Posts made by Redjac

Well done on a good plan of attack.

The plan has several good points but it appears to rely on two points;

1. A surprise attack on the Russians on J1. Will this work more than once? Won’t the Russians just pull back on R1 from now on?

2. The attack on Egypt seemed less detailed than the attack on Russia. Can you hold Cairo, your last Victory City in Europe if you do not have London, even if the Americans make mild push?

Likewise if the Japanese go all out for Russia then they leave themselves open to assault from India, Australia and America. If the Axis do not win on victory cities then can they win the domination game? I think not if the Allies have Cairo and most of Asia.

I am not saying your plan will not work, especially if it is well executed. But the game designer has changed this version of the game to make the combined German/Japanese attack on Russia much harder. That was part of the reason for the bigger board with more territories and adding China as its own country with separate units. In Revised and the Anniversary Edition China was only two territories I believe. A common tactic was to ignore the Western Allies and go all out for Russia. It worked a lot too. Now it still can be done, but it a good bit more difficult. If the Allies held Cairo and the Dutch East Indies, I would play on as the Allies even if Moscow fell.

Wrath, Gargantua,

I admit I may have been playing it wrong. I usually use the German submarines to attack the British Fleet on G1 and take them as losses in the first round. The only submarine left is the one that can attack the Canadian Coastline and try to kill the transport and destroyer. It often does not survive the attack.

The problem is that the United Kingdom starts with 3 destroyers in the Atlantic and it is hard to get all 3 on G1. One is off Canada (two german submarines can attack it) and one is near Dover where german airplanes can attack it but one is just west of England where it is hard to get at. This surviving destroyer usually goes to kill the two german submarines off the Canadian coastline on UK 1. This may or may not take a plane away from England depending on how aggresive the UK player is. From then on the British destroyers attack the submarine without mercy.

I need to sit down and plan out an attack based on convoy raiding for the Axis.

I usually build the 1 AC and 2 TR on G1 followed by all transports on G2 if I plan to do Sea Lion. No real need for subs as I plan to invade Great Britain.

If I am hedging my bets and may attack Russia around G3 or G4, I build either 1 AC and 2 TR to threaten Sea Lion and use the TR to reinforce Norway and Finland for the attack on Russia later on or 1 AC (to protect the fleet) and 1 DR and 1 SUB to interdict England with. I may build submarines to attack any Allied Invasion Fleet that may form to attack Gibraltar or Normandy.

One game I bought 5 submarines on G1. I bought a few more on G2 and G3. The plan was to recreate the great German Submarine Campaign from history. It did not work out so well. The British player attacked my submarines one by one. If I placed them in a group one destroyer and few planes killed them all. He can only lose one destroyer as submarines cannot hit aircraft. When they were placed alone he killed them alone. I could not scramble to protect any of the submarines. If I attacked his destroyer off the coast of England he could always scramble aircraft to protect the destroyer. After a while I could not keep it up. The first few turns the German can use Luftwaffe to prevent the scrambling by covering the Sea Zone. But in my case, I found I needed the airplanes in Russia and in the Atlantic and I did not have enough. The British player put all of his money in destroyers and aircraft. He built his destroyers in Canada and then sailed them over to attack submarines off England. The Americans killed the other ones in the South Atlantic.

I am not saying it cannot work but I have yet to see the German submarine campaign be decisive. Likewise in the pacific I have seen submarines combined with a surface fleet to destroy the other side. But I have never seen convoy raiding work where the Allies did not already have naval supremacy.

I have always found it hard to interdict Britain with German submarines.Maybe I have not made it a priority but it seems ineffective in our games.

In Axis and Allies it is much easier to invade Great Britain than interdict it with submarines.

In the pacific the submarines are only effective once the allies have naval supremecy. And once you have that surface ships can raid.

My two cents….

The idea of spreading around the NO’s for America to give incentive to balance its’ forces is a good one. The details of the NO’s are up for debate, but the basic idea is sound.

Remember it took America at least 6 months go on the offensive in North Africa and the South Pacific. It took a good bit longer for America to become absolutely dominant in the Atlantic (no more German subs) or the Pacific. The delay in America capturing the NO’s should match this historical build up (somewhat).

Jim010,

What percentage of the games end in Axis victory after a successful invasion of England?

Is Sea Lion with the current setup a game breaker? Does it determine the game on German turn 3 no matter what the other powers do?

If so, is there nothing the Americans or British can do to lower the odds of a successful invasion?

I am asking the players of this forum what their opinion of the Alpha 2 changes to Global 1940 Axis &Allies.

Chime in and give your view! In other words, do we need any more changes to the rules and setup to make it a finished game? If so, what do we need? Tech rules rewrite, different unit placement, etc?

Our gaming group is small and there is some disparity in skill levels between the players. So I do not trust my judgment on the balance of the rule changes so far.

Don’t get me wrong, I like all the changes so far in Alpha 2 as compared to the Out of Board order of setup and rules. I really like the new scramble rules. Just not sure about game balance or even what needs to be changed.

Only thing I really don’t like is the Global 1940 Axis & Allies Tech Rules. I prefer 50th Anniversary Edition rules on Tech Improvement. That is a preference not really an argument for a change however. Would like to hear other people’s opinion on the matter.

Brettstar4,

Just to point out under the Alpha rules the Axis can never build 10 units in England. They can never have a major factory in a territory not under their original control.

This is a minor point however, as the Axis can build the units in Western Germany or Germany proper and transport them to London.

But such little minor points can be telling when defending a victory city.

This was the dominant strategy when the game came out. If you use the Out of Board setup for Pacific '40 or Global '40 it still is.

Larry Harris’ changes on the setup and rules no longer allow this play. See the Alpha + 2 discussions on the global 1940 setup. No power is allowed to build major factories on territory not originally controlled by that power. Only minor IC’s allowed. Thus the Japanese cannot even build a Major Factory on the Asian Mainland as the only originally held territory is Korea. Further, the Japanese setup so that its’ forces cannot just run over the British. They can still win, it just takes a bit longer.

I have played both the Out of Board setup and the recent Harris approved changes under Alpha + 2 and I prefer the latter. They have better balance and are simply more fun.

Undauntedcow,

I am not sure what strategy your players are using, but our players never have the big massive stacks of units seem in some of the games. Usually 20 infantry with a handful of support units in an area is as big as our armies get. Normally this only happens on the Russian Front.

Our games usually last between 4-8 turns. After that one side or the other has a clear lead and the game is called. And then we start a new one. We often play two Global games in one day.

I agree that just playing defense and building massive armies just waiting for the American Hammer to fall is no fun, so…… just go get them first.

Our gaming group plays Axis and Allies Global about once a week. We have played every week with all the changes since the games came out.

The Alpha +1 setup is the best one yet. On what basis do I make such a claim? The fact it is about to be Japan 5 and I have no idea who is going to win the game or even really how it will play out. The War really does hang on the edge. This is a nice change.

Normally we call the game at the end of turn 4 or 5; sometimes as early as turn 3. In the last few games we have had some really good battles in Poland, London, Java and near Midway. This setup is really balanced - at least according to our three man gaming group.

I know the above does not give many details about games we have played, but the new scramble rules and new setup really does give new options to the players about purchases. No more having to buy a Carrier and 2 Transports just to threaten Sea Lion first turn.

Anyway, my two cents…

Thanks for the replies. That clears up my confusion.

Couple of questions about amphibious invasions and retreats:

1. Can the land units retreat after one round of combat in a land battle from amphibious invasion?

2. If yes, where do they go?

3. Do they go back to the transports in the invading sea zone?

4. Or to the sea zone they left from to start the invasion in the invading transports? In other words, do the land units get back on the transports allowing the transports to move back where they picked up the invasion troops?

5. What is a safe or friendly sea zone in this context? Where can the ships retreat to, if at all?

I have read the rules and still a little unsure where the retreating units go. Appreciate any help.

Frontovik,

It may be more difficult for Italy to take Cairo. But I always thought it was too easy compared to history anyway. I think this is what Larry Harris is trying to achieve. I know this is not a true simulation but a game, but achieving historical accuracy provides Global A&A more flavor and makes for a better game.

On the plus side, Italy does not need to capture Egypt quite as fast. It can satisfy one of its’ national objectives by capturing Gibraltar, Southern France and Greece. It also gets a new objective by capturing Morocco and the northern territories of Africa. Thus it makes more money sooner.

I have not looked at the setup with the new changes and its’ effects on the Pacific Victory City requirements for the Japanese. But requiring 7 VP’s is just too much to ask of the Axis. They would have to take Hawaii, Australia, and hold the rest of Asia at the same time.

Every time I have seen the Japanese navy go to Hawaii, they usually took it and not much else. But they spent a lot of assets to hold it. Meanwhile the Chinese and the British in India gave them hell on the mainland.

I like splitting the Victory Conditions for the two maps in the Global game. If the Japanese cannot be stopped, then tweak the set up. Don’t adjust the number of VP’s or the other alpha plus changes. They seem pretty good to me.

An axis player in our last game tried this very strategy. It was clever. Build factory complexes in Romania and Greece to transport units to the south of Russia by sea. It did not work.

It does not really matter from the Russian point of view if the enemy come from the south via transport or walks across from Romania. They are both about the same distance from Moscow where almost all of the Russian units are produced. So the infantry and artillery hordes still have to be beaten.

I played Russia and he transported about 12 units south of Stalingrad. The axis had to retreat when about 20 Russian ground units showed up.

Do not mistake me. I am not saying an offensive toward the southern provinces where the money is will not work. It just cannot be done on the cheap. Somehow, someway the axis must possess a bigger army than Russia to drive her back.

I think the money spent on navy (to protect the transports) is a waste in most games. In the few games where the axis has a big enough army to hold the Russians down and money to buy navy to go for a southern flanking move, they could just as well buy armored units to do the same thing and still use the armor in an attack on Moscow.

Bombing Moscow seems like a good idea but it can be easily countered. It only takes a few fighters and the bombers will have a hard time getting to the target. The Russians start with a few fighters that can intercept and the Brits can send a few over from India to cover the Russian capital.

My two cents….

You post details attacking London via Bomber(s) to damage the factory in turn 1 and turn 2?

If so, how do you get past the 3 UK Fighters in London? Interception is not an optional rule in A&A 1940.

I am like Jim010. I play the game to win. But if there is always a “best move” then playing this game is like playing chess using only one opening or one defense. After a while the game will be no fun. Even if the game is not 'broken" because the allies may still win is beside the point.

I think I understand the strategic problem posed by Sealion. Germany can build a CV and a couple of TR to threaten the invasion of UK on G1. Even if they are all sunk on UK1 (unlikely as they can be safe in baltic) then Germany has around 70 ipc’s to purchase a new navy one space away from UK on G2. UK has one turn (on Uk 2) to sink it because it cannot be blocked. (The new navy is built in the western sea zone next to west germany.) On G3 the Germans invade UK. If the English build land units on UK1 or UK2 the germans should win according to Jim010 (and I believe him - the numbers seem right) because the Germans have more units - inf, art, tanks, planes and shore bombardment.

Hopefully there is some mix of naval and air units that can be bought on UK1 to attack the german fleet on UK2 and sink it. The only idea I have is 1 tactical bomber and 3 subs. These units cannot be attacked by the standard german build of 1 CV and 2 TR because they have no DD in German Navy. But the problem is complicated by the fact that the Germans don’t have to build a large invasion force if they see a UK1 navy/air build. They just build a bigger navy with the 70 ipc’s on G2 to invade with on G3. They simply use less TR’s and more surface warships in the build on G2.

Jim010,

Is your G3 Sea Lion attack a done deal? Are there no buys in the game for the UK that will defeat Sea Lion? I hope this game does not have a “best” move that will always be done by Germany vs. the UK for the first 3 turns.

Instead of infantry, is it possible to buy subs/ships/planes to destroy the German navy before it attacks? Say 2 Tactical Bombers to match up the fighters and a destroyer? Or a bunch of subs to attack the fleet near the coast?

It seems wrong not be able to have some decent chance of defense when you know what is coming at you. I have only played the Global Game but the attacks you are talking about should work in both games for Germany.