Posts made by SgtBlitz

I tried your strat out too (well, SOME kind of iteration of it) against Tyzoq, and, well… not much luck in getting it to work.  Here’s the thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21041.0

If you want to download the maps as you scroll through to see what’s going on sequentially, here’s the thread for Func’s Battlemap module.  Pretty good directions on installation and configuration are included:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20043.0

Germany ran into some problems right from the get-go in Russia on G3, my first stack in E Poland crumpled rather quickly right in the first counterattack (4 hits on the first defensive roll from 20+ units!!!  :roll:)  I also pretty much screwed up by NOT building the major IC in Norway on G2 and NOT having an extra 8 tanks available in Nenetsia for a G5 push on Moscow.  Germany did take Leningrad handily and was coming up with a decent sized stack on Moscow by G6, but was losing gas quickly at the end with a giant UK/US stack in W. France and SZ 110 fleet.  It was doing the best out of all the Axis sides, however, almost reaching the 60s in income a round.

With Japan I did a bid for the money islands (since I knew the mainland’s planes were going to be sent into Russia for awhile) while building a gigantic naval stack to sock the US at Pearl Harbor.  Japan rolled really well all game, crushing the US fleet at Hawaii, and destroying a large Russian stack in Volgogada, and it didn’t even matter, as China, India, and Russia’s Amur forces became major annoyances without those planes to keep them whittled down.  I couldn’t even spare any more land units past the first few rounds into Russia.  Also, attacking on J1 with the OOB setup let me grab the money islands fairly easily, but it also let the US have some SBmrs in the UK by Round 3, which screwed up my plans for attacking the capital on G4.

Italy was a terrible clusterfuck the whole game as the UK’s Taranto raid ensured they would be crippled the entire game (plus the counterattacks on I1 were simply pitiful…)  Basically all they did was turtle, and they did so very badly.

Realistically, I could only spare the 15 planes in Russia for only one or two rounds before running them right back to China as fast as I could.  If the US has SBmrs on the UK or somewhere in Russia by US 3-4 they can block in Vologda so the Germans can’t blitz through, so it might be a good idea to put a few Italian units on some of the German transports in SZ 112 on I2 so that they can take Vologda after Japan strafes it clear.  That was about the only hole I could see to the strat.

The maps and game strategies are great, its the unit setup that’s total crap.  Both of these games were meant as stand-alones and not part of a whole cloth.

If you’re Axis, go for Sealion.  If you’re Allies, defend the UK.  Make sure Russia builds a lot of infantry.  That’s pretty much it.

Hell, if the UK loses its capital and can’t liberate, its pretty much game over in Africa until the US gets there.  Italy will be getting 30+ IPCs a round whereas Africa is getting zero.  So the US better not have been sleeping at the switch for a US 4 takeback.

If Japan completely screws up in the Pacific there’s a chance the Commonwealth from India can have some fun taking it back, but this is usually not the case since India is usually Japan’s no. 1 target.

Ok, everyone, I tried out this strategy and ultimately conceded that game.  Here’s the thread if you’re interested:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.0

If you’re going to try this out, make sure Japan tries SOMETHING in S. America J3 to tie up the US for at least a few rounds.  US had like $92 for most of the game, and the Axis dropping the ball in the Atlantic/Med made it WAY too easy for the US to whup up in Europe.  Also, I played Italy like a demented retard, as the Italian BB had some awesome rolling killing TWO separate 95%+ UK attacks, and I also gave up a FREE IC in Egypt TWICE.  Don’t let the True Neutrals distract Italy, especially if you’re lucky enough to have your BB survive UK1!  Take Egypt and build/seize that IC on it!

Also, don’t throw away the German airforce in the Med trying to help the Italians, build a minor IC in Yugo and build subs or your fleet moved in from Gibraltar; I keep telling myself that every game, and every game I end up with just a few planes on the carrier by G3-4.

@calvinhobbesliker:

I’m not complaining that Sealion breaks the game; rather that it makes the UK very boring.

When was the UK’s job in any game NOT boring?  It always gets hammered by the Luftwaffe in EVERY A+A game on G1, before it has a chance to consolidate its spread-out fleet.  If A+A implemented a unit cap on how many units can potentially be in any given area/SZ, we’d have a much cooler game on our hands here (with a LOT more combat).  At least you can say in this game that going after the Luftwaffe potentially means a LOT more casaulties in France.

Heh, Africa is still entertaining.  Watching the Italians bumble around helplessly like they always do for the first few rounds is fun to watch.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Ugh. Royal Navy already dies, according to your changes all of Italy’s fleet survives to capture Africa, and you complain that the UK be given the chance to do something when London is captured, especially since it is impossible to prevent London’s capture?

What are you taking about?  They just beefed up London’s defense by 2 infantry, and gave them another +5 NO for at least UK1, if not UK2, with the new “+10 for Japs not at war” NO.  That’s at least another fighter the UK can build there to defend with.  Germany will still have to pay up the wazoo to build all the transports, AND defend them against the US, and all they got was a fighter in return (which is nice, but some way to hit Gibraltar’s NB or SZ 91 would have been better).  The USSR will be attacking like nobody’s business whenever Germany tries Sealion, and the US can still swing its Pacific fleet around at the drop of a hat to the Caribbean.  Sealion is still incredibly risky even WITHOUT the alternate capital rule.  Basically, it seems that the UK can act as two free planes + change a turn after Turn 4 for the US.

So, if Britain is able to do a rump state, why can’t Soviet Russia form one behind the Urals after Moscow falls?  Why doesn’t Germany form a new capital based in S. or W. Germany after it falls?  How is risking transports to take England on G3 or perhaps G4 ANY DIFFERENT from crushing Moscow on G6 or G7?  The capital rules NEED TO STAND, if nothing else than to give the game solid objectives and REASONS for people RISKING IPCs on various units.  Otherwise this game just becomes a big Yahtzee Infantry Push Mechanic, where we can see who can roll the most 1s or 2s defending their stacks.  UK falling on G3 is NOT the end of the game, calvin (well, maybe in E40, but not in Global).  You need to see it as an OPPORTUNITY for BOTH sides, rather than THE END.

Just a few thoughts, peoples.

Jesus, what a lot of changes…  Italy, 1 sub to BOTH SZ 95 and 97 instead of 2 SS in SZ 95 tho?..  WAAAH, I want my battleship as Italy!  1 sub is NOT going to deter the UK!  Put both those subs in SZ 95, I could care less about SZ 97; those units never do sh*t in the counterattack I1 for me anyway.

NOs, holy crap, what a mess.  Do the original NOs still count in most of these cases?  Japan can now get up to +25 a turn if they also control most of the Pacific now…  US kinda HAS to go after the Pacific too to get its +30 now too, I like it.  Still, the 70+ IPCs the US has a turn to throw at Europe, bummer.  Probably still needs a nerf.

Also, no building major ICs on FOREIGN territories…  Japan starts out with Kiangsu, no major IC there, since its original owner is China?  Can we get a clarification on this?  How in hell is Japan supposed to reinforce S. E. Asia without a major IC somewhere (3 minors, maybe, that cost more and are less effective?  FIC, Kiangsu, Manchuria, Malaya, Shantung?  Ugh…  Oh boy let’s build a Major IC in Korea… oh wait lets not.)?  It already is bad enough with not being able to raise new units on the money islands.

UK in exile rule, well, that REALLY throws the Axis from attempting a Sealion.  Wow, instead of risking 3 turns of production PLUS France’s captured IPCs to GAMBLE on POSSIBLY removing 30+ IPCs from the game board PERMANENTLY, FOR THE REST OF THE GAME (which is STILL a gamble with the US counterattacking), we now have a UK rump state in Canada which can still produce units under the benevolent 70+ US IPC GOD umbrella, not to mention them still causing a hassle for Italy from units produced in S. Africa.  NO THANKS.  “Sealion will be scrapped most games in favor of heavy Barbarossa”?  Really?  Hell, only an idiot would try Sealion now.  UK’s new strategy may be to PROVOKE a Sealion attack since they know it barely scratches them in the long term (oh big whup, Germany risks 100+ IPCs and irreplaceable starting units to take 30-40 UK IPCs and jolly old Britain is STILL producing 20-25 IPCs 2 turns later on from Ottawa.  Woohoo let’s start the 10 TRN build on G2!  Any takers, I’ll play Allies.  :-D  At least the new Nenetsia strategy against Russia will work still, so Germany still has a reason to build some transports…)  PEOPLE, COME ON!  You just gave the US a NEW +20-25 NO for LOSING the UNITED KINGDOM now!

Boooo, to the new UK capital capture rule.  Also, let’s touch on the True Neutrals a bit.  How about “Attacking any True Neutral causes other True Neutral Countries IN THE SAME CONTINENT (or Region) to become Pro-other side”?  Like Germany declaring war on Spain, Turkey, and Sweden is going to make Argentina BEG for Allied assistance to keep them from falling to the heathen Japs (not to mention recruit for FREE their entire standing army)?  Maybe we can make attacking Turkey lets both Saudi Arabia and Afganistan become Pro-other-side as a special case (WWII Islamic country bloc?), maybe attacking Spain causes only Sweden and Switzerland to become Pro-other-side.  Sounds like those would be good changes to me…

Thanks for your time, hope some of these ideas will be reconsidered.

Ah, yes, the best thing about this strategy are the OPTIONS.  You’re not pigeonholed into playing entirely defensive on the mainland, with 20 Japs threatening.

I like the Baltic idea better than the Caucasus route.  That’s 3 TRNs you’re building that the Russians will just shoot up with a plane on R3.  Plus, if you build 3 transports in the Black Sea G2, the UK is already at war with you, and its perfectly legal to FLY through the Dardenalles to kill them with a plane.

However you get the Jap air force to Europe though, earlier is probably better!  Its ridiculous that the Germans and Italians get as far as they do with the pitiful navies they start with!

So, in other words, you’d rather play a game down to the lowest common denominator, infantry stacks, as standard a play as humanly possible, with no attempt at bluffing or subterfuge or camouflage?  Wow, with the Axis having a net disadvantage against the +30 NO of the US from Round 4 on, you think having the Axis JOIN FORCES to take over Moscow by G5 is a bad idea? (And actually, the tank/air stacks combine on J3/G4!)  20 Jap planes and 16 German tanks thrown into the Soviet rear is absolutely nothing to worry about, according to IPM, right?  (Oh wait, that’s ~320+ IPCs (with possibly MORE incoming each round from German transports off Norway OR more planes dumped into Chahar’s airbase) dropped into the Soviet rear… Russia’s $37 a turn is going to take care of it!  YEAH…)

This is one of the best strategies I’ve seen yet, as there’s NO WAY the Japs can help out the Italians in the Med in any reasonable amount of time (which was often the case in AA50), and usually NO WAY to get Japanese and German stacks simultaneously sitting against Moscow (unless the Allies have really bobbled the ball and the game is obvious).  This strategy ENSURES that the Soviets will be forced to consolidate around their capital, and no matter what they do, it may still not be enough, if the Jap player uses his planes suicidally to open a hole for the Germans.  ITALIAN CAN OPENERS ARE A JOKE COMPARED TO THIS.

Plus, even if the seizure of Moscow IS temporary, it throws the Soviets into disarray for several rounds, they lose a turn of production, and Axis forces can run rampant all over while they retake the capital.  I assure you that the Soviets dropping the ball, even for a short period of time, in this version of AA with even greater distances and number of territories, usually means they’re going to keel over, as each map (Europe and Pacific) pretty much plays on its own.

ALSO, the best part about this strategy is that there is no real commitment until Germany 2, when you build the 5 TRN and the Major IC; you can always just call it off or go for Sealion (or just go for Sealion anyway on G3, if it looks favorable).

@SalothSar:

@gsh34:

@SalothSar:

@gsh34:

@SalothSar:

To stop this masterplan all the Russians have to do is put naval units in Sz 125,126 & 112…. 3 seperate targets for that huge Italian airforce. An experienced USSR player would see the Japanese airbase is meant for them and move/buy forces accordingly. No Japanese player would ever build an airbase in Northern China to attack Chinese units or British in India.

True, but in order to do this, Russia would need to buy, at a minimum three destroyers, since a lone enemy sub can be ignored.  24 ipc is not an inconsequential amount of money for Russia.  Since this has the potential of a G3 move for Germany, Russia would have to do the purchase on R1 so that they could move them into blocking position on R2.  What Russian player is going to do a three destroyer build on R1?  Also, Japan doesn’t even buy the air base until J2 which would be way too late for Russia to respond with a naval build.  R2 already happened!!!  Germany goes next which means G3 happens and there isn’t anything Russia can do in response to the Japanese air field/air force movement.

I like the first word in your reply, “TRUE” so you agree you masterplan can be easily stopped!

No, it is not easily stopped.  To do the naval blocks that you suggest with the Russian naval units, they would have to purchase at minimum three destroyers on R1.  What Russian player would spend 24 ipc on R1 for three destroyers? If they wait until R2 to respond, it is too late and they can’t stop it!!!  Now, they can move there ground units around to have a counter attack into Nenetsia as some have suggested, but if those ground units are in Archangel or another adjacent territory to Nenetsia, then they aren’t at the western front waiting for Germany!

Easily stopped

No, NOT easily stopped.  Even IF the 3 DDs somehow succeeded in blocking off Nenetsia and stopping the Italian FIGs from blasting a way through, Germany could just be like:  “Aw, screw this noise, I’m going to Britain after all!” and attempt a proper Sealion anyway.  You’ve just spent 24 IPCs that could of been used on the Eastern Front doing much more useful things.

Think kungfujew and I switched sides (I’m Japan he’s Italy), but sure, looks like the gang’s all here.

@mike:

Last time i played the Germany player on t1 used 2 subs to attack the UK DD and CV on G1.  The CV was damaged the DD destroyed and the fighter had to land at Gibraltar and the carrier had to go back to the UK to avoid being killed.  This prevented Taranto, but it also meant that more of the UK fleet in the North Sea survived.

What the hell was the UK guy smoking here?  The CV was repaired on start of UK1, and he could STILL of sent the TAC over to SZ 95 from Gibraltar (Airbase!) along with the FIG and CA from Egypt to kill SZ 95.  Hell, if he wanted to be suicidal, he could of even sent in the CV too for an extra two hits, just to have made sure.

Italy NEEDS some subs (1-2 SS) in SZ 95 methinks, to make it fair.  Whoever out there is saying that the Taranto raid is historical, Italy had like a hundred submarines in service, one of the largest submarine fleets in the world at the time (second only to Russia!  218 subs in Russia in 1941!  Germany herself only had 57 in operation at the time hostilities commenced, most were constructed during the course of the war.)  Britain only historically attacked Taranto with air units; bringing in the DD and CA should let them engage the subs there, and allow the Italian player to fob off some extra naval hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regia_Marina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsmarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy

WHY does Germany get to start with 5 U-boats vs. Italy’s NONE, when HISTORICALLY Italy had 2x as many subs at the start of the war than Germany did?  Maybe something called GAME BALANCE???  Or perhaps Larry WANTS Germany to kill 90% of the Royal Navy at Round 1 to give the Axis half a chance of victory, not to mention the fact that the Germans are the best positioned to use them effectively?  At any rate, it looks like a Taranto raid is the ONLY WAY the UK can get some kind of a revenge for the G1 sinking of 90% of its fleet around Britain.

If we go by the numbers, Russia should start with about 20 submarines to Germany’s 5, while Italy gets 10 in the Med.  VERY different game.

Also, it appears that the UK had as many submarines as the Germans did at the start of WWII…  Where are those?

http://www.secondworldwar.org.uk/britsubs.html

Oh noes Italy sends a fighter(s) from N. Italy to SZ 125 on its turn; OH NOES MY PLANZ ARE RUINED!!!11!!!1one

You’re on, kungfujew…  I had a big reply all typed up and ready to go and the x50 error on the wonderful Axis and Allies website nulls all my typing AGAIN.

How about just moving Naval Bases from the game entirely?

Or just removing the ability to send units 3 spaces away.

Or making the Atlantic bigger again…

I was really happy about this 1940 game when I heard it was going to take the US 2 turns to reach Europe from the East coast.  WRONG…

@maverick_76:

From what it sounds like that could work but I think you can’t go all out unless the US really makes a big mistake. You have to play in Asia with Japan in order to keep India out of Europe and Africa. But this is definitely viable, but you still have to have some luck.

Yeah, definitely to point one there.  But “playing in Asia with Japan in order to keep India out of Europe and Africa”…  The UK usually sends those ships and planes into Africa because they know they can push over Mussolini a HELL of a lot easier than trying to fight the monster 20 plane stack Japan has.

I guess what I’m (and more likely everyone else is) complaining about is:  for all the extra layers added to the game in the 1940 edition, the US STILL can blithely ignore the Pacific while focusing entirely on Europe, and largely get away with it.  And for all the closeness of Japan to the US (3 SZs to British Columbia!), it is more in Japan’s interest to send troops to Moscow than to try to get IPCs off the American heartland (impossible to take with US having 3 major ICs and 80 IPCs to spend!)

Still not balanced.  Maybe the best recourse is for Japan to send those 20 starter planes to Europe ASAP to give the Euro Axis a fighting chance.

Well, yes, its mostly a distraction than anything, and can easily be countered (of course, what HASN’T been countered in Axis and Allies), but wouldn’t it be better to have a lot of forces nearby, if not already IN the killzones, by the time you reach the “monster” Japan on turn 5 or 6?  You could definitely have a small force staged and ready to go for the money islands by J2, easily.  An AB in Kwangsi with a giant plane stack would go far in clearing out startup navies and transports around the money islands, and building at least 3 transports a turn is possible with Japan’s starting money for the first few turns, so you’re not missing that much.

I argued in another thread that Japan might actually be better off going to war later on since India and ANZAC are able to use the extra money island income LESS effectively during neutrality than the US, which receives a flat +30 NO bonus just because the rules say so.  Also, the US’s new units are built out of range of the 20+ extra planes Japan starts with.

Fantasy:  Of course, in most games, your Italian fleet in SZ 95 performs heroically and handily defeats the vainglorious British attempt to dominate the Med on UK1, which then on I1 goes on to destroy all the surviving French and UK ships giving your side a +5 NO for the rest of the game, stymying Allied attempts to sink your precious Italian transports through a never-ending series of battleship 4s.

Reality:  Okay, so the UK just bombed your capital ships to hell and gone, and you’re sitting with:

2 FIGs in Italy and a DD, CA in SZ 97

vs.

The French DD/CA, with the UK’s loaded CV (probably with 2 FIG) in SZ 93, and with really bad luck you may even have a UK CA surviving in SZ 95…

What’s a fascist Italian to do on I1?  Probably scream and cry for Hitler to come bail them out.

Germany is literally forced to come into play at this point, and probably sacrifice most of what’s left of their airforce (at least 3 planes, if not more) killing SZ 93 on G2 for Italy.  Which they may or may not wish to do, as it softens (if not cripples) their airpower needed for Sealion, if they wish to take that route, not to mention it simply saps them of a lot of expensive air units they’ll need later.  Germany probably doesn’t want to bail Italy out entirely just so Italy can possibly get a +5 NO for a few rounds later (not to mention Italy’s NO is completely unable to be maintained once the US/UK show up off Gibraltar/Egypt in force).

Usually with Italy I’ve thrown what I’ve had available at SZ 93 plus the FIGs to soften it up for the German strike on G2, so its not so unfair.  But it still seems like a waste, and I’m left with virtually zero supporting pieces on the FIRST FRICKING TURN.  As most people have seen, armies with a lot of 1s and 2s but no 3s or 4s tend to go nowhere fast.  1 ARM and 1 ART in Africa without air support or more reinforcements is a BAD idea, and generally Italy’s African forces are trapped and killed by the UK even before the US enters the war.  But how to reinforce if you can’t have a working navy?

Rather than trying to compete navally on I1, with minimal resources available, why not just build a fighter, and move everything to Alexandria, including 2 more INF on the surviving TRN?  Italy usually has enough local superiority with starting troops to take Egypt for at least one turn on I2, and once its taken German and Italian planes landed there can prevent the UK from trying anything for at least a few more turns.  By then Italy can have a minor IC in Egypt to maintain the balance against incoming UK forces from India and S. Africa, with Egypt as the bottleneck preventing Indian fleet getting into the Med.

Germany can build a minor IC in Yugoslavia on G2, and with subs produced in the Med can probably clear it without spending too much, especially if they control the Atlantic off England/Gibraltar to keep reinforcments from coming in (well, at least till turn 4 when the US shows up).  As long as Italy has some capability of reinforcing Egypt to match UK’s input from India and S. Africa, Italy can force a stalemate with the extra NO income without needing to buy too many naval units.  And if Italian carriers become necessary, you should still have some fighters lying around to land on them.