Posts made by TheDesertFox

@argothair

Precisely. Though the greatest asset that the UK has tends to be their greatest curse.

To put simply, the UK dont have the power to decide where the game is going to be played. They just dont, ultimately that decision is decided by Germany. And it’s the UK’s responsibility to meet the Germans wherever they try to go. Obviously devoting 100% of your resources to that area would just be ineffective but to get down to the core basics, what else are you gonna do, man?

By G2 I will have already done my big strategic bombing run, ranked up lots of IPC’s on your naval base, air base and Industrial complex, so why bother paying that down when all that’s going to happen is that it’s going to reappear? And back to the very fabrication that the UK’s greatest asset is their greatest curse, I am referring to Middle Earth. The Middle East is largely controlled by the UK with no other Axis power having the ability to take that away, hence why its the UK’s greatest asset. An industrialized area that the Axis can’t get to? That’s a win-win for me. Produce a large concentrated amount of units in one area whilst having that area naturally impenetrable by the Axis powers.

All the same, it becomes their greatest curse when they don’t expect the Axis to come down there. Going off your point of hitting someone in their weak spot, this is exactly that. General Hand Grenade sure as hell didn’t sound like he knew the Axis could make their way into the Middle East swiftly and soundly, and truth be told they sure can, this is the exact weakness of a British player, a so said “Safe Haven” to produce and industrialize penetrated by the Axis powers in such a way you didn’t even think was possible.

The idea of doing a middle earth strategy requires of the British to take the lead, take control, and decide where the fight’s going to be. And in doing this, they’re putting their foot down toward Germany, basically telling them that I decide where this game goes. And the player in charge of Germany can either sit down and take that back talk or back hand the British player for thinking they can step out of line and call the shots for where the fighting is going to be.

All in all, if as the British role in the Atlantic and Africa, that you want to prioritize back up in the Atlantic Ocean I’d be more than happy to welcome that change of pace, because all it means for me is that my Italian partner and myself will have an easier time winning out the majority of the IPC’s that remain in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

The Germans and Axis powers overall are trained, prepared, and ready to enact on a swift victory, they’ve more often than not made strategies designed to end the game fast and efficiently, to get in and get out, none of this fiddle around stuff with areas of the globe that don’t matter. And to touch on your point of the so said building anywhere else being a ‘dead end’ well, the dead end is Berlin. It should be the of the Allies priority to make a train with carts full of infantry, artillery, and tanks headed straight for Berlin to capture it, no matter how it’s done, it needs to be done, and they can do it in any sort of fashion they wish, from the North down, the West, or the South from Africa and Middle East.

The British building a factory in Persia won’t delay the Germans to turn 10-11 by then either, 1) the Germans already won the Eastern Front by then, 2) the Japanese are on the doorstep of Calcutta by then so by the time turn 3 roles around the British should already be devoting troops to defend Calcutta, and 3) the approach from south into the Soviet Union isn’t either what this build is based around, since to me that’d be kind of a waste, just a thought to the fact that it’s a win win situation with being able to take the Middle East and the national objective money, stop the Middle Earth strategy, and as icing on the top be able to take the Caucasus as early as turn 7.

And like I said, the Germans have an incredibly open window to get units down to the Middle East and Africa whilst still keeping an effective Barbarossa attack. They aren’t swapping back and forward between the two they’re the good fight on 2 fronts, yes, they are fighting a 2 front war.

As for the Soviet flanking strategy, that’s more of an after taste, and meant for securing the Caucuses in the late game if the Soviets are giving you a run for your money. If I can get the Soviets to build slow movers like infantry, artillery and fighters to put on Stalingrad, than I’m doing my job, and I’m doing it effectively to extinguish the Soviet War Effort on the main Eastern Front.

@argothair

That’s exactly what I was worried about too is the thing. While I was able to do an Afrika Korps strategy without diverting too many units away from a Barbarossa attack, there would still be something to be said for devoting so many resources to such an unpopulated area.

My sincere apologies by the way for not stating the terms of victory, I was just kind of going off the top of my head and not necessarily considering victory conditions, but I suppose now that I’ve been reminded of it that I should touch on it a little.

So when I was playing the German Reich in a test run of Global 40’ with a buddy of mine, I was able to really test Afrika Korps whilst try to defeat the Russian Fall Back Line that is so popularly used to counteract the German offensive. But frankly, Germany should initially prioritize on the southern quadrant of the Soviet Union, not the North for the very simple reason that the south has much more income then the North, LOTS more income. You’d be surprised just how quickly the Soviet IPC Marker drops on the numbers scale just by take a few territories in the Southern area of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that it just so happens to be the undefended part due to the fact that the Soviets don’t really see much prioritization in the Southern quadrant they see Leningrad see the situation they’re in and think “Well that’s worth protecting more than the south.”

As for the British building just switching over to the exposed Western European front, I highly doubt this would be optimal for the UK to do. For starters, I’ve tried building a navy from scratch, it ain’t as easy as it sounds. Second, the main philosophy that any British player should follow is wherever the Germans take the fight, you bring the fight. If Germany goes full swing for a Sealion attack, you better meet them with all the units in the world to make em fight for it. The same goes for Africa and the Middle East. the Germans and italians dont even have to take a single bit of sub-Saharan Africa to be making around 50+ IPC’s a turn. And as for attacking the Middle East, like General Hand Grenade said, Middle Earth is something you have to be committed to, you can’t spend some IPC’s on transports and an IC and then just call it a day returning to the fight in the Atlantic Ocean, because the UK don’t make enough income to be able to do something like that, they need to be concentrated in one specific area to defeating the Germans, and that’ll either be Africa or the Atlantic, it just can’t be both, that’d be overstretching yourself too much for a country that tends to make less than 30 IPC’s a turn.

And as for the setup I suggested, obviously 12 units would not be mandatory if the British were not doing a full swing Middle Earth strategy, you’d probably only need 6 to go in there, and secure the factory there and the naval base. But the main reason I say bring 12 units to the Middle East is because you wont have another chance to shuck units back down to Africa, once you set up your designated units in Africa, everything else should be going towards Barbarossa.

Speaking of which now that I’m talking about Barbarossa the other reason I would have wanted to bring 12 units to the Middle East wouldn’t be just to secure the IC and stop the Middle Earth strategy, but to then later move into the Caucasus and flank the Soviet Armies, which I feel that this move is WAY TOO underrated, I seriously feel like people don’t do this nearly enough as they could be. Flank the Soviets form the Middle East up, secure the Caucus and Stalingrad, and just by doing that will get you a whopping 14 IPC’s from securing just those 2 territories, along with the bonus 12 IPC’s for securing the Middle East (Trans Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Persia + 6 IPCs for National Objective).

I could understand why you wouldn’t think that a movement to build a navy and send 12 ground units south just do to what you already would have done doesn’t make a lot of sense, and in some sense I agree with that thinking, but it becomes a lot more worth the time and effort to go down there then what one might expect initially since you’re playing an important role in the fight for Africa as well as giving the role of the Italians to assist you.

As for the victory conditions, I think we all know that the Soviets are going to die, especially with the new war tactic I introduced in a thread I posted just recently on stopping the Russian Fall Back Line and overall moving through Russia hastily and swiftly. Leningrad will fall overtime due to the overextended Soviet border, Stalingrad will absolutely fall with the Blitzkrieg tactic I imposed as well as having taken control of Kiev and the southern German force in charge of securing the Middle East for the extra IPC’s to which will come up and take Stalingrad, leaving Moscow to the Germans to move in and take out all together.

Granted, that’s 7 of 8 cities (assuming we’re playing by the victory city conditions). With the last remaining city being Cairo, in Egypt. Hence, how the compilation of German Strategies all tie together with the immediate cut off of Middle Earth, the Italians will then be able to take Egypt and if they’re just to incompetent to do it then there’s nothing stopping the Germans from coming in and cleaning it up, thus ending the war completely with a swift Axis victory.

Overall, I feel like a standard Barbarossa attack just doesn’t work anymore, since like I said before, you need 8 cities to win with the 8th city either being London or Cairo, and since Cairo is easier to obtain then London than I say why not go for it, the main purpose was to counter all 3 of the Allied strategies that General Hand Grenade would end up imposing on the German player and frankly I say that having done this right, you’ve succeeded in stopping all 3 strategies single handedly as Germany.

If I missed something, don’t hesitate to let me know

@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

Glad to see your still here on the forums man, but I need an opinion for an German designed strategy and I feel you’d be able to give me some helpful insight. I’ve been looking at General Hand Grenades video on Middle Earth and to the apparent outcome that it has become 'unstoppable. As for myself, I don’t believe those words for even a second, so I’ve been developing a method for Germany to potentially use that could stop all 3 Allied strategies that GHG developed.

If im honest its less of a strategy and more of a chemical mixture of different war tactics all with the same purpose of stopping the 3 allied powers in Europe.

As for GHG’s Russian Fall Back Line and Counter Attack video, I designed a specific method for Germany to break through this which is a little war tactic that goes by the name of “Blitzkrieg”

As for the American strategy of the floating bridge, I implemented the strategy i previously mentioned to you of “Afrikakorps” as well as Japan attacking on J3 instead of J1

Now I’m trying to crack the case of defeating Middle Earth… I’ve been stuck on this one for a while.

Any ideas?

@cornwallis

First, I didnt know you guys had continued talking so sorry for my leave of absence,

Second, I don’t blame him for attacking the sz 91 cruiser, since after all the Middle Earth strat really only works when aligned with America’s floating bridge and the Soviet Counter Attack

Another strategy many Allied players of fond of using is the more recent strategy known as the Floating Bridge done and performed by the United States player in a game of Global 40’.

To summarize this strategy, the American player uses the concept of making the game long and drawn out to their advantage to which they eventually build a link of transports together to cross the Atlantic Ocean preferably into North Africa and then into Southern France/Italy with a built up navy over the course of 5-7 rounds.

The Floating Bridge technique is often the go-to for the United States frankly because there really isn’t much else they can be doing other than sending men to die in Europe, which makes for a problem to the German player and the Axis as a whole, since Germany should be the ones to hold the team on their shoulders, being the leader of the Axis.

There isn’t much the Germans can do to stop the Americans from building their floating bridge initially, but there are methods of delaying it.

One thing that should be prioritized is keeping the Americans out of the war.

To put simply, Japan should NOT do a J1 attack, being as it is quite the unstoppable opening for the Japanese player, it’s not often seen as beneficial to the Germans for having brought the Americans into the war on the first turn, allowing them to gain more income, and most importantly a free window to move into Africa at any point, with Germany only being capable of sending a couple U-Boats to fight a 2 boats which doesn’t seem very cost effective to me since every German U-Boat should be fighting the British Navy in some sort of fashion.

Not doing a J1 attack will already set the Americans back and limiting them to their only 2 Sea zones that border their Eastern US territories, as well as delay them into building up their navy sufficiently without the bonus 20 IPC’s.

Though this will delay the Americans, it won’t stop the sleeping giant completely. Which is why it’s imperative to do one of two things as the German player. 1) Build a formidably sized Luftwaffe to fight off the American landing or 2) Building a formidably sized Kriegsmarine to size up the American navy.

In this scenario, the latter works better, though how would you do that with such little time to build up until Barbarossa is implemented?

With a simple strategy called Afrika Korps that General Hand Grenade had previously made.

Granted having tried this strategy myself, building a mobilizing a German Navy and sending it to the Med Sea is without a doubt the best way to go, seeing as you’ll have the 3 turns of not being at war to make it into the Mediterranean and to help the Italians grow their navy to a size at which it can and should protect itself.

There is no telling how big the Americans will want to make their navy in the Atlantic, and it isn’t cost effective for the German player to continually size up the American Navy by building more ships than them, but rather build the occasional ship here and there, and compensate with the assistance of the Luftwaffe. (With that, bringing down the 3 transports with 6 guys to make landings in Gibraltar and Morocco, as well as 6 more guys from Southern France).

Having done this and helped the Italians build up their navy, the Americans have 2 options.

1. Risk everything they have to go in to try to sink your navy or 2) Not move in to attack the German fleet, to which as I stated, the American player should not be of someone to take risks.

For the American Fleet and amphibious assault of operation flashlight to be beaten back by the Germans and Italians has a lot more significance and sway in the war effort than others might think, because it’s not as simple as just ‘rebuilding and trying again’.

The Americans can’t afford to try again if they do not succeed, they have one shot, one opportunity to make it into Africa and then Europe, and if that opportunity even has the slightest chance of being withered away, then a proper American player shouldn’t even take the slightest risk in attempting a landing and take over of the Med sea, which is exactly what the axis should be looking to have happen.

To summarize, the longer the Axis can stall the Americans from landing in Europe, the more the war effort sways in their favor, since the German War Machine will be grinding against the Soviet Meat in the Eastern Front. And all said is done, it doesn’t end there.

I feel that the statement of ‘not letting Japan take Honolulu or Sydney’ is an incredibly significant overstatement due to the fact that once Japan cleans up in the Pacific, YES they will take Sydney, YES they will take Honolulu, because unlike in the other games such as 1942 second edition, 1941, and Anniversary edition, Japan as the complete capability to win the war completely for the Axis powers by controlling 6 victory cities. Being that the Americans and British cannot ignore the Japanese any longer. Which is the exact role that Japan plays in all of this, playing a big enough threat to the Americans and British to the point at which they MUST act upon stopping them at all costs.

Having done this, follow it by the letter, and you will have a swift victory as the Axis powers, unfortunately there is no real magic bullet or secret method to completely defeating the Americans, but with stalling and waiting them out, will you find success in your efforts to winning World War 2.

@jscam74

This would be a fantastic tactic to use in a game, if only it allowed for Germany to spend their IPC’s accordingly on a proper Sea Lion invasion.

To put simply, the UK reacts to whatever Germany does. If Germany goes for London, then the UK prioritizes London. If Germany goes for Africa, then the UK prioritizes Africa.

All it would take for me to get you to pull out EVERY single unit from London would be to employ a fake Sealion attack of mobilizing the classic Sealion build of an aircraft carrier and 2 transports, because this build screams Sealion at the UK player, I’ve pretty much just told you I’m going to do Sealion. You pull out of London without Germany even having spent the 49 IPC’s on 7 transports to bring units onto London, only having to take 3 transports worth of units to secure London and Scotland, not spend anything to do it, and keep all their said units alive for Barbarossa and potentially Afrika Korps.

This wouldn’t be cost effective even the slightest, the British really can’t afford to hand London to Germany like this because frankly, even if you get the German player to spend those 49 IPC’s on a bunch of transports they won’t end up using, the whole key factor of defending London is to make sure Germany at the very least has to fight for it, giving up something to compensate for another factor whilst not taking away from the preexisting German army just is not a cost-effective method, each player of the Allied team should be doing absolutely everything in their power to whittle away the German War Machine as much as possible. It’s their duty to make sure that whatever strategy the German player attempts to employ that the Allies should make damn well assure that Germany costs dearly in another aspect to which they did not do.

That’s the whole idea of Sealion, when Germany sends 10 infantry and 10 armory and a crap ton of the Luftwaffe to the British Isles they are doing so at the cost of really setting themselves back with the inevitable invasion of the Soviet Union, let alone the fact that the Soviet Union will be put in the position of going on the offensive.

Just my thoughts though, personally I’m not one to give something up without a fight as the Allied player, since being able to cut away from the inevitable Axis success is always the #1 priority as of early-mid game.

So if you’ve played Axis and Allies Global 1940 edition more than 2 times than you’ve probably been exposed to this strategy at some point in time of playing whether as the Axis powers or the Allies. For those who don’t know this strategy, it calls to where the Soviet Union (assuming Germany doesn’t attack on G1) create a fall back line from the territories Novgorod (Leningrad) all the way down to Ukraine, with Western Ukraine and Belorussia in between and strategically screen the German Divisions with their own counter-attacking force in response to which the Germans inevitably do Barbarossa, invading the empty territories of Baltic states, East Poland and Bessarabia.

Frankly as for myself, and after my friend having done this strategy from seeing General Hand Grenade’s video I was pretty stumped on how to stop this. Let alone the thought of it being combined with a Middle Earth strategy as well as the Floating Bridge technique done by the United States, I didn’t really know what I would do as Germany, since the whole Afrikakorps thing worked out in my favor, only Barbarossa often didn’t.

Until it came to me that the solution never really required anything major and/or intense on the Germans part only to do what they did in real life. Use the art of “Blitzkrieg.”

To summarize the war tactic, Blitzkrieg is the German-designed war strategy to which it requires of the general to concentrate a large majority of his/her forces in a designated area.

For example, the German commander Erwin Rommel utilized his Blitzkrieg strategy against the French Republic in 1940 by concentrating over 50 Wehrmacht divisions through a given undefended area known as the “Ardennes” which the French had thought to be naturally impassible due to nature… or something I don’t know the French were kind of stupid during the war back in the 40’s.

Getting back on track though, the only 2 solutions most people saw into countering the Russian Fall Back line was to either 1) Move only your infantry in to distempt the Soviets from attacking a large blob of infantry whilst keeping your artillery and tanks at a safe distance or 2) Move EVERYTHING onto the 3 Soviet Territories mentioned above and hope you hold it all after the Soviets do their counter attack. Neither of these really felt like viable options to me, hense why the strategy was so fond upon as being an effective strategy against the German player.

Until having done some test runs and coincidentally used the Blitzkrieg tactic against them. See, part of a common trend I found with A&A YouTube strategies for Global 40 is that they tend to concentrate their Soviet Units on their industrial hubs of Novgorod and Ukraine, and frankly I don’t blame them since these 2 areas are the last things you’ll wanna lose (aside from Moscow of course) in the war effort against Germany.

Having seen this common trend that most players did, it did not seem any simpler than to move the majority, if not all of your units, into East Poland.

Having done this, the majority of the Soviet Infantry and artillery will be stacked in Novgorod and Ukraine, with only a fleshy buffer force of a handful of units on the territories of Belorussia and Western Ukraine, to which it wont be nearly enough to destroy the largely massed German force.

As for what I did, I moved the majority of my forces, 75% give or take into East Poland and about 25% into Bessarabia as a bait to draw out the Soviet units from Ukraine to attack.

Now depending on what the Soviets do in this scenario, they are pretty much left with multiple different options that may or may not lead them to their inevitable downfall, but more often than not what will happen is they will break their formation, move units accordingly to potentially Baltic States, they may also attack Bessarabia if units are put there, or maybe try for an encircling movement of your largely concentrated units.

To which all you really have left to do is complete the final step in blitzkrieg and divide your forces evenly to overwhelm the Soviet Forces that are spread out and divided, completely unable to do much against a united and concentrated force.

DISCLAIMER: Assuming anybody who reads this knows this, DO NOT KEEP A BIG BLOB OF GERMAN UNITS TOGETHER. The idea is to move and divide your units accordingly to outnumber the Soviet Massed Units not to keep a giant blob of German units marching all the way to Moscow only for them to have dwindled down.

That pretty much summarizes this strategy, if anybody knows a better way to counter it or perhaps to add on to it feel free to share it with me, I’d be more than happy to read what you have to say.

@squirecam

I mean…do you really need bids? The game is pretty balanced in it of itself to what a playable nation lacks it makes up for in another aspect.

@smoke

Not a bad strategy, but as I said, it’s of the most importance that because all it really takes is for the British to act as some sort of annoyance to Japan atleast and hold the Money Islands or liberate the Philipines for America. Like I said the Culcutta crush doesn’t necassarilly mean the end of the game for me as Japan, but more over that the Americans will have to do KJF, which is what I normally do anyway since Japan can’t outbuild me as America for squat.

The basic idea is to start at the Solomon islands, and then slowly work your way West.

And of all else, all the U.K really have to do is instead of building a factory on India to just build a factory on Australia. While it’s not much to say where they build 2 units a turn, it’s still an industrial safe haven for the British to reevaluate, prepare for inevitable takeback of the Japanese controlled territories and win the game at the end of the day. Because granted, it’s really difficult to stop the Japanese from taking India on turn 2. This has been a serious pain I’ve had with axis and allies 1941 setup which is why I pay more attention to the 42’ setup as it’s much more balanced.

@smoke

Well, if the Japanese player knows how to successfully perform the Calcutta crush, then in that scenario, yeah the Soviets may have to come help a brother out.

But lets get technical here then.

3 infantry and an artillery already begin on India, along with an AA gun.

Japan possess 3 infantry on French Indo China, with 2 transports consisting of 3 infantry and an artillery off the coast of China. And maybe if you’re willing to take the 2 transports on the Caroline islands over there with the extensive 2 infantry there.

The UK already has a transport in India, fully capable of shucking a tank and infantry as well as the fighter from Egypt.

That brings the UK up to quite the formidable force to which Japan will then need to go all in to take India, and for that matter at that point you’re taking away from your advancement on the money islands, the assault and ground and pound on china, and most importantly the fight against America.

I know what you’re talking about how Japan can very easily perform a ground and pound on Japan, but frankly it doesn’t matter how many units Japan takes to India, because the British player fortunately have possession of 2 british destroyers that can act as blockers against the Japanese.

@smoke

Ehh thats kind of open to interpretation. Because not putting a factory in India basically is letting Japan win, there’s a right way of doing it and that right way is getting the factory on there before Japan can intercept and take it, which considering the UK is very able to put a factory there, use it by turn 2, I dont think Japan will be able to take India that quickly, but thats just my opinion

@altruex

For me, playing with National Objectives is a must, 1) You’ll find that it makes the game WAY more interesting, 2) It is kinda the one thing that actually makes half the stuff you can do in a WW2 scenario make sense… and 3) It balances the game a lot better in that retrospectrum.

As for Research and Development, this is for sure optional since it kinda plays an important role but not super into swaying which side will beat the other, so do what you will with this.

As for house rules, I only have 1 house rule I put into play, one at which I like to call the “Siberian-Manchurian Pact” which, by the name you can probably tell that it relates to the real time non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan at the time.

The reason I have this houserule into play is that for starters, I feel like it is a HUGE waste of time for the Soviets to be throwing valuable infantry into Japanese Manchuria all to gain a single infantry for 1 turn only to lose it, as well as the fact that it kinda defeats the purpose of Japan fighting the Pacific as a whole instead of having to deal with the annoyance of the Soviets taking Manchuria with like 5 infantry…

And in the other aspect of it, It is a huge waste of time for Japan to be going after Siberia, whether theres units there or not. It’s of the USSR player’s own will to move those infantry to the Eastern Front against Germany or to keep them there, but like I said, Japan can at most get like 4 to 6 IPC’s outta the far Eastern Russian territories… which I can literally get double that with like, 3 provinces down south (The Money Islands).

All in all, that’s not to say these 2 can’t go to war with eachother, the basic rule is that if Japan and The Soviet Union do go to war, it needs to be through the Chinese border with the Soviet Union and not the Manchurian border, because it saves people ALOT of time and strain and annoyance from either side if one is attacking the other.

Just my opinion though.

@squirecam said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@squirecam

I’d much rather have transports moving troops directly into Lenningrad then worrying about tanks. Moscow is going to fall once they are deprived of enough IPC. Or, I’ll never get there because I’m defending and letting Japan win.

I absolutely agree with this. This is how the German player should take Leningrad. Obviously with troops bordering leningrad as well like from Finland/Belarussia as well as the Baltic states. And granted it doesn’t take a huge navy to protect 3 transports givertake. Like I said, unless theres a detail I’m missing, Leningrad won’t win you the war, but it’ll substantially put the war effort in your favor as Germany, and frankly taking Leningrad should be Germany’s #1 priority to begin with, regardless of the 1941 or 1942 setup, and I would expect a proper Soviet player to take immediate actions to protecting Leningrad as if it’s more important than Moscow, and if the Soviet player thinks retreating from Leningrad is a good idea then you’ve just basically won the game.

But all in all, this is of me going by the idea that the Soviet Player knows what they’re doing, and knows how to take immediate steps to fighting off the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Like I said, I dont disagree that Germany shouldn’t have a navy say in the Baltic Sea to protect the territories bordering it as well as the transports but no way in hell will they be building a large enough navy to take on the every growing size of the British and American navy. (Yes, I’ve done a 42’ scenario with a buddy of mine and as the allies both America and Britain had possession of atleast 2 aircraft carriers filled with fighters and a battleships).

Hense why the only way Germany will be able to so said “Walk up to Moscow and then take Caucusus” is through tanks and blitzkreig. it’s what they were designed to do, move fast and move efficiently across terrain

@woodstock said in Can the Allies win in 1942?:

“How long can Russia hold out on it’s own against Germany?”

Quite a while. In fact, Russia can hold out for so long they’ll have taken Berlin. Yup, I’m being serious when I say that, a proper USSR player can hold out against Germany, and Italy, push them back all the way to Rome and Berlin and win the war all together. What I’m saying may seem WAY too overstretched and I dont blame u for thinking that. But I sure as hell did it in the 42’ setup. And after doing it, it made me see the obvious.

The Soviets can’t ‘hold out’ until the allies arrive. By turns 7-9 the Soviets will have needed to shift the tides, and be on the offensive towards Berlin, whether the allies have landed or not.

As much as I’d like to think that America and the British have some huge major important factor in this, they really don’t. The entirety of the war effort all rests on the brains and brawns of the player playing the Soviet Union, granted that’s not to say the U.K and the U.S can’t help a brother out, I’m just saying this so called Soviets hold out until “Round 4, 5 or 6” is pretty baloney. Because the that’s pretty much the time when America and the U.K should be SETTING UP to land in mainland Europe, and they still won’t do it for another good 3-4 turns.

Something that one of my favorite Axis and Allies youtubers said, GeneralHandGrenade, spoke of the fact that as the allies (America specifically) There is no short cheap way to win the war for the allies, landing on turn 3-4 is WAY too early for either, frankly a properly played game as the allies could genuinly go on till’ round 11 or 12.

And if any player can’t seem to hold out against the Germans and Italians in the 1942 setup then they’re playing the Soviet Union wrong, and you should probably hand off the role to somebody else, because the player playing the USSR kinda needs to know how to play the game, and play it well.

(i know this is old, I dont even think you’re gonna see this but I was born in the early 2000’s so I wasn’t around for the forums)

@jennifer

I know this is SUPER old (Sorry, but I’m late to the forums) Yes, the allies can win in the 1942 setup. And it’s alot simpler than you might think.

If you wanna know how to win with them, just play the game out historically. Do what the allies did in real life and you’re pretty much set to win, I feel stupid saying that…

The only thing that stops you at this point is knowing what they did in real life to win the war.

To simplify what I’m saying, Germany let alone already doesn’t start with that impressive of a navy, it’ll be the Luftwaffe doing all the heavy lifting over seas, and with whatever leftover navy you have in either scenario setups of the game will more than likely be destroyed to save the German Airforce for later use against the Soviet Union.

@squirecam

Something else I forgot to really explained. It never really hits me nor does it really strike other players that as playing Germany, you’re techincally matched up with someone else with the exact same income as your own (The Soviet Union in the 41’ setup, with a 1 IPC difference). Obviously the difference between the 2 is starting strength.

Sub’s are 6 IPC’s, Destroyers 8 cruisers 12 in other words for every German naval unit lost at sea is 1 German tank and an infantry that could’ve been gained, which isn’t an effective trade even the slightest. For the most part, if the Americas and Britain decide to take the latter and KGF then I would forget about navy. The Germans dont need a navy to prevent the allies from landing.

Now granted, if you’re going by the standard of 13 VC’s to win the game, then Japan will have already done their part, leaving Germany to make the final push on the Soviet Union, leaving there no reason to build a navy, that is you don’t plan to do the unthinkable option of operation Sealion, which I’ve found to be for the most part nearly impossible to accomplish unless the British just leave themselves wide open. Because like I said, for every warship lost in the Atlantic that will more than likely be a tank and an infantry that could’ve been gained for the use against the Eastern Front.

@squirecam Just the problem though. Germany REALLY needs to rely on good dice roles and proper placement of the kreigsmarine and luftwaffe because the Germans won’t be able to destroy the entirety of the British fleet, I’ve tried it and looked at multiple different scenarios they wont be able to destroy every last bit of it, hense why it should be the U.K’s priority to see to it that the Germans lose their navy in turn of that happening. I do agree with your sediment about the Germans building an aircraft carrier but the only problem is that unlike Global 40’, German really isn’t in a financial situation to be able to support a navy whilst fight on the Eastern Front, because as I stated in my previous message, the core of the apple comes down to who can build more tanks, the Germans or Soviets. It doesn’t matter how many tanks they just need to be building more, no matter what the costs, that’s atleast form my perspective of how either side could win the war

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