Posts made by wodan46

@Subotai:

I would like to play against this strat in TripleA low luck game, but sadly AA50 is not finished yet for release in the stable version.

Indeed.  I wanna play it.  Play by Forum would give me carpal tunnel syndrome.

You take Norway turn 2.  Axis has no feasible way to recapture it.  If Norway is held, you don’t need to be producing additional air units at all.  If you can’t take Norway, then you fall back to SBR instead.  Also, it is likely that America will regain control of Africa just as Britain loses it, then dominate the Mediterranean, Southern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, where it blocks Japan from advancing further.

To Reiterate
Britain: Use Middle Eastern Forces in conjunction with Fighters in the Eastern Front, take Norway and drop an IC if possible, SBR Italy if one or both of the prior falls through.
America: Crush Italy, and liberate everything that Italy goes for.
Russia: Standard Russian stuff.

@atarihuana:

this game is about balance. some ppl think its decided by the combat/ dice. but really your buys/NCM  decide this game, so buying all fighters for uk/us is just like thrwoing everything u have at japan. not balanced, hence u loose.  ftrs are strong and good. but they are just like any other unit a piece of the whole puzzle. leaving out one piece wont ruin it, leaving out all others pieces  for one will.

I realize that.  The key thing, I think, is flexibility.  If you come up with a single un-changing strategy, the enemy simply counters it, as every strategy has a decently effective counter.  However, if your strategy has many permutations and branching points, and each one has different counters, then you can be much more effective.

As such, I am revising the strategy again.  It is now a Britain only strategy, America goes naval and tries to take over the Italian region of power.  Russia acts as normal.

Britain does this
B1build: Build 3 Fighters, 1 Bomber
1. Egyptian Tank/Fighter and all units in Jordan and India(including AA) to Persia.
2. Egyptian Infantry/Artillery to Sudan (don’t leave any blockers, blitzing will leave their Tanks vulnerable)
3. South African Infantry to Rhodesia
4. UK Fighters to French West Africa
5. Australia Transport/Destroyer/Infantry/Artillery to Sea Zone 30
6. Canadian Transport/Destroyer/Tank to Sea Zone 1

B2build: X Fighters/Bombers (Fighters if you will be getting Norway, Bombers otherwise)
1. Invade Norway, using Bombers from UK.  Do not sacrifice ground units unless you really have to.
2. Recapture Egypt, using 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, and potentially the Bombers from UK and the Tank/Fighter from Persia (the Tank should probably not go there.)  Rhodesian Infantry move to Italian East Africa.
3. Advance your ground column in Persia to Caucasus.  They are not to be used as fodder.
4. Send your UK Fighters to Moscow.

B3build: 1 IC(Norway), rest for Fighters/Bombers
1. Invade Finland, Ukraine, and Libya, using Air Support as needed, giving up ground units sparingly, and advancing no more than 1-3 at a time, losing Fighters if need be.
2. If you have Norway, land lots of Fighters in it.
3. Transport Italian East African Infantry to Persia or Egypt.

Onwards:
Start pumping out Tanks in Norway, begin heavy SBRing of Italy otherwise (they are being attacked by the US and can ill afford it).  Since you have only limited ground forces, you keep making small attacks that consist mainly of air power, sacrificing Fighters in order to secure territories if need be, though if the Norway IC pans out, you won’t need to, unless you try blitzing through a newly captured Russian Territory to hit the German Territory behind it with your Tanks and air support, thus potentially blocking Germany from reaching the frontlines at all.  If the Egyptian force gets wiped out, no sweat, you still got America coming, along with the South African and Australian Infantry (assuming they didn’t get killed as well.).

@Imperious:

how do those Japanese Subs attack the American Subs without a Destroyer present?

subs cant attack subs w/o a DD?

If the opposing Subs submerge and you don’t have a DD, they can’t be attacked, period.  If I recall correctly, the number of Subs that got sunk by other Subs during WWII could be counted on a single hand, anyways.

Also, I’m beginning to suspect that it is NOs that make Japan so UBER.  Without it, they don’t have such deep pockets, and while US is reduced as well, it means Japan takes longer to build up.

@Imperious:

Once the American player gets his subs near enough, the Japanese subs hit at 2 and US defends at one,

What does not get wiped out is dinner for the larger japanese fleet.

Once again, how do those Japanese Subs attack the American Subs without a Destroyer present?  If no Destroyers are present, then the American Sub immediately submerges, granting it immunity to all attacks, including other Subs.  If you did your plan, you would sink one American Sub, and the other 5 move to the Japanese Sea zone and kill everything there with air support, then rinse and repeat for the remainder of the game.  If you move your Subs back, they will accomplish little, seeing as THEY will be the ones on Defense, and they will get about one round of firing before the US airforce wipes out all the surface vessels.

This goes to show that not all people will provide the correct counter to this strategy, which is good.

@murraymoto:

@wodan46:

Plan A does this
A2build: 6 Subs, 1 Bomber
A2move: Consolidate fleet in either Sea Zone 64, 59, or 58, where-ever its least threatened.

If the subs moved to one of those three zones with surface ships they’d be vulnerable to Japanese attack.  If they went straight from 56 out to the other zones without consolidating that would keep the subs safer, but would leave a surface ship consolidation more vulnerable.

The consolidation of Subs is a trap.  If Japan brings a Destroyer, the US Subs get used as fodder and the Japanese force gets decimated.  If Japan does not bring a Destroyer, the US Surface fleet is lost, but the US Sub fleet survives to reach the Japanese Sea Zone, whereupon it is supported by the intact US Air force.

@murraymoto:

I would expect that having the US/UK build exclusively fighters means to use in Russia means that they are ignoring Italy in Africa, save what they can strafe from the air and ignoring Japan, until Japan approaches Moscow from the east.  No Operation Overlord or Operation Torch because there are no allied boats in the atlantic and hence no ground pounders ready to give Germany 2 fronts.

Building a Ground/Naval/Transport force will be just as if not more expensive than an all Air Force in degree of punch, will take longer to be put together, be less mobile, and be vulnerable to counterattack.

@murraymoto:

Bombers could help, but I think you have to fight the war with a more balanced approach because those fighters/bombers will have to take hits in strafing attacks without ground forces.

Balanced isn’t feasible, because if you are going to launch a ground invasion, unless you go all out, you’ll either get your fleet decimated or your ground force easily wiped out in the counterattack.  If you are going to land Fighters in Russia, it seems to be either all or nothing.

@murraymoto:

UK’s drop in IPC income in the first few rounds will start to clip in on their ability to pump out aircraft as they lose Africa, Australia & India.

And how do they prevent them from being captured?  Frankly, they should just order their units in India to retreat to Russia for use as fodder.

@Emperor:

I never said anything about stopping them, you set up the premise of ignoring them, that is suicide, they will have consolidated the Pacific and Asia by round 2 with no threat on their back door, they are free to push right through to Russia unopposed, meanwhile they will have deprived the US of 2 of their 3 NO’s.

I ask you again, how do you stop them?  If America fails to go all out against Japan, then Japan can easily hold onto its 50+ IPCs, destroy the American Fleet, and attack Russia anyways, while Germany is significantly less threatened.

@Emperor:

Under your plan Russia has no chance of taking Italy or Germany.  While the UK\US are busy buying fighters, Italy is consolidating Africa\Med and building a huge army and fleet in the Med.  Meanwhile Germany doesn’t have to worry about their Atlantic front since neither the UK\US are building transports, ships, or men to mount an amphibious assault, so they can buy all the fodder they need to bleed the allied air forces dry.

I suppose.

@Fighter:

japan will become a monster quickly without US opposition and should US after 2-3 round decide to go after japan anyway they will laugh their pants of and throw 50+ IPC worth og asskicking their way each round and muster up for an invasion probably.

Once again, I fail to see how the US can pose a significant threat to Japan, even if they throw every last penny into it.  Japan has more IPCs than America and gets to play defense, while the enemy ground forces opposing them are wiped out after the first two turns.

@Fighter:

Germany may focus all forces against russia and totally ingoring the west coast and/or they could build up an invasion fleet to take UK + SBR (they are probably buying the bombers anyway as they would need to hit through alot of 4’s at some time)

How exactly do they build a fleet when there are 10-20 Fighters 1 or 2 spaces away from the Baltic Sea Zone?  Even if they could, they would get slaughtered by Russia.

@Fighter:

without land units, the allies cannot conquer new territories and defend the existing.

And doing so is vastly more expensive and problematic than just sending fighters.  Germany can sink the fleet/transports and you are back to square 1.

I’m beginning to think that an Alternative variant is that Britain and America build a mixture of Fighters and Bombers, with the Bombers doing SBR as well as holding the frontline stacks and the occasional strafe.

B1: 3 Fighters, 1 Bomber, [1 SBR]
A1: 4 Fighters
B2: 1 Bomber, 2 Fighters, [2 SBR]
A2: 4 Bombers, [2 SBR]
B3: 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter, [3 SBR]
A3: 4 Fighters, [2 SBR]
B4: 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter, [4 SBR]
A4: 4 Fighters, [6 SBR]

By Turn 4, you are doing 8 SBRs or so per turn to Germany and Italy, hile having 16 Fighters deployed on the Russina frontlines.

@Emperor:

It’s been my experience that ignoring Japan is suicide, within a couple of rounds they’ll be pulling in 50+ IPC.

And what, precisely, can you do to stop them?  They will be claiming 50 IPCs by the end of Turn 2, and unless America goes all out, they will easily demolish any threat opposing them anyways.

@Emperor:

Add to that Italy in control of Africa and the Med gives them 30+ IPC with NO’s, and Russia down 5 IPC each turn for letting those bourgeois capitalist pigs basing rights in Mother Russia, I don’t see anyway that scenario could pay off.

Russia capturing Germany and Italy, then going up to 70-80+ IPCs?

@a44bigdog:

And if you are playing with NOs those Allied fighters are costing the Russians a tank every round. Which as the Axis I really like to see.

That’s why this strategy is all out.  5 IPCs a turn in return for a couple of Fighters in Moscow is of debatable worth.  5 IPCs a turn in return for 16 Fighters and 3 Bombers stacked in frontline Russian territories, which eventually suicide to wipe out entire German columns?  Better.  In this plan, India would also send all of their guys to Russia just because why not?

It might be better to have America and Britain drop a Bomber a turn as well, to give them more offensive punch, and allow them to SBR any turn they aren’t trying to punch a hole in the German frontline.  On the other hand, this weakens their ability to block counterattacks.

@Imperious:

I suppose you can build 6 subs, but when Japan wipes all your American ships except the Carrier and DD in the corner…they too will build 6 subs on J2 to match and wait till you get in range so they can attack your subs at 2 when you defend at 1, plus they already got all the other goodies like 3 carriers BB and tons of fighters…

And how exactly will those Subs attack the American Subs?  Each Sub is in a different Sea Zone, Japan will need a Destroyer for every Sub they wish to attack.  If Japan does a Sub build, America will simply move their Sub Fleet into Japan’s Sea Zone, which will eliminate Japan’s ability to produce units from it.

I think it might be better though, to simply produce enough Subs that a single Destroyer can’t threaten them, but not so many Subs that the enemy masses Destroyers.

They did so in Revised as well.  Its a much bigger help to Germany, who gets more Tanks than anyone else typically.

@axis_roll:

You still need other units to go with them, however because it can become too expensive to lose them en masse if used in a straffing manner that you described.

The problem is that the cost required to obtain other units (ground unit cost, transport cost, fleet cost) to go with them means that its probably cheaper just to strafe with Fighters, unless you are sure you can establish a beachhead and start landing troops.  The problem is that the beachhead might end up being too little too late.  The Fighter Swarm allows you to act early, and sacrificing your Air Force to wipe out Germany’s frontline is easily worth it.

I’m curious.  What would happen if America and Britain did the following:
1. Built exclusively Fighters.
2. Sent them to reinforce the major Russian unit stack/s
3. At an opportune time, suicide the Fighter stack against an advancing German stack, in order to shred Germany’s forward momentum.

It would be KGF.  Russia would go an even mix of Tanks and Infantry, tending towards Tanks by the end.  If strategy begins to fail, Fighters can be converted into Carrier Groups for alternative tactics.  Japan will be ignored, but it will be presumed that once Russia takes Germany, they will be able to start pushing Japan back.

I came to this when I began realizing that while Fighters may cost more than ground forces, for the Allies to deploy ground forces, they must also build a large transport and naval force, which is both less mobile than the Fighters, and much more vulnerable to counterattack.

Furthemore, while SBRs may seem more cost effective, the Fighters will allow you to wipe out critical frontline stacks, while providing valuable defense to the Russian stacks.

By the end of turn 3, Britain could have 9 Fighters and 1 Bomber in Belorussia or another frontline territory, while America would have 8 Fighters and 2 Bombers.  Each turn, add 2-3 more Fighters for Britain, and 3-4 more for America.  This gets even nastier the closer the Russians get to Germany, allowing Fighters to reach the battle quicker.

Russia should move their AA out of Karelia if they get the chance, that way the allies can strafe the hell out of it before landing in Archangel/Belorussia.

Axis simply needs to capture the landing spots for British aircraft to foil the plan.  There are 3 of them, but Germany gets two turns and Italy gets one before Britain gets a chance to do much.
G1: Take Egypt (2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Tanks, 1 Bomber)
I1: Take Trans Jordan (2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 10 worth of Bombardment if need be)
G2: Take Gibraltar(1 Infantry)

G1: Take Trans Jordan (1 Inf, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber)
I1: Take Egypt (3 Inf, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 10 Bombardment)
G2: Take Gibraltar (1 Inf)

G1: Take Gibraltar (1 Inf)
I1: Take Egypt (3 Inf, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 10 Bombardment)
G2: Blitz into Jordan (1 Tnk)

@Unknown:

I don’t think you really need to kill Japan’s fleet. Just render it ineffective. Buying a couple subs (not 6) with the US can be a great way to accomplish this, especially if they lost the dd J1. The idea is to stop their freedom of movement, specifically unescorted transports, by forcing them to consolidate their fleet.

The problem is that after a few turns, they don’t need transports to hold the mainland, and the only sea zone that they MUST defend is 62.

@Unknown:

The tp and inf go to EUS to start a shuck into Africa (protected by British fleet). That way, you still keep pressure on on Italy and Germany.

What British fleet?

@Unknown:

Bring the sz44 dd, cv, and ftr, along with the Hawaiian fighter, to sz56. Also stack your mainland ftrs and bmrs on WUS. This will give you a possible attack force of: 2 ss, 1-2 dd, 1 cv, 4 ftr, 3 bmr, enought to cripple or outright kill most of the IJN. So this will create a massive dead-zone everywhere two spaces out from sz56, which ncludes Iwo Jima, Wake, Midway, Carolines, Hawaii, and Solomons.

You could even take the Carolines US1 if your tp survived and Japan left it empty (which they likely will). This will force them to waste at least a tp and some ground units to take it back, or UK gets its bonus. If they try to defend the tp, you can kill whatever they put in that sz. If they don’t defend it, you can kill it for free with a bomber next turn, stranding the ground units there.

On US2 you could buy a few more subs, then advance the 2 you have, keeping them within the dead-zone but within range of the sea of Japan. Make sure to always keep your subs in separate sea zones, obviously. Then land your bombers in Alaska or Midway, and buy a second carrier for sz56 so all 4 fighters are in range too. Now you’ve forced Japan to build more navy, or lose what they have.

True, perhaps that might work

@Unknown:

Of course, because bombers are so cost-effective at killing fleet, they won’t be able to keep up.

Only when working in concert with other units.

The real problem is that Japan has more than enough money to match the US fleet, and still have enough left over to freely run amok across the eastern halve of Eurasia.

@ithkrall:

The main objections were how un fun it was to play the Soviets

Soviets have money now.

@ithkrall:

how the game was pretty stacked against the axis

Not anymore, if anything, its currently the reverse for the metagame.

@ithkrall:

and the slow pace.

That’s not the fault of the boardgame is it, is the fault of the players for being too slow.  If a player is taking too long, all the other players should start humming the jeopardy theme song.

That said, TripleA plays way faster (no setup, no book-keeping, dice rolled for you), they still need to get AA50 to work.

In short, there is no justification for Italy not making a try for Africa, doing so more than pays itself off and does so near immediately, while failing to do so results in consequences so negative that it offsets any gain you would from directing your forces elsewhere.

Trying to figure it out.

Two Plans under research

Plan A and B both do this:
A1build: 6 Subs
A1move: Move fleet to WUS as usual, land 2 Fighters and 2 Bombers in Alaska, move Infantry to Canada, have British Infantry move to Alaska.

Plan A does this
A2build: 6 Subs, 1 Bomber
A2move: Consolidate fleet in either Sea Zone 64, 59, or 58, where-ever its least threatened.

A3build: Many permutations based on the status of various units.
A3move: If your Sub group is intact, send it to Sea Zone 62.  If it isn’t, use your new Sub group to counterattack.  Use the Alaskan Air Group to support.

Plan B does this
A2build: 6 Subs, 1 Bomber
A2move: Move 1 Sub to each of the following sea zones: 64, 59, 58, 57, 52, 51.  Move Surface fleet to Sea Zone 57

A3build: Many permutations based on the status of various units.
A3move: Send all Subs that are still alive to Sea Zone 62.  Use your secondary Sub group to kill anything within range.  Use the Alaskan Air Group to support, as well as the surface fleet, if it is alive.

Either plan has the same core objective: Get a group of Subs into Sea Zone 62, with new Subs arriving as needed.  Any units the opponents builds have to wait until it is your turn before a battle occurs, whereupon your Subs get to fight with a full 2 Attack, and not only that, they get air support and the Japanese fleet does not.  Once this is established, Japan should be prevented from building new naval units, allowing America to build a fleet and liberate Japanese conquests. 
Around Turn 3, the US should probably begin dropping Transports and naval units to protect them.

In order for this plan to work, it would probably help to have Britain and Russia carry out the KJF plan I described in the other thread.  The American fleet will demolish the Japanese one rapidly unless they put their full attention on it, allowing Britain and Russia to liberate their territories.

That makes it a lot easier to block ICs from producing sea units, Sea Zones 5, 56, and 62 in particular.  More importantly, it makes Subs more effective at blocking those zones, because they get to use their higher attack value, and also be reinforced by air/naval units.

Another situation would be if Germany put a sub in each sea zone around the UK.  If Britain puts a Destroyer in each zone to counter, then Germany sends its airforce, while using the Subs as fodder.

2 Situations
1. You build a Cruiser and place it in a sea zone which has an enemy Cruiser
2. You build a Destroyer and place it in a sea zone which has an enemy Sub
What happens in those situations, and when?  If the battle is only triggered on the Sub owner’s turn, can they bring in additional units to support it?