Posts made by Romulus

I see, so the proposed approach is a reactive strategy in which German player focus is to maximize defense in WE, GER e EE.
As I said I am willin to test this strategies!  :-)

Thanks!

I understand the needs for a more focused land strategy for German and I will try it for sure in the next matches, maximizing expenses for infantries, panzers and aircrafts. There are a lot of threads on this forum that proposes this as the better strategy for Germany.

However I believe that a minimum consideration for naval power is fundamental also for Germany. And for me finding the right equilibrium is still an open problem.

In my experience in games whit my playgroup, the loss of Baltic Fleet opens always an highway to invade Germany and Eastern Europe, so German defense had to be spread in three territories: Western Europe, Germany and Eastern Europe. This means a more tiny defense or to renounce to defend strong everywhere.

With Baltic fleet intact the Allied could hit directly only Western Europe, so Germany have to place fighters in two places: SZ-5 and France.
Ok, UK/US may always try to sink Baltic fleet and invade in the same turn, but if Sz5 is well defended this is not going to be a walking in the park.

A landing in Western Europe drain German resources to counter-attack.
A landing in Eastern Europe, even if unsuccesfully, disrupts the pipeline of infantry reinforcment on the Eastern Front and this is not a good event, it slows down the assault on Moscow.
A landing in Berlin… ouch!

I am aware that I am still green and inexpert at Axis and Allies but I am a good studious of History (and this is way I like A&A  :-D).
Naval power may not be understimated without the worst consequences in every military conflict. The competitor that have the naval supremacy may lands troops everywhere and at same time is safe from enemy landings.
Napoleon quits all the plans to invade England after defeat at Trafalgar and that was the first step of his final defeat.
Germany have lost two World War, one after the other, also because German Navy has not been able to gain the upper hand (this is not the only reason naturally).
Roman Empire was built not only with the mighty Legions but also with a powerful Fleet that gained the control on Mediterranean Sea (that was called by them “Mare Nostrum”).

I am not saying that I do not believe in German Land Strategies. I am only saying that IMHO having also a complementary naval strategies may help to stay alive a little more time, and also may help in staying alive better.

I presume that you are speaking of National Advantages when you say starting advantages.

Considering that generally NA in the original A&A Rules are considered flawed and unbalanced, favoring too much the allies, I will consider only NA stated in Larry Harris Tournament Rules.

For Japan my preferred NA is Banzai Attack and IMHO is also the best NA for Japan. However I like also Most Powerful Battleship… Yamato and Musashi have always fascinated me!

For Germany my favour is for Atlantic Wall, INF defending at 3, even if only for the first turn of an amphibious landing, is very useful.

Sanya33, you may see the thing in the following way if the fighter belong the same nationality of the Aircraft Carrier.
At the start of that nation turn fighters from carrier are launched and start their “fly operations”. They are in the air upon the same sea zone in wich the carrier is. From that moment they can go in combat, the same in wich you, in case, send the AC or in another, on sea or on land. They can also stay in air in the sea zone until the end of non combat move.
At the very end of non combat move you must land your fighter somewhere. So they must reach a territory or a sea zone in wich they can legally land: a territory you own from the start of the turn or the same carrier from wich they start, or another carrier, even one of an allied nation.
Or, if they moved to fight a battle in a sea zone, without the carrier, the AC can move and they perform a “rendez vous” to land.
Summarizing the fighters and the AC act independently for all the turn and are not bound in doing the same movement.

Thanks! I will try to switch to a more land based strategy in next matches.  :-D

Summarizing the problem of my collegue was the lack of infantry caused by the money spended for ships and subs! I will try to persuade him to try this strategy!

Yes Jennifer, it was the tactic adopted by Allied players, the problem has been … that I was the Axis player on the receiving end of such tactic, not a nice place to stay!

As I said they were a little more subtle and leave Germany open to counterattack, hoping that I liberate Berlin to allow then US/UK counterattack to grab German IPC!
Their build-up were in France and in Algeria, from where their troops advanced on foot onward Africa and Asia.
Finally I chose to concede.

The disaster has became after a succesfull German attack on UK/US fleet aimed to destroy TRN and disrupt landing in Norway, in order to gain tempo to assault Russia. German sank almost all the TRN (4 UK and 4 US), but losing all 4 attacking sub and also three fighter. My German colleague did not rebuilt Baltic Fleet leaving it to 1 AC, 1 DD and 1 TRN and built Panzer to assault Russia assisted by me (Japan). The assault had gone well, after 3 turns Russia fell, but meanwhile US/UK rebuilt fleet and the turn after the fall of Moscow they struck the Baltic Fleet, sank it, and invaded Berlin!

So I have a question. How do you deal with US/UK fleet that lands troop in Norway or Algeria every turn? I am aimed to have a Baltic Fleet with 3 or 4 SUB tu use as fodder in assitance to air attack on the Allied fleet. Or should Germany be more active in Atlantic sending out SUB in order to “occupy” Sea Zone hindering Allied combat moves? Or there is another approach to solve the problem?

Tanks ncscswitch!

I was hoping that my interpretation was wrong, but it seems that things goes as I thought!
Next time I will be Japan I try to push on Moscow at least a turn earlier… and maybe it could be useful to plan a Japanese conquering of Caucasus!

During my last game I had the following situation: I (Japan) conquered Moscow and in the following round UK/US took Berlin.
Germany had still 20 (or more, I don’t remeber exactly) theoretic IPC (because German capital was in enemy hand there was no income and no purchase for her).
The Caucasus IC was in German hand but the only Axis troops around was Japanese units, Geman army was almost obliterated, so defefese of so called German terriotories was on Japanese shoulder.

Reading the rulebook the only way for Japan to build units in Caucasus was to allow Allied to conquest Caucasus then reconquest it placing territory under Japanese control and start to build unit there in the next turn. It is my interpretation correct?
Furthermore, the other German controlled territory (their own grey territory and former russian red territories conquered) may not be converted to japanese control without being conquered by allies and re-conquered by Japan?

I ask these because my smart allied opponent leaves berlin open to counterattack, hoping that I reconquest it for allowing German to collect income and then strike again Berlin to grab away German income. Moreover, they avoid to conquest German territories on estern front, preferring to lands troop in Africa and come to Russia from there.
So IPC from German territories was out of reach for me and I have to allow Allied to conquer them and then hoping to retake. So I was defending economically useless territories.
It seems an asymmetric rule to me! There was 20+ IPC “locked” and useless that I can not grab without making “strange” moves!

Jennifer and Ncscswitch,

I see your point of view. Consider, however, the fact that I and my friends are still green at A&A.
As I said the apparently good behaving of the German AC maybe due to our inexperience as Allied to counter that move.

I’d like to make some considerations, give me your opinion, please.

I think that having a fleet in Baltic, allows German to build TRN (to carry troops in Norway or Karelia or to menace an invasion of England).
Moreover German can build some U-Boote to be used in counterattaking UK/US Fleet using Aircraft and U-Boote as fodder, so avoiding losses to Luftwaffe. My idea is not to grab Sea supremacy from allies but to sink TRN and disrupt landing of unit in Norway.
Without an existing fleet in Baltic every sub built will be destroyed soon after its launch.

In my opinion the problem is that loosing the Baltic Fleet, leaves Gemran open to invasion, and it is another territory to be defended using also aircraft, so probably the two planes on the Carrier should be used in Germany and can not be used in Western Europe. Moreover its necessary to have a stack of infantry in Germany so its necessary to purchase enough INF every turn to deploy in Germany replacing the units moved to the eastern front and to France. Moreover a strike in Germany, even a failed one, may “insert a bubble in the pipeline” of reinforcement.
Finally, without sea unit every counterattack on th UK/US navy has to be made only with air unit and I dislike to loose aircraft with Germany.

This are my consideration that may be consequences of my inexperience and casued by an erroneous overall Axis strategy.
I have noted, for example, that the more the Japan presses on Russia, the more US and UK try to react making sub optimal moves as employing units in Africa or in Pacific losing focus from the KGF strategy that is normally used in our games.
So the answer to my problem with Germany maybe… Japan coming to help!?!?!?!

I don’t know building an AC in SZ05 is a move that I like!
I agree with you that it has for sure the disadvantages that you described.
But it has also same advantages. I have played Germany in some games and I bought 1 AC and 8 INF fon G1.
After taking, Karelia and Ukraina on Eastern front, conquered Egypt (wiping that pesky UK fighter), and sunk the mediterranean BB, i found me in a very good position.
I may use the baltic TRN to ferry INFs directly in Karelia or even in Norway (on G2 I bought another TRN).
UK must be careful and watch for the spectre of Sealion, so stay at home, do not tries early landings in Africa or in Norway and do not send aircrafts in Russia.
USA send fighter and land unit to UK instead of Africa or Russia.
The two fighter on the AC are able to combat in Russia every turn in the ebb and flow of the Eastern Front.
Russia was leaved all alone to sustain Axis onslaught.
My Japanese Buddy blittzkrieg hit hard Russia back and Allied situation goes wrong every turn. Finally I used all my fleet to attack together with Luftwaffe the USA-UK fleet losing all my ships but wiping away all of them TRN and the British BB, leaving only the USA AC and a couple of Fighter.
So USA-UK was not able to land troop in Europe for a couple of turn, and I redirect all of my unit toward Russia that was conquered with a classic 1-2 German-Japan punch.
So we won the match.
Maybe we do not won for the German AC… maybe our Allied opponent (it was a 2 vs 2 match) was not able to counter.
In my opinion they was, maybe, too much cautios, and took too much time prior to counterattack in Africa and Then in Norway (it was UK3-US3 that they landed in Norway or even UK4-US4 i do not remember).
So German AC may not be an optimal move, may have for sure some disadvantages, but may create problem if the Allied do not handle it in a correct manner.

Hi Adymar Tyranis,

If you look in the past threads on this forum there are many interesting discussion about Japan Strategies (for example “Strategy for Japan and how long does it take to drive to moscow”)

They do not address your specific situation, but are still interesting to read, because regards overall Japan strategies. Japan strategies is aimed to put the much pressure is possible on Russia shoulder, while using its mighty fleet to keep UK and USA at bay. If they want to spend money in the Pacific, let them do that, while Japan Army run for Moscow and Germany build up with less opr none problems!

Regarding your specific situation, in my humble opinion, the UK strategy of your adversary is suboptimal, at least regarding the first move against Japan.
UK on first turn may sink Japan TRN in SZ59 and reinforce Pearl Harbour fleet with a fighter. Your situation, then, could be even worst than which you described.
But, for your specifica case, I definitely attach China and Buratya as you do. For the sea strategy, I think that using BB to bombard Buratya prevents a full strengh attack on Pearl Harbour, but you may send the DD, the SUB and some fighter with the Bomber maybe (not sending it to Buratya).
The other naval forces should regroup preparinng to argue with UK fleet.
This is only my personal idea, maybe others on this forum may say something more interesting and more correct to you!

@AJ:

Buyinh a UOSA IC is a waste

Do you intend the UK IC in South Africa?

In our games it is effective. It match the number of units sent to Afrika by Germany, and UK is able to contest the control of the southern part of Africa, while sending units in Norway and then in Russia.
When UK or USA are able to divert a fleet from sending troop in Norway, Germany is expelled from Africa.
Moreover we often use the German Mediterranean fleet to land INF in ukraine or in Caucasus bombarding the russian, so Africa army is not reinforced every turn.

Also on myWindows XP the Beta versione 0.9.1.0 is running fine!
And… the new look for revised is very very cool!
Maybe the problem is with Java?

I have the 1.5.0_09 runtime environment. Which jre are you using?

Zero Pilot do you know something about requirements on jre for TripleA?

Thanks U-505! I am organizing with TripleA, so when I will become a decent player I and Remus ( :-D) will be available for some play by email or even on line game! 
In regards to the IPC of Australia and New Zealand I agree with you, 4 IPC less for the UK have to be considered. Furhtermore if US player is willing to liberate them and is aimed to prepare an invading fleet to attack New Zealand and Australia (instead of pumping troops in Europe, or in Russia) I think that Japan may “unroll the red carpet”!
I like the plan of becoming involved in Africa after about 4 turns, that are about the turn in wich Allied had completed freed it!

Looking in past threads in this forum I have discovered that there are other discussion about Japan strategies, that I have still to read!

Sometimes in my games I found that mighty Japanese fleet sit idle withou doing nothing very useless. Cutting UK income should be a good employment.
Naturally Africa may be a priority in regards to Australia and New Zealand.

Thanks to both of you for your answers!

Saving 6 IPC on J1 is a thing I have never tried, but I am considering it interesting, so in the following J2 I can build an IC without cutting too much the production of land unit.
So the idea is to have 2 ICs and maybe 6 TRNs on J4.
Six transport will be enough to attach also in south Pacific and Africa other than Asia mainland. In such a way it is possible to cut UK income, maximize Japan income and indirectly help Germany.
The 2 ICs and the remaining TRN (about 4) should be able to put enough pressure on Russia.
It sounds great! I will try it as soon as possible.

I usually attach for conquering West Russia with 9 INF, 1 ART and 1 TANK.
Then I strafe Ukraine with 3 INF, 1 ART, 3 TANK and 2 FIG usually losing all the INFs and ART and saving TANK (and FIG!), but killing all German Infantry.
In my opinion this is the minimun and more conservative opening move allowed to Russia on R1. Being more conservative than this may create early problem on the russian western front.
For purchasing usually I go for 5 INF, 1 ART and 1 TANK.
Deployement is 3 INF and 1 ART in Caucasus and 2 inf and 1 TANK in Moscow.

Hello to all, I am new on this forum.
I’d like to have some advice on first turn for Japan.
In my playgroup we do not use bidding (we assign randomly the nations to the players) so there are no difference in the initial setup. (I think, however, that if we used bidding any additional IPC for the Axis will be used by Germany to increase forces in Ukraine or in Libya.)

In our games, British B1 moves are almost “standardized”.
B1 purchases are 1 IC (for South Africa), and 1 TRN, 1 INF, 1 ART.
Combat moves are:

• DD from SZ 35 (off India) attach Japanese TRN in SZ 59;
• Fighter from SZ 35 (off India) attach Japanese sub in SZ 45;
• British Home fleet (1 BB, 2 TRN) lands troops in Algeria;
  Non combat moves:
• Fleet off India flee toward South Africa (SZ 33 off Kenya);
• Plane in SZ 45 lands on USA fleet at Pearl Harbour;
• Fighters goes in West Russia;
• Bomber goes to Moscow;
  Considering that on J1 there is only one Japanese TRN available, I usually buy 3 TRN and 2 INF with Japan, in order to transport 8 unit on mainland from J2 on (considering that I take 2 INF from FIlippine), relying completely n TRNs and nly buying IC after turn 3, when it becomes possible to produce more than 8 units.

The problem is that with this B1 turn Japan moves are slightly slowed, because fleet in Peral Harbour require more effort to be destroyed, submarine may be sunk so less fodder is available, and only two units may be transported on the mainland in J1.
In some of our matches this Japanese sloweness has been fatal for Germany and Axis!
Is my answer adequate or Japan may try something different?
I say that because, usually, in the subsequents turn I am forced to choose one attach direction between India, Sinkinag or Yakut, do not been able to put adequate pressure on Russia and Britain.
Maybe I should buy an early IC? Or maybe I should buy fighters to increase offensive flexibility? (using central positioning for them, as in China for example)
Or there is nothing to do because after such B1 turn things has to go as they go? In that case Japan should focus on conquer India and then head for Cacucasus or should try the northern route to Moscow?