Best posts made by TheDesertFox

@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.

@squirecam

Ohhhhhhh it has to be your own starting territory???

I genuinely feel like I’m discovering new rules left and right after all my years of playing A&A…

@nolimit

This is true, while it ain’t impossible to find a way for the Allies to win, against competent German, Italian and japanese players you’re really only left with 1 hope and that is to hope that they screw up somewhere along the lines.

Nah I’m just joshin’ around there likely is a way but it would involve the Americans going after both the Germans and Japanese, since you can’t leave Japan alone in the Pacific, you just can’t, not gonna say why since it’s been discussed to death why they can’t and I’m sure you guys all know why they can’t as well, but they can’t.

@gen-manstein

Just jokin’ lol

@crockett36

True that, and by no means are you wrong about america

Like Germany, the us has the ability to impose their will on any axis member, so youre strategy can absolutely work, it will simply prove fatal for you on the other side of the board

just my opinion tho

@barnee

Thanks Barnee! This had been stumped for a while if 6 fghter scramble would be legal from 2 territories of air bases so I’m thankful I got the answer to that, much appreciated

@crockett36

What I normally do is take my charger to my phone and connect it to my PC/Laptop and I’m able to download any shots to my PC but I’m not sure if that’s the same for you.

@crockett36

Just watched the video, and having looked at the setup with your 2 blockers on Seazone 30 and 31, and personally for me I’d send my fighters to go take out that free aircraft carrier, seeing as I don’t think there are any fighters on guam (i’m not super familiar with Triple A so you’d have to let me know of the information) as well as send in some cannon fodder to take some hits as a nice little pick up, Personally I wouldn’t send my transports that far down to 36 since I mean you really don’t have to worry about Southern China until the rest of your Northern Forces cave in on the Chinese as well as the idea that there is still a chance for the UK to declare war if I left myself too open as Japan.

Basically if the UK declared war then I’d likely capitalize on the fact that America is not allowed to join the war until turn 4 (officially perform combat) and proceed to then fight only the British and Chinese, but that’s just my take, you’re demonstration on Triple A was much more in depth and detailed then what I could offer so I give you credit for that.

@crockett36

What do you mean?

@crockett36

Ahhh okay. i’ve never really thought of doing something like that before but I can definetly see why

@crockett36

Precisely, you’re right on the money.

See the thing that I feel most American players don’t really take into consideration is that they feel that they’re only limited to either going 100% in the Pacific or 100% in the Atlantic. But from past experiences when playing as America I’ve found them to honestly primarily act as a support role if anything then actually take it to Japan. Obviously they’ll be fighting Japanese warships but really all you need to have as America in the Pacific is a small parameter of island-hopping troops, some strategic bombers to essentially utilize islands such as Guam and Wake Island to quickly maneuver around the Pacific and bomb Japan, and then after that the UK Pacific and Anzac will take the money islands for themselves and have an outstanding incredible boost in IPC’s to go along with their national objectives and they’ll essentially be beating Japan back at this point all the way to Manchuria, since frankly you really don’t have to make landings in Japan per say but just push them out of mainland Asia.

With that, you can still develop your floating bridge as the United States in the Atlantic whilst simultaneously using leftover IPCs you DIDNT use in the Atlantic to build strategic bombers in the Pacific as well as other warships/transports.

@crockett36

A decently good idea if I had to say so myself, and with the British declaring war on Japan sooner then that of which Japan declares war on them, means that America will be out of the war until turn 4, so building a major industrial complex on the Western United States is imperative to get units pumping into the Pacific to be able to really give it to the Japanese.

Now the only problem with this is that, being that the wave technique as well as any strat bombers you wanted to mobilize, on top of upgrading you minor IC to a major one, is sinking ALOT of money into the Pacific side, so to me it seems like a risk reward situation. It could go well, but all the same you don’t have to plunge that much money into Japan to take them out, I think something that would inevitably imperative is the taking of the Japanese mainland all together as America if you’re going to go all in. In other words, you’re going to stage your navy in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, and make preparations for an actual invasion of the Japanese mainland. As crazy of an idea as this sounds, it’s like you said Crockett, Japan is a lot more fragile then people think. What you’d be doing here is turning Japan’s greatest asset (they’re located on an island), into their greatest curse, and since they’re on an island, they’re most notably open to amphibious invasion.

@crockett36

Precisely, you could almost think of it as a the ocean canopener.

@crockett36

You’ve got a good YT channel going, I didn’t know you played things like warroom and turn by turn simulations, that’s pretty cool

@victoryfirst

I agree with Tin 100% on this.

The Russian Counter-Attacking strategy is really your best bet as the Soviet Union. Now the only thing that should be mentioned is that this will delay the Germans, but it won’t stop them.

There is physically nothing the Soviet Union Player can do to completely stop the German attack, reverse it, and start to make headway towards Berlin, BY THEMSELVES (that is youre playing against someone that actually knows what they’re doing).

You just can’t stop Germany, they make more money then you, they mobilize faster than you, and they can move quicker then you, so delaying is really you’re only option here. And the idea, doesn’t matter what scenario it is, is to delay Germany to G8. Assuming Germany does a G3 Barbarossa, you’ll have plenty of time to build up, and you’re going to want to do the counter attacking strategy. But that’s not gonna stop Germany, since you wont be accounting for your losses so you’re going to make multiple fall back lines toward your industrial production hubs. The idea is that the typical time for Germany to arrive in Moscow is G6, that is the earliest they can physically arrive if they attacked on G3. The sweet spot to arrive is G7, and G8 is a running a tad bit behind schedule but still getting the job done. As the Soviet Union, you can take advantage of this. By counter attacking the Germans, you’ll be delaying them from getting to Moscow likely toward G7, now here’s the ace up the sleeve. You’re Siberian infantry. Assuming you’ve been moving all 18 of your infantry and 2 AAA guns out West, 6 of your infantry will arrive in Moscow, one turn short of which they will arrive. If you can delay them 1 more turn then that will give you’re other 12 and 2 AAA guns time to get to Moscow, with a total of 18 infantry on Moscow, which is going to be a HUGE factor in swaying the battle of Moscow, and just for detailed report, that’s 68 IPC’s worth of defending units you didn’t have to spend, if you can get all these infantry to Moscow by the time the Germans are arriving, then this can/will heavily sway the fight in your favor allowing you to prioritize tanks and fighters to get at the German armory.

But I can confidently say that bottling up on Moscow with 70 infantry (yes, I’ve seen this happen, people do it), isn’t gonna get you anywhere. Because what comes with bottling up may give you a win in Moscow, but a loss in the war, having completely lost Stalingrad and Leningrad and all your money all together. Though in some of General Hand Grenade’s previous posts he’s stated that the Germans will be ‘getting destroyed’ by the Russian counter attack, which by no means will happen, since even in his own video, his counter attack didn’t even kill all the German units going for Leningrad, but regardless, you can see where I’m coming from.

@andrewaagamer

Andrew, the saving grace you’re gonna have is the infantry from Siberia. That’s what counter attacking is all about, you might be taking away 4 needed infantry, but you’re gonna get that back with 6 infantry that will arrive at Moscow right on time as the Germans are arriving, you could potentially get all 18 if you’ve delayed the Germans effectively by means of counter attacking.

And second, you have a better chance at turtling anyway then that of Germany, Germany suffers far more from attrition having invaded such a huge land mass, they won’t get newly mobilized units over to Moscow fast enough hence why that starting invasion on G3 is the force that’s going to have to fight in Moscow.

And my final point here, the unit distribution, makes all the less difference. You can only produce 3 in places like Kiev, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, which you wont be producing in Stalingrad until it’s under threat, meaning the majority of your units are going to end up in Moscow anyway, so it’s not like you’re taking anything away from Moscow. And be that as it may, a player playing Germany that’s just trying to make a break for Moscow is going to lose, you have to secure the flanks if you want a chance at beating them. The Nazis in the real war thought they could get away with taking Moscow and that’d be it but as it turns out they didn’t have a whole lot of luck with that predicament, so neither will the German player in this game either, seeing both the Northern and Southern flank of the USSR pushed them back to the point where Germany just wasn’t capable of making a counter offensive.

Now in the event that a competent German player knows how to fight against a properly sized mass of land, they’re going to secure Leningrad and Stalingrad, then move in on Moscow, and in these circumstances, you’re gonna have to increase your speed and size in mobilization across the country or you’re gonna lose both flanks, Leningrad is already bad enough being that it’s completely surrounded by 1 territories and it’s the closest city to the German front line so there’s no set intention to make it worse on yourself with Stalingrad.

Just consider the circumstances

@andrewaagamer said in The Caucasus Industrial Complex:

You are going to get those 6 infantry from the Far East whether or not you build the mIC so either way you are still down the 4 infantry if you build the mIC.

That’s compensation. Any time you factor out something, you can always factor something IN to sway the balance. Anything and everything that isn’t built toward infantry is factored out of the equation as having ‘lost infantry’. Bringing units across Siberia to fight Germany factors these IN to the equation. When you have a number of -4, add 4 to it bringing it to just the exact amount of infantry you would have normally had, plus another 2 leads you with positive 2, more infantry than what you would’ve lost. You’re not still down the 4 infantry by making this number up, and you’ll continue to make up for with the 12 more infantry moving across the land as well, that’s how this math works, any time you factor something out, it can always be factored in through mobilization of new units or units sent from another designated area.

If you can explain how you are going to hold the mIC than I will listen to your argument. If you cannot hold it, and I say you can’t, than it is nuts to build it for Germany to take over and use.

Do I really have to? Here you have a Germany with a meager industrial complex on Ukraine capable of pumping out 3 units a turn, with this industrial complex, and Stalingrad, you’ll be pumping out twice as many units as they are, which is kind of a big deal in this scenario. Capable now of pumping out 6 units a turn, they’re going to suffer from attrition (lack of proper supply of more units and resources) and therefore lose their grip on the Southern portion of the Soviet Union, providing proper war recovery to the economy and maintaining fighting capability. Germany’s already going to be delayed a turn with a first initial counter attack, followed then by the defense of Leningrad and finally having reached Moscow, an Allied landing being made in the West. Case in point.

@andrewaagamer

Ehhhhh, not really. That’s just plane math. And math says that you’re up more infantry then that of which you lost. Now granted, you won’t be up AS MUCH as you could have, which could potentially hurt you in the long run, so you’re right in that you won’t be making as much more infantry as you could be.

Also, no. He won’t have 70 guys there, he won’t even have 60, or 50, or 25 for that matter. Giving you that ample opportunity to actually make a comeback in the South, because your units are DIVERSABLE. They can move from one place to another in the event that it’s needed. If you have 6 guys sitting in the Southern area of the Soviet Union than shame on you for literally handing Germany your IPC’s because that’s why the Soviet Union is losing games consistently, they bottle up in Moscow, wait for the impending German attack, either they still get defeated since they left the German army untouched, or maybe they got some good rolls and beat em back, then you’re pretty much sitting in the water. You’ve got a weakened force that just battled like hell on Moscow city, and half your country is pretty much gone and you’re making dirt for IPC’s to produce anything of value since, half your country was taken after having given it to Germany.

I’ll tell you what, if you can prove to me that handing Germany the majority of the Western half of the Soviet Union, that giving them all those national objective boosts for holding the Caucasus, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, plus what they had to start, all those industrial hubs they have to reinforce themselves, and all those IPC’s that come with it is worth, then I will absolutely believe what you’re saying. But as of right now, you’ve only told me that consolidating your forces to protect Moscow, and there is something to be said for that, but it’s gonna take some good evidence to explain the benefit YOU get as the Soviet Union, from giving Germany all that money and power even if you were to win the battle of Moscow. It’s a pyrrhic victory for the Soviet player man, you won’t be able to mount a counter offensive at all.