Posts made by Shaniana

Often, a game between experienced players goes like this:

Germany buys at least some ships in its first turn. GB has to buy units in London to make a Sea Lion too costly. Some buy only inf, some buy 6 inf 1 fighter. Then Germany goes all in on Russia, the US invades Norway, Southern France or even Rome, but that does not make a difference and Germany takes Moscow (although Allied fighters are making it harder). Then, the game is over.

If, however, Germany is tempted and does a (successful) Sea Lion, often a game takes the following course: the US has a very good place to drop (London) which cannot be taken back by a stack of mechs from Western Germany. Russia makes some extra money from the Balkans and Finland, temporarily, and is able to hold long enough until London is liberated.

So, sometimes you wish Germany tries a Sea Lion, right? What if… what if you bought some units with GB that are useful in the first some rounds (inf in London is not), say three tanks in South Africa and a fighter in London (or two fighters and only two mech in SA). Then Germany has a tough choice: Turn on Russia and let the GB buy go unpunished - or try a Sea Lion (second turn, GB buys all in London of course if Germany bought transport ships) which is often considered not to be the best option to win the game.

What do you think? Provoke a Sea Lion to win the game?

I just wonder: Has it ever happened in one of your games that Germany took Moscow and still lost the game afterwards?

And I don’t mean that the German player miscalculated something and lost Berlin in the very same turn. I am more interested: is it possible for UK and US to beat Germany after Moscow is lost? Maybe if they already took out Italy and liberated France?

Personally, I don’t think so. But I am interested in your experiences!

Unfortunately, the topic has slightly changed. For those still interested: We tried a game last weekend, giving the US player an extra National Objective worth 15 IPCs that only triggered after declaring war on the Axis. The US player went very heavy on Japan (as did UK) and more or less crushed him by the time Germany took Moscow with heavy casualties. The Axis then surrendered, which rarely happened. I have to admit it was late at night, though. So: win for the Allies that usually tend to lose our games. Might have been look, of course. We plan to try again, maybe only ten IPC.

Oh, we play world domination, no victory cities.

We - as many other players - have made the experience that the Axis tend to win most of the games if they play it straight. Thus, we would like to improve the Allied side.

But we do not believe in bids and units positioned at the beginning. As mentioned in other threads, that changes the game completely, if, for example, the UK fleet or even France survive. That’s not what we intend.

So we thought about giving the US player more money. It would create once again the feeling for the Axis that they have to hurry, because if they do not, they will be crushed by the American player. On the other hand, it does not change the initial setting. Has anyone any experience with that?

We thought about ten IPCs per turn from the beginning (by increasing the value of Eastern United States, for example), or twenty IPCs per turn through achievements (by adding the achievement "be alive and earn 20 extra when at war). What do you think?

I would like to share some thoughts about that strategy. I encountered it just this weekend, and I lost playing the Allies. Nevertheless, I do not think it is overpowered. Why?

Let’s start with what the strategy is good in:
-Germany is obviously flexible
-Germany can deny any small naval force to approach Europe
-Germany can defeat even a huge drop force when you have like ten mech inf stationed in Western Germany
Therefore, I do think it is a rather defensive strategy. It has obvious weaknesses when attacking Russia:

As pointed out by LeClerc (who is, as always, a good analyzer), you cannot attack Russia without ground forces, and German ground forces cannot approach Russia if you have not bought additional units. Russia buys mostly inf and art and waits for the German to come one step too close. You can of course sit and wait until your economic gains from the Russian territory and the bombing raids on Moscow allow for a save approach, but: I do think there are other strategies to allow Germany to defeat Russia late in the game – that is not overpowered.

Moreover, Anit aircraft comes in handy: assume you have Bombers/3 AA units. They fire three times at 1, thus, are better than inf, and they hit a plane, not a mech inf. They only shoot once, but all inf I could buy instead would be killed in the first round and, thus, also only shoot once.

So, Russia can hold out for some time. In our game, we tried to invade Europe and had a huge force assembled to counter the German bombers. That force could participate in the attack, so we were able to easily take Rome. The problem I see is that if you cannot achieve more than taking out Italy before Moscow falls, the German player has enough to counter US and GB if he focusses completely on them. But you could either be more successful with your D-Day, or you just send everything to Japan. So: not overpowered.

I should add that we do not play with victory cities or bids.

@Young:

@creeping-deth87:

Russia can declare against Japan whenever they want.

Correct… and I find that there are many diverse opinions as to when and why Russia should DOW on Japan.

Why should they not do so in the first round? Is there any downside?
Of course only declare the war. Not attack.

Good point! Thanks!  :-D

A short question about US movement: I know it is not meant that way (or is it), but the rules say:

“While not at war with Germany or Italy, the United States may end the movement of its sea units on the
Europe map only in sea zones that are adjacent to U.S. territories…”

What if I move to, let’s say, SZ 86 in my nomcombat move, than walk into Brasil… and miraculously my move ended in a SZ that is “adjacent to U.S. territories”?

A gambling Russian player might try the following:

You have your vast stack in Ukraine or Western Ukraine and your Finn guys moving from Novgorod to Belarus. The Russian stack of course is in Bryansk.

Now the Russian player is forced to retreat, you think. However, he attacks Belarus with a large stack from Bryansk and one Marine from Smolensk. After killing almost all of your Finn guys, he retreats to Smolensk and is now in a good position. He guardes Bryansk with one Marine against a German Blitz, of course.

Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course… :)

But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…

@ItIsILeClerc:

As for the second point, why should the Finns be out of order?
This would only be the case if Russia puts up a strong enough defense in Leningrad. I have seen this happen a couple of times now and I can tell you this will cause Germany taking Moscow in force with Russia in control of Leningrad  :-o. All Germany needs to do is ignore the Leningrad defenders and mop them up after Moscow has fallen. Game over.

I dont meant that they were stuck in Novgorod. But where do you move the guys from Finnland? They can attack Moscow from Smolensk or maybe Vologda. Your major stack, however, attacks Moscow from Bryansk. A vast Russian stack in Smolensk could now attack your armies seperately. If you just have some men north, he might not kill your big stack in the south, but the smaller in any case. If you split your army in two halfs, the Russian can decide which one to crush, leaving you with not enough troops to attack Moscow.

This is what I meant…

@ItIsILeClerc:

@oztea:

The soviets still having the “2” IPC territories in the south under their control would weaken the potency of a strategic bombing campaign IMHO.

Agreed.
I really don’t see any advantage of the ‘Northern’ route (Smolensk) over the Southern, as East Poland->Western Ukraine->Bryansk->Moscow is as fast as East Poland->Belarus->Smolensk/Bryansk->Moscow. The Southern route gives all the mentioned additional strategic options (Africa/ME/India) whereas the Northern has none.
Attacking either Leningrad or Ukraine with brute force (other than its fast units, the finns and its air) is a German mistake, but defending either one with Russia is an even bigger one (as Wild Bill already explained why, I’ll not), so both ICs will be in German hands anyway when either of the above ‘Moscow-approaches’ are taken with the German doomstack and Russia does not want to loose Moscow.

But by going south, you miss, first, the opportunity to bring slow units by ship, as Jennifer mentioned. Second, and more severe, you cannot use the Inf from Scandinavia for the attack on Moscow. How do you reunite them? When they arrive next to Bryansk, they vanish unless accompagnied by the rest of your troops. If you split, as Shin Ji suggested, half of your troops will die without destroying much.

@knp7765:

Meanwhile, Germany took out the Royal Navy round 1 and purchased a CV, DD and SS (looking like a typical Sealion buy).

Thus, when they sailed to the U.S. coast, they had a lot of transporters, but not many battleships. And only two planes. Couldn’t the US player simply have bought navy and used his planes (on carriers and scrambling) to deny the invasion easily? Of course, San Francisco would still fall, but as you stated, this can easily be repaired because Japan cannot keep pouring forces to North America.

If, for some reason, I decide that my Fighters (and maybe even my bomber) has other business than to visit the Italian shore in round 1 for this tarantula thing, for example because a Sea Lion seems immenent or because I need to attack a badly protected German fleet, whatever - what are you doing in Africa if you can only kill the transport next to Malta, but not the two Italian fleets next to Italy?

I could kill Tobruk with planes, fast units and the transport ship, but the Italian can easily kill all survivors. I can try to fortify Egypt, but with two trannies and his air intact, he can overcome me there as well… I could sacrifice my mediterrean navi in a bold attempt to kill as many Italian ships as possible without the RAF from England, I could retreat all ships through the canal, for later or for India… what would you do?

The rulebook states:
Industrial complexes can’t be built on islands (see “Islands,” page 8).
On page 8, I find:
An island or island group is a single territory surrounded entirely by one or more sea zones. A sea zone can contain at most one island or island group, which is considered one territory.

Does that mean that Japan is an island and that I am not allowed to build a factory there?

Thank you very much, that was exactly what I wanted to know. And it was more about the princible, not the specific example.
Another question:  The rules state:

“Land units belonging to friendly powers must load on their controller’s turn…”.

In your own turn, you must take your own units from the land adjacent to your freighter, you cannot move a tank from a land far away before. However, if you board an allied freighter, you a are supposed to move there yourself - so, can a British tank move from Burma to Shan State and then board an ANZAC transport vessel in SZ 37 in one single (British) turn?

A question about retreats and suicide missions:

Imagine two of my fighters start at my airbase in Dutch Guinea. They fly five spaces to SZ 6. It is possible because my empty carrier moves there, too. Along with 10 Battleships or something. Imagine further that for some reason I occupied Korea. Now the battle begins because there are 123 enemy ships.

May I retreat my Carrier? What happens to my planes?

I suppose the planes will be taken out of the fight, but remain in the same zone? They will die? They are not allowed to move to Korea as, say, units scrambling and using their home base are allowed to? I am allowed to retreat the carrier even though that will doom the fighters? I cannot retreat the battleships and leave the carrier (or the planes) fighting?

@ItIsILeClerc:

Regarding A G2 DOW on Russia:
I strongly believe it is inferior to a G3 DOW, because the Russians can optimally strafe the invading German units, making it impossible for Germany to attack deeper into Russia G3. This effectively turns the G2 into a G3 with a worse unit composition and balance for Germany.

Would you mind enlightening me on how this is done? If Germany moves all his tanks not needed in France in Round 1 and all his Marines adjacent to Poland into Poland in Turn 1, he can move a mighty force into the Baltic States in Turn 2. If I attack it for one or two battle rounds, he will lose marines, but I will lose even more Marines. Thus, on G3, he can (with the support of the Luftwaffe) press the Attack. I might kill some Tanks and some planes, but I’ll lose a great part of my own army, and the route to Moscow seems empty as the German Mech-Marines will arrive soon. What am I missing?

@Krieghund:

@Shaniana:

Is the basic rule that every British unit counts as “Europe” as soon as it is on the European board and treated accordingly (may not enter Russia), whereas every UK Unit in Asia is treated as Pacific and may enter Russia, regardless of where it started or was built or anything?

UK units are just UK units, no matter where they are or where they came from.   The distinction here is which map the Soviet territories are on, not the source of the units moving into them.

@Shaniana:

What if my Russian airplane lands on a carrier off the Indian cost, and that carrier then tries to move to Africa?

The carrier may not leave the Pacific map until either the Soviet fighter leaves it or the USSR is at war in Europe.

@Shaniana:

And what about an ANZAC fighter entering the European board? Is it allowed to fly to Russia’s European side?

No.

Thanks alot!

@Shaniana:

The Soviet Union is a neutral power at the beginning. But it may declare war on Japan, which makes her non-neutral in Asia. She can then move units into China, for example. But in Europe, she is still neutral. She may not move units to England, for example. While the fighters from England obviously cannot fly to Moscow, I suppose ANZAC fighters could land in Soviet Far East. But what about fighters from India, can they land in Soviet Far East? ANZAC and GB are at war with Germany and Italy, they are not neutral. In Asia, the SU is not neutral anymore. Although they have no common enemy, they should be able to interact. But what now if the ANZAC fighter flies to Moscow? Is it allowed to enter the �European� board? What if a fighter from India enters Moscow? What if a fighter starting in Egypt flies to India and then to the Soviet Far East?

Sorry to insist on this, but I might end up playing the allies again that weekend and… I still did not figure out all the answers to this question. Is the basic rule that every British unit counts as “Europe” as soon as it is on the European board and treated accordingly (may not enter Russia), whereas every UK Unit in Asia is treated as Pacific and may enter Russia, regardless of where it started or was built or anything?

What if my Russian airplane lands on a carrier off the Indian cost, and that carrier then tries to move to Africa?

And what about an ANZAC fighter entering the European board? Is it allowed to fly to Russia’s European side?

@Uncrustable:

And you really need an aircraft carrier. Just think for 16 IPC you can get 3 units (2 fighters) into the water with a total defensive value of 10!

But aren’t these 10 defensive point and the 16 PC just idling, doing nothing but fishing, if he DOW Russia? When the US or UK fleet comes at last, it will be too big for that one carrier anyway…