Posts made by TheDesertFox

Even if you lose Karelia G1 by the Germans the UK landing in Norway and Finland will be inevitable so it won’t be permanent.

@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.

@andrewaagamer

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

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

Only other piece variance I wish I had more of would be more German and Soviet tanks. Even though I dont think they exist, some IS models would have been pretty cool. Not only that but the Tiger tank, which does exist only in the 41 edition, only problem is there’s not enough of the pieces to go around.

@leebear

100%. As what you said with battleships I didn’t so much run out of battleships as I did aircraft carriers and fighters. As Japan I would consistently strive to have atleast 5 aircraft carriers on the board fully loaded with fighters already using 10 of my fighters. I typically dont like to divert fighters from my carriers to the land since that gets to be a bit tedious and too confusing so I typically will also like to have fighters strictly prohibited to land fighting. So in turn, having tokens on my aircrafts carriers to represent 2 as well as then having to put tokens on my fighters would make for a super confusing combat experience on the battleboard but it goes both ways as well with each piece.

@andrewaagamer

Oh… and also just one last thing, while I was a bit reluctant to believe in the effectiveness of the infantry stacking strategy, I definitely see what you’re talking about though now after a recent playtest as Japan…

To make a long story short, I was attacking with roughly 7 infantry, 3 tanks, and 3 planes and a bomber against a stack of 12 Chinese Infantry, and well, it was an absolute formality against the Japanese. Seriously, the number of hits the Chinese were scoring against the Japanese beyond astounded me. Maybe there was a bit of luck in the dice but on the first roll, the Chinese scored 6 hits killing almost all of the Japanese infantry.

@leebear

There’s an overall abundance of each piece for each nation and each piece that I did run out of I simply supplemented with the 70 grey tokens that come with the game.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income?

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory? Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

In terms of trading territories, from a technical standpoint, yes you would be correct. Trading 1 IPC territories wouldn’t be very cost-effective whatsoever. The only time I would see trading territories with Germany as being useful per se would be if it stopped a German National Objective.

Though alluding to the idea, I think what he’s trying to say here is when it comes to trading territories, it’s less about how much money you’re obtaining from it as a result and moreover how many German units you’re destroying each turn.

Ultimately, this is just a differing of play styles. You go about the wide and cheap angle of using infantry for defense, which there’s nothing wrong with that. All the same I, and I think Dom as well are more inclined to defend key areas and consistently find places to constantly counter-attack Germany in specific areas not just to slow their advance but to really make them prioritize on mobilizing a single unit that they’re running short on, for instance, tanks. And, from what it sounds like, to me it seems like both of these strategies would work just as effectively as the other so long as the Allies are doing their thing in Norway and North Africa.

@andrewaagamer

Exactly as I thought before. See, I defintely see what you’re saying, it is absolutely clear that Japan starts off with a much bigger fleet then the United States but even so it’s better to build atleast something up then going in with absolutely nothing because as I’ve said before, the time will come for when you’re going to need to take down the rabid dog, and I’d personally like to do it with a little something to start with then absolutely nothing at all.

Now obviously from the beginning to mid-game, the United States won’t be in any position to take on the Japanese fleet, no questions asked. However, one thing I did discover is with the combined strength of a British task force in the Pacific, they can. This unfortunately is largely not possible due to the fact that Japan’s lightning attack on India is pretty much unstoppable. This is honestly why I much rather prefer the 42’ scenario because of the UK’s much better changes at placing a factory on India. Though without it, yes, ,you are correct. You’ll surely be outmatched by the opposing Japanese fleet without a task force.

Though with this I’m speaking from a personal experience that I’ve had playing against someone else. Yes, my American fleet was ultimately outnumbered when facing the Japanese fleet at the Philippines but with the British taskforce I mobilized made up of a couple of destroyers, 2 carriers and a battleship i was able to even those odds out, so it just all depends really, but from a technical stand point, you are correct.

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

@andrewaagamer said in [Allies strategy]

National Objectives: I think, while the game plays differently, with or without NOs both versions are balanced the same. I would want a minimum $6 bid as the Allies with or without NOs. $9 is perfect.

Please explain how NOs are balanced and not majorly in favor of the Axis. I’m legitimately interested in how you came to such a conclusion.

I know you didn’t ask me but it’s America so I’ll answer anyway.

A baseline that I think should be established is the core difference between the Allied and Axis national objectives. As we know, the reason we deem the Axis as having such a huge advantage with NOs is because of how easily accessible their national objectives are. The Allies on the other hand are limited to very select few amount of national objectives that they’ll always have, with everything else lying at the top of the mountain, to put simply, not as easily accessible as the Axis National Objectives.

The Axis, mainly Germany, can and will get their National Objectives quickly. They already get one for controlling core territories, they get one for controlling at least 3 of the 5 given states of the USSR, and one for controlling Stalin/Leningrad, one or the other. Part of what makes these NOs so easy to get is their quick and easy accessibility and close proximity to Germany. However, that still resides as a weakness to the Germans. Germany can and will lose these national objectives just as fast as they will get them. The same can be said for the Italians and Japanese. This right here is the prime weakness that the Allies are very much capable of exploiting.

The Allies, while their national objectives are more beyond arm’s reach, there is one core difference that should be noted. One specific NO that belongs to the UK is to seize any originally controlled Japanese territory. Granted while you may not do it right away, once you get 3-5 turns into the game it’s likely that the British will have pushed the Japanese out of French Indo China or the Americans landing at practically any one of the core Japanese islands territories such as the Caroline Islands or Iwo Jima. Once the Japanese have lost either of these territories or even both for that matter they aren’t going to have the means nor the strength to take it back because they’re going to have many other things to focus on. The Soviet Union as well can be used as an example. Granted while their 10 IPC national will remain out of reach for quite a while, once Norway and Finland fall to the British, that leaves only one territory left for you to take in order to get that national objective at least once, leaving the Germans on a much more precarious and difficult predicament. This right here is the overall theme of the Allies’ NOs and playstyle, once you start to gain some traction as the Allies your National Objectives will kick in, and trust me when the Allies get the majority of their national objectives they seriously start snowballing.

So just because the Axis get theirs quicker doesn’t necessarily put them at an absolute advantage. The Germans will lose Leningrad just as fast as they took it and the Japanese will lose any one of the out-of-reach originally controlled territories from the impending British/American threat, because like I spoke of earlier, the Japanese have a vast and wide sphere of power for which they cannot protect all of it at once. Honestly, if anything the Allied National Objectives are better than the Axis National objectives.

@andrewaagamer

And yeah, I thought this was the case, I just wanted it to be confirmed that I was wrong or missing something about that. I can definitely understand that for ships since each ship gets a movement of two spaces but I feel like that rule maybe a little too stretched to apply to tanks. I feel like part of what makes tanks so important is their maneuverability and efficiency at getting from one place to another and if their movement stops even with one space left that just feels like a setup for which very few will look highly upon the unit as a whole.

@andrewaagamer

The barebones format of winning the war as the Allies as you stated is pretty much how I go about winning as the Allies in either 41’ or 42’ just with a few noticeable differences.

Since I haven’t touched on the bid yet, just to put it shortly, yes, I think a bid is fine for the Allies, especially in 1941 but this bid can and should be used on the Pacific side for either the UK or China.

As for the USSR, this ultimately comes down to playstyle, but for me, I’ve experienced that tanks are what win you the game, not infantry, and not fighters or bombers. ultimately, while a stack of infantry was a suitable form of defense at first glance, any group of 5 or more German tanks including some fighters and bombers could slice and dice through any number of infantry you have.

You’re pretty much right with both India and Europe for the UK in how you should go about playing that.

As for the United States, I would highly disagree with ignoring the Pacific. When it comes to the 3 objectives you stated that America should strive to achieve, they at most want a suitable navy in the Atlantic, made up of an aircraft carrier, battleship, and 3 transports with some destroyers and a cruiser or two. They won’t have anything special, just enough to kill the Italian fleet. And along with that, some land units, enough to fill up 3 transports, to take into Africa. That right there is not a lot of money spent within the time length of 3 turns especially considering you already start off with some of those pieces I mentioned. Now granted, you will be prioritizing the Atlantic more than you will the Pacific but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t continue to strive to beat Japan in the carrier race either.

So assuming the Japanese are going to haul hog for the Pacific islands all the way to the Solomons and Wake Island, it’s going to be up to you as the U.S play to take back each island one at a time to slowly start dissolving the Japanese economy. You’ll ultimately be leaving Japan with that choice of whether to focus on the land or focus on the sea. Granted, it’s easy at first glance to take over China and take over India and take over the Money islands and all that junk as Japan only if the Americans don’t get involved. So they need to get involved.

@domanmacgee

Alright, that makes sense. Also, just as a side note, a tank that used one space of its movement to engage in combat (assuming it survives the battle) can use this unused piece of movement to move elsewhere to another friendly territory or am I wrong about this assessment?

@domanmacgee

Also if you don’t mind me touching on a point you made that caught my eye, it was the first round purchase you spoke of for the USSR. Seeing as you said to buy upwards of 2 fighters for the purposes of counter attacking wouldn’t it be more cost-efficient to buy 4 tanks for the same price that can do the same thing?

@andrewaagamer

That’s the general idea, basically summarizing the prospect that the Soviet player can and should push Germany back. I think what a lot of people tend to forget is when stripping all the other outside factors away, you and Germany are both tit for tat in natural gaining IPC’s, with Germany gaining 31 and you as the USSR getting 30 so it’s not a drastically different match up in strength then what people make it out to be.

As for Japan and the Pacific theater, I definitely see where you’re coming from and I think to lay the baseline down for exactly how the Axis are meant to win, the way I play it is the Axis are required to take every city in the old world, except for London, since taking London is practically out of the question of the possibility for either setup of the game, meaning the Axis need to take 12 victory cities in total to win, I think this is a very marginalized and fair victory condition.

One thing that I honestly discovered that I hadn’t seen before when played as the United States and the UK in the Pacific was just how vastly different the style of combat is then what you see in the Atlantic side of the map. With each island holding special significance to it’s controller, especially if National Objectives are on, it means that Japan needs to be actively using their navy to screen the Pacific ocean and provide atleast one infantry for each island under their control. All in all, even on mainland China as well as the island fighting either side will primarily fight with infantry and fighters and maybe a tank or artillery. Now obviously the Americans won’t go full speed into the Pacific that would be a waste of valuable resources and the Americans dont need to put up that much offense anyway to the Japanese. My point being, all the Americans need to mount an offensive and island hop in the Pacific is a few infantry and an artillery/tank to start liberating islands, and, as I touched on the idea earlier, it emphasizes these islands all the more to be protected due to their value that they hold with National Objective money. Should the Japanese dedicate wave after wave of land forces to try to take Moscow and they neglect the big bad 3 in the Pacific. Though, as you said, this idea can vastly vary between whether or not you do play with National Objectives so it ultimately comes down to the circumstances for which the players have agreed upon.

@andrewaagamer

It overall depends on what the players agree upon, I personally like to play with National Objectives on and the primary reason for this is it really fleshes out the conflict between Germany and Russia based upon the fact that each national objective earns you one more tank than the opposing force. Personally, I do believe the Germans have a definitive advantage as their national objectives are much more ‘in reach’ then that of the Soviets or any other allied nation but they’re not impossible to get either.

As for your generalization on the idea that Moscow should hold on, I ABSOLUTELY agree with this. With my own personal experience as well, I have seen first hand that against a competent Axis player, it is VERY possible for the Soviet Union to not only beat back Italy and German forces but to push them back to Rome and Berlin. If I have to be honest I feel like when many players talk about both Italy and Germany they think of it as some kind of insurmountable challenge that you can’t overcome. What many people seemingly forget is that Italy in this version is the absolute epitome of weight if anything to Germany, there’s not a whole lot that Italy will be able to commit to the Eastern Front, besides, Italy’s priority should be in the Mediterranean and Africa. I actually spoke on this idea in a previous thread I made talking about the Soviet Union’s ‘typical’ reliance of an Allied invasion. I personally think that the Soviet Union cannot and should not rely on the British or Americans make some sort of big naval invasion. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t help whatsoever, because the UK taking Norway and Finland as well as liberating Leningrad will be absolutely instrumental to the success of the Soviet Union, but overall from a general perspective, it will ultimately be the Soviets that have to beat back the unrelenting forces of the German player and yes, as you touched upon earlier, should take Berlin.

As a quick side note, I seriously don’t think Japan will be looking to take Moscow or even remotely pose a threat to the Soviet Union. Any Japanese player should be working toward taking India, (assuming the Turn 2 Lightning attack is out of the question) as well as seizing Honolulu from the United States). Point is, Japan is going to have a lot bigger things to worry about in the Pacific then worry about the vast distance between them and Russia.

With my time spent in A&A Anniversary and glancing at post after post on the forums, it feels as if a specific mindset has been given to the Soviet Union and overall the struggles and hardships that come with it. Some will say it takes pure luck to survive and come out swinging as the Soviets and others will say it can be done with intuitiveness and an open mind to thinking outside the box. Yet, all the same, it seems as if a handful of players believe the Soviets have an inability to preserve themselves as a whole against the wrath of the Axis powers from the West.

To start, I think it’s important to discuss the problem that lays before us on the board before talking about the solution. As the Soviet Union you’re faced with overwhelming odds stacked against you when facing Germany, sure you have a surplus of infantry but what does that mean when you lack an inner core in the form of moving steel and ammunition? A lot of what people misconceive with the Soviet Union I typically think comes in two parts.

The first part revolves around the prospect of what ‘preservation’ looks like and how it’s done. As a nation scraping the barrel on armor and supporting equipment to start the game it seems like a standard principle can be built upon this very fact to conserve your units the best you can. What this may look like can involve retreating your units back, keeping them out of the fight, and saving them for ‘the big battle’ that is presumably Moscow or Stalingrad. This above all else is the first and last mistake Soviet players ultimately make in their endeavor against the German War Machine. Paving the way for the Germans to walk to Moscow and swipe away at your IPCs will only make the fall of Moscow quicker, which is why it’s important to understand the means to be aggressive.

The second part lies within the very premise that many players have an overall reluctance to engage with German troops. Touching back on the concept of preservation, the second thought on “What if I get bad dice rolls” or “What if the battle goes South for me”. An overall lack of aggression and taking risks is the other problem that causes most Soviet players to die out. It’s what’s gotten many to believe that the Soviets can only hold out until turn 4 or turn 5.

To summarize, both of these parameters have hindered the player’s ability to find success as the Soviet Union. Some may think the Soviet Union can only survive for 4 to 6 turns which is precisely what describes a fixed mindset. As an Allied Nation, especially the Soviet Union, it’s important to think outside the box and step out of your comfort zone of always preserving units and not using them. Now with the alternative of being aggressive, are you going to lose land? Yes. Are you going to take heavy losses? 100%. Though it’s all with the intention and core concept of truly bringing the fight to Germany and making them fight for the victory that they desire. That’s not to say the UK and America won’t play a role in stopping Germany and Italy either, they absolutely will.

From a more technical and open-ended approach, yes it is possible for the Soviets to hold out against even the likes of both Germany and Italy, and yes, it is very possible for the Soviet Union to beat back the Germans through brute strength and carefully played tactics. What it comes down to is the way the player wishes to think. Conservatively, or aggresively.

@tasos

An allied strategy… I’ll give the best advice from my experience from playing both versions of 41’ and 42’.

(as a quick side note, feel free to play with National Objectives, what many don’t realize is that the Allied national objectives are absolutely broken, Research and Tech is meh you can do whatever)

Let’s begin with Mother Russia.
30 IPC’s to work with. Typically a baseline for building each turn as the Soviets for me goes would be 3 infantry, 2 tanks, and 1 fighter each turn. That accounts to a total of exactly 29 IPC’s, leaving you with one leftover. HOWEVER, for the first round, you only have 1 tank at your disposal. already leaving you down by 5 tanks against the Germans. So for me, a first-round purchase as the Soviets would be to buy 3 tanks, 1 fighter, and 1 artillery. From then forward, you’re going to want to follow a very basic principle: However many tanks the Germans build on their turn, you outmatch that. If they build 1, you build 2. If they build 2 you build 3. etc. Obviously, there are going to be some units that take priority over tanks in certain instances but make those instances rare. All in all, if I gotta be honest, your only way of beating Germany back to Berlin is with tanks. Treat your tanks like you would a child and protect and preserve them until the time is right to use them.

Next, the United Kingdom.
43 IPC’s to start. Again, this will be on of the only times in the game that you have this much money so spend it wisely. The first thing first is to look at India, if Japan isn’t set up to take it then absolutely build a complex on India, as it will be crucial in the later parts of the game. (I typically play with a house rule that Japan isn’t permitted to wipe India T2 as I believe this to be a crucial error on the Devs’ part in making this game). Should Japan not be setup to take India… place a complex there. With 28 IPCs left over I would HIGHLY recommend placing an Aircraft Carrier in the Atlantic, and finish off with either 2 transports or a transport and infantry + Artillery. An aircraft carrier with 2 fighters on it in the Atlantic with atleast 1 destroyer will dissuade the Germans from making any pot shots at your navy.

In the Atlantic, your job as the UK is to first and foremost, destroy the German navy by any means necessary. After you’ve done this, you’re going to liberate Norway and Finland from the Germans. I cannot stress to you how crucial this step is as you’re taking away an entire 5 IPCs from the Germans which adds up to one whole tank. That’s one more tank that they could have used on the Eastern Front, so liberating these 2 territories is providing more help than any sizeable army you could dream of. Next, you will also presumably liberate Leningrad which has been taken by the Germans. This will be crucial in halting the German N.O as well as providing some breathing room for the Soviets to counterattack the Germans in Ukraine.

In the Pacific, assuming you successfully placed a complex on India, your initial task will be to build up a task force in the Indian Ocean, if you can get it to 1 - 2 aircraft carriers and a battleship. This will dissuade the Japanese from fully committing their navy to go and fight you. (I have tried this and yes, it does work.) After you’ve built up a taskforce, you’re going to want to be placing atleast 1 tank down every turn on India, you’re next job will be to take Siam and Indochina and seize that national objective from Japan as well as give yourself one as well. And most importantly, support China. I already hate that China starts with only 4 infantry on the board so it’s up to you to keep them a float as the British.

And finally we have Uncle Sam.
Now, fortunately for you you’re not going to lose that money like the UK will. To start your turn, you’re going to want to build a cruiser and 2 transports to place in the Atlantic ocean. On top of that, you’re going to want to build 3 infantry and a tank to place on Eastern United States. The rest of your spendings you should balance it Pacific 35% and Atlantic 65%. However, once Japan starts building up the High Seas fleet and threatening command in Hawaii as well as India thats when you want to swap it around after you’ve built a chain of transports into the Mediterranean and destroyed the Italian fleet.

In the Atlantic, your goal is to build and obliterate the Italian fleet and Axis troops in Africa and make continuous ongoing naval invasions with the intent to capture and take Rome as well as bomb the hell out of Berlin and Rome and even Paris if there is an IC there. That’s pretty much it. The British can take care of the rest up North.

In the Pacific, since it’s 1941 you’re going to have a long wait before Japan really starts to rumble in the Pacific and prove a challenge to you. It’s highly likely that you’re going to lose your Battleship so spend accordingly to slowly build your fleet back up in the Pacific. One absolutely crucial thing that lot’s of players miss though, is you need to prioritize Aircraft carriers over Battleships. One fully outfitted aircraft carrier with 2 fighters on it is only matched by 2 battleships. Don’t get sucked into this race to get more battleships then Japan as aircraft carriers are where the money is at. Now you’re not just going to sit there with a big navy either. I would recommend having atleast 2 transports in the Pacific to carry 3 infantry and 1 tank or artillery because what you’re going to be doing is good ol’ fashioned island hopping starting in the Solomon Islands, a strategic island that Japan needs for their N.O as well as an island you need for your N.O. From the Solomon Islands you’re going to want to then liberate New Guinea and the Caroline Islands, linking back up with the British fleet in the Indian Ocean and liberating the East Indies and Borneo. After this is done, you’re then going to move North and liberate the Philippines and take Formosa and Okinawa from the Japanese where you will engage their navy with the combined fleet of the American and British ships.

This right here is ultimately how you need to play the Allies. To talk about each individual purchase and move would be an absolute headache and nightmare to discuss but it’s less about the individual moves you make and moreover the consistent tactics that you utilize and the principles that you stick with that will ultimately enable you to beat the Axis powers.

@gen-manstein

Yeah. 6 infantry already across land of no value, its nothing short of a small insignificant inconvenience for Japan

@squirecam

And of all else, ultimately that is what one should resort to. Get the battle over with, get those infantry off the land before they can consolidate, I mean you’ve got atleast 10 infantry to do with with along with some heavy airpower which would ultimately create a setback toward the Allied plan in mainland Asia.

And frankly, it’s nothing short of a few infantry and artillery taken away that could make any difference at all, so there’s no reason not to attack Amur. You attack it, clean it up, with little no no probability that the Soviet Union would attack back, but yeah I do absolutely agree with your sediment.