Posts made by TheDesertFox

I know it has been a rather tedious argument for both sides on whether the United States should go after Japan first or Germany first, however the more games I play and the more test runs I do I find that Japan takes precedence over Germany in a lot of the games. Granted, maybe going all in on the Pacific just to kill Japan may not be the answer however leaving Japan completely unopposed in the Pacific just doesn’t work either. I admire the idea of going after Germany and Italy as the United States however the U.S can only do that once Japan has been contained. My question to you is this: how would you go about it? How much time and resources do you invest in the Pacific, if any at all?

@superbattleshipyamato

To my recollection, Germany responded by doing two things. Making an assault towards Western Ukraine as well as consolidating the vast majority of their units in the Baltic States, primed for an attack on Leningrad (also moving their infantry from Finland into Vyborg.)

@superbattleshipyamato

This is how I responded to Germany’s blitz into East Poland and what I was telling you about earlier.

Instead of attacking I shadowed the units in East Poland preventing them from making an immediate push forward without being counter attacked with heavy resistance.

@marshmallowofwar said in How would you stop this?:

Someone please confirm my numbers:

E Poland
3 AA gun
11 infantry
4 mech infantry
5 artillery
5 tank

Bessarabia
8 infantry

Ukraine
6 infantry
tank

7 infantry are on Bessarabia

East Poland as 4 Mech infantry, 16 infantry, 3 AA guns, 5 tanks, and 5 artillery

@superbattleshipyamato

Of course! The Soviet Union was the first nation I ever played in A&A and it’s still probably my favorite nation to play due to the challenges you’ll face as well as the potential you have as that nation. I definitely would say that the Soviet Union has a many different paths it can take on how they want to go about facing Germany, most widely debated amongst others in these forums and on youtube but I’ll probably describe this strategy of mine more in depth in a separate thread.

I think Bessarabia has 12 infantry.

The chips are a little bigger then what they might seem. The Germans have 8 infantry in Bessarabia.

@superbattleshipyamato

Instead of going into Eastern Poland I pulled my units back to what I call the “2nd line of defense”. Essentially, I pulled my units back into Archangel, Smolensk, and Bryansk so that my infantry could attack Belarus/Western Ukraine if need be and so that they had the option to move toward Ukraine/Leningrad in case Germany decided to do an all out bomb rush for one of them with my tanks obviously being in Smolensk so that they can reach both Leningrad and Ukraine.

@marshmallowofwar said in How would you stop this?:

@thedesertfox I disagree with attacking the planes in Romania. As juicy a target as they are, you will be trading two of your very valuable planes (that you cannot afford to replace) for three of Germany’s proportionally less valuable planes.

Sorry I should have been a little clearer. I meant to say that I considered going into Eastern Poland to attack those guys but went against my better judgement knowing I was going to suffer a lot of casualties from it. As for the 2 tac bombers, yes you are correct. The Soviet’s planes would be much better used on defense then offense.

@superbattleshipyamato

Interesting take, I never would have thought to destroy those planes on Romania since I was so focused on the big German blitz into Eastern Poland.

I considered going on there to take em out, but I figured that if I did the battle casualties on my end would be too tuff to top making it into a pyrrhic victory. I find it kind of interesting that the battle calculator read out 87% odds of winning since I looked at the stuff I could take in versus the stuff that he had and didn’t think there was a chance in the world I could come out on top. What I opted to do instead was I pulled back to smolensk, Bryansk, and Archangel for another counter attack line incase he moved in. (Germany moved in toward Leningrad and we had a big tustle there, ultimately lost but took down TONS of tanks with it.)

@panther

Gotcha, so it’s just a matter of whether or not you wanna lose such an expensive item.

@andrewaagamer

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. In my test run on tabletop the Americans are about to engage the Japanese fleet so I just wanted to clarify that.

So essentially they can take the carriers in but they HAVE to take their fighters as casualties first before damaging the carrier.

So if a nation such as the United States is about to engage in an offensive battle against the Japanese fleet, are they permitted to send their air craft carriers into battle? I understand the rules say that fighters move independently of carriers in the combat movement plus, carriers have no attack value but I’m not 100% sure of this rule myself. If so, do the carriers have to remain undamaged in the battle to land the aircraft?

@barnee

Wish I had a time traveler to take us into the 1950s now that you mention it… problem solved at that point. I actually managed to figure out a solution myself that involved… well… retreating, as the Russians.

How exactly would you as the Russian player stop this? It’s currently R3 right now and they have a multitude of things they can do however one small blunder or one mistake can cause the downfall of the Soviets on the first turn they’ve been attacked. Any thoughts?

@munchie19

Scenario B would be correct. The rules specifically say that while it is legal to onload troops onto friendly transports, they must onload on your turn, and may only be offloaded on your next turn. The U.K may not offload the troops for you or you may not hop scotch using a transport.

So as I understand it, the UK is one nation, one army, but two economies split between the Pacific and the Europe side of the board. If units from the Pacific side (let’s say India) take a transport that starts on India over to a pro allied neutral (Persia) and capture the infantry and territory, does the territory marker go to the Pacific UK or the Europe UK? I would imagine it goes to the Europe UK since its on the Europe side of the board however I’m not 100% and dont want to assume.

@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.

@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?

I used to think the Axis in the 1941 set up and even the 1942 set up as well were unbelievably strong to the point where the Allies could never even dream of countering them, however the more test runs I have made with the Allied nations, the United Kingdom in particular, the more I’ve come to realize just how strong they can truly become.

To start off with Germany, really you can only effectively destroy the British vessels in SZ 2 and 4 while the other ships remain for the most part out of your reach to the point of overextension, leaving them with a suitably sized navy to build up with from the get go. The other problem that I have found happen a countless amount of times is Germany’s inability to hold Leningrad properly. This is not because of the Russians liberating it by any means, but the British liberating it by means of taking Norway and Finland after they’ve already destroyed the Baltic fleet. Once Norway and Finland are seized that’s a whole entire 5 IPCs that you will essentially never get back and on top of all that, your chances of taking and holding Leningrad drop exponentially. The problem with the Germans that many others before me have highlighted is they simply do not have the means to fight the British on their turf in the Atlantic. Egypt is another problem as well. While the Germans are capable of taking it on G1, it is a rather tedious gamble that could cost you a multitude of essential units that could have been better spent holding Northern Africa from the Americans when they land. Setting the United States aside, the British have the ultimate authority and jurisdiction of containing the German War Machine down to it’s last atom.

In regards to the Pacific front, really it’s a coin toss in a way. Although I strongly dislike the idea of Japan pulling the classic lightning strike on India by turn two, allowing for an industrial complex to be built on India is signing away your chances of winning in the Pacific. I’ve found that the Americans alone do not have a force adequate enough to take on the Japanese, which is why I experimented in building a British fleet composed of multiple carriers and a battleship and some other smaller vessels in the Indian ocean. This fleet in particular was meant to act nothing more then to act as area denial for the Japanese in places like the money islands and the Philippines. Not only that but the British with national objectives are capable of outproducing the Americans in IPCs handedly making them a threat to the Axis powers alone.

So all in all, I want to know that if an industrial complex on India was in fact built, would there be a way to stop the Allies? Any suggestions and things I may have missed are welcome.

@krieghund

Oh you know what you’re actually right on that, my apologies for the historical inaccuracy, even still the F6F Hellcat was manufactured in large numbers even before that, though that fighter was used primarily on carriers and in the Pacific front of the war to counter the Zero.