Posts made by Stikato

The main problem with the kill-USA strategy as I see it, and perhaps where there is opportunity for dscussion, is that there are little rewards for the Axis if they fail in their ultimate goal of taking Washington.

In other words, the Axis powers are rewarded with both territorial IPC and NO gains for going after the other Allies. An attempt at Moscow, although it may fail, will at least gain some IPCs for the Axis. A failed attempt at America could leave the Axis with nothing gained for their massive effort.

I would suggest that the Axis need one if not several secondary objectives to pursue should they fail to capture America in order to make the strategy more successful. For Germany and Italy, a strong push West in the early game should net them control over Gibraltar and the Med. Another benefit is that the required strong Axis naval force will keep the UK defensive. Japan should probably focus on removing as much of the US pacific income as possible, and should still take the DEI in order to finance the war effort.

A more fanciful idea would be for the Axis, in a scenario where they have deployed heavily, but are unable to take Washington, to instead drop their forces in South America. This could be part of a global neutral crush strategy…or the Axis could pile everything in to Brazil and use DD blocks and their existing forces to build a minor.

Gargantua is right–the money has to be spent on navy to match the American committment. A good way to make this manageable is to have Japan play in a manner that forces the US to spend lots of IPCs in the Pacific.

One way to do this early is to put a large navy with some amphib capability at Caroline. Even if it is a feint, the Americans may feel pressured into spending money and keeping assets west in order to retake Hawaii if necessary. It all depends on the opponent, but whatever it takes to convince the US player to mobilize in the Pacific makes holding Gibraltar easier.

My opponent is pretty skillful at taking and holding Gibraltar with the Axis. He buys a carrier and des on G1, taking Gib if possible on G2. On G3, he likes to back up the navy up to SZ 105 to get out of range of the US coast–while buying and placing 3 capital ships (BB/CV) in SZ 105 on the same turn. (An AB in Normandy would add to the stronghold, haven’t played Alpha 2 yet) This force has seriously delayed the US from advancing in past games, and from 105 it can reach the protected areas of the Med and the Baltic in the event that Germany decides to back down from the naval arms race.

Of course, it costs a lot of IPCs, but the results are quite nice. The UK is seriously weakened in the Med and Africa without the US presence, and German subs can blockade UK almost at will in the early rounds.

My early India strategy revolves around avoiding the J3/J4 crush. I like to take two inf from Malaya and take Java on UK1. The Anzac air force can land there on turn 1 as well and are usually ignored. Turn 2, UK takes Sumatra if still not at war. Taking the East Indies and making only inf buys are crucial to provide those few extra units needed to survive J3 in particular. The two inf could be brought to India instead, but they can net 12+ IPC’s by going on the “offensive.”

By turn 4, India can be in serious jeporday against a determined Japan, often needing allied support by this point. The Russian air force can prove to be a critical last-minute defensive addition, but this is hard to set up for, as there are no convienent staging areas on R3, and this move has to be done before Japan’s intentions are revealed on J3.

By turn 5 and beyond, India’s fate starts to depend more and more on the balance between Japan’s commitment to take it and the other Allies’ effort to defend it. Depending on the balance in the European theatre (i.e. Sealion) the US can shuttle planes into India as early as US5.

My gaming group used to refer to losing one’s capital unexpectedly as a “pooch.” As in, you pooched the game when you let the Russians amphib Berlin! (I have done it, lol!)

When we used to play Revised and Anniversary we would, as a courtesy, let our opponents know when they had made a mistake that would end the game. This of course led to its own set of problems and arguments. The last straw was when I had two capital captures reversed in one game when my opponent “didn’t see it” and ended up losing the game I had basically won twice.

With the debut of Global 1940, the days of us letting each other know about bad mistakes is over, possibly with the exception of turn 1 or 2. Reason being–the game takes too damn long to play (for us) and therefore it just doesn’t make sense to artificially prolong it.

When there is no immediate Sealion threat: The advantage of grouping the UK Navy at Gibraltar (I use SZ 92) on UK1 is that–with help from redeployed Indian planes–it can kill the Italian Navy unless it stays in SZ 95 or 97 on I1. In SZs 93, 94, 96, 98, and 99, the Italian Navy dies I2.

If an airbase becomes non-operational due to SBR, does that prevent scrambling on that turn? (Since SBR happens “first”)

In other words, if Germany was able to knock out the AB in the UK, and the UK saved their fighters for a naval battle in 110, could the UK scramble to protect 110 on that German turn?

Nice catch OP, hadn’t seen that one mentioned before. I think its a decent move for the US to build an AB there. If/when the Sealion threat passes, SZ 119 could be a nice spot for the Brits to move a Canadian-built fleet with US fighter cover.

kdfsjljklgjfg’s point is well-taken, usually the US will bring a sizeable fleet. But with the VC changes in the newest rules, the US might have to do things on the cheap in the Atlantic just to avoid losing in the Pacific.

The US could “hide” their starting Atlantic transport up in SZ 122 on US1 or 2, and take Eire with it once war is declared, flying 3 fighters to Gibraltar the same turn. Next turn, UK can move its Canadian fleet, if any, to 119; then the US builds the AB and lands fighters. The US has all those forces to begin with, so a minimum of 15 could be spent in the Atlantic for the first few turns to get 3 4’s defending the west coast of the UK. Any Sealion threat pretty much kills this one though, the Germans will just amphib the planes.

You are correct–friendly ships belonging to other powers that are in the same SZ as an amphib assault do not fire during the attack.

I’m very pro-Russian mech myself. They have served me the best by allowing the Russians to quickly position massive counterattacks that force the Germans to back off. In other words, while the Germans might be able to push to Leningrad or into the group of 2ipc southern territories in the early game, the ability of the Russian mech to get into attack range quickly tends to prevent the German army from camping out and collecting Russian IPCs.

Of course–as Calvin notes–Russia benefits greatly by having some offensive units to go with the mech. Personally, I find that building a few tanks to keep with the mech stack, along with some early artillery purchases gives the Russians a mobile  counterattack that limits the flexibility of the German player while enhancing your own.

As far as the Russian airforce R1 buy—I used to love this, when the Russians could take neutral territories, as the fighters (place in Volgo) would attack Iraq on R2. With the new rules preventing this, I would probably take Calvin’s advice and use my initial air force as the scramble defense in Novgorod. More air force is good, and probably neccessary, but it may not be needed as quickly as artillery, which is useful to build early so it can be ready to counterattack the front lines R3-R5, etc. Fighters can always be bought later.

This setup looks great on paper. Looking forward to trying it out. It seems like a lot of issues have been addressed at least.

I have one question regarding the Japanese not-at-war National Objective. The requirements were changed (simplified?) from not attacking US/UK/France to not attacking US/UK/French Indo China.

Does this mean that Japan can attack New Hebrides (French island, SZ 53) and still claim the NO? I’ve had a strategy floating around in my head for awhile regarding taking this island J2. I’m guessing you cannot, just need some confirmation so I don’t have to think about it anymore.  :-D

Edit: just remembered that, during the diplomatic negotiations in 1941 before Pearl, the US specifically warned the Japan not to move south into Indo-China. So the change from France to French-Indo makes sense from an historical point of view.

@special:

You quoted wrong there a few messages up. I meant Stikato, or anyone that brings troops and air units away from london on UK 1.

You are assuming that the Germans are threatening Sealion, I believe. That doesn’t really happen in my group, so the UK planes are free to do as they please.

Edit: In other words–I’m not promoting my idea as the “best” strategy, its a potential response to what my opponent usually does, given the new rules. I haven’t had a chance to play it out so who knows. If I was threatened with Sealion the move to SZ 93 seems like a good place to go.

The wildcard in the situation could be how much of the Royal Navy survives G1, given the new scramble rules. If a signifant portion lives, combining the two fleets in 91 may be the best move

Taranto looks like a loser of a battle now for the UK. My UK plan is to move the CV, Des, and Cru (SZ98) to SZ 92. The ftr from Egypt joins the tac on the CV, 3 fighters from UK/Scot to Gibraltar. Transport drops off inf and tank in Gib. Canadian destroyer blocks German Navy if transport is in SZ 112. Plane and tac from India to TJ. UK/ANZAC troops in Egypt, and Alexandria tank -> TJ. Amphib Ethiopia with Indian fleet, inf/art from Alexandria, w/ inf from Sudan. 1 inf stays behind in Alex.

Ok, so now the Royal Navy is safe in SZ 92, out of range of all Axis air. Thanks to new scamble rule, it will take 9 hits to kill, so Italians can’t attack with navy. If the Italians move their fleet anywhere besides SZ 95 or 97, the UK can attack with CV, des, cru, 5 ftr, 2 tac.

The move to TJ is important because it safeguards the Indian planes. It also prevents Italy from going there I1 and activating the Iraqis I2.

Italy could send unesorted transports to Egypt, and have a large ground advantage for a couple turns. I’m frankly not sure how to counter it either. So its all a work in progress.

I was forced to consider this situation on the fly during G1 of my last game. My Paris attack (pretty standard, no planes, all ground units in range) went horribly, and I found myself with 5 tanks left facing 5 Allied units. I considered breaking off the attack, and hitting Paris will everything the Italians could bring I1. I decided to continue with the Germans, and got lucky. My reasoning went something like this:

• The RAF could land in Paris on UK1 (3 planes in range) creating a difficult battle. If Italy went full force into Paris, Southern France most likely would have to be ignored.

• Italy would likely have only scarce forces remaining in Paris following the attack. France could counterattack Paris on F1 with 2 inf 1 art…if successful, they would activate 4 free infantry in Paris and collect income F1.

• Although this could give the Axis more IPC, it could also force the Germans to commit the Luftwaffe to Paris on G2, instead of using it to kill the Brit fleet in the Med (post-Taranto). I would have had 5 tanks to attack Paris, plus planes, against possibly 6-7 French 2’s. In a nutshell, I’d have 16 or 17 extra IPC’s, but nearly all my original western German and Italian ground forces would be dead, and the Med Brit navy would survive.

I only considered this for about 5 minutes during the game, and I’m sure there are some elements I haven’t even thought of. But, in the spur of the moment, I felt like I could lose control of the war by not finishing off the French G1.

I like to try and save as many of the 18 as possible while pulling back to Europe as necessary. I try to keep their destination flexible…if Germany is kicking a** they will head to Moscow, otherwise they can stay in Buryatia/Yakut if Japan is not threatening the stack. The stack can also safely reach Kansu in western China by R5.

Generally, I agree with the OP’s initial strategy. Most important thing is to realize that any units moved to Sakha on R1 will die on J2 if the Japanese player is paying attention.

As far as dealing with Japanese in Siberia…my strategy is the same as in Anniversary: slowly build mobile forces (tanks, planes) with Russia in the early turns for use in counterattacking Germany. Preserve these units at (almost) all costs. When the Allies arrive in Europe, their first objective is to blunt Barbarossa, allowing the Russians to go nearly all-out against the Japanese with their mobile forces + eastern infantry.

Our Japanese player attempted this strategy last night. He attempted to conceal his intentions by moving most of his fleet to Caroline on J1, and by remaining at peace until a massive attack on Hawaii and a minor assault on the Philippines on J2.

ANZAC was threatened by the Japanese Fleet in either Caroline or Hawaii, and therefore responded by taking Dutch New Guinea and building mostly infantry. The US was similarly threatened, and spent most of its IPC’s the first two turns on building a navy that could stand up to a potential Japanese attack and eventually re-take Hawaii. By the end of turn 2, the US had build a fleet that could stand up to what Japan had, at least in the eastern Pacific.

Unable to attack and needing to move on, the Japanese backed off of Hawaii and amphib’d Queensland. Later we learned this was the original plan. ANZAC, with its new reserve of infantry and original airforce, successfully counterattacked. With the money it had saved plus NO’s it bought 2 ftr’s and a tank to clear out the treasury. The U.S. fleet retook Hawaii, and enjoyed  a slight edge in a defensive battle (3 carriers loaded with ftr’s; no tac’s) discouraging a Pearl Harbor II.

The Japanese player had more trns en route to Aus, but they could only reach Queens. Still, the situation was sort of precarious. ANZAC (luckily) got a hit in the defense of Queens, leaving four Japanese troops to occupy it. ANZAC countered with everything remaining, four fighters and a tank, and (luckily) took zero hits in killing the Japanese and retaking Queens.

The Japanese were now sort of screwed. Their next wave of trns was two turns from both Queens and NSW. The US saw this, and moved its fleet (with 2 loaded trans) to New Zealand. This fleet had been strong enough to deter attacks earlier, and now bombers and four subs were moved in range to kill any remnants of a Japanese counterattack on it.

At this point, if the US fleet had been stronger, the Japanese Navy would have been finished. It was not at a naval base, and was adjacent to the US Navy which was. This was not the case, but the Japanese fleet was forced to limp back troop-less to consolidate with additional ships. Japan had been forced to neglect China, India, and the DEI. UK had grabbed Sumatra safely, and reinforced an already-strong China.

The game was lost for the Allies in Russia to the Germans, but if that hadn’t happened, the attack on Australia would have been catastrphic for the Axis.

It’s also true that the Allies had some luck on their side, and with some different dice and purchases, the KAF could be successful. However, Japan will pay a steep price elsewhere.

I noticed while playing the Allies that the majority of the purchase decisions are made during Japan’s turn. Usually I could work out most of the basic strategy and purchases for UK Europe and India, ANZAC, the US, China, and France (lol) before Japan finished its turn. Setting up the Allies this way speeds up the turns quite a bit. By round 5 or 6 I’d say we were down to 40-45 min per turn on our first game.

@AdmiralNagano:

In every other Axis game I’ve ever played (haven’t been Germany in global yet), the right way to beat Russia was:

Early game - build inf /art
Midgame - build tanks

Now that is a simplification, you need some naval units, you definitely need a big airforce, and these days you want mech inf too. But the basic principle for the ground war is to build cheap, slow units early and expensive, fast units late. Ideally, your tanks/mech reach moscow at the same time as the towering stack of inf and art finally gets there.

Something else I’ve considered is just pumping artillery first, then building mech infantry in time for them to catch up with the artillery stack. That would be very cost-efficient.

This has been our playgroup’s experience as well with Germany. Build up Fortress Europe first, then pump out the tanks. Typically whoever is Germany also tries to expand the Luftwaffe or at least keep it intact. The inf stacks are designed to absorb hits, while the planes and tanks destroy the enemy.

Of course, this was in Classic, Revised, and Anniversary. Our first Global game is tomorrow so we will have to see how this plays out in the new game.

Part of the Turkey territory is on the European mainland, directly adjacent to Greece. It is hard to see on the map but it is there. Therefore, you can move from Greece to Turkey using only land movement, and do not need transports.

@SgtBlitz:

The Allies did send Lend-Lease material to the Soviets in convoys through that area west of Norway, and the Germans historically launched several (unsucessful) raids against those convoys.

Not all of these raids were failures, with the destruction of convoy PQ 17 being among the most notable successes.

I got my copy of Europe 1940 yesterday (8/24) at a local game store, in Los Angeles. (Pasadena actually) Out of 10 or 11 shops that I called, only one store had it in stock.