Best posts made by TheDesertFox

@andrewaagamer

To me Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia feel like “No Man’s Land” if you know what I mean. Eastern Poland for Germany is often what I would consider the base of operations for the Axis since any and all units on E. Poland can reach anywhere in the Soviet Union. All the same should either the Russians or the Germans enter into Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine it will make countering that with a consolidated force from either side all too easy.

One more thing, Germany starts with 6 tanks, taking all 6 of their tanks and hauling ass for Leningrad would be a rookie mistake and would very soundly hand the win to the Soviet Union, yet all the same that’s not going to stop the Germans from going heavy on it either.

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

I apologize for my remarks, I generally don’t try to be so critical of opinion to win a debate, but I’ll slip up sometimes so sorry about my attitude about that. I think to keep things logistical let’s keep it down to Middle Earth, Afrika Korps and the J1 attack to stay on point of the debate. Sound good?

Let’s talk about starting income for a moment. Japan starts with 26 IPCs in the bank. India, ANZAC, and China start with a combined 39 IPCs in the bank. If you allocate a modest 6 IPCs/turn from the Russians and an equally modest 24 IPCs/turn from the Americans, that’s 69:26 – the Pacific Allies are outearning Japan by nearly 3:1.

Assuming we’re still debating over J1 vs Middle Earth, I’ll do the rounds. I’m going to automatically leave China out of this due to their restrictions as a World Power. I’m going to assume that all of this should be that each Pacific ally dedicates 100% of their respective resources against the Japanese player. If each player could combine their IPC’s to one economy then maybe talking about the ratio of allied money to Japan would be something to talk about. And frankly I’m not sure if you’re trying to take the average of IPC’s America/U.K is spending in the Pacific so you’ll have to fill me in on that part if I’m misunderstanding something. And is it to no surprise that the Allied money combined turn out to be more than Japans?

At the end of a J1 attack that includes Pearl Harbor, Japan has likely picked up about 12 IPCs of territory (Kwangtung, Philippines, French Indochina, Shan State, eastern China) while forfeiting its only NO. So Japan is earning about 38 IPCs at the end of J1. Meanwhile, the Chinese can likely reopen the Burma road so will be up net about +3, ANZAC is going to collect its bonus for Malaya so will be up +5 even if you sink its starting transport, and India can pick up a money island like Sumatra to go up +4. America is now at war and will get +20 IPCs for its basic objectives; let’s say only +5 of those go into the Pacific. So at the end of turn 1 the Pacific Allies are earning something like 69 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 86 IPCs. The Allies are up 86:38 – still over a 2:1 ratio against the Japanese.

I think you’ve also neglected to mention that ANZAC won’t be getting units to Java or Celebes until as early as turn 2. The fact that they have picked up 12 IPC’s already makes up for the loss of their NO for not being at war so that’s really not something that needs to be factored in. I’m sure the Chinese could reopen the Burma road with 6 infantry and the fighter at the cost of leaving their Northern Flank completely exposed to the Japanese, not that it matters anyway with the IC’s that will be going on Hong Kong and Shangai. Once again, assuming they are prioritizing on Middle Earth, they won’t be using that transport to take Java and Sumatra unless they want to be delayed in securing the ME by 1 turn in which the Germans will already be at the gateway to the Med by then. Once again, if I could combine that money together to purchase accordingly to defeat the Japanese then we wouldn’t be discussing the J1 attack’s effectiveness.

So when you talk about how Allied countries can’t afford to replace expensive losses, I think you’ve got it backward. It’s true that ANZAC can’t literally rebuy 3 fighters in one turn, and Japan can rebuild a carrier group in 1 turn, but if the Allies can manage to trade units against Japan at even expected value or even at a slight loss, then they’re doing great. It is Japan’s obligation to explode and conquer huge amounts of territory as quickly as possible. If the Allies can stop or even just slow down that expansion, then the Allies will collectively outearn the s*** out of Japan and Japan will be overwhelmed. That’s part of why I don’t like the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack. Yes, Japan deals more damage in that attack than it suffers, but Japan isn’t conquering any economically valuable territory with those attacks, and it winds up trading quite a bit of material. The more Japan trades, the less Japan is able to expand at lightning speed.

Now this is where this get’s interesting. if I had to be honest, I don’t disagree with you on the fact that the Allies can make attempts to disrupt what the Japanese are doing in the Pacific with precise purchasing of units. But you’ve yet to consider the one fact that ANZAC, nor America, nor the Soviets, no the U.K, and even China to an extent are prepared for an offensive war. Because frankly you could come up with any strategy you want about dealing with Japan in the Pacific, as long as Japan has you at the pointed end of the stick there really isn’t much any of you can do. Hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is necessary. To put America against the wall like that is something that they can’t just laugh off like they usually do, this time Japan is full front taking it to them instead of the U.S 6 turns later arriving in Tokyo. And if we’re going to look at this from a broader perspective, the idea of the turn order is for the Axis to do their thing and win, and for the allies to come back and turn things around. Aside from retaking the Road, the allies really are unable to stop the Japanese in their tracks on J1, which is why it’s such a powerful opening move. So the Allied powers in the Pacific are subjected to only taking at most 2 IPC’s away from Japan and completely unable to do anything about the rest. And as I stated from the very beginning, the Pearl harbor attack really doesn’t take away from the J1 attack and it’s effectiveness, it only adds to it.

All that said, what is your advice for the Allied Pacific player? Are they just supposed to build infantry and the occasional artillery piece and stay at home and skirmish near their capitals? If you see Japan as an irresistible force that can’t be usefully interfered with, then how do you play the Allies?

Well, that’s a good question. Frankly it’s how you would wanna play it. The core of the apple where we’re disagreeing is that you believe that it’s the Allies’ mission to stay on the offense and take it to the Japanese on the forefront of war as they continue to expand and conquer. And what I think is that it’s too risky for them to do something like that and that it’s essential for them to hunker down and defend for as long as possible. Let’s take a look at the way to win the game. Japan needs 6 victory cities in the Pacific to be victorious over the Allies. they’ll get 4 easily, Tokyo, Shangai, Hong Kong and Manila. If the British aren’t building defenses in Calcutta then Japan will more often then not take that out in a reasonable amount of time. That leaves 2 left: Honolulu and Sydney. If you’ve only focused on an outer-perimeter strategy for ANZAC and the U.K then there is absolutely nothing from stopping the Japanese to land in Western Australia and slowly move East to take it. But that’s how I’d play the Allies.

You’re nitpicking here in an effort to score cheap points; let’s try to keep the debate constructive. If Britain has enough air power in the area that the transports would be underdefended, then you build 8 transports and a destroyer, instead.

You’re also simultaneously complaining that I’m “going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany” and that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack. Pick one! Either Germany has plenty of infantry units and won’t miss the units they send on Sea Lion, or buying 7+ land units on G1 is a reasonable part of a Sea Lion attack. Those can’t both be false at the same time.

1. As I said, I’m genuinely sorry for getting all fussy over Sealion. It has nothing to do with the Pacific and therefore has no place for either of us to try and get on top of the other with it. 2) Did I say that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack? I’ll need to check back on the thread for that cause I really don’t remember saying that anywhere but I’ll check back. If I did say it then I didn’t mean to, obviously ground units are everything when going after London. For the sake of the debate I’m not gonna continue ranting over Sealion so let’s just set it aside.

That’s incorrect. 1 fighter takes off from Malta, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then returns 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 1 tac takes off from the eastern Med fleet in SZ 98, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then flies 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 2 fighters fly in from London and will ideally be taken as casualties. If you get fewer than 2 casualties, then, yes, you’ll have to leave the carrier behind in Sea Zone 97 to land those 2 fighters, but at that point you’re doing so well in the Med that Germany can’t sink your boats without taking such heavy casualties to the Luftwaffe that Moscow will be safe for many turns.

Ahhhhhhhh okay that’s completely my bad. I honestly forgot that the Tactical Bomber begins on the carrier so you could just move it to Malta when the attack is finished right sorry that’s my bad so you would be able to take both fighters from London then. I know I’m being hypocritical here but you do realize those fighters can’t make it back to London if there is a Sealion right? (unless you’re planning on building fighters on London, then it doesn’t matter).

For me, especially in 42’ setup, it geniunly feels like the idea of the allies making a bland ‘landing’ in europe is incredibly overstretched. What I mean by this is that having heard tons upon tons of people’s strategies, it feels like this is always such an overlooked aspect in the game, that all the Soviets need to do is ‘hold out’ until the allies arrive. I, along with alot of other people would sure like to be entitled to believe that, only it’s not at simple as the allies just ‘landing’ in Europe. To start, let me take you to the beginning.

Having played an incredibly historically accurate game of Axis and Allies Anniversary 1942 setup, it really did make me realize that the Soviets really can’t ‘hold out’. Or rather they can hold out, but hold out to the point to which they’ve taken the city of Berlin. In other words, the Soviets really can’t rely on an allied landing because either A) It happens and it gets pushed out to see, or B) it takes a very VERY long time to be put into play, therefore not saving the Soviets but a lick of time, or C) It doesn’t happen. All of these feels like major contributing factors to which the Soviets can’t really rely on the Americans and/or British making an official landing in France or Northwestern Europe.

Now as for them making a D-Day sort of landing, how it’s implicated to me at the very least, it feels as if it takes a lot more steps than what is talked about. I mean for starters the British need to extinguish the German naval presence in the Atlantic to even relieve some pressure on themselves, let alone the Americans make a landing in Africa first. AFRICA FIRST. This to me, is a must for the Americans to do before even thinking about landing in mainland Europe, simply because it’s all about closing each front in the war.

Next what needs to happen is that assuming the British have taken out the German naval presence, (Which, needs to be done within 3-4 turns or else Leningrad will have been taken by then and the Germans will have too strong of a foothold in Northeastern Europe), with the British then needing to land in Norway, and Finland. Part of what the British and Americans need to really prioritize on is removing IPC’s from the Germans… for good. Part of what I mean by this is that in order to stagnate the Germany economy, you need to take IPC’s from them that they can’t get back. Norway and Finland are giving the German Player 1 tank every round of combat that’s played, which may not seem like a lot, but for any veterans reading this you know that’s HUGE. To briefly touch on why something such as that is incredibly significant is that aside from capital provinces, almost no other territory holds the IPC count of 3 or higher, especially in the Soviet Union which is primarily made up of 1’s and 2’s for IPC count. Now whether the Soviets are the ones to take Norway and Finland or the British, it is an incredibly important key factor to deteriorating the German War Machine since what the Eastern Front will all come down to is whether the Germans or Soviets can produce more tanks than that of which are being destroyed, and who can destroy more tanks all together.

The next part to all this is after having the Americans landed, the British/Soviets secure Norway and Finland, the Americans need to establish their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea (Yes, you land your troops FIRST in Africa, then move your navy into to defeat the Italian/German fleet). This will establish a firm link into Europe between Africa and Europe.

Keep in mind, whilst all this is happening, the Soviets need to be constantly making progress against Germany, this can’t be a “Germany on the doorstep of Moscow” type of deal, or else the landings into Europe just won’t work out. Also remember that as the British and American player, you still need to be keeping consistent pressure on Japan, because unlike other games, this time around Japan can actually win it for the Axis and having them grow to strong and/or already defeat the Chinese presence sets the war effort heavily in Axis favor.

To top it all off, the set standard point is that the Soviets should be pushing the Germans back all the way to East Poland and/or having regained every bit of former territory they start with, pushing the German Player back to his or her starting territories. With the stage set, the Americans will have needed to build a floating bridge across the Atlantic and into the Med to which they will then invade Italy or the Balkans. (Keep in mind part of how the Soviets will be able to push the Germans back is with the assistance of the Americans threatening the southern border, trust me the Germans WILL put defenses down south to screen your amphibious assault wherever it may be.) After having done a simulation game, I found it best for the Americans to invade Italy, not the British. As for which southern area to invade, it really depends on where the German military presence stands, observe, use your better judgement to know whether to invade Italy, the Balkans, or Romania/Bulgaria depending on the circumstances (the Soviet Union should be very close to invading German Poland/Romania Bulgaria).

Whilst this is happening, it would seem to be logical for the Americans to invade France, but that’s not the case here. This time around, the British are going to have to do this. They too will have to build a floating bridge and take France from the Germans to really put pressure on the Western Front of the war.

So with the British having taken Norway, Finland, France and potentially Northwestern Europe, along with the Americans taking Italy and/or the Balkans, the Soviets should be making their final push on the German Reich, having gotten all the way to GERMAN Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, as well as Chzecheslovia/Hungary.

All in all, this is my interpretation of what it means for there to be an “Allied Landing” in Europe. Just like the in real life, it’s not really meant to come when the Soviets are in their last dyeing stages or too early on in the war, but more after the Soviets have shifted the balance beam to their favor on the offensive and after the Japanese having been cleaned up.

If you have any other ideas, feel free to share them with me

@ola

An interesting and definetely new opening, I may just have to try it sooner or later. My only point that I would put into question is the act of attacking sea zone 12 with 2 fighters since granted while removing those two ships from the board would be beneifical, you’re also heavily costing your own much needed aircraft.

I think really one of, if not the only way you could defeat/halt the UK is to invest heavily in a powerful airforce solely meant to attack British vessels in the Atlantic to slow down transport shucks. Essentially, prevent them from landing in Norway/Finland at all costs, but then the other question comes into play as to how long could they afford to do that before the Russians arrive?

@leebear said in A question on components.:

@thedesertfox
I’ve done 8 battleships and 8 carriers for both the USA and Japan. Probably half that for everyone else. I’ve done probably 20 fighters for each as well.
That 1941 set is a nightmare in terms of limited pieces. I ended up combining 2 sets but since then I’ve swapped a lot of pieces out for the unique, nation specific sculpts. I actually like the 1941 game for its simplicity though. The fact that you can’t build IC’s actually keeps navies relevant for the whole game. (Particularly for Japan).

yeah i definteely agree. I played that game throughout my beginnings of A&A with a friend of mine until I upgraded to Anniversary, then 42’, and finally Global 40’. I also forgot about those custom American fighters that I atleast thought were selling in Historical Boardgaming. They were the ones different from the P-38 Lightning, the other model was the Chance Vought Corsair, the plane with the bent wings. I honestly prefered those over the twin engine models since first off, those weren’t standard issue planes in the second world war, and second, I just think the Corsairs look way cooler.

@Argothair

That’s the nuts and bolts I think both of us have been trying to get at here. So to finally get down to business for what the allies should be doing.

I don’t mean to project the fact that I’m paranoid as ANZAC or India. The idea is that these little slow downs, I have an idea of what you’re talking about. It would be just like Russia taking Manchuria only to hold it for 1 turn for the Japanese to spend resources to take it back, am I right? And honestly I do think of that as a distraction and annoyance to Japan, but you’re going to run out of those infantry. You always will. And there’s nothing left to hold Japan back then after that.

Basically, I’ve not stood by for a moment without considering all your thoughts and ideas to lead to a potential win of the Allied Powers in the Pacific. But my point being is that that you’re sort of getting at the idea that there’s an in between when it comes to both these nation’s low income. And I would argue that there really isn’t an in between. If you plan on trying to intercept the Japanese and their moves in the money islands with say the 1 transport from India then that’s fine. You might lose that transport and along with it Borneo Celebes and Java but if you truly believe that slowing down the Japanese will lead to the effective victory then I’m all for doing it.

To get into detail, the reason why I say there’s no in between is because if say the U.K sends frequent air raids towards the Japanese fleet or puts minor defenses in curtain areas to get them to divert small resources to taking it, then you need to be willing to keep that chain of frequent air raids going. But here lays the problem. Air raids won’t win you the game against Japan. Neither will meager small defenses in curtain key strategic areas. (I know you didn’t say that I’m just pointing it out as a notice).

That’s why I’m whole heartedly committed to the defense of Sydney and Calcutta for when the Japanese do arrive. In other words, I’d rather be safe then sorry. Because If I’ve lost too many of my IPC’s where I can’t afford to continue these air raids and small defenses then I’m standing here without a defensive perimeter as ANZAC and the U.K. And swapping between Offense and Defense each turn doesn’t work in this scenario. You cannot build say 3 infantry turn 1, then maybe 1 fighter and a tank the next, and so on and so forth. Because then you’re not committed to one strategy or the other.

That’s why I play the Allies the way I do

@ola

Exactly, it strictly becomes something that just isn’t efficient but may work if you actually tried it, I dont know. Point is, should the U.K set up a task force in the Atlantic then the Germans would need to build up a strong enough force close to Moscow to make one final assault whilst building up an airforce and somewhat of a navy to stop it, other then that the U.K have much more free range then what they would in global 40.

@Argothair

I hear where you’re coming from. And the way you play is perfectly fine. Just know that you’re bound to run out of resources eventually with the J1 attack. See, the one thing that’s always kept me on edge is that for countries such as Germany, they dont have to worry about the Allies interfering with their peace with the Soviet Union and America. But with Japan bringing all the Allies into the war, they’re still able to get away with their opening move without the Allies being able to intercept any of what happens on J1. If you know a way to to defeat the J1 attack on turn 1 then I’d really like to hear it. And this goes the same for the Pearl Harbor trap that Japan can set for America. If it’s as simple as no falling for it then Japan should have no difficulty and watching for their opponents moves. Japan has the time that they need to conquer the Pacific Allies before the Americans come across the water if they even do. And with a Pearl Harbor attack that’s going to delay the Americans from even going to Pearl Harbor for another 2-3 turns just with 2 aircraft carriers and an island worth no IPC’s. ANZAC and the U.K won’t defeat Japan, But America will. It’s up to the U.S player to want to make that happen.

@Argothair

Glad we finally agree on something ;)

And listen okay. I hope you know the more you tell people about the trap the less effective it is… >:(

@Argothair

Likely for the best. We could go on and on about this but frankly I think to start a new thread would be the way to go. I think this debate has been incredibly intriguing for me to watch and react, it’s genuinely fascinating to look at a strategy made by someone else, so you can see just how differently you two think. Yeah, honestly the J1 attack when you think about it has less effect towards Middle Earth anyway.

@Cornwallis

Not necessarily. Turn 1, I buy 2 aircraft carriers and a battleship. I’ll obviously have enough to fill both carriers up with the fighters I already start with. I place 1 AC in the Atlantic and 1 in the Pacific and the Battleship in the Atlantic.

@Cornwallis

Maybe, as I said it generally depends on how much German resistance there is in France, and if Germany is put in a 2 front war well, we’ve already seen how that ends so can we really take a big guess about what’ll happen in-game?

@Cornwallis

The United States. Just toss me the link to the thread and I’ll cover any of your questions or strategies you have.

@Argothair

I apologize it was not G2 my bad I actually meant the second turn to which Barborossa began… I commensed with operation Barborossa on G3 and on G4 I destroyed 10 of the Soviet Tanks that’s my bad sorry shoulda clarrified.

@cornwallis

Exactly! See, part of what I was developing for a German strategy was to strike at the heart of the U.K’s economy.

So hear me out on this and tell me what you think.

First and foremost, you’d obviously be doing an Afrika Korps strategy which is sending a German navy and German units to help assist Italy down in Africa, whilst doing a successful Barbarossa attack. I actually made a thread in Europe 1940 called “Countering the Russian Fall Back Line” with a well devised plan to counter the counter attacking that the Soviet Union can do.

As for which route Germany should do, I absolutely think they should be taking the southern route since 1) more money, 2) closer proximity of industrial hubs with Stalingrad as well as Ukraine.

I’ve done counting and from the East Poland border to Moscow, it’s 4 turns, which is the exact amount of time it takes for the British to bring their destroyer and transport from the British Isles all the way to South Africa to start their triangular transport process in their Middle Earth strategy.

BUT, I have developed a way to potentially counter the Middle Earth strategy and the inevitable Minor Industrial Complex that will be placed on Iraq/Western Persia with a strategy that I like to call “Naher Osten”. This strategy is still a prototype, but the way it works is basically still the same get go, so let me fill you in on the steps.

Turn 1, Germany should build 2 transports and an Aircraft Carrier to create a fake Sealion build for the British to get all ancy that Sealion will happen, continue normal German moves that you’d do on G1, as for Southern France it’s optional to take it G1 or G2 doesn’t really matter much, but leave Yugoslavia and Greece for Italy since this strategy involves Italy to play a significant role in taking Egypt.

Turn 2, Germany should take the 2 infantry from Denmark, 1-2 infantry from Norway, the tank and artillery from Normandy down to Gibraltar and Morocco to make an official landing in Africa and control the straight of Gibraltar. Germany should next be building tanks, artillery and infantry for the inevitable attack on the Soviet Union. Now, it really doesn’t matter how you divide your infantry up as the Germans, you can either build the 3 infantry on Normandy and take the 3 infantry from Greater Southern Germany to Southern France, it doesn’t matter what you do, you just need to have 6 infantry and 3 tanks on Southern France, as well as having built either 3 more tanks on France, or 2 tanks and an artillery, etc. just buy 3 units made up of tanks and/or artillery.

Turn 3, Germany then moves their transports up to Southern France, taking 3 Infantry and 3 tanks down to Tunisia with the 3 movement they get from the newly taken Naval Base. Now, turn 3 should be the proper assorting build to send towards your Barbarossa attack consisting of aircraft, infantry, tanks, artillery, etc. BUT you must build 3 transports on Southern France by G3 for this strategy to work. So, G3 should effectively be your Barbarossa attack, this is when you can go now and go hard on the Soviet Union. I spoke earlier in a thread I made of countering the Russian Fall Back Line if it is enacted and it was a long post so I don’t wanna just say the same thing here, but the point is you can go now, this is it. or you can wait to G4, I’d go on G3 though. Now, as for your newly built 3 transports, the UK may or may not have a bomber on Malta that can reach. The Italian player should take their leftover cruiser, transport and destroyer and sub, (assuming they are all alive) to the sz 93 bordering Southern France to A) Keep the 3 German transports safe and B) Protect those ships from being destroyed by the Royal Airforce, to which being there the British will only have their bomber to take it out which isn’t very cost effective to trade a bomber for a destroyer being that the cruiser gets a guaranteed 2 shots at the bomber. So you’ll have a total of 6 transports, 3 bordering North Africa and 3 on Southern France.

Turn 4, this is where the strategy is put into play, keep in mind this is the exactly moment where the UK JUST STARTS to get their triangular transport route moving in the Indian Ocean so this couldn’t be better timing for Germany to disrupt the UK. Now, for building units you might wanna consider building a ship or 2 in the Med to help build up the German navy, as well as continually building the proper builds to help assist the invasion on Barbarossa. Now for the combat moves, Germany should take their navy, their 3 transports that will carry 3 infantry and 3 tanks, and their 3 transports on Southern France carrying 3 more infantry, and likely 1 tank and an artillery (It can be whatever you want, you just need to atleast bring 3 tanks), and bring these across the Med and land in SYRIA. The British may or may not know what’s coming, and might have aircraft there as well as some other units, which is perfectly fine, the more units there the better for you. So to recap, you’ll be taking your entire navy, 6 transports holding a total of 6 infantry, 4 tanks, and 2 artillery to Syria, and if there are any units there then you’ll get a landing shot with the battleship and cruiser.

Within the next 2-3 turns you’ll be able to march across the Middle East, taking the IPCs, the Industrial Complex, and the National Objective money from the British player, whilst Italy focuses on taking out Egypt, and while Japan works on taking out Calcutta, and with this, the British player is absolutely overwhelmed, they effectively have all 3 major Axis powers all marching for their base of operations, which the British just can’t afford to take on all 3 Axis powers, I don’t care how many units the British place in the Middle East and Africa, they just can’t industrialize fast enough to take on all 3 Axis powers. Keep in mind that after you make your landing on G4 into the Middle East, your ships should IMMEDIATLY turn back around to face the impending American navy that is coming across the water, and within a span of 3-4 turns you should have built at least 1 boat to put in the Med to help size up the American navy with your own and with the combined strength of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, you’ll be able to push the Americans out from their invasion of Operation Torch, therefore winning the game for yourself since the Americans HAVE to make their landing in Africa by turn 4, and if they’re pushed out then its game over, they can’t afford to make another landing because by then the Soviets will have lost the war.

I know this post was super long so I’m really sorry for making you have to read all this but I really wanted to make sure this strategy was devised and well thought out to take on the Allied powers.

Tell me what you think!

@argothair

Thank you! This is quite literally the exact reason why Germany should do Afrika Korps. Italy doesn’t belong in the Middle East it doesn’t help them at all to throw a way valuable resources like that. Italy has 1 priority and that’s to 1) Dominate the Med Sea and 2) Take Egypt

Alot of people don’t understand that Germany is here to do the dirty work. Let Germany take Syria and move into Iraq, Germany will be the ones fighting the British hand and hand all Italy needs to do is work on taking Cairo

@squirecam

I wasn’t super comfortable with it. And granted with the terms of the pacific I still think anzac should exist i just like the aspect that the 2 sides of the UK are played by different players

@nolimit

Frankly even if they didnt go after Japan, it’d just be the same thing only Japan is doing it.

Both Germany and Japan have the ability to inflict their will upon the Pacific/Atlantic and the U.S. needs to take the appropriate measures to counter both of these guys at all costs.

@nolimit

Yeah well all the same if America doesn’t prioritize Japan then Japan’s gonna go frickin’ nuts in the Pacific and just swallow up any IPC’s the Pacific Allies had and win the game for the Pacific so you’re left with the 2 choices of which is the better way to strike at the Axis.

Hence why at the end of the day, the Axis have the optimal advantage over the Allies. The United States can’t definitely pick one side of the world to fight on over the other without major loose ends to deal with to which the game is being threatened with an Axis victory.