In 1941 if the UK are lucky enough to survive Germany’s Atlantic attacks with a transport - I would focus on Italy with the UK. Gibraltar is the allied key to the med. Reinforce it and fly your anti-shipping missions from it. With 1 inf, 1 tank, and 2 fighters it’s tempting for the Italians to attack - but will probably survive and will have brought their navy within Allied striking range.
In this situation - I can actually imagine 2/3 Russian subs being really useful.
must be something f¤#k1#% wrong with my PC, or this message board, since it freeze before I am finished typing. Butt OK, back to topic. As I said, always play aggressivly. Always attack if able. That is the only way to win. This is what I teach my students. You dont win if you are a laid-back retard. Dont mind the dice, this game is not about luck. Its like a fist-fight on your local pub. The aggressive guy always win, and the nice guy get knocked out because he dont punch back. This lesson dont come for free, so you better applaud me 3 times a day this week. My goal is to reach 800 + karmas.
I totally agree with this. I think it’s been tempting for the allies to ‘consolidate’ round 1. Get pieces in position to start attrition by round 2. But you have to take the initiative against the axis ASAP. The red october strat is something worth trying I guess. Just one question though - although 3 subs get their first shots - they are all at ‘1’. Surely the Italian fleet can absorb 1 hit (with the battleship) and then rolls two 3’s and a 4.
Thereby sending the Russian subs to the bottom?
If this is coupled with Germany hitting Egypt hard Rnd 1 and eliminating the UK forces there…
Of course I realise as I write this you would submerge subs as soon as the Italians attacked! However - even with three 2’s on the Russian counter attack (round 2) the Battleship could absorb 1 hit…
I see the red october presents a challenge to the Italians - but it maybe worth going the whole hog and buy 4 subs and 2 inf for Russia round 1… That would pin the Italians down for a turn…
Adler - do you play on the forums? Do you have any games (or know of any) where this tactic was used successfully?
A turn 1 US pacific buy simply keeps the Japanese Navy in the Pacific. A good Japanese attack round 1 is one that will leave all units out of range of immediate counter attack. Then J2 consolidate the Japanese navy - and you’ll have enough cash to pop some stuff in that factory you bought round 1.
I’m happy to take the Phillipines round 1. If I want to do that and take India later then I probably will. The UK can put units in India (at least they’re not in europe), and the US can put boats in the Pacific and the Japanese can keep pace with both. You definitely won’t invade Japan before Germany has beaten Russia, and who exactly is going to save Africa from the Italians?
I believe that you need to have decisive force as early as possible. Building up the US till it has decisive force against multiple Japanese carriers, a battleship, cruiser, and any other cheap cannon fodder units the Japanese add to their navy will take far too long. (round 2 you have maybe 45 IPCs = land units for rnd 1 factory, extra factory and a couple of naval units, rnd 3 50 IPCs maybe = land units for 2 factories and whatever navy to keep US at bay).
Either way. This can continue until the US realises that without its help - Europe has been lost - and the Japanese are (maybe) worried about their navy - but with Russia gone - not really.
Am I the only one who reckons that the Japanese player can afford to virtually ignore the US Pacific fleet in Rounds 1 and 2? They pose no invasion threat whatsoever - and building in the Pacific delays American input in the Atlantic.
I’m not arguing that the yanks shouldn’t try to get at the Japs. But I think it is best done via a north African convoy system - keeping Italy in her place while simultaneously forcing the Japanese into a war of attrition in India/Persia/North Africa - which as the advantage (unlike the south Pacific islands) of not being right on her doorstep.
Think of it like the Solomon Islands campaign - get the Japanese to invest in protecting and invading territory which is beyond the range of any of their meaningful production. Make Godzilla Japan waste IPCs simply projecting her forces.
A US Pacific buy I think is best on Round 3 maybe - when you have goaded the Japanese navy out of the Pacific entirely, then a sudden American upshot really throws a spanner in the works! At the same time - you have got a UK/US navy getting units into Africa, neutering Italy and providing an every growing threat (throught additional transports and land units from the UK) to France.
Russia should be fighting for her life in the east - she’ll need plenty of artillery to deadzone her territories and plenty of fighting men to back them up. I honestly believe that a key to a sustainable Russia is to KILL the italian navy. As long as the Russian player cannot leave Caucasus lightly protected for fear of an amphibious assault, Russia will never be free to play the fluid deadzoning defence that she needs to.
But that is getting off the KJF. In fact - I think in this game the KJF/KGF debate is over. You can’t focus on either because neither dies quickly enough to save the Russians from the other. KILL ITALY.
Just to say - do not be fooled by statistics.
The reality is that due to the purges and loads of other issues the Russian army was not an effective fighting force in June 1941. By December of that year Stalin had given plenty of lee-way back to his generals (unlike Hitler who tightened his control of the army yet further). The Germans lost half there forces by mid 1942 in Russia and they were still a long way from being booted out.
I’m saying this everywhere at the moment - but I believe the key to a KJF is actually a KIF. If you can wipe out Italy’s influence in Africa ASAP then the US can realistically move against Japan in the Pacific. Equally - if the UK can somehow (and against a determined Japanese player they probably won’t) keep an Indian IC alive then the Japanese are probably finding that a to do list:
a) Help the Axis in Africa
b) Deal with the UK in India
c) Keep up with US build in the Pacific (and keep enough navy in range to repel US attacks WHILE moving navy to Africa)
d) Make the Russians edgy about their eastern border
e) Swallow China
is simply to big.
Wherever they choose to not engage (probably China/Russia) the Allies need to make small advances.
Of course - the UK needs to try to hold India as economically as possible - and threaten europe with remaining income.
But I also believe that this dreamlike strategy requires some good allied luck on the dice and a Japanese player to overlook something or other. And don’t be fooled. Even the best will sometimes miss a trick!
Exactly SgtBlitz - that is my strategy (round 2 carrier). Which was why I thought - how can the UK knock out the Italians before they can even build a carrier?
If the axis ignore the British empire (or are unlucky in Egypt for instance) then the Brits should go in early and hard - the US should do an atlantic buy (carrier, transport, destroyer, fighter maybe - or a tank to put on the transport using the pacific fighters for the carrier) and so the Brits/US do a 1-2 punch against Algeria round 2 and take out the Italian fleet too.
It turns italy into a drain on Axis resources. Especially with an allied fleet in zone 12, no italian navy, and US forces shunting into North Africa. It’s also relatively cheap - over the course of the game the Axis can get less into Africa, so the Allies have to spend less on keeping it.
And it brings the Japanese south - and away from the Pacific.
Who knows? I just think that the Italians are the weakest axis. Hit em’ fast. Hit em’ hard. Seems to make sense.
Another thing is - if the French and Brits can hold some French territory what then happens when the US enters the war? You might end up with more than you can handle…
Maybe rather than take the money - the ally who loses his capital has to skip the purchase units and collect income phase for one turn - if people feel there needs to be an element of shock/punishment to losing your capital.
Also, if Britain did fall, I don’t see them building battleships and carriers in Canada or India in significant numbers to come back and reclaim the capital… It’d be up to the US player to be responsible for liberating England.
I wonder what would have happened? If Britain fell in 1940 - would the US have gone to war about that? Who knows?
And if the royal navy had escaped - would they have been able to bring troops from around the empire to fight some way or other? It would have been a dramatically different timeline for sure. In WWI the UK was able to import large numbers of troops from around the empire. In WWII her relations with much of it were in doubt due to a growing sense of nationalism throughout it. Would the Indians have fought in 1940 like they did in 1914-1918. Dying on european battlefields far from home?
It’s just too much too imagine.
Also of course; would the US have dared antagonise Japan - Germany’s Ally if the British had fallen and Germany was ‘all powerful on the continent?’ Hadn’t Britain and 1941 already proven that with perserverence the Axis could be beaten? In fact - the clear loss of the Battle of Britain by the Germans (though as said before - it was an impossible task for the Germans to win) was probably as great a propaganda blunder as a military one. The german armed forces - who had triumphed throughout Europe finally were halted. Equally important was they were halted in the most heroic way possible, by a bunch of disarmed islanders with nowt but a few fighter planes. The Battle of Britain gave birth to the myth of the ‘Few’ which alongside ‘A day in Infamy’ became one of the defining speeches of the early war years - the idea of the lhonorable insulted man who would grow in rage and power until those wrongs done him were avenged. Such examples would follow on land outside Moscow and in the Sea at Midway.
Whenever you look at the Minutiae of this stuff you can see the truth.
Battle of Britain:
Appears: Small poorly prepared airforce beats off massive war hardened airfleets 2 & 3 over the rolling green kent countryside.
Reality (in brief): Highly organised, well supplied air force holds its own due to advantages in range, radar direction, and aircraft qualities. Mixed with a heavy dose of attacker error (like attacking in the first place, and unrealistic aims and expectations).
Battle of Moscow:
Appears: After 5 months of blitzkrieg across the Russian hinterland, pulverising all before them, the evil nazis are stopped by the harsh winter, and the bravery of wives and children digging tank traps in the moscow suburbs.
Reality (in brief): Resistance to German forces stiffened markedly as the months wore on, and as soon as armies were destroyed so they were replaced. After German pissing about (thanks Hitler) many of the Panzer divisions were suffering mechanical differences before winter set in. Saving Moscow was an achievment - but with the help of Siberian forces released by Japans southern intent German defeat was guaranteed - even had they entered the city. The Soviets would not have surrendered after the loss of Moscow - they expected it and moved virtually all government out of the city.
Battle of Midway:
Appears: Well placed US bombers/torpedo planes catch Nagumo napping allowing a numerically inferior fleet to inflict the most important naval defeat (arguably) of the Pacific war.
Reality: Americans had been decrypting Japanese codes for ages. They knew about the types and numbers of planes and vessels in the Midway fleet, they also knew about the dramatic feint toward the Aleutians (which the won the Japanese two pointless islands!) If anything - a number of US planes couldn’t find the Japanese that day which is a surprise! The Japanese sailed straight into the trap set for them - but unluckily helped a lot by laying our fuel and explosives all over the decks of their carriers <boom>.
Sorry… got carried away.</boom>
I think the real challenge with A&A Europe is during 1 vs 1 with experienced players. Because the allied aspects of debate and compromise simply don’t happen. Whenever I play my friend Cat - she always without even a thought sends 4 fighters and 2 bombers to Russia ASAP from the US and UK.
When we play with more people (like her boyfriend and his housemate) you always get the UK/US ‘whining’ or wanting to do their own thing. Which makes it easier for Germany.
I must admit I played Europe (normally play revised/AA50) for the first time in a long while recently. So I had forgotten about the ‘unstoppable’ version of the infantry/tank push mechanic - and spent time consolidating forces for a crushing victory in Belorussia - which - ahem - never actually happened! (Especially once she’d added all those allied fighters to the pile!)
Oops! Well it was OK. We didn’t know that so my opponent cleared the transports anyway. Fortunately she didn’t go for Gibraltar either (which was my point) as she had a BB, an industry and a packed Gibraltar all in range anyway she was spoilt for choice with just 3 warships at her disposal!
But thanks for the info Axis_roll. I did check it in the rulebook so next time we play I’ll make sure I point that out.
I recently as the UK used Gibraltar T1/2 quite successfully. It would make me think of taking (as the axis) it if I expected an allied attack from there.
Basically I bought 1 bomber, 2 industry. Now I know there are a lot of people who will say this or that was a mistake that they would never make etc, but this is what happened and it played out well.
Japan went heavy on Asia BUT critically although the UK indian ocean dd was sunk it shot down the single attacking FTR sent after it - the transport survived.
Germany had dodgy dice in the Atlantic and the British battleship and both transports survived.
Germany also went strongly against Russia and used her transport for that (again the dice unlike previous games were not overwhelming). Egypt was left alone by Germany.
All you need is one UK transport to survive and the Italian fleet is doomed. Especially if your battleship survives too!
So - you will agree. I was lucky - I had 3 units that could get into the med.
I transported 2 infantry to Gibraltar, and sent both UK fighters there, I used my Egypt fighter to clear the German transport and returned it to Egypt.
I moved my navy so that my BB was in SZ12 (just outside the med) and my transport was just inside in the western med. I moved my Indian ocean transport in the eastern med. This was to negate any Italian bombardments.
The Italians bought 2 tanks.
The Italians could not muster enough forces to sensibly get one of my planes and did not bother to try. Instead they went for the BB with 1 BB and 1 cruiser, and took the other Cruiser and attacked Egypt.
They got into Egypt OK. Though it was close (and they got my Egypt industry!). However - the next round was disastrous for them. The US destroyed the BB/Cruiser in sz12. The RAF on round 2 sent 2 fighters after the surviving cruiser/transport.
Of course - we both acknowledged that killing the UK BB and splitting the italians had been their undoing - but what were the choices? Even if the Italians round 1 had bought the best naval unit they could afford (a destroyer)the UK could have gone in there with a BB, 2 fighters and 2 bombers. Cutting the Italians legs out from under them before Round 2 was over led to an allied victory. The US followed with carrier, fighters and transports into Algeria round 2 and from then on the Italians were glued up trying to resist invasion under mounting allied Pressure. The UK got her industry back via US support and the Japanese were pulled south to assist, leaving Russia to hold up Germany as best she could with some UK support.
I will accept - there were some pretty bad axis dice at the start - but to be honest - the axis win most of the time when we play so we were BOTH glad the Allies had a fair show.
The moral of the story is. If you have good dice, so you can
a) get air and infantry to Gib round 1, and use American forces to keep Britain safe from invasion (esp. if Germany lost some air over the Atlantic)
b) buy a 2nd bomber
then the Italians probably won’t even have a navy to play with for round 2.
Hey guys.
Probs finding real life players too. (though I seriously need to contact Morden again because he lives in London!).
But I own:
AA50
AA Europe
AA Pacific
AA 2nd Edition
And the original nova game (untouched and never played!)
I too worry that my romantic life (better half etc) may well have to go at some point. :evil:
Thanks Krieg. That makes sense.
Still no fun for Germmany though!!! :-o :-(
But the logic is still not right. This is why: I will devide this argument into two stages a) differences between attacker and defender choice and b) whether fighter response to SBR is a true defence (like AA) or as I believe an attack.
A) Choice and Non-choice responses.
Axis and allies clearly differentiates between choices and non choices.
Attacker has choices.
Attackers choose which units to devote to attacks. They choose how many. They choose where they will be deployed. Attackers can retreat at any point. In some situations/versions they can retreat air if they want. Attackers have free choice about everything they do.
The only restrictions upon attackers is they cannot attack as multinational forces. (except under special rules in revised i.e. joint attack US/UK). This even includes carriers with allied fighters going into battle (which instead of attacking are cargo).
To me this makes sense - because while the US can order a carrier into battle (she is the attacker she issues the orders) - she cannot in turn order the UK fighters on board (which are not her units and not under her orders) to participate.
Defenders have little/no choices.
Defenders defend territories with only the units already present. They cannot add units after the event (except ULTRA in Revised). They simply have to bear up under the attack with what they have in the territory at that moment. Other than choosing casualties the defender has no choices about who to defend with.
All units have to defend, and that duty is automatic: it has nothing to do with defender choice. Anti aircraft guns also fire automatically . The defender has no choice about whether to fire AA any more than s/he has a choice about whether to throw dice for all his/her defending units.
The main advantage of course is that all allied units (multinational or not) defend the square together. For example Japanese fighters in Southern Europe defend alongside germany infantry and tanks. This is why it initially seems sensible that Russian, UK, and US fighters can all defend against SBRs. But - defence against SBRs is a special case which is in fact more like attacking! It is different from AA which follows normal defending rules.
B) Why do I think fighters defending an SBR is an attack?
Imagine germany AAE round 2. She has 6 fighters and 2 bombers in range of the UK. The UK has 2 fighters. Irrespective of the strategic wisdom Germany opts for a massive aerial attack. She wants to force UK fighters up into the air - where she may be able to shoot 1 or both down.
She declares her SBR - 2 Bombers from Germany and 3 fighters from France and 3 fighters from Norway.
The UK wants to send her fighters to Russia next round. So what does she do? She makes a CHOICE. Not to send fighters up in defence. To me this is an example that the UK is choosing not to use her fighters to attack incoming german aircraft.
To me excercising choice is what defines to the UKs fighter response as an attack.
The UK’s AA gun defends automatically (there is no choice) - which makes it a typical defending unit (in my fantasy it gets four 1’s as well! :evil:).
Just as nowhere else in the game can a foreign power choose to dispatch allied units into an attack - so they should not here. If the UK had 2 US fighters on its territory instead of UK ones then she cannot move them - they are not her units and she cannot order them to attack on her behalf. Just as if they were on a UK carrier sent against a german battleship they would not attack simply by virtue of being in the same sea zone as said battle.
I know this seems a bit of an over the top analysis - but it’s one of those things I spent half of last weekend arguing with my playmate after I invested in SBR and she stocked the UK with US fighters.
Yes: It was in my interest :lol: - but I also reckon I’m correct that fighter interceptors are attackers as defined by the chraracteristic of ‘player choice to deploy’. By the same definition AA is a defending unit - which responds automatically like any other unit defending a territory.
The rulebook (I think) is not very clear on whose fighters can defend against SBRs - can US fighters DEFINITELY defend the UK or is this open to interpretation. (I ask because of a reference to such in the ‘strategies’ section of this website).
I personally don’t like this idea. I belive that if Germany is to stand any chance in an SBR campaign against the allies then she should not have to deal with potentially every single allied powers aircraft all at once - but rather the airforce of the power she is attacking.
Also - from a simple procedural standpoint - if I strat bomb the UK it is up to the BRITISH player to decide whether s/he will send up defending fighters. Any US fighters are not under his/her control surely and therefore not able to be ordered into the air. This is distinct (for instance) from mixed carrier forces where fighters are under direct attack as part of a mixed fleet and defend accordingly.
Equally - the US player is not the one being bombed and so has no role in that decision. Just as a US carrier with Russian fighters on board can take them into battle but cannot make them fight (they are cargo), so I think the british player should not automatically be allowed to order US units either, and that unless attacked US units in the UK are simply ‘cargo’ also.
Just my two penneth.
@Imperious:
I prefer france split like that picture. Make the coastal zones worth next to nothing and the invasion will have to be a real deal rather than 20 various probing fake invasions just to hijack IPC.
Wow. Obvious but true. I’ve always hated that about western europe in revised/original (and now AA42). So easy once Germany is on the ropes in the east for the UK to just nip in - snatch 6 IPCs and run!
BTW, yahtzee is not 100% pure luck game. I may roll two 1’s a 3 and two 6’s in Yahtzee. I decide to pick up the two 1’s and the 3 and roll ‘for’ 6’s. I could just the same try for 1’s… so there IS a decision that is made by the player.
Is it strategic? not likely… but it’s not PURE luck.
So if I CHOOSE to buy a lottery ticket, and then CHOOSE my numbers - it makes it less to do with luck than if I was randomly assigned 6 numbers by a computer. Well I think you are confusing making a decision based on solid information about the likely outcome and a decision made with no basis in that.
In fact - that argument shows that if you choose tech - to some degree you are making a decision based on pretty good odds. You get to roll until you make a discovery, and then the discovery is likely to help you - even if it wasn’t the one you hoped for.
So yes. Depending solely on getting ‘heavy bombers’ is probably less sensible than basing your strategy on investment in what will over time become a qualitatively better army than your opponent.
Example - in the 1980’s the US researched using ‘psychics’ as weapons. They invested about $80 million. A lot of money (though a drop in the ocean of military spending). It turned out that psychics were not useful militarily. So. That was a research ‘roll’ wasted.
All nations over time have spent money on research dead ends - the ones who are ‘luckiest’ and whose scientists (often working at the edge of their fields with not much idea of what they will discover) are lucky enough to get there first change history. So no. Tech is no more random than hoping the 5 IPC you invested in that tank will result in the destruction of that infantry you just sent it against. After all - we have more control over what units we buy - but less control over what our scientists can produce. So I think it mimics real life. You throw money at scientists and hope you get something good back!
However - I do think that with unit improvements - they should only apply to NEW units built after the discovery of technology. After all - it wasn’t like the germans stuck jet engines of their heinkel 111s or Me 109s. They built new aircraft models incorporating the technologies as did the brits and the rest.
This sudden ‘Oh all 6 of my bombers are now HEAVY bombers GREAT!’ is really the crux of the problem and why I don’t like tech. It’s not that it changes the course of the war - it’s that over the course of a single turn it changes the layout of the board - suddenly navies which were secure become vulnerable (LRA, HB, SS), front lines which were well thought out become ineffective (Adv Art, Mech Inf).
Of course we could take it further in that technology did lead to dramatic surprises for example: Russian use of new artillery tactics to encircle Stalingrad genuinely did set in motion a series of hammer blows which surprised and knocked back the German southern front leading to the repeat of this tactic in the North and Central fronts. But I think this is a flawed argument as nothing else in the game is secret. Navies move around the pacific in full view of their opponents, we all see exactly what new materiel our opponents place in their capitals each round etc. In fact in AAP40 I wonder how Japan is supposed to ‘surprise’ the allies as she actually did in 1941 with her lightning assaults across the Pacific.
So. Overall tech is annoying (and I don’t play with it) because it throws the board into chaos and it’s effects can be so widespread as to turn the game in a single round.