Posts made by Stough

@mainah I have no idea how to PM, but yes lets do it.

I’m wanting a global game, no bid.
I’m just looking for experience at this point and am not clear why the allies need a bid. Also, the experienced players seem to think a bid isn’t needed if the players are new.

I’ll play the Allies in our first game if you would like, but I’m fine with Axis as well your choice.

Also, a turn a day may be ambitious until after Wednesday.

And yes grandpa, (me), will need assistance with how to get this thing set up and running.

@Private-Mike Hey, since both you and I are new to all of this. Would you like to try out the online game against each other?

I have no idea how it works, what it costs etc.

We won’t need to worry about bids, since awe are both so new it shouldn’t matter.
We could flip a coin or do some dice rolling to see who gets to pick which side and go from there. Learn this stuff together and at the same level of experience.

(BTW. I live in China, which I’m getting ready to go back to, so I’ll be in quarantine for 2-3 weeks , which means I’ll have some time on my hands. )

Assuming it’s J3 or J4, the money islands are secure, Malaysia is done, you’ve got the Chinese handled, or will in the next move. You’ve got IC’s in FIC and about to place in Malaysia. India is on their heels and in full turtle.

What happens if folks take, or start trying to take, Australia at this point? Pause on India and go for Australia.

Does anyone have experience with this?
(I read some posts from 2010, but it seems that no one ever really tried to do it)

Also, if your goal is to get the US out of the Atlantic this would seem to be the way to do it. They have no choice but to g all in to stop it.

@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

Sydney is not as easy as it looks, partly because of all the vicious, vicious emus that defend the plains

Easily the best line of this discussion. So good.

Another reason to push forward with the Rising Sun to the ME/Russia. Retreat your navy for a few turns, if you have to, and buy fast movers for Russia/Slow Movers for ME.
Then , when the pressure from the US gets too big, drop the carriers with the fighters fleshing them out and let the arms race begin.

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

The destroyer in 110 doesn’t really work because of German Air Supremacy which will destroy it and then have their navy move down to gibraltar in the non combat movement phase

Whoa?1? Can you play through like that? Sink a fleet and then move through the sea zone you just battled in to a SZ further on with other units during non combat?

@Luftwaffles41
I’m sure your correct.
I’m just musing at this point with not a lot to back it up.

The primary issue is does it benefit the Allies or hurt them to engage in a scrap with Japan early around Hawaii. I honestly don’t know. My guess is that it benefits the Axis. But it’s just a guess.

As I said, I haven’t tried a KJF test yet. First one starts today (no German Sea Lion). I’m not optimistic for the result for the Allies. But I’m going to give it a shot, and with no Sea Lion threat that would seem to be the best of possible scenarios for the Allies. If they can’t change the game by busting on Japan without the threat of Sea Lion, it’s doubtful they can do it with Sea Lion.

But your secondary point is also probably correct, Japan pushing west is way pushing their logistical limits (although its only a 3 turn move to get to Stalingrad with fast movers from China’s coast. Just sayin’).

The reason I push on West with Japan after India is because the Hawaii/ANZAC options look so grim and long term.

Meanwhile, if the Army that was in India is falling back, if I just turn my back on them, they can be a formidable aid to Russia. Those ME transports come in handy for a speedy evacuation.

(Sorry, a bit of background info- the end games to my previous tests usually end up with Russia falling back to Stalingrad/Caucusus and the British in ME trying to lend support to prevent the final Russian collapse; while the US tries to make a difference in Western Europe. Potentially, with enough UK support from ME, the Russians can lose Moscow , but keep Stalingrad.

With the Indian Army free to play the ‘saving’ cavalry, things could get dicey indeed for the Germans. Theoretically, the UK/Soviet Armies could retake Russia. Hence the need for my Japanese Army in India continuing to apply pressure. In fact, in my last game, the UK ME force got so fat that they, pushed the Japanese back, retook India, all the while trying to save Russia at the same time [a poor choice as they should have just helped Russia]. It was a wild game).

In that same game, I had a good handful of Japanese in Western China, trying to set up an ambush for the retreating Russians from Siberia.(I mean if Chia is going to protest the Burma road, why not exploit their absence in North-Western China?) I failed in that, but it allowed me enough guys to harass the crap out of Russia with the Japanese and eventually take Stalingrad- temporarily - like 2 turns. THAT was enough to bring about the final crumble of the Soviets. After that it was just about chasing a squirming prey.

And squirm they did. The US went all in in the Pacific , which halted all Japanese production towards anything but an ever increasing Japanese Navy to counter the US. And also allowed the UK successes in India and Russia previously mentioned. wild game indeed.

If a novice may jump into the conversation regarding the Hawaii strike.

As the old timey generals used to say, be wary of squabbles as they can turn into a full fledged Battle.

I think the reason I don’t like it is because:
As Japan, I want to follow up India with pressuring ME and Russia. So trading with the US is a bit of a distraction.
As Germany, I’m thrilled.
As Italy , I’m happy.
As USSR, I’m bummed.
As the UK I’m also somewhat happy.(depending on Sea Lion)
As the Chinese, UKA and ANZAC, I’m ecstatic.

As the US, it’s an interesting dilemma;
One could ignore the strike and press on as usual

or

if one chooses to trade with Japan around Hawaii, this is a great time to start doing it. They are coming to you, within your easy striking range. So maybe … let’s do this?

If that’s the choice, you might be better served going all in.

IDK.
Play test #5 is going to be a KJF, without a Hawaii Attack on J1. I like KJF a lot better WITH a Japan attack on Hawaii.
with Germany avoiding Sea Lion and UK going ME; we’ll see what happens with those scenarios in combo.

.

@Luftwaffles41

RE the SZ 109 guys- ahhhh; because the Germans will drop there shiny new Navy in SZ 112.

Why not Taranto that new German Navy in sz 112 as well? The odds are too hatefully long?

Also, what if the G-1 buy is 1AC, 1 sub, 1 tran? Does that change the UK response much?

(Sorry; I have so many questions)

@Luftwaffles41
Great answer. Thank you so much.
More mini questions.
Assuming a 1AC/2 tran buy in G1-

1. So most folks send the surviving tran/destroyer from SZ 109 to Canada? (assuming no German subs are there).
2. Folks do NOT scramble their UK fighters
3. The UK doesn’t send diddly do to SZ 91/Gib on turn 1?
4. The UK fighters stay in UK and do NOT Taranto?

@Luftwaffles41
Yep. That is a counter I would like to check out. I’m still due to play test 2 more scenarios of Germany NOT trying to build a big navy before I start mixing and matching.

To answer your questions though, Afrika Corps will come out on top in the short term, UK in the long term. But I think that’s a win for the Axis. And a BIG win for fun game play for all parties concerned.

Also, a good German Navy up north can do that devastating convoy soak in SZ 109, so they HAVE to be dealt with. 2 subs and a carrier with 2 planes and a cruiser; damn! Thats probably going to be 8-10 IPC gone from the UK every turn until it’s taken care of.

I was wondering though. If the US’ goal is to have say, 4 AC fully loaded, with a cruiser and 2 destroyers and 16 transports(plus adding the French destroyer and maybe the odd UK cruiser and destroyer) , fully loaded in four groups; it should take them a little over four turns. 375 IPC’s - 61 (ish)='s 313; divided by 72 ='s 4.3 turns ( assuming they are super negligent in the Pac).

IDK, GHG is probably correct in the timing. Turn six and then the hordes come.

Anyhow, I DO think it’s in Germany’s best interest to buy a navy in turn one , make sure they take Southern France, and then buy a mini Navy for the Med in turn 2. Then shut the door in Gibraltar, if possible, and shoot for Cairo with the Italians. The extra muscle should be able to help Italy turn the corner at Alexandria and then threaten sub saharan Africa. THAT will pull the UK down from Persia and seriously jack up their plans. As well as getting Italy into the game in a real sense. If the UK loses sub Saharan Africa it’s lights out for them. Combined with North Africa, it’s 40% of their economy; they can’t do nothing; they have to counter it. The threat of an Axis thrust to Sub Saharan Africa pulls everyone down south and screws up all of the Allies time tables.

Another thing. Russia is built to go backwards, so Germany can afford to lose time going for them. Russia on the attack is fairly easy to parry early in the game. Or, just wedge an Army into St Petersburg while doing all the zany Mediterranean stuff.

All that said, I’m still confused about what happens with the remaining UK Navy after G1 and what folks do with it. Also confused if Scambling is ever the right thing to do early in the game. And how to set up the G1 battle in SZ 11 so you can withdraw your German Battleship into SZ 112 to chill with your newly purchased German AC and other boats- what the heck happens to the wounded UK Battleship? So many questions.

@Luftwaffles41

Ok. I finished it.

First of all. Mega mega props to General Handgrenade. The customized pieces and customized map, the very thoughtful series of videos. And, lets not forget, the endearing Canadian accent… that guy is amazing. Truly amazing.

As to his strategy. I would say, in general, that is exactly what the US needs to do in the Pacific and Atlantic. This to me, would be the traditional way of winning for the Allies. The US is the anaconda portion of the US Civil War Strategy, with Russia and UK being the primary field Armies. The US secures the oceans and then starts squeezing Germany- which is the best of the two opponents to focus on. The Russians are DC/Army of the Potomac; UK is the West/ Army of Grant (the Tennessee?).

A quick look at the opposite strategy, KJF, what does that release for ultimate victory? Not a lot. Maybe a bunch of planes from UKA/ANZAC. Some Chinese good will?

I would modify the buys a little; drop the Battle Ships and add destroyers in the Atlantic and a fighter in the Pac. And lets be honest, the US will need four relay teams (shucks), one way or the other. But his basic idea is correct, build enough navy to protect the transports no matter what and build the waves bigger and bigger until Germany finally cracks.

In the Pac, I like the idea of 2 infantry and 1 fighter every turn and fly those fighters down to Australia. Once the Japanese finish up with India and turn towards Hawaii/ANZAC, things need to be ready to hold them off. I could be way wrong about this, but here goes.

In ANZAC- In a J1DOW, where Japan goes for India, more than likely, the Japanese will be hard pressed to hit them with more than one big wave of 10-12 guys and a crap ton of planes; probably 16-18. ANZAC starts with 3 planes and 5 land units, and will meeting Japan at turn 6 at the earliest. So the challenge is how to have 35-40 units available to defend? So, 3 turns of infantry purchases puts you at 14-15 land units and the rest has to be made up with air units. +3 fighter purchases in rounds 4-6 puts you at 15 land/ 6 air- which means your still short 14 planes. Unless, you can add US Infantry or US planes.

So add or be ready to add , what the US has in the Pac at the beginning plus a fighter every turn and now, turn 6-7, you are only short 6 planes. One big air purchase and ANZAC can be saved long enough for the US to crank out the Navy it needs to block Japan.

Better yet, that Air Force of 14 planes can be sent to either Hawaii or ANZAC depending on which is more threatened. And of course, it will be obvious what Japan is planning on doing so you can bump up the purchases when needed.

If one wants to get fancy, you can add an airbase in Western Australia and extend the plane shift to/from India.

So, again, General Handgrenade has this right. The forces on both oceans need to be big enough to flex to a crisis in either ocean. Tp protect ANZAC/Hawaii in the Pac and to pressure/defeat Germany in Europe.

On the Atlantic side, things are trickier. Unless the Southern France opening is an option, one really does have to make enough transports for four relay teams. Which means the US will be dropping 6-8 guys each turn on Europe. That’s a drain on Germany but not a war winner. A weakened Italy can match almost half of that every turn- which gives Germany a breather from knocking back the invasion every 3 turns. So Germany is spending 18-24 IPC to keep the US at bay, that still leaves a lot for making mischief in the East.

This is why its so important for UK to be stacked and ready in the ME. They’ll have to, clear out Italy, back stop India when that Army falls back, and support Russia from the South. Meanwhile, they’ll need to be ready to be the coups de gras in Europe. Meaning, at some point the US landing force has to be defended from a successful counter attack. A second landing of UK troops/planes from UK could do the trick at the right moment. Too early, and they get crushed along with the US landing force. But the UK is going to be hard pressed to have those units/transports available and ready when the time comes;

Plus if they go all in on Normandy /whatever the Japanese flood gates are opened from India and/or Russia loses its support. So their support of the US in Western Europe really needs to be a one time thing- just enough to allow US landing forces to survive and be reinforced by a second US landing force so they can build that snowball. Then Germany is on the back foot.

Another note: Norway looks like a juicy target for the US, but I’m not a big fan of invading it. It throws off the rhythm of the relay team (Shuck) and even if taken in force, it’s 4 turns away from liberating St Pete. Southern France, Normandy, Belgium seem like the best targets, unless you can land a death kill on Italy. Germany/Italy will have to keep 3-4 counter attack armies ready if they want to hold both counties and keep the US at bay.

SO once again, a lot of noise from me without much experience to back it up. Currently I’m finishing up Test Play #4. The Axis win again, but this time I retook India, chased the Japanese Navy back to FIC and gave the Germans some hard knocks on their end.

@Luftwaffles41

Quick question, (I’m about half way through the video)

Why not , in the Atlantic on turn 1 (assuming a J-1), send your 1st US transport straight to Gibraltar with 2 guys and the cruiser? Then bring the surviving UK Atlantic fleet with 2 more guys, their destroyer and combine your cruiser in sz 91 and either combine with your two guys in Gib or drop off in Morrocco.

Even if there is a German sub there, he’ll dive for the Americans turn or face a long odds/high gain battle. No German planes or Italian panes can reach those ships. The US locks Gibraltar and the front door to the Med is now closed to the Italians/Germans.

Why the hurry for Brazil? It can wait till turn 2. Since it would seem the strategic gain of securing Gibraltar is pretty huge. Meanwhile, if US/UK somehow lose those naval assets it’s not an enormous loss.

@Luftwaffles41
Watching now.

@Argothair That was very well said. " they can’t do all of that at once in the first 7 turns, so you’ll wind up with some active fronts where the Allies are making gains, and you exploit those for all they’re worth and let the others go at the appropriate time. At least, that’s my philosophy."

… For me this is exactly the right attitude to win games. You probe and probe and see what turns up for short term gain and long term end game.

The logistics of this game are very interesting. Once Japan takes India, they are at a bit of a loss of what to do and how to do it. In a way, they are out of position. Assuming the Allies have prepped Hawaii and Australia well enough to hold out for a long time. If Japan goes for either, it removes any pressure from Russia and the ME. It’s a very interesting dilemma If the US has prepped well enough, they can spend 18 IPC’s messing with Germany indirectly, while UK messes with Italy directly or supports USSR directly via the ME. Again these are just novice musing; I’ve only played 4 test games of this behemoth so I could be way way off base.

I’m so impatient to learn this game enough to start competitng online. Another month and I think I’ll be ready to put my toe in. (I’ve got a lot on my plate this month).

I would really like to here the communities take on this subject. Praises and criticisms. I realize I’m late to the ball, but here I am and I’ excited about getting into this game.
Here is my take.

This board and map are great.

I love the hugeness of it; this thing is just massive.

The geography and how that effects play was very well thought out. Africa is squashed down abut as much as possible and there is more room available in Europe as one could have reasonably made without completely distorting the world map. The point being , the map still looks like the world while still being able to provide effective space for game play- that is a tough balance to achieve.

The idea of making the Himalayas and Sahara impassible was inspired. Of course they are impassible to large armies. If the Axis want to do damage to the British Empire in Sub Saharan Africa, they need to either turn the corner at Alexandria or win the Atlantic or Indian Oceans.

The neutral spaces are very well done. More on that when I review the Neutral Countries.

But the main thing the map gets right is what it’s supposed to get right, it provides the right geometry to promote good game play. Their are major regions and regions within those regions and each set has its own keys to being manipulated for offense and defense. That makes for interesting game play.

Even better, I haven’t found any rinky dink ways of manipulating the geography in ways that don’t feel true to the intent of the game/WW2. The space in the Pacific is an obstacle. The Space of Russia is an obstacle. As they both should be. The benefit from gaining Scandinavia is big, but its not a game changer. The Far East or the Black Sea can’t be used as some unanticipated flanking move. One doesn’t want to be tied down to replaying WW2 as accurately as possible, but one doesn’t want to completely break with reality either.

Every game I play I learn new things about this board. I’ve played 4 intensive games with myself and am still feel like I am a long long ways from mastering the geography of this board. That is a good thing.

Certainly there are things I could quibble about.
The names for the Chinese Provinces could be better. In that , as someone who lives in China, I would prefer the proper current Pinyin names for them, A westerner defiantly made this game. But I understand they are trying to keep with the Pre 1949 feel for the region and using the terms the west used back then; so ok.

Having Kazakistan so far south is a bit weird.

There are times where I wish certain spaces were larger; I’m looking at you Bessarabia and SZ110. But most of my spatial problems stem from my style of game play which is still rooted in monolithic stacks of enormous proportions which worked well in the Axis and Allies of old.

Which brings me to my biggest opinion about this board. This board is infinitely superior to the previous incarnations of Axis and Allies.

This is a very good and interesting game and it starts with the map.

What are your thoughts?

Total Global novice here, but I would say yes. Slaughtering or neutering Italy is a huge priority. I think going for the UK and trying to keep it is a poor choice early for Germany. There are five victory cities reasonably attainable and three are in Russia; so Russia is the game for Germany. After that, then it’s London or Alexandria- Alexandria is the easier choice. Which means it’s the key to the endgame for the European board.

Therefor, to me, if the UK can’t control the Med, they are done. Which means gut punching Italy early when you have the chance. Hence Taranto. All of Italy’s bonuses are on the south side of the Med. Leave them with one transport and you still have the advantage- even with few assets early. You’ll also need a strong uk med presence for when India falls.

Conversely, although opposed to Sea Lion, I am highly in favor of Germany having a strong enough navy early to jack with UKE, so that Italy can have a chance. Maybe Scotland, maybe London for a raid and then get out, maybe just convoy raiding them, or sneaking assets down to the Med. Otherwise, in addition to can opening, all Italy can do is garrison. If Germany can help Italy to take Alexandria, and turn that corner towards Sudan, UKE is in some serious do-do. Which allows Italy to blunt the US and Germany the chance to crush the Reds with impunity.

@trulpen Again, I’m new so my ideas are probably wonky. After three test plays, all using a Sea Lion Variant (btw, I only think Sea Lion is good if you want to get Italy into the game. Britain has to respond to it in some measure and that gives Italy a chance), I think a G-1 DOW looks pretty good.

You can nuke 7 Russians and start the border squabbles that attrit Russia, while close to home.
Buy 3Art and 6 inf in round 1, (maybe a destroyer or sub) and then a bunch.
Place a sub in Russias convoy zone on rd 1 and keep occupying that thing to deny Russia the 5ipc’s.
I think your advice to buy a crap ton of wagons (mech) in round 2 is very sound. Followed by a mix of fast movers in rd 3-4 and some bombers.

It seems fairly simple to leverage Russia with a strong push. Use the Luftwaffe to full advantage and get either Nov or Ukraine or both.

I’m not sure nailing Moscow is even necessary. Just push them back, hurt their economy and anaconda them to death, while dealing with US/UK.

Anyhow, lots of big talk from me. I’ll be play testing Germany without a Sea Lion for the next three games. We’ll see what headaches the Brits can bring without a Sea Lion. The US will be spending about 2/3 of their budget on Germany.

BTW. What fighter is sent to Tobruk?

@WindowWasher Great advice.

I’m on my 3rd play test; each one using a Sea Lion feint and a J-1.

Ignoring the litany of tactical errors I am making… in my second game I did indeed force Japan to build a Navy, but it didn’t matter. It was a great game though- lasted forever. It ended up with Armageddon in the Oil States- the 3rd battle of Megido with Liepzig thrown in to boot. ( The Axis could have won it earlier but wanted to see what would happen f I retreated with Russia all the way to the ME).

For game three, I tried an iterating Tactic in the Pac. I bought 2 planes a round for the US and flew them down to Queensland. ANZAC played possum bough a few men and a fighter and saved some money. Meanwhile hovering with the 16 Russians in Amur. After Japan took the Money islands in J2, I attacked Korea/Manchuria in R3. Japan devastated those Russians in J3, but it pulled enough of their resources to allow ANZAC to build an airbase in Western Australia and have enough stuff their to hold it AND Queensland. Next turn, there will be 5 more fighters in India.
So those Russians delayed India for a turn and in so doing may have secured it for a long while.

The bad news is that Alexandira has been a disaster for the Allies, so it looks like they will lose anyhow. (the Germans are just rolling like gods in the Sea every game- they are 3 for 3 in taking out SZ 101 and 96; Taranto was a disaster for the UK and the Italians took Alex on I3; I’m waiting for R4 for Germany-Russia to start scrapping.- it’s an interesting game)

Anyhow, my point is, it seems if one can get Jpan to ping pong a bit, you can secure Australia and get a strong force in India to boot, just buying fighters and 2 inf (for Hawaii), and timing the R attack with the Air base in W. Australia.

In other words, I’m starting to learn how important the mobility of an Air Force is. I’m still so used to just buying a crap ton of infantry.

Thanks man.

1. When Russia is still NOT at war with Germany, it can declare war on Japan; true?
2. Before it does declare war, can Russia move units into China?
3. I’m assuming that Russia can move units into China after declaring war; am I correct?(since they are both at war with the same enemy)
4. Can Russia move units into friendly neutral territory when it is not at war with Germany (and hence, not an ally)?
5. Can Russia move units into friendly neutral territory when only at war with Japan?
6. Advice wanted: other than moving units into China, is there any advantage to Russia declaring war on R1? (Im trying a tactic where Russia masses on Amur, but actually attacking Japan in Manchuria/Korea- wouldn’t happen until R2; if at all. I don’t know if I’m going to use it as a feint or not. At best I’m delaying those 16 Russians arrival in Moscow by 1-2 turns, at worst, I’m losing them entirely. Germans are threatening Sea Lion, so that buys the USSR some time; I think. The strategy is to delay the fall of India until the UK can get up and running)