainState

@wittmann:

Thanks for the game review. I have bought a late game Polish IC, but cannnot justify the Major in Romania . Would a G2 10 Art build have been a better idea ?

I dont think so and here is why.

the main idea of the Romania MIC was being able to throw MECH/ARM into southern Russia at a faster rate. They can blow through Bessarbia and into E. Ukraine or the southern factory of Russia on one move.

10ART on G2 purchase in Romania would not arrive at the front until G4 or maybe even G5 depending on how far you could advance in the south.  10 ART is a fine build in Germany or W. Germany if you have some TRS because they can get to the Northern Front one turn faster and threaten Belarus/Lenningrad or maybe New York.

Now another thought I had was just to stack Eastern Poland, build the MIC in Romania and divert ALL German attacking units on a Southern Attack en mass instead. Hold off/stall the Russians in the North and see what they do.  Go for Stalingrad/Moscow/Oil as the primary opening attack moves from Germany. Next game I will play the Allies so we will have to wait and see if I try that next time I play Germany.

Ok we finally finished our game, took 4 game sessions and the axis go down in flames at the end of J11 and “we” storm away cursing and cussing about bad luck and so forth.

Now to the discussion at hand of major IC in Romania.

** Warning, this is just one game which forms the basis of my post action report **

G1 went all in and bought the Major IC in Romania

G2 bought 10 mech in Romania

G3 bought 6 mech and 4 ARM in Romania

G4 bought 6 mech and 4ARM In romania

So, those where the first three purchases in Romania.

Germany goes in on a G2 attack on Russia.

The majority of the forces dedicated to France go the Northern Route and the Romania builds go south.

Time warp to G4. Germany has Leningrad but it is not a sold hold as the Russians are stacking in Belarus and do one counter attack into the Baltic states.

The southern path is opening up. Germany has pushed up to the gates of Moscow and threatening blitz’s into the oil fields and opening up the middle east which has a IC in persia.

Italy is going bonkers in the MED and has a huge fleet. This was mistake #1, instead of building mass Italian land units, mech/arm I elected to go heavy on fleet and it totally discombobulated the UK and that is a story in its self.

Mistake #2 was Germany stacked all its planes on G3 in Eastern Ukraine, with only 2 mech with them. Russia took advantage of that mistake and sent in a suicide squad of  4 mech and 2 ARM and all their air power. Dice came up cold for Germany and we eliminated each other to a man BUT Germany had 0 air power left on the Russian front and only 2 FTR and 2 STR left in West/Med.

Mistake #3 was that Japan lost its mind, got mired down in China, blew it on the money island rush, waited to long to threaten India, which turned into Moscow East and then the USA fleet started decimating the Japan fleet, taking 1/1 losses and laughing as Japan could not replace its fleet.

My partner and I re organized our forces and fended off the Allies for multiple turns and then on G9 went all In on the final stand of the Axis. Germany goes into Moscow on a 15% attack, loses, Send in a force of TRS into London, which was lightly defended at this point on a 25% attack and lost and went all in on Egypt on a 45% attack and lost. Germany just threw every thing into attacks and they all failed. Japan did the same in India and failed.

Now, back to the major IC in Romania. Here is what I found.

#1 Getting 10 MECH/ARM 1 turn closer to the south of Russia is very nice.
#2 it creates a lot of pressure on Russia to defend the south heavier than they normally would in the opening turns of the war since the Northern Route is easier for Germany.
#3 in the late game it was nice because it put Russian units advancing into Poland in a two stack attack. One from Germany and the other from Romania. That alone bought Germany about 2 turns as Russia was very leery of advancing into Poland.

#4 the downside is you spend your entire first turn build on a factory and lose X number of troops.
#5 the Black Sea gambit sounds fun to talk about but in reality there was no way Germany could spend IPC on making said fleet and defending it from allied air power.

SO, next time Iam going to try the Yugoslavia minor with Germany. Opens up the Med for ships in a protected sea Zone and gives the advantage of putting mech/arm on the southern front of Russia to push east.

** Foot Note**
The other downside was that since I committed to the MIC in Romania I decided to go all in on it also. Thus I was building 0 Navy and 0 Air Power. Not building air power crippled me in the mid game.

@Zhukov44:

@PainState:

If you insist on stacking Yunnan then let me propose a curve ball you can throw at Japan.

China can move into Burma. Stack Burma instead of Yunnan with the China forces. Let China stack Burma and UK stack in Calcutta waiting for the counter attack.

If China does that, their stack will end up stuck in Burma, cut off from the rest of China.

Well, ok. I thought the entire purpose of stacking Yunnan was to protect India. Let China bleed in Burma as UK stacks India for the counter attack or inevitable Calcutta Crush. Either way, this is all about India.

If you insist on stacking Yunnan then let me propose a curve ball you can throw at Japan.

China can move into Burma. Stack Burma instead of Yunnan with the China forces. Let China stack Burma and UK stack in Calcutta waiting for the counter attack.

How to stack Yunnan?

I counter with a question of my own. Why in the name of all that is holy would you stack Yunnan?

hcp produced a picture of the situation at the critical time of the question. Go back and take a look at it, let it soak in.

Ok

So, UK, China and Russia have thrown in all they got into Yunnan. As some posters have pointed out it is a 99% battle in favor of Japan. Sure, it could go side ways on Japan and they have to lose some air force.

BUT

Russia losses 100% of their troops.
China losses 95% of their troops
UK losses 75% of their troops.

IN A LOSING BATTLE BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED!!!

Why?

Oh, well we have to hold Yunnan to protect Calcutta. Ok, fair enough. Yet, are you not losing all of china to boot? You just threw the entire China army into the defense of holding Calcutta on a losing battle and now China cannot defend it self as a side effect.

IF your only interest was the preservation of China to continue the war you would tell the Indians they are on their own.

Wait

Africacorp said that the foundation of the Allies defense was a 5 pillar defense. Russia, china, Uk, ANZAC and USA. Challenging them on 5 fronts.

In one foul swoop Japan just knocked out 2 of those pillars in some fantasy land Yunnan stack plan of defense. China falls and so does UK Pacific.

If you go back to the thumb nail picture of the situation. China is offering 0, zip, nada resistance to Japan. They have given up the ghost in a desperate hail mary attempt on Yunnan.

This is just bad Allied play.

China needs to contest every single territory. Make Japan risk land units and disperse their air power over all of China. Japan cannot take China with just land power, they need their air force to project force. If you disperse Japans air force across the entire main land to support these attacks, then, UK Pacific does not have to deal with 15+ planes going into India.

China gets two builds with the Burma road. They need to build all ART to give them some offense. Make Japan worry about counter attacks on their small stacks advancing with no air power to support them.

Oh, yes, some back bench guy is yelling about the Calcutta crunch plan of attack from Japan.

So, be it man. There is nothing China can do to stop it. China just needs to worry about themselves and preserve as much of China as they can to stall or stop Japan from marching towards Moscow.

BOTTOM LINE

Contest Yunnan with some China INF but set up a counter attack into Yunnan from China and UK. Japan can ill afford to be losing stacks of ground troops. That is a main point of concern on the mainland for them. Make they worry about that with counter attacks.

Our group has 7 Axis and Allies classic sets so we have more than enough paper money to cover all our needs. Heck, we have so many paper IPC bills we could make it “rain” at a top less bar.

As it was alluded to early. It is critically important for the Allies to make as many battles 50/50 battles for the Axis to consider.

The Axis have a overwhelming advantage at the start of the war and the vast majority of their attacks are 80/20 or greater in their favor. They do no balk at this and just roll the dice knowing the odds favor them.

There needs to be certain point of the game, around T5-6, that the Allies can start shifting the odds towards a more 50/50 balance. Some Axis players will balk and wait one turn thinking they can bring up more force to push the odds in a battle to the 75/25+ range. This benefits the Allies more than any tactic can. If the Axis live in fear of a 50/50 battle that can tilt the war to the Allies then the Allies have finally turned the corner so to speak.

I think the discussion should be how do the Allies accomplish this goal. IMO a massive stack of Russian INF sitting in Moscow with some Allied air support does not accomplish this goal on the Russian front. It just leads to the standard, been there done that, dice fest on G6 or G7 on Moscow.

When China is taking back original China territory on the coast is not the war over by then? No Japan surrender? Japan is going Iron Man and making the Allies go all in on the total victory on Japan mainland?

When it comes to supporting Europe with the bright skies tactic they can do it with minimal use of force at the start of the war. USA can get onto Mororco once they can declare war with basically just their starting force. They can then move into Tunisia with ease and now Italy can be STR bombed by the USA from Africa. Also 4-6 subs from USA and or UK can totally decimate Italy in the med on convoy routes.

With a slow methodical build up of air power moving into Africa you can secure Egypt and crush italian production to the point that they can no longer “can open” for Germany. You dont have to kill off Italy, just reduce them to a rubble pile that can’t support Germany in any meaningful way on the Eastern Front. USA/UK can accomplish this goal early in the game around T4 if USA is in the war on a J1 or j2 Attack.

USA and Japan are very similar in the approach to the war since they are both naval powers. Air Power is key to their success and when they do attack 50%+ of the attacking force is usually with air power. That is why I advocate a more balance build approach build plan for the USA. Once they go into Europe they have overwhelming air power behind their small stack of land units.

Once USA can opens for UK they follow up with the land units to secure their conquest.

When discussing the bright skies tactic of USA going all in on  STR bombers early I would propose a different approach.

USA is the one country that has such a large income that they can do a more ‘balanced’ approach to their builds and not focus on a turn and build just all of X.

Lets say USA gets the J2 attack on them, thus they are at full production on USA3.

Every turn spend 33-36 IPC on 3 aircraft. FTR/TAC/STR every single turn, starting on turn 1. Maybe, based on the board switch it up and go 3 STR one turn. Then 3 FTR another turn.

IF the USA is producing 3 aircarft every turn for the first 6 turns, they have produced 18 planes + what ever naval/ground you deem you need.

The USA will build up a huge air force once the critical point of the game arrives in T6-8. Now, how you disperse them across the globe is up to you and what their ‘role’ is and thus a totally different discussion.

I just think the USA is the one country that can actually allocate 33-36 IPC to air force and 20-25 IPC in navy and the rest in land units almost every turn. Granted there are times you need to go heavier on land and light on navy based on the TRS shuck plan of attack you have but you never go light in air power on your builds.

I understand that STR Bombers are the most powerful unit because of range BUT I think it is un wise to ignore the power of FTR/TAC and the roles they can play also. TAC can get up to 4 attack value and just as strong as STR bombers. Granted their role is different but I think you should not discount that ability TAC have. FTR are you best defense weapon on scrambles and defending against STR bombing. All 3 air units have a role and just going all in on one type of aircraft can get you in trouble against a good player.

@Argothair:

The arguments about “oh, I can still place 10 units a turn in Moscow,” and “oh, artillery isn’t that expensive anyway” strike me as wishful thinking. You need to place 13+ units a turn to defend Moscow against an all-out G6/I6 attack on Moscow. Some of those units will have to go in Kiev or Stalingrad and then march to Moscow. That’s fine; that’s how that works. Eventually, you may get to a point where it makes more sense to build 2 mech in Stalingrad instead of 3 infantry in Stalingrad, because infantry in Stalingrad won’t have time to march to Moscow before the key battle. That’s fine too. But you can’t just wish away the extra cost of building your entire army out of 4 IPC artillery & mech. inf. If your units are 33% more expensive, then you have 33% fewer units that still each defend on a roll of 2, and that means what should be a nailbiter for Germany will instead be a blowout victory, every time.

Ok, here is the deal, in my mind. Russia can take this %100 turtle approach and just build INF, not saying it is a bad plan. (I take that back, it is a very bad plan, IMO)

BUT

If Russia builds 0 Art/Mech/Arm they have gimped themselves to the point that they can not counter attack Germany in T1-6. They just all fall back to Moscow and let the dice fest commence but on German terms.

SO

If you are so fatalistic that Russia will fall on G6, my God, my foe is the most experienced German player known to man kind. Then, I would propose you, as Russia, decide to take the dice fate in your own hands. Russia will have a chance to attack Germany as they advance onto Moscow. Now, the chance of total victory will be slim but THIS IS A DICE GAME. Russia could cripple the German advance. Never forget, in A&A the attacker has the one advantage in that he can retreat. So, a Russian attack that goes 60/40 in Russia’s favor on the first attack, Russia retreats, might just buy Russia one more turn. One more chance to counter attack, one more chance to build more troops.

Sitting in Moscow just waiting for the big dice fest assault is just lazy play from a ‘jaded’ player who thinks Russia has no chance against a experienced German player.

Make Germany go into Moscow on a 50/50 or 35/65 chance. You cant do that by just building INF and never attacking them. Make the German player make the hard choice of going into Moscow on 50/50 or less odds. It gives you at least one more turn if he balks. It is just lazy Russian “play” to just build INF and retreat to Moscow.

In my experience of playing WWII board games for almost 25 years this is what I have found. Axis players love the start of the war and getting 90+% attack odds on almost every battle. Once you get to around T6 in A&A with proper Allied play those odds now become 50/50 or 40/60 in critical battles. That is when the Axis start to get concerned. They no longer have overwhelming odds and are forced to make hard choices on attacks. If they lose, it could be the start of the end for the Axis.

As a Allied player you have to get the Axis powers in these critical situations. Some Axis players will balk and not take the attack on 50/50 terms and wait one turn to get more “force” into the combat. This only benefits the Allies.

In every other WWII game besides Axis & Allies Gibraltur is a fortress that can only be attacked by very limited troops and almost no hope of taking it with Italy. The only way to take it is by going into Spain and attacking it from the land and sea.

That is a huge difference between basically every other WWII game compared to A&A.

Ok, here is the deal. 1940 does lack when it comes to the counter chits. IF you have a older edition of ANY edition of Axis and Allies this will never be a problem.

Then again, if Russia has a 60+ stack (chits) of INF and Germany is sitting on a 40+ Stack (chits) of Mech/ARM and no one is attacking each other.

WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?

Bottom line for me….the game has more than enough chits to play the game in less you just sit around and turtle, building massive stacks of troops doing nothing.

Simon33: “With a J2 DOW, USA get the bonus on turn 2 but would get it anyway on turn 3. In fact, if there is no Japanese DOW by turn 3 USA will get the Philippines bonus, which compensates for just over 1/3 of the lost income. No one should keep peace with the UK as Japan for 3 turns but you might like peace with the USA if UK/ANZAC DOWs on you.”

USA entry into the war totally hinges on Japan.

This presents interesting dynamics between Japan/Russia/UK/ANZAC, that is what makes it fun. There is give and take on actions by each country.

Russia stacks on R1 the Manchurian border, what does Japan do?

Japan on J1 ignores said stack and goes J1 against the Allies, what do the Allies do?

That is just one scenario.

That is what makes this game fun and interesting when we ‘talk’ about 1940.

What do you do when they do this and then you do that and they do that. It is all inter-related in the first 4 turns.

Another example from a global game.

Does Germany really want Japan to go J1 and get the USA into the war? Which usually means USA is knocking on the Western front on USA3. IMHO a KGF strategy is totally based once again on Japan. Japan goes J1, USA goes all in on Germany to neutralize Germany/Italy ASAP so they can divert over to the Pacific in Turn 5-7.

One last scenario to talk about.

IF Germany is going Sea Lion, that is the plan. How does that influence Japan’s actions? Does Germany really want Japan to go J1 or J2 on the USA?

@larrymarx:

As Germany I would leave a defensive force in Moscow to dissuade the Russians from coming back and send enough to the middle east to crush it and become an economic beast. If the Russians move to the top of the map they have put themselves out of position.

Well, your response is the ‘point’ of what Iam saying.

IF Russia goes East, you *(Germany) have chosen to split your force and send some South and keep some in Moscow. At least Russia made you make a choice. This is very important. When you force your foe to think and make choices there is most likely a opportunity later on that your foe miscalculated and messes up. Left to much in Moscow or pushed to much towards the Middle East.

IF Russia goes south then there is no choice. Germany takes their stack, follows the Russian stack, they tango on down to the Middle East and at some point a climatic mega throw down happens and Germany still becomes a economic beast. There is no chance that Russia can capitalize on a German mistake because there is 0% chance of a mistake if all Germany is doing is pushing their stack next to the Russian stack and moving south to the Middle East and towards Cairo.

There is always the chance that Germany splits their forces and still plays a sound game and wins. Then again you never gave your self a chance to exploit a mistake by just forming one huge stack in the Middle East and roll some dice and hope it comes up good. I would rather rely on the human aspect of the game to look at a tactical situation and make something out of it instead of just loading up the big stack battle in a calculator and hope that I win the 97.28% Battle that I should lose. I will acknowledge that sometimes the best tactic is to just form a huge stack and see if your foe has the guts to actually attack it and if he does hope the dice are kind. I do not think this discussion falls under that dire scenario yet.

@Zhukov44:

I don’t do this move as the Soviets because Japan starts with too many units in Korea/Manchuria and too much aircraft in range of Amur.

Well if it prevents a J1 against UK/ANZAC/USA by doing the all in on Amur with Russia is that not good for the Allies in the short term on the Pacific map?

On this subject I think there are only two choices,

#1 Retreat south to link up with the UK, protect the middle east and hopefully make a last stand at Baghdad/ Cairo.

#2 Retreat East or North East.

IMHO you always choose #2. Make Germany have to split their forces to chase a large Russian stack east and split to offer resistance to a stack of UK units in the south.

IF the USA is in Norway that is even better. USA to the North, large Russian stack that retreated from Moscow in the East and a UK land force in the South.  IF Russian retreats south then you just eliminated one threat for Germany. Instead of three fronts it is now only two. Why allow Germany an easier path to victory? Make them choose between 3 options instead of 2.

** Side Note **

If the game gets to this point it is imperative that a Western Invasion happens, does not matter where or in what strength. The Allies need to open up the 4th front on the Western side. Either directly at Germany on continent or going into Italy. Even if the initial invasion is thrown off make sure you have a second invasion ready.

** Foot note **

On the poll question the proper response is not a answer. You retreat East and then North east. Make Germany push units to the top of the board, way out of position. Japan you ask? Do you think Japan has any intentions of pushing 20+ land units to the top of the map and be totally out of position to attack the Russians?  It is not just forcing Germany to make a hard choice you are also making Japan make a even harder choice. Japan can ill afford to be putting a large stack in the north of Russia to contend with them, they have larger concerns in this scenario.

@IKE:

What about the US bonus money you’re missing out on though? �

Forgive me I forget, if UK/AZ declares war then US has to wait until which turn to declare war and get it’s bonuses?� � Is it end of turn 3 or 4?

What? Sir, head upstairs to the bathroom and find your 1940 Rule book under the sink and take a seat, good sir. :-o

The USA is at war on turn 4 if the Axis do not DOW on them.

The USA only enters the war earlier than Turn 4 Based 100% on if Japan goes early on a DOW against them. Yes, Iam discounting the .000258% Chance that Germany DOW’s on the USA in turn one with a surprise sub attack on the East Coast.

USA entry into the war is totally dictated by Japans actions. Only Japan can get them into the war earlier that Turn 4. UK/ANZAC actions have 0 impact on USA entry into the war early.

The big issue for Japan as it relates to USA is they lose 10 IPC in NO’s when they are at war with the USA and the USA gains 20 IPC when they are at war with the Axis on No’s. There is a IPC incentive for Japan to not declare war on J1/J2 on the USA/France, because they gain 20 IPC in cold hard cash.

Japan goes j1 against USA and at the end of Turn 4 the USA has gotten 60 IPC bonus cash at that point.

@IKE:

@JDOW:

2.

UK/ANZAC DOW on Japan.

Why? All those plans could be done without DOW, can’t they?

I didn’t understand that either.� � Why would you delay getting the US in the war when you don’t have to?

Let me offer some insight and understanding then.

There are NO REASONS why on UK/ANZAC 1 not to DOW on Japan, it is pointless not to and here is why.

• UK/ANZAC go after Japan in the turn order. So, if they do NOT DOW they do not get the first move and have to react to Japan. With a DOW UK/ANZAC go before Japan and force a direction or choice from Japan. This is subtle but very important in the opening turns of the game.

• UK/ANZAC only get their NO’s IF they are at war. So, if UK/ANZAC DOW on Japan they will achieve for a min. of 1 turn their NO’s on the Pacific map. ANZAC will get 10 IPC and UK 5 IPC. IF you wait until Japan declares war you will not get those NO’S, ANZAC maybe will get 5 IPC.

• UK can now move into China if they so desire and set up a huge southern stack of troops with China.

• There is no down side to declaring war on Japan, none. Japan does not get more NO’s or lose/gain NO’s based on a UK/ANZAC DOW. Japan gains NOTHING from a DOW against it.

Thus if the ALLIES DOW on Turn 1 they will get 15 IPC as a group. IF Japan is tied up and does not get south on J2 you will most likely lose Hong Kong but keep the other NO’s and net another 10 IPC.

By not declaring war the Allies most likely lose 20-25 IPC on the Pacific map on the opening 1-4 turns, it is all based on when Japan declares on the Allies.

Now should you make your stand in Borneo or Sumatra? I don’t think it really matters. I will admit though that Sumatra is easier to reinforce and if Japan ignores UK for a few turns and the UK commits to Sumatra they could in theory get 8 INF and 2 AAA onto the island if they so desires. Borneo most likely just 6 INF and a AAA.

IF the UK Pacific and Anzac can make Japan to focus on the islands it makes the Allies victory that much easier, in less the Japan player has a sneaky plan for a naval victory stomp on Sydney and Hawaii.

Russia stacks the north, make the Japs attack them. If the Japs take the bait and go all in, then Japan is not going to war with USA until J4.

IF Japan goes all in on Russia on J1.

UK/ANZAC DOW on Japan.

India Moves 2 Inf into Borneo.

UK2 Moves two more INF from Singapore and the ANZAC forces drop 2 more INF. Now, Borneo has 6 INF on it + 3 ANZAC FTRs. � USA does not fly their FTR off to the East and keeps it in Manila, it can then fly to Borneo once DOW on USA happens.

On J4 Borneo is stacked.

The “money islands” are no longer a cake walk and Japan has to actually fight for Manilla and the money islands and tie them up for at least one turn and most likely two turns.
If the Japan player is not paying attention and builds no fleet or a small fleet with no TRS then the “Money Islands” might be a total no go, no chance to take them.

** NOTE **

The gambit only works if Russia stacks Machuria on the opening turn and Japan goes all in to eliminate Russia and goes J1 on Russia.