Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. SubmersedElk
    3. Posts
    S
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 3
    • Posts 264
    • Best 1
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by SubmersedElk

    • Russian eastern infantry

      I’ve been seeing a lot of “move the eastern Russian infantry to Moscow” recommendations, but many times when I see someone do that they end up being used to fend off Japan on Russia’s backside instead of reinforcing Moscow against Germany.

      Some consider stacking Amur on R1 but that just seems to invite Japan to wipe them out conveniently.

      What I’ve been doing recently is stacking them on Bury in R1 then moving them to Amur in R2 when Japan moves south and can no longer conveniently kill them off (or later, if Japan can counter). I do this in conjunction with a R1 DOW on Japan and moving some mobile units to southwest China to help in the contest for Yunnan. This pins a dozen Japanese units in defense of Manchuria/Korea which appears to make a world of difference in the sustainability of UKPac/China/ANZAC in the south.

      US keeps enough fleet at Hawaii to keep the Japanese navy from moving too much navy towards India. Heavy inf/art buys by Russia and mid-round fighter support from UK and ANZAC keep Moscow from falling in this scenario.

      My question is: why not keep those INF in the east to pressure Japan every game? Why do the long march east and take them out of the game for five, six rounds of play when they could be useful all that time - especially early on when Allies need every counter threat they can muster?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: French North Africa

      Algeria/Morocco give Axis places for air to land in early battles if they can’t immediately take Gibraltar. Not great places, mind you, but they do help extend the range of bombers a little further west and south.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Stupid A&A G40 Rules

      planes can’t hit subs when the subs are attacking is a stupid rule - leads to a single sub wiping out transport fleets that are otherwise protected by airfields

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: How to best deal with Italy

      Usually Italy clears the French ships and Germany clears whatever targets are left in G2.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Sea zone 11 and Mexico

      Mexico doesn’t border SZ 11

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Fleet Sizes

      The ability to INF to picket vs. the inability of subs to do so should not be overlooked.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: German Sub Opener

      Are all those subs really necessary? Isn’t Germany in pretty good position to deny the Allies an Atlantic fleet just from air and the leftover subs it already has after G1? Even if you wanted more, is a full buy really warranted? Wouldn’t two bombers and one sub give you more flexibility and achieve the same fleet-denial effect?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Alternate Japanese Strategy

      If you consider that ANZAC claims Java round 1 pretty much every game, the IPC swing in a Japanese attack on DEI is the biggest there is available.

      Sumatra 4IPC, Java 3 IPC, Borneo 4IPC - 11IPC in territory value alone, double that since Japan gets them and those are then denied to Allies.

      Add in Malaya which is really part of the same group of money territories even though it isn’t technically an island or part of the N.O., another 3IPC up for Axis and 3IPC down for Allies, PLUS taking Malaya denies an ANZAC N.O. so another minus-5 for Allies.

      Note we haven’t even addressed getting Celebes and the Japanese N.O. bonus, which would add another +8 a round for Axis.

      So the final tally for going for DEI+Malaya is Allies -14 in territory, -5 in N.O., and Axis +17 territory +5 N.O. for a total swing of 41IPC per turn.

      There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that DEI is a better strategy for Axis from a production standpoint. The question under consideration should be: does an alternate priority sacrificing DEI come with a strategic benefit that outweighs the benefits of the net production difference?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: How to best deal with Italy

      Depends on the Allied strategy. If the anti-Japan plan includes stopping up DEI with blockers and resistance, then you need to add the UK transport. Otherwise, it can be of good use combined with the other transport to move units between India and Africa.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Fleet Sizes

      I can stop grabbing islands whenever I want. Just one more objective…

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Keep the Germans out of Moscow

      Also keep in mind any ships you buy in Western US can be off Gibraltar 2 turns later, so US1 Pac buy can be there in US3. If the US fleet isn’t going to be hitting Gibraltar until US4, then first 2 turns can have Pac buys that arrive in the same place at the same time as Atlantic builds from one turn later. If that arrival at Gibraltar is in turn 4, the initial fleet in US1 can be moved to/toward Hawaii entirely as if doing a Pac buildup, only to reverse course and hit Gibraltar with the loaded Atlantic transports built in US2 and US3.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Keep the Germans out of Moscow

      I’d argue that the Atlantic is better for catch-up. The trade-off is you enter one round later than you would otherwise, so you need to find a way to stall Germany for one round more than otherwise.

      The reasoning is that if the US builds enough of a fleet in Hawaii to tie down half the Japanese air force in defense and force the fleet to at least stay within 1 move of Japan - which it can achieve in round 1 - and combine that with aggressive play by Russia/UKPac/ANZAC/China, Japan’s “monster” phase can be delayed significantly. That represents 50+ IPC a turn swing in resources (mostly from Allies holding DEI/UK-Pac territories longer) which can then be committed by the US and UK to the European theater, since now the four other powers can keep Japan contained. ANZAC and UK-Pac making 35ish combined per turn plus the Chinese contribution is an even match against a 45 income Japan with half an airforce to use (and 18 inf 2aa in Korea is extremely inconvenient as well), Japan can be entirely consumed on land and unable to afford any additional ships at all, their transports dropping units on the mainland and not Java, Sumatra, Celebes.

      Someone showed me a trick the other night where you can construct a defensive web of allied destroyers in the DEI to further frustrate and divert Japanese resources and delay the monster phase. He did everything else on the stop-Japan list as well, except he didn’t build US fleet in Pac. However, with the fleet free to do something other than defend Japan, it was able to do the job of cleaning up that nest and assaulting the islands on its own. If it were tied down in defense, then air would be diverted to both defending the fleet and also to capturing the islands, and even with everything they start with that’s not enough to also get good combats in China as well.

      So that first US spend in the Pacific really does come back in a big way in making the other allies sustainable, freeing UK-Eur resources to spend immediately against Germany, and allowing the US to focus on the Atlantic as long as it needs to to get the job done.

      The Atlantic “hammer” takes a few turns of builds to set up, so if you focus on it first, it’s now round 5 or 6 before the first real Pacific spend, and Japan is at 70+ IPCs with China and UK-Pac no longer able to resist. This is true even if Japan needs to clean up Russian inf in Korea as well. At that point Japan can match the US IPC for IPC and has defeated the enemy on the Asian front, while floating a nice navy into the Indian Ocean for further gains. Japan can now force the US to spend all its IPC in the Pacific and not in Europe in order to hold the line.

      So the build-Pac-late scenario basically gives the US one good shot at scoring a winning blow in Europe, and that offers Germany a great strategic option, of bleeding off the US units trading territories (inf/ftr builds) and lessening the hammer’s strength with every kill. Even if you take Italy, Germany can take it back.

      The Axis don’t really need Russia to fall on a schedule other than “eventually”. They just need to push it back to its capital so it’s not building, and have enough of a stack next to it not to kill it but to keep it contained. Actually capturing the capital itself is not terribly meaningful at that point. And the Germans can do that easily while dropping large amounts of inf/ftr and the occasional sub back home to repel landings - they are reinforcing every turn at 50 IPC (figure 10inf/1art/1sub/1ftr every turn) while the US is now committed to 100% Pacific builds for as long as Japan likes.

      So a strategic scenario of Japan vs. US full build in the Pacific with Japan advancing on Mideast/Africa, and Germany in highly-efficient compact-defense mode pulling in 50+, China and UKPac out of the game, Russia just an idle holdout stack destined to die… that’s a pretty good Axis scenario. Allies’ whole game chances rest on that one initial US strike on Europe being effective, essentially - UK Europe won’t be able to fight off Japan and contribute against Germany at the same time.

      I would rather be fighting a smaller Japan and have that hammer fall one round later, in such a manner that reinforcements could be continuously on the way, at which point extra IPC can go into Pac builds against a weaker version of Japan that can’t afford to dedicate its full IPC to a naval race and has a healthy ANZAC to contend with as well.

      The more practice I get on the Axis side the more I am realizing that you can overload Japan and short-circuit the process of becoming a monster, but you need all 5 pieces (and maybe even that French destroyer) to actually achieve the effect. Japan can do three things and hold off one more threat. It cannot do three things and hold off TWO more threats. US full build Pac1 is the tipping point where Japanese resources are no longer adequate to do all the things it needs to do. You can get it at the cost of arriving in Europe one round later.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Germany or Japan first?

      Japan gets too crazy if you don’t dedicate at least the first round to keeping them contained and diverting part of their airpower to fleet defense. In the early game there are no more valuable units than the Japanese land forces in Asia. They need to be used against China, UKPac, Russia, and also in the Pacific. Every one of these units that dies has a significant positive impact on the Allies’ overall chances. If a lot of air is diverted to fleet protection, you’ll get more chances to cause hits on defense and maneuver land stacks. An early Allied stack combine in Yunnan is a game-changing event, if you can achieve it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Keep the Germans out of Moscow

      So I’ve been in a run of games where I’m playing Axis, after never having gotten them previously.

      Japan simply cannot be contained without a combined effort by all 5 neighboring powers. So US1 Atlantic build is the signal for Japan to become as aggressive as possible.

      Looking at it from the Japan perspective, the Allies need to bring in all 5 powers to prevent them from becoming powerful quickly:

      • Russia needs to stack Bury with 18inf/2aa. Their job is to move to Amur in round 2 to tie up Japanese assets or make them pay for it. All assets the Japanese divert will then NOT be used against China and UK-Pac.

      • China needs to focus on Yunnan to the greatest extent possible, with the goal of stacking and holding it with UK-Pac backing.

      • UK-Pac needs to stack Burma in round 1 to back up the Chinese.

      • UK-Pac and ANZAC need to garrison the DEI as much as they can - leave inf on the islands to force Japan to bring in extra assets to take them, while blocking up sea spaces with DDs.

      • Finally, the US needs to build in Pac round 1 to stop the Japanese navy/air from being able to maneuver without reserving units for defense. A strong US navy brings a lot of Japanese air away from the south.

      If the allies do ALL these things, Japan doesn’t have enough units to counter them all. It will lose somewhere. Note that the Allies need to be trading off pickets and small forces with Japan, NOT giving them a juicy target to hit.

      Failing to do any ONE of these things breaks containment and Japan can go hog wild. Bring those Russian inf west, and Japan now has the units to steamroll China/UK-Pac without a problem. Fail to bring in a US fleet and Japan will easily sweep away the efforts to stymie them in DEI and will bring naval threat against India. Fail to contest Yunnan and Japan will use it as a base to contain UK-Pac while plowing through China, or as a highway to India.

      So now the question is: assuming the US1 build and Russian Far East forces are committed against Japan, can Germany be contained also?

      I think it can. It doesn’t really matter if Russia falls if Japan is failing also. US builds Atlantic starting round 2, so they come in one turn later, BUT there are cascading benefits from a better eastern map position for the western side, e.g. UK can commit more against Germany and less to help UK Pac survive, US can commit more to Atlantic with its Pacific-side allies healthier and generating more IPC and Japan fewer.

      The trick with Allies is that assets are fungible. A dd bought by ANZAC can mean one fewer bought by the US in the Pac theater, which means one more with the Atlantic fleet. UK fighters and ships not moving to India (because it doesn’t need the help) can be leveraged against Italy in Europe instead. 20 eastern Russian units can shift more than their value’s worth of IPC by garrisoning Korea, taking Manchuria, diverting and killing Japanese land units, and giving UK-Pac more time holding onto their income territories, giving China the chance to fight back more easily and generate more inf, and so on.

      Making the Allies effective is essentially a financial game, being able to build assets in the theater where they need to be built, and using responsibility-shifting among the allies to free up units and IPC for the powers that need them most at any given time.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: How to handle the Italian fleet R1?

      With a sub bid (which is apparently universal) Taranto is still an 80% attack vs. scramble with no assets from England other than the bomber. So you can keep ftrs in England and max build defensively to repel Sealion while still hitting the Italian fleet.

      It really does seem to compel a G1 fleet build - for the price of a carrier, sub, and DD you can give Italy chances in a key battle while forcing UK to spend its resources defensively instead of building strength in Africa, not to mention all the strategic options that open up for Germany if it can keep a fleet in the water. When G2 rolls around you’ve still got your options open and can make decisions on what to do next based on how the Allies set up defensively in round 1.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Fleet Sizes

      A well-balanced fleet would be something like 2ac 2ftr 2tac 1bb 1cruiser 3DDs 3 subs 4 trans and 8 land units.

      Extra DDs and subs are for playing the area denial/movement blocking game. By the time the fleet gets reinforced, it can be down to one DD and no subs and still be in good shape.

      Units and bb/cruiser plus the 2ftr/2tac are your land invasion support. Amphib shots give continuous benefit as long as you continue to make raids.

      BB second hit allows you to walk over your first enemy picket ship for free even if he hits.

      If there are no large enemy threats nearby you can split the fleet to protect transports in multiple zones at the end of a strike round. One half gets the bb, the other the cruiser, each gets an ac/ftr/tac 2 trns and 4 land units, leaving each reasonably capable to small attacks independently.

      While this fleet is together it will take a large enemy force to kill it. It is more likely to have to return home to get more land units than retreat for damage done to it, unless you walk into a trap.

      This composition gives you the ability to do anything you could possibly want to do from sea (including tactical bombing!). Both Japan and the US can put together this force easily from starting units (US will have 3ftr/1tac on the ACs instead).

      You could of course add more to this but at that point it would be a strike fleet or a defensive fleet. With fewer units you start sacrificing capabilities.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Speed of Play

      adjudicating dice at the press of a spacebar is one hell of a convenience

      posted in House Rules
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: How to handle the Italian fleet R1?

      I put a German fighter there for the option to scramble three just to force the UK to commit max assets to the attack (destroy UK surface fleet in the G2 counter instead), but I don’t actually scramble them.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Speed of Play

      Online I’m finding about 3 hours for 8 rounds is about the pace things go - they tend to pick up speed after round 4 or 5 or so when all the major strategic decisions are already made. US and UK first two rounds tend to be particularly slow because the allies need to craft a robust response to whatever opener the Axis are playing.

      posted in House Rules
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • RE: Keep the Germans out of Moscow

      If Russia doesn’t get enough help to push the Germans back, why hold onto Moscow proper if you’re guaranteed to lose a large stack fight? By the time it can no longer be held, Russia isn’t producing units anymore due to low IPC + strategic bombing + losing the other three ICs, so it’s not like anything but the position itself is gone.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      S
      SubmersedElk
    • 1
    • 2
    • 10
    • 11
    • 12
    • 13
    • 14
    • 12 / 14