Posts made by Rhey

What other use would air transport have then? Transport ships can transport anything whereas transport planes could only transport paratroopers?

The choices u’d have to make between bombers and paratroopers would add another significant and strategic factor to the game. 1 attack of 4 vs 3 attacks of 2, an extra bit of firepower or would you rather have paratroopers to keep the occupied territorry protected against counterattackts etc. Especially if you implement an airdrop the same way as an SBR (with fighter escorts and all, how many escorts would you add in the SBR and how many would you commit to the actual battle etc etc)

I think if you play economically and smart, the paratroopers will be reduced as you wont have too many occasions where you’d actually need them. I’m pretty sure the main units on the board will still be infrantry and artillery.

I don’t think you should limit the paratroopers. A bomber costs 12 and if someone wants to attack with 9 paratroopers (say if you can indeed load 3 per bomber), they’d have to pay 36 IPC’s for their transport and another 36 for the 9 paratroopers.

This is also 72 IPC’s that can be swept away in AA gun fire and 36 IPC’s that cannot be used during combat for that round (as the bomber is limited to transport). It’s a very expensive operation for what it really is. It’s good to give your amphibious assaults (sea lion or normandy) an extra notch and kick in some infrantry quickly at the front line but remember your bombers always have to go back and get them so they can never make 2 airborne attacks in a row.

Also, once my paratroopers have landed and there’s no use to put in an airdrop, I’d spent the 4 IPC’s on artillery or regular infrantry instead (as these paratroopers will act the same as infrantry when on the attack when crossing territorries on foot).

I think it’ll do fine without limiting and I don’t really think the board will be floaded with paratroopers as you need these really expensive bombers to transport them with. Also a bomber loses his attack that round (an attack with a value of 4! compared to 3 attacks of 2…). Paratroopers will usually only be used to get that more infrantry in that attack and their advantage mainly is that they can land so u have more units to defend that territory afterward, as a bomber can not land nor defend that territory that you just took.

yeah I assume they should cost 4. The only advantage they have is their airborne assault. Bombers are also expensive, especially used as transports so… I assume 4 is enough. Can’t wait to try them out hehe

@captainhook

how many would you allow in a plane? I’d say 3 because of the heavy cost of a bomber…

I think I’ll try them out this weekend. I won’t give them a surprise attack like a submarine tho. Just an attack value of 2 when they’re attacking following an airdrop. I’m really curious to see how it plays.

@knp7765:

I’ve tried a J1 attack on everyone (except Russia). While Japan does make some modest gains at first, it turned out being a disaster for the Axis, and Japan in particular. With the USA entering the war Round 1 with so much more money to spend and better building potential, Japan just couldn’t keep up with the large and growing US Navy plus keep their offensives on the mainland and southwest Pacific going, especially with meddling problems from ANZAC, the Brits and Chinese. Russia made things worse by waiting until just the right time and pouring over the Amur/Manchuria/Korea border.

I agree with you on the latest setup. While I think Sealion is still possible, it seems to me like this setup is designed to almost force Germany into Barbarossa and forget any other plan. The rule where Russia can declare war when London falls sure doesn’t help either. The thing I don’t like about Sealion is Germany has to commit so much to it that they are really weak on the Eastern Front. A lot of people say you can simply take the transports used to invade England and use them to amphibious assault Leningrad, but I think they make it sound much easier than it really is.
Also, the new setup makes it much harder to sink the Royal Navy, almost impossible in 1 round now.

This is right on. Going Sealion with Germany could keep your forces stuck too long in Europe just trying to regroup and push back the Russians (especially because the Russians can attack INSTANTLY after Sea Lion, wich indeed, left ur eastern forces a lot weaker).

I’ve already won a game while using Sea Lion so I’m not saying it’s impossible. It shifted the US attention on getting London back and I just used Germany and Italy in a defensive role so Japan could have it’s way in the Pacific. But the war in Europe looked like a static world war 1.

I also think a J1 move in global is disastrous (in pacific1940 I’d say an all out attack by Japan on J1 against everyone is a MUST in order to win the game, but in gobal… no). It gets the US too soon in the war and can outproduce anyone as Germany, Japan and Italy still have to build up their economy. Don’t forget that in global you’re also fighting the Russians.

They cannot be moved on a bomber during noncombat movement by the way. Otherwise you can just fly around to defend weak points wich can be a ridiculous sight

while driving on the way home, it got me thinking about paratroopers… I came up with something like this:

a paratrooper should cost 4 instead of 3 (it is best if you have a different type of infrantry unit, or colour, to distinguish them from regular infrantry). They can be loaded on a bomber (2 or 3 at the same time).

The bomber then acts the same as in a SBR (including fighter escorts and AA gun fire IF there is an AA gun in the territory being attacked). It cannot participate in combat for the remainder of that round.

Paratroopers can ONLY land when that same territory is attacked by regular ground forces (otherwise u could drop 3 of them in onuccopied berlin and land your bomber in Russia and you’ve captured berlin, wich is not the point).

A paratrooper’s attack and defence value is the same as a regular infrantry except they get an attack value of 2 (this represents the advantage of the element of surprise) when entering combat through an airdrop (same like the marines in the first AA pacific game).

EDIT after reading captainhook’s ruling on artillery I figured it’s better if they can’t be supported by artillery when entering combat during an airdrop (they’ll have the attack value of 2 anyway). They can offcourse be supported by artillery when making combat moves as regular infrantry.

Now back on their transport. As said before, the bombers act as if it was an SBR. If the enemy AA gun hits on a 1, the bomber is lost. Let’s say the bomber was carrying the maximum of 3 paratroopers, roll 3 dice. For each 1 and 2 you role, you can keep that paratrooper to attack with.

for example. You attack with 1 bomber and 3 paratroopers, the AA gun hits on 1. The bomber is lost. Then you role 3 dice (1 for each paratrooper) and you roll a 2, a 4 and a 6. This means that 1 paratrooper unit got out of the bomber that got shot down and is still able to participate in the attack. The other 2 are also lost (like cargo on a transport).

In any other way, paratroopers are used as normal infrantry with a normal attack value of 1 and defense value of 2.

Thoughts on this?

The tactic i always use is to buy infrantry and artillery. I never try to give up leningrad or Ukraine as you can hold it with infrantry, then buy 3 artilleries per turn to hit back the germans with at least 6 units hitting on a die roll of 1 and 2.

I put weak forces on the front line and my main force behind it to counter attack (for example. put 2 infrantry on the baltic states, eastern poland, and besarabia, then try to put up as many artillery and infrantries behind it to attack them back.)

I always try to lure the axis into splitting their forces (wich is easy regarding the huge chunks of land in Russia) and then attacking them from 2 places at once (for example lure them into Baltic states, then hit them simultaneously from Leningrad and Eastern Poland or Belarussia).

I also try to take Finland and Norway as I find these usually poor defended and gives you, with the NO’s, an additional 11 IPC’s.

But seriously, never forget to buy artillery as you need to push them germans back. Yes, they will take some land from you but putting in a mere defensive line is useless. Use a tactical retreat and you’ll find that they will have a really hard time pushing into Russia.

I think if I would’ve waited one more turn, I wouldn’t be succesful in capturing the UK as he was building nothing but infrantry to reinforce it. Facing another 10 infrantry would’ve been devastating to my invading forces as a lost a lot of airforce too taking out the Royal Navy. It had to happen turn 3. If by then the Russian attack would’ve come turn 4, I would have been able to release some pressure and that would’ve made an easier game. But I’ll keep this US invasion strategy in mind for another game and when the oppurtunity gives itself, I will post it here. Thank you for listening hehe :)

When you’re close to taking Sydney as a final VC, u’ll find yourself producing over 90 IPC’s hehe… The trick with the US is to destroy Japan’s Navy piece by piece. This allows Hawaii and Sydney to be safe from a Japanese invasion wich denies them victory. U’ll find that the caroline islands are also very important. This gives a 1-turn passage into mainland China where you can almost land anywhere and create a gap in that japanese front (or, even better, if the japanese player built an IC, to take it away :)), and please land before India is captured.

@Krieghund:

In Alpha 3, the USSR may also declare war on European Axis powers on its next turn after London is captured by the Axis.

Wich I find a very weird rule. Yes, bringing in the US is a good move but Russia is able to attack directly after sea lion (wich is usually on G3) and will find very little resistance as most of the german’s resources have just been spent on taking london. Maybe allowing the USSR to declare war on the axis powers only after their collect income fase wud be a better option.

I assume only 2 are able to attack as only 2 are able to land. At least that’s how we play it. We don’t calculate the losses of planes in the space to land plus I think this would give carriers a enormously huge advantage.

Yeah that’s the beauty of this game. You can’t plan anything. The player that adjusts best to the situations, wins. But I think I’ll keep that strategy for taking the US into account when a chance like that brings it up.

Are you playing global or Pacific 1940? There’s a huge difference as the Russians can come and help China. Also China really isn’t that weak as they can put their units anywhere. Just place them really strategically and try to pick off as many ground units from Japan as possible. These are really valuable and really hard to reinforce. Don’t wait with the UK to put troops in Yunnan and keep the burma road open. You can really drain Japan. Try to make as many gaps as possible in their frontline so they have a hard time to attack in force.

@empireman:

did they go after UK? or after another country?

At the beginning of the game I bought a sub and another destroyer and went on a submarine hunt.
Then they helped reinforcing the british after being liberated by the USA. They captured Brasil and Invaded gibraltar and North-Africa alongside the Americans. In the end they were able to invade Norway. The allies claimed victory shorty after that. I found them fun to play with.

I’m thinking of just putting them in as a complete independent force from the beginning starting with the 7 IPC’s from Canada.

Either way they were an original addition to our game without interfering with balance issues. I gave them a spot going behind the UK but maybe it’s better for them to go behind Italy’s turn. That’s something I still have to tweek :)

Not as good as I intended. I won with a pacific victory by the japanese but it took us forever.

I forgot that after sealion, Russia automatically got into the fight (I thought this only applied to the USA) and they hit me the next round on my weakened eastern front (I thought I had another round to build up defenses). This offcourse gave Russia 3 times 3 IPC’s and another 3 for each because of the NO’s so they stacked a lot of money. There was not much I could do on that front but push them back into their own borders on the next turn. I made a push eventually into Leningrad and that’s where our game ended because of the Pacific victory. On the western front I had to build bombers (I think in the end I had 9 bombers) to bomb the hell out of the american vessels that came in to close. They managed to land in N-africa and southern france but I was able to hit them back of the continent. Then my airforce was too strong for USA to come in close anywhere. USa was also mainly focusing on the European theater so I really had a hard time maintaining the Germans and the Italians as I had to fight off 70 IPC’s per turn.

The Italians did terrible in Africa due to bad rolls. My fleet was crippled and I couldn’t push the enemy out of Cairo due to slow recovery of my fleet. When the americans decided to land in Africa. I took on a defensive role for Italy wich worked out. This did miss out the valuable aspect of getting to 40-50 IPC’s and taking on the Russians while Germany could focus on the USA.

Then Japan also had terrible rolls in China with losing a lot of their infrantry wich are really slow to resupply. I was almost being overrun by Russia, China and India so I had to keep reinforcing. I got so fed up with it that I had 4 minor IC’s in China to push them back. I also landed units in Iraq and built a minor IC to keep the pressure away from Germany and Italy. I was able to take out the american and indian fleet so I controlled the waters. I was able to capture Hawaii and when I landed 20 units in Canada in the end, I also took over Sydney and won on the 6VC count in the pacific.

to summarize, due to stiff resistance I had to adjust my strategy in order to be able to help out in Europe. I think I could have gotten some control in the end over the US as when my troops landed. He had to focus aon Japan and so my 8 transports from Operation Sea Lion could’ve loaded 16 troops and drop them anywhere on the American continent in 2 moves. I was also able to resupply Canada with Japan with 14 troops a turn as I had a major IC on korea as well to double the production. All in all it was a good game but due to circumstances, I had to postpone my plan to invade the USA.

1. Yes, Sealion is very important. This will be the main distraction to the USA and with enough fighters and bombers they should be able to keep US ships at a distance. If the US decides to come at full force, this means that they probably abandoned somewhat the pacific campaign. Also when London is captured, the Germans should produce around 55 and 60 (with the help of NO’s) and should be able to keep track with the US income. Also Sealion is very important to crush the UK and keep them from reinforcing troops into Africa wich becomes beneficial to the Italian part of the plan.

2. London should fall turn 3. This way this gives the Italians 3 rounds to whipe out the resistance in northern africa without being reinforced. Italy should be producing between 40 and 50 (with the help of NO’s) to whitstand the Russians and advance in the middle east to the Caucasus. Those 4 infrantries in Iraq are very welcome. This should open up another front against Russia and put them into a more defensive role then it already is. I’m hoping to advance a little with Japan as well in the soviet far east. The main part is to keep Russia into a defensive state and making sure they don’t have enough power to attack.

3. I think I’ll invade Alaska, British Columbia and hopefully Hawaii too at the same time. with a NB in British columbia or alaska my transports can get back in 1 move.

It will be dificult because the US capital is on the wrong coast for the japanese hehe… and i’m expecting him to drop a lot of infrantry on me. However, this also means that his naval builts will be 0 and the atlantic ocean is open for the Germans. With the transports I’ll still have from operation sealion (I usually go in with 7 or 8), I can load units and go to Iceland to Invade Canada from the top as well and maybe make another front on the USA.

I’m also very curious to see how this goes but it will be a change to the games I’ve recently played. I always wanted to invade the USA but I’ve never really figured out how to do it. Let’s hope this has a shot at working.

Yes, I think I’m going to keep the Russians busy with the Italians (your italian units Fieldmarschall, many thanks for those :D ) and the remainder of my german forces. I’m not really going for a victory in Russia. I’m playing a little less experienced player and that’s why I’m going to try this tactic. I’m pretty sure it could never work against an experienced player. I’m actually not sure if you can take over the USA if ur playing an experienced player.

How does a kill America strategy first work? You divert their attention to the European board while you scale a massive offensive with japan in Canada supported by carriers and planes? (transports get their in 1 move) But then it still takes 2 moves to get to Washington with 2 major factories and more then 60 IPC’s to spend in between… Anyone?

Well I’ll be playing as axis later today and I’m going to try to do it. Take out london and Paris, harrass the americans the whole time in Europe so I can try to work my way up with Japan and capture the USA.

We played it and it’s really fun hehe to use the canadians. We always move them to Brazil and then reinforce Africa with those 4 infrantries (1 u drop off and the other 3 u get from Brazil). Then the others we sent to London to reinforce them after USA liberated it. They occupied Norway wich was very important and fought alongside the Russians. It’s really satisfying to put that first Canadian token on an axis territorry :)

It doesn’t really change the game as I tried to keep the game as balanced as possible with the alpha+3 rules. It gives the allies a little bit more breathing space after London falls. It’s like having an anzac force in Europe.