Best posts made by TheDesertFox

@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.

@nolimit

If it was as simple as stacking units on Sydney and Honolulu then I’m not sure people would still be playing this game.

Japan already has the absolute ability to destroying the American fleet and transports in Hawaii with a properly setup Pearl Harbor attack already rendering the United States broken and ineffective to fight back.

And if they keep their navy in San Francisco for protection then as the player playing Japan I’m doing my job at keeping the US out of my business in the Pacific. And with a destroyed navy and a firm sphere of influence over Honolulu having only 3 spaces to get to right from the Sea of Japan America now has to fight the Japanese and commit instead of just stacking units on Honolulu.

@tin-can-of-the-sea

Yep, see most people want to secure the Northern Front of the war to take the victory city of Leningrad but you go up there and there’s only territories of 1 IPC value for miles dude you make no headway whereas down south you’ve got atleast 5 territories worth 2 IPC’s to go along with the national objective you get for taking Stalingrad AND the separate one for taking the Caucuses boosting your economy by a largesome amount.

Well, you dont actually have to stop pouring money into Barbarossa to get to work on the Med and Western Europe.

A German Strategy called Afrika Korps that was made by GHG which is an absolute ingenious strategy that Germany should do to winning with the OOB rules that involves taking a built up German navy and troops down to Africa to assist Italy against the British.

And what better time to do this then before you even start your Barbarossa attack. That way you dont have to worry about consistently spending money on a 2 front war. You send the troops needed down to Africa within turns 1-3 and by G3 that’s when you’ll be declaring war on the Soviets.

@crockett36

I’m not really following here.

4 destroyers, 2 submarines, 4 fighters, 4 tactical bombers, 2 battleships, 2 bombers and a cruiser, all up against 1 sub, 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, a battleship, and a carrier with a tactical bomber and fighter and I assume the reason you want to use territories such as Wake Island and Guam is for the opportunity to scramble those planes… I hate to be the bearer of bad news but even 3 planes scrambled into the Sea zone isn’t enough (did the math, tested the averages and it doesn’t work).

America at most might clear out all the cannon faughter that the Japanese bring forward which would be their subs and destroyers, leaving all their big heavier ships still alive and undamaged.

I’m not sure if you realize how close Calcutta is to Japan. J2, capture French Indo China J3 put a complex on it whilst capture Malaya since as the British if you’re reinforcing Yunnan with everything you have then you’re going to leave Malaya open to attack by naval forces, J4 put a major industrial complex there then pump out the 10 units and now your southern flank is just as strong if not stronger than you’re northern flank.

As per ‘stacking’ Yunnan, assuming Japan continues to role through China by J2 China is only left with a meager 5 IPC’s, with Japan having overwhelmed Yunnan, and NOT having declared war on the British, preventing them from moving into Yunnan to support the Chinese, (Unless you want to move them in as a declaration of war, keeping the Americans out of the war into turn 4, which I’d welcome).

The reason Japan lost WWII to America is because the United States merely had to let Japan burn themselves out on the Americans, throwing everything they had at them and then moving forward. If that’s what you as the American player do to Japan than a Japanese victory is clear. Japan starts with a bigger navy, a much bigger Airforce than America, and moving your units into the Japanese Sphere of influence like that is pretty much throwing them away. As the player playing japan, I would absolutely welcome America to put the majority of their money in the Pacific.

Like General Hand Grenade said, there’s no magic bullet or secret passage to beating the Germans or the Japanese within the first 3-4 turns, and your especially not going to be getting to the home base of Japan in that time span either simply because of what you said… ships. As Japan, I have the first 3 turns to build as many ships as I please before I start pumping out land units to take Calcutta with my factories on Malaya and French Indo China, ground units aren’t a priority for me until turn 4, leaving me to build up my navy from what it already is, increase the carrier count to 5 aircraft carriers, and if you as the U.S don’t have atleast 3 by then well… you’ve lost the Pacific, because like I said the Sub strategy would be a great idea… if my fighters and tac bombers can’t hit them, but they can as long as theres a destroyer present. Also, assuming you’re talking about strategic bombers in central united states, well they wouldn’t reach since Wake Island would be captured by incoming japanese invasion of transports.

So at the end of the day if I don’t win as Japan, I know Germany will.