Posts made by Xandax

@SSPanther:

<snip>Those are the details of our game. Basically I am not sure what to do with the US. Drop a huge fleet in the Atlantic?? Let the UK be and keep pressing hard in Pacific?</snip>

Slap Japan around with a large trout.

Not being able to kill off a nation “fast enough” if it does almost nothing but turtle does not make that nation too strong. Making it easier to take Russia makes it easier to take the European side of the board, making the game shorter and removing strategy from the game.
Instead of treating the symptom (loose before taking Russia), treat the cause (too easy for the USA to swing in with a combined Pac/EU side resources).

As I see it, pretty much the only thing that can be done is tweaking the USA, as it is the factor which tips the board when combining Pac and the EU.
Putting all your units in Moscow to defend is not a winning strategy, it’s just an avoidance of loosing because the US will come to save you strategy. You can’t take Russia because the US can be a factor too fast, not because Russia is too strong. Tweaking Russia or Germany will not do the game good IMO, on the contrary. A stronger Italy might be useful, but IMO that’s also a short sighted change.

@taschuler:

It boggles my mind how people could think Russia is too strong. I have waited till G4 and still took them out.

Me neither, but the stance seems to come from not being able to kill them “fast enough” more than Russia being able to take back anything.

@Frank:

A lot of people are saying a weaker Russia would balance the game.  Do you think this would do the trick.  I think it would at least go a long way.

I still don’t see how people can claim a weaker Russia would balance the game.
The problem is still not killing Russia, but killing Russia “fast enough”. By making the game faster (weaker would all things equal mean faster kill), you do not balance it - you just remove any other need than going after Russia fast for the win.

The key to this strategy is actually very much in tune the strategy of going full Pacific (as per Jennifer’s posts) and therefore only substantiates the claims from that strategy.
And that is that a (near) 100% involvement by the (combined) USA is enough to turn over the power balance for either side of the map fast enough that neither Axis board-side can win. Axis just need to be contained for Allies to win.

A weaker Russia would kill off this game IMO. The issue with a combined USA is the key IMO.

@Frontovik:

@captainhook:

My question follows:
In Alpha +2, if Germany play “as expected”, meaning that they threaten the sea lion (by having a few barges, ect…) but are actually going more towards invading Russia.  How do you manage to keep the Italians off Egypt?

I know that might sound strange, but in all my games, the damn pizza-eating bastards take it…

leftovers from taranto and indian fighters should be enough.

The fighters you need to keep off Japan?

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

End Germany 4: 15 Tanks
End Russia 4: 14 Tanks
Result: Match

15 = 14?  Paradox inbound.  :-o

Edit: Also, why is keeping up with tanks so important?  I would think the Russians would want to keep up defensively with infantry.

Being defensive in every game is boring and buying little else but inf is too boring :D
It’s fun to try and mix it up a little to see if you can pull out something unexpected on your “enemy” even if it might cost you a game once in a while. ;)

@Larrie:

How can you attack Iraq on turn 3 when Russia is neutral until turn 4?

I miswrote that - mean turn 3 after war. I want to take Russia through Africa to see if they, double teaming with the English can piggy back on each other. And help being about 5 additional IPCs to Russia to counter the most likely Japan far-east invasion drain.
So the sooner Germany goes into Russia, the faster I can be in Africa, so I’ll try some baiting ;)

I’ve not seen many reasons why the US would go in with anything less then 100% in the Pacific for a handful turns.
So more often than not, full Pacific -> contain Japan via navy -> start Europe.

@KillOFzee:

Let me ask you something. If all Russia does is fortify and hold up in Moscow, how can the axis win? An all infantry build doesn’t necessarily spell defeat for Russia. Germany/Italy needs 8 Vic Cities to win, so if Russia just gets massed with 70 or so infantry by the time the Germans get to them, and the English do the same, there is no way the axis can win in Europe.

Well - if Russia is down to a handful IPCs each turn, you start cutting away the “70 or so” infantry because you can kill more than they can replace. You should have Italian and German troops and potentially Japan as well to triple-team them.
The question is then whether you can do so while keeping USA out, but if both Russia and England turtles that hard, Europe/Africa should be pretty much axis controlled for a large income.

Planing my next global game coming up next month - where I’m properly going to play Allied (my turn).
I’ve got some ideas that I want to send some Russian tanks south, take Persia - use those inf with the tanks to take Iraq and then depending on situation, push into Africa and hopefully surprise Italy in Egypt.
That means by turn 3, I expect to attack Iraq with about 3 tanks, the 2 persian inf and possible a mech or two.
Those 2 2 IPC countries would then help make up for the IPC loss from invading Germans and Japan.

Depending on whether Germany does Sealion or Barbarossa, England will then also place some tanks/mech in South Africa and try and link up with the Russians. If my dice holds - they should be linking up in Egypt in turn 5, while having secured the majority of Africa from Italy leaving only the North contested.

It’ll be a bit of a gamble with dedicating Russian resources to something as offensive as this, but if playing an offensive defense (trying to ping pong the zones in front of moscow, buying time for asian troops to walk home), it could hold out. Especially if Germany goes Sealion which I have a suspicion they will.

My issue with the stance that Russia is “too strong” is that limiting Russia makes for shorter games and removes much option for alternative strategies and simply promotes a Russia-rush.
Which are some of the last things I want for this game.

I think that the reason people feel Russia is too strong, is that Axis can’t eliminate Russia “fast enough” before the rest of the allies (mainly USA) becomes too much of a factor - and not that Axis can’t eliminate Russia period - in which case it isn’t really Russia which is too strong.

@special:

Another thing, if your Turkey attack fails and Greece is not yet taken,  1 Turk can walk in and activate them.

Is that an Alpha2 thing? Because in the rules for normal it states that if you fail to capture an unfriendly neutral, that the enemy defending (activated) units can’t move

@rock`n:

first of all, a sealion does not “get the USA out of the pacific”. why you assume this? strange to me, this is why i ask.

Because otherwise the west coast lies open to invasion forces from Italy/Germany.
The US better not continue to dump resources into Pacific if there’s no block between Germany and mainland.

And well -

@rock`n:

second, i have to admit, that til today you did not challenge my notion in any way. you just kept repeating your opinion without any basis, just repeating that it works, what you propose, and therefor it worked, because you proposed it.

that is what i got, no offense!

rock`n roll

I’ve not really seen anything to suggest it is a loosing strategy to take England, other than it being repeated numerous times.
Taking an enemy out of the game can never be a loosing strategy.

@shadowguidex:

This American all-pacific strategy sorta requires that A&A40 Europe be broken, doesn’t it?  This requires that Moscow be absolutely impenetrable in the standalone game……it is not.  This strat is testable by playing each game standalone.

This entire strategy requires Moscow to somehow hold out.  Nevermind the Pacific, play Europe alone with no American involvement for 8 turns.  The strategy has nothing to do with the Pacific whatsoever, does it?  It is really a balance question about Europe, specifically the viability of Barbarossa.

It doesn’t require Europe to be broken (nor the Pacific) as stand alone games.

It does require that Moscow/England can hold out for a number of turns without American involvement, yes. Not that Germany/Italy couldn’t win, but that they can’t win fast enough (consistently).

And if that premise is true - the kicker is that combining America from Global into Pacific game breaks Pacific as a standalone. Which is effectively the situation you’re looking at when the US goes all-in on that side of the board for enough turns to ensure that Japan can’t win, after which you can focus Global America into the Europe game.

So no, it does not require any one of the two single games to be broken.

@suprise:

Here is just a thought let France go first

That I think would make France way to difficult to take for the starting setup of Germany and they’ll have to spend so many resources that a G2 or 3 attack on either Russia or London will suffer.
The entire game would have to be moved one turn, aka Russia’s declaration of War, USAs declaration and so on.

@Frank:

Every game I have played that someone did not at least threaten Sea Lion turned into a loss for the Axis.  The UK can just get up too much no good is they feel zero pressure.  The consequences for Italy are too severe.  Funny thing is almost every game where Sea Lion was pulled off successfully by Germany resulted in an Axis loss also.

The game is difficult enough for Axis.
That’s exactly why it’s bad to show your hand in G1 and not at least threaten Sealion.

@rock`n:

okay, killofzee, xandax and jimmyhat: can anyone of you outline how you would buy, move, fight etc.?

til today i have not seen a strategy of winning this game, only a strategy - if you like to call this way - of taking london. about what happenes afterwards just the assumption that russia will definitely fall. but how???

Well, you assume Russia will fall if you go in G1 and will win the game.
There is no deeper meaning, no hidden pitfalls, no philosophical discussion or other such elements. It’s pretty much a text book opening and plenty of strategies on this forum tell about it.
Mobilize to take England is a strategy. If you want the tactical play-by-play per turn,  then I will not give you a play-by-play of each turn from 1 to 7 simply because it is irrelevant and each move can be questioned when having the perfect information with “But why did England not do X in turn 1, so you couldn’t do Y in turn 5”. Such discussions never serve anything. It is the overall picture that we’re talking.

It is literally simple enough. Taking England does not loose the war.
The strategy is simple.
If wanting to do Sealion - do it in G2 or G3 if possible. If not wanting to do Sealion, don’t.

It is your claim that it is an automatic loss that’s the strange bit because I’ve never once seen anything to say it is an automatic loss. It all hinges on that you can win taking Russia without taking England, but that does in no way, shape or form, infer that taking England means you can’t win.
You’re free to believe it if you want, but a belief does not make it true for anybody else.

@rock`n:

and: the first two turns, britain has to prepare against sealion anyway. always for two turns minimum. not earlier than UK2 it would become obvious if germany goes east or west. ;)

Seeing as you have no transport, have shown that you wish to move into Russia (possible even building the Romanian factory)- there’s no reason to defend England for two turns minimum.
Buy some navy and buy some planes to rule the sea, buy some troops in South Africa. Take Norway or Denmark after a few rounds of navy just to disrupt. Fly planes to Russia to defend.
No need to spend all your IPCs on infantry for two rounds. If England does this (buys infantry) regardless of Germany move in your games, well - then I understand why England is ignored by you because then they truly set themselves up to be irrelevant in the European scene.
If Germany starts buying transports at turn 3 or 4, it’s easy enough to build up infantry at that time after the transport purchase - unless England already rules the sea and air.
And if you wain until turn 6 or 7 or later - there’s a large possibility USA will have all but contained Japan enough that they can start fortify England with planes or put out a navy to scare off any invasion fleet or move into the Med.

@rock`n:

@Xandax:

USA will have to react to England’s capture or be push right out of European theatre thus potentially giving Japan more free reigns. Effectively Sealion forces the USA to split resources in a much higher degree than otherwise, something Japan usually will benefit from.

“potentially”…there you have it. but not really. the one way or another, london will fall soon back to allied´s hands and therefor is not this much needed to get this done. even to deny a german recapture it is only needed to take or block denmark (italy left aside here).

Everything is potential in this game. It’s potential you’ll take Russia without Sealion and it’s only potential that London will “fall soon back” as well.
And even if London is retaken, you’ve forced enough dedication of resources not used elsewhere. As said - getting the USA out of the Pacific is a major boon for Japan. The USA going all-in in the Pacific is hard on Japan. Just as USA going all-in in Europe, is hard on Germany/Italy. Splitting up the US benefits both Axis sides very much.

I’m not here to convince you to do Sealion, I’m here to challenge your notion that it is automatic loss for Axis.

It is neither a dead end nor a win-win, it depends on too many factors. However, it isn’t an automatic loose to invade England, especially if you actually take England, then you’re in a good position onwards. I’ve also seen absolutely nothing to indicate it is a loose strategy.

So, while I don’t think Sealion is a needed strategy, it is a neeed build process G1. For many of the same reasons outlined in the previous posts.
If you show your hand in G1 and signal clearly a Russian invasion - England will run wild and South Africa is effectively lost for Italy as I see it. If you at least threaten invasion, England has to plan accordingly and all things equal, Italy will have easier time in Africa/Med.

Taking England offers large tactical advantage in threathening the USA and provide additional income for the Russian campaign. Russia usually needs to play defensive as well, so even with a Sealion they can’t push far enough into Germany at the risk of spreading too thin and allowing the invetable invasion to just run over them.

USA will have to react to England’s capture or be push right out of European theatre thus potentially giving Japan more free reigns. Effectively Sealion forces the USA to split resources in a much higher degree than otherwise, something Japan usually will benefit from.

And if not doing a Sealion the transports can still be used in the Russia push.

No, you must take it before you can land in it.

2 or 3 depending on situation and what strategies I’m running.