Posts made by Tamer of Beasts

@superbattleshipyamato

Did you find the Japanese to be more successful with that move?

And yes, keeping London is always a massive task that is rarely worth it in my experience. It looks cool until the Soviets have Poland and Romania. :p If the goal is to hit the British where it hurts, I prefer to invest in a modest fleet of bombers to harass London but that can swing to Moscow when I need them to. This will force the British to either build elsewhere (could not be helpful for the Italians though) or focus on fighter production in London, which keeps them from building a transport fleet, especially if your air force is strong enough to wipe out any single turn’s build. This also changes when the Americans arrive in force, but to me it is a more viable option than a huge Sealion attempt that is almost doomed to lose you the long game.

To be frank, a Japan that doesn’t aggressively pursue the DEI and threaten the UK Pacific in some existential way (which it sounds like you did) is already losing. Japan’s economy needs those critical IPCs from those southern territories, and if India is allowed to call the shots, Japan will find itself in a pinch fast. This coupled with a Germany that is content to wave at the Soviets as they pass each other on border patrols leads to a rapid economic deficit for the Axis as they rely on rapid expansion to keep their war machines running. Even with Sealion, in my opinion, this isn’t worth the wait, since holding London is a huge hassle once the Americans start thinking about entering the war. Then you’ll need a navy to keep it, which will take your precious, limited funds from the eastern border. Time is just about always on the Allies side.

If your strategy is to wait, I would recommend only doing so if you can set yourself up for an explosive turn (e.g. Japan getting 4 transports ready for the DEI and taking both Manila and Hong Kong on a J3 declaration) that catches the Allies off balance somehow. You should always be dictating the front lines in order to be successful; make the Allies react to you. Just my two cents.

I don’t quite understand the situation. The Axis hasn’t declared war on who exactly? Also, what do you mean by keeping the Axis on edge? To me what it sounds like is Japan waiting for the Pacific UK and Americans to make the first move while Germany is just sitting around hoping the Soviets send them an invasion invitation… and I don’t think that’s what you mean. :)

@squirecam Good points, thank you. I think my next tries will have a more aggressive Japan and a better shuttling system of German units. I’ll see how that goes.

G1 I buy a CV and 2 transports and follow the plan Afrika Korps laid out in his posts: taking France and Normandy, strafing (or just outright taking) Yugoslavia, and sinking UK ships in 110 and 111. For the noncombat I take the two pro-Axis neutrals and send 4 inf. from S. Germany to N. Italy for eventual pickup. Italy’s turn is just a toss up as they usually only have the one transport left, two if the UK rolled poorly in Taranto. But I try to take Greece on I1 and sink the French ships while doing the standard moves in N. Africa.

G2 I buy inf., mech., and armor for Barbarossa, and for combat I take Gib. and Morocco with 3 inf., an art., and 2 tanks, and I take S. France. In the noncombat phase set I up for Barbarossa with the land units I have in the east as well as send the 4 infantry in N. Italy to S. France for a G3 shuttle. I2 I take Algeria and Egypt if the UK is struggling to maintain a strong presence (bad rolls and spread out units).

From there it is less scripted. Germany will buy a destroyer in the Med, likely a bomber or two here and there to keep pressure on the UK factories and any navy, and a steady stream of mech and tanks for the Eastern Front. Finally on G4 I can land my units in Syria or TJ, and push for Iraq and beyond. Italy rebuilds a navy with transports to ferry infantry and art. to Egypt to retain the VC and support Germany where it can. Some games I buy a MIC on Egypt as a supply chain investment.

The Allied strategy is relatively basic in the grand scheme of things. UK does Taranto, takes Persia, and sets up a few units to deal with the Ethiopian units while not leaving Egypt completely undefended (leave the inf. and ANZAC inf.). From there push units west from Persia and north from S. Africa and wait for American pressure in the east. My main issue as the Axis is not with the UK but dealing with the Russian wall. Most traditional Barbarossa campaigns get to Leningrad by G4, and have the units to push past that with limited risk of losing major stacks or armor and mech. For these games though, the money I put into reinforcements for the Med (the inf. from S. Germany, the units in the transports in G2, and the planes) really make the Leningrad battle more dicey with more losses. The Russians can easily have over 20 inf. with supporting planes and armor by G4, and if Germany gets past that, it is only because Romania is stripped and poorly defended. Maybe I am just doing Barbarossa wrong, but I find that the game will usually end with Germany and Italy doing well in the Med, but with the Americans taking Gibraltar (though not breaking through the Axis navy I station in 92) and the Russians pushing into the Balkans and maybe the Nordic territories. Germany simply doesn’t have the resources to back up its Med investment and take Moscow, and Italy has little say in how Barbarossa goes if it too is focused on Egypt/Iran.

I am not a top-tier player by any means, and would love to get some feedback on how to improve the maneuvers here. Thoughts?

I am fascinated by this strategy, but I am running into the problem some people mentioned earlier in the thread: as Germany, I simply cannot be successful in diverting the resources I need to in the Middle East at the same time as staging a whalloping Barbarossa. In my (albeit limited so far) playtesting against myself (sub-optimal, but it’s what I have), Germany may get Leningrad, but by the end of round 5 or maybe 6 the eastern front looks like a stalemate if not Russians in Romania. If the German land units are sent south and investments are put into the navy, Russia is difficult not even to capture but to hold back. Anyone found a good way to handle this?

I suspect that we can learn from both sides here. The benefits of a J1 and J2 DOW have been clearly and repeatedly examined by many well-established players. In that I agree with arthur-bomber-harris. However, I am curious to know (perhaps in a new thread so as to not be too far off topic) what squirecam’s thoughts are on why a J3 is the way to go. If we give up seeking new strategies and the willingness to learn, then we are sad Axis and Allies players indeed.

Once Germany has Moscow it can get tanks and mech to Egypt in a couple turns. If Germany has all of Russia and only one more VC is needed (meaning that the Allies don’t have Paris back yet), I as the German player would put my money into fending off the Americans while my remaining eastern front units head south for the death blow. Hopefully Italy isn’t a vegetable at this point but if it is, defending Rome must be another priority.

@all-encompassing-goose I recall one game a few years ago when there was a Russian and Anzac stack in Burma defending against Japan with no British units. I genuinely have no idea how that happened anymore, but it sure looked odd.

Say Italy did not get hit by a Taranto raid, and only lost the destroyer and transport off the coast of Malta. I’m curious to hear different philosophies regarding what the next steps are. I often go for NOs if my fleet is still intact, and turn one go aggressively after Greece by including my two fighters and two infantry from S. Italy and the forces from Albania, leaving the cruiser in that sea zone in place for bombardment. I also take S. France if Germany hasn’t already, and take my second transport to Gibraltar with an infantry to complete the NO. The French fleet is taken care of by my BB and warships on the western coast of Italy (CA, DD, and SS). Depending on if the British are playing scared, I may even move into Alexandria if they felt the need to pull back, with the understanding that I can reinforce those troops with what is left over from Greece the next turn. I know it is not usual to be left with the fleet in the Adriatic, but what would you do if you were?

Gotcha. That is a rough Allies game. When you say a solo game, do you mean you played both sides, or that you played Allies against TripleA AI? Just curious. Also, upon rereading what I said earlier, I didn’t mean for my thoughts to come across as harsh, so my apologies. :)

@marshmallowofwar I agree. One of my favorite parts of the game when playing Germany or Russia is looking at the stacks and trying to calculate odds and what moves are best in the turns leading up to the (usually) inevitable battle for Moscow. Really engages the brain!

I don’t know how Germany was able to both hold off Russia after giving them 3 turns of buildup and have enough of a fleet to not only successfully defeat London (which sounds like it had built up) and challenge the Americans. Without seeing the game, it sounds to me like Russia needed to poke Germany a little harder (maybe build up along the front to draw more German units and thus IPCs) and the British needed to build up more in London. A prepared UK player shouldn’t lose London on turn 4, IMHO. A stack of 20+ infantry and several fighters (keep the French one there especially if Sealion seems like a threat) should be enough to make Germany suffer. Even if London falls, the German navy shouldn’t be able to outlast the Americans if the German player has put any thought into the Eastern Front. Germany starts the game with a lot of power and potential directions it could go, but to have that kind of stomping sounds more like Allied mistakes than Axis success.

I usually keep two infantry in Norway if the UK has any transports in range in the first turn.  This prevents me having to make an extra effort to move back to recapture my NO, as they will likely deter any weak attack for a quick 3 IPC’s.  After that though, I send them east, as the UK will likely have moved that transport out of range of my air units.

While I do agree that ships represent just a few, I have to disagree on the planes.  Large carriers can only carry two plane units in the game, and most of them in real life had a compliment of about 72 planes, thus each plane can only represent approximately 32 planes, a decent sized squadron.  Perhaps this ability can only be available for battleships for a balanced compromise?

What if the three previously mentioned ships were to preemptively fire AAA at a 1@1 (up to one per participating ship of those three kinds)? That would make it less altering while still using the AAA capabilities.

This is a neat idea, but to be frank, it completely ruins the balance of the game.  London would stand no chance with Germany’s undivided attention  as well as that of the Soviet Union.  Europe would be very stacked toward the Axis, and if Japan joined the Allies, it would be a massive build up on the Pacific side, with nobody to challenge them at all for several turns (except the 18 Soviet infantry and 2 AAA guns).  As cool as a new scenario like this would be, it needs more balance and a great deal of play-testing.

There is an interesting thread suggesting China taking first place in the turn order.  I haven’t tested it yet, but intend to soon as it seems like a good balancing tool.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35417.0

London is only worth 6 IPCs I’m pretty sure.  I also only do Sealion if the Brits don’t build much in turn one.  It’s a handy operation, but taking too many units from the Eastern Front can be extremely risky.

I do see your points.  Thanks for the input guys, ''tis appreciated.