Posts made by Zhukov44

Yeah that India paper needs an edit.  It’s like 5 years old no?

I don’t consider India the optimal Allied strategy, but I’ve been beaten by it enough times to realize it is a workable strategy.

I don’t believe a Pacific offensive is the optimal move unless Japan had some bad luck or didn’t make necessary attacks on Turn 1 (like say Pearl Harbor).  But if you go for it, your objective should be building up defensive fleet and taking Borneo or East Indies.  Then build a factory there, where you can reinforce your navy directly.  Always have at least 1 transport, preferably 2, with your fleet.  You have the right idea re. buys–aircraft carriers with fighters and subs are the right choices.

@Omega:

Canada and Australia helped alot during WWII. I’m surprised that Canada doesn’t even have an IC (not that it would be of any use :S)
Not sure about India, I don’t know India’s history. If UK starts with an IC in India, then Japan can’t go crazy.
And yes, India IC can’t stand against a competent Japanese player. But the longer he takes to take it, the better it is for the Allies!

Me and my friends are going to play a no NOs game next time to see how things are. One thing is sure, if there are no NOs, Germany won’t have to spread himself. Neither will have Japan. But at the same time, they lose a lot of IPC from bonuses. I think it will be interesting

Right now, we know that the key of success for the Allies are a strong UK navy. If UK can keep a strong navy during the game, then he can threaten France and the reste of Europe.

Axis needs a bid of at least 10 in a no NO game.  KGF is very easy for the Allies.

Re. ICs….I like them on G2 as part of a specific strategy that takes account of what the Allies have done.  It’s not always the best move to buy a factory.  That’s why I don’t like it G1, though I imagine I’ll try Norway sometime, which must be built G1.

The France/Poland debate is interesting–I need to test it out before weighing in.

I’d echo what some others have said….  if peeps think KGF is the go-to strategy in this game then I’d be happy to play Axis and challenge them (maybe sometime I’ll find you on TripleA).  However, the bid to Egypt and Karelia evens it out alot–perhaps completely.  However I would say that without a bid Axis have the advantage and it only gets bigger if the Allies go KGF.

All that said maybe KGF will be the strategy since Japan starts with so much–if Japan plays defense effectively they can hold off the USA for a long time.  Pacific offensives, while tempting due to NOs and the superiority of air power, are actually more complicated then Revised since USA can’t build on Borneo or East Indies.

Re. game mods, I’d prefer modifications that make the game more historical–ie. I’d prefer if Japan had a starting factory in Indochina and United Kingdom had one in India and Aussie.  I’d prefer a stronger Chinese.  I’d prefer a stronger Germany (more Luftwaffe, more Baltic fleet).  In general I think it’s too darn easy for the Japs to break out and too hard for the Germans to defeat the Russians.

But hell to make me happy they would need to design a truly historical game that never really ends lol.

Play people better than yourself.  If on TripleA, save the game and go back and analyze it.  You can only learn so much playing yourself.

The most reliable Axis strategies involve concentrating on destroying Russia and taking Moscow.

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

As for tweaking NOs or China mod, or any other mod, those are house rules, so it’s an unacceptable choice imo, as long as we can easily change the balance with cash or units, this is a type of modification we can do and still avoid house rules.

Of all Axis and Allies games, zero of them have bids (or LL) as OOB rules, so both are house rules

I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system. Too few (6-8) is not enough). Too much (9+) can be … too much. I continue saying that China and her nasty combo of poor setup and poor rules are blame of it. Bids restricted to China can paliate the poor setup, but the only way of paliating the poor rules of page 10 is … house rules  :|

How about a standard bid of 3-6 Chinese infantry?  Not sure about the right number.  However, as Axis, I’d rather have 4 or possibly even 5 more Chinese than an extra unit on Egypt and Karelia.

Perhaps NO tweaking has some potential.  I think bids are best.

Without NOs, Axis will need a bid of at least 10, maybe 15.

With NOs, Allies need the bid.  Probably around 9-13.

Low luck, I go with 2.

Re. pure luck, after playing the game hundreds of times I’m still on the fence.  If I go with 3, that should cost me an extra inf in West Russia.  But 3 also makes the Ukraine battle relatively secure–you have to have some awful rolls to lose that.

I wouldn’t try a triple in regular luck.  If it goes bad Russia is in rough shape.  Might be worth trying in ll.

@LT04:

Let me ask this question:

If the Allies botch the first round and Germany takes London on G2 how do the Allies recover?

Basically, the game is over.  If the Allies are really good players maybe they can recover, but its unlikely.  This is why Sea Lion G1 or G2 doesn’t seem like a fun strategy–its more of a gimmick.  I mean, you can catch a noob that way in a quick online game…but why would you do that in a FTF game where you already have to spend 30 minutes setting up the board?  If the Allies respond reasonably, Germany’s chances of success in a G2 Sea Lion should be around 5-25%.  If Germany wins that battle it will because of luck, so you might as well start another game because this one is over.

I suppose Norway isn’t impossible, but a IC purchase G1 doesn’t make sense to me.  G2 is when Germany has the money.  In any case if I were UK I would go after a Norway complex aggressively.

Poland seems reasonable and I will try it–if Poland is low on inf armor can be moved there…  However, I still like France especially if USA is KGF.  Only drawback seems to be the SBRs.

It’s easy enough to destroy the fleet Round 3 or 4 if it stays in the Med if Allies are KGF.  But how do the Allies deal with it if the USA is chasing Japan?  I’m not sure how I feel about USA clearing the Med and then going back on Japan.

This is a cool game…lots of fun puzzles.  KGF with NOs doesn’t seem to work…Axis gets the economic advantage and wins the long game.  But KJF also seems like a mistake if Italy and Germany are getting all their NOs.  Italy has to be neutered.

Isn’t AA42 just a revision of Revised?

If I was gonna buy one (besides Revised) I’d probably try for Anniversary…but I understand that was limited edition so the price just keeps going up.

Idk much about AA:Europe but AA:Pacific is a neat game.

What are the best strategies for destroying the Italian fleet and stopping Italy from getting NOs?

Attack with United Kingdom or attack with USA?  Turn 2, 3 or 4?  What is the bigger priority for the USA–weakening Italy or creating a Pacific threat asap?  Can both be accomplished at once?

Another related topic… should I send Russian gear into Persia R1 or R2 to help in Syria or India or is this considered too risky?

I don’t think all inf is the best buy in Revised or in this game.  It’s not a bad buy…just not a great one.  If your inf/art and inf/armor ratios are too high, then either you don’t counterattack and thus get less IPCs per turn…or you lose more inf then you should in counterattacks because you aren’t bringing enough punch.

My problem with not doing Egypt is it seems like a longshot to ever blitz Africa if I don’t (unless Japan can get it later).  Plus UK can stack Jordan, which costs Italy its 2nd NO.

Take Gibraltar?  Maybe sometimes but it seems risky if the UK navy is in range as knocking out that fleet UK2 would be a big win for the Allies.

I’m liking France.  Sure, you don’t necessarily need 16 units a turn.  But all ICs cost the same, and France is the most important territory besides Germany for Germany to hold.  If I can plop down units there at the end of every turn, so much the better.  Unlike Norway, it’s not likely to help the Allies–ie if the Allies take and hold France the game is probably about over for Axis anyway.

That said I’m not convinced Germany should always buy an IC.

Good post DarthMaximus.

The most common mistake I see when playing Axis is the Allies leaving infantry behind to be eaten by Japan.  When pursuing a KGF strategy, you may want to attack Japanese units if they are overextended.  But you don’t want to let them attack you unless you have the odds…and when you figure the odds, you have to take all those Japanese planes into account.

So generally in a KGF I’m leaving some units in India/Bury on Turn 1 to tempt Japan into overextending itself…but after that I retreat to Moscow.  If possible, try to keep an infantry stack in Novo with some tanks to back it up to trade Yakut and Sinkiang, but not at the risk of allowing Germany to stack critical territories like Karelia.

You may also want to try some kind of naval gambit (Borneo and/or attack the sub and land the fig on the American carrier) on Turn 1 with United Kingdom in order to slow down Japan’s development.  It’s your call–if you don’t plan to use those units against Germany somehow it’s usually better to hit Japan.

Maybe someone in a position of power over at WOTC likes to come on GTO and play a gay bombard strategy?  That’s the only explanation I can think of.

But honestly if you try to stack battleships against a good Axis it won’t work, so it really isn’t much of a game-breaker, just an annoyance.

I wonder about the bomber and Egypt….if you don’t use the bomber than Germany has poor odds in Egypt.  It seems to me this opens the door for either 1) USA is free to focus on Japan or 2) UK focuses completely on Europe, while USA reinforcements shore up Africa before Italy can build up.  Just in general the Middle/East seems to be a key region for Axis and allowing the Egypt forces to live means United Kingdom has way more optons there.

I can definitely understand using the bomber on the BB or in Karelia instead…  but Egypt seems so critical even if Axis gets owned in Africa 95% of the time.  At least you force the Allies to divert forces there.