Posts made by Ó Ruanaidh

Naturally, but that is boring and un-dynamic, we need to keep things fresh, and the enemy will be thinking “What the hell is he thinking?” Which can be an advantage, because he will not know how to react. If you know a bit about actual World War II, then you’ll know that Mussolini really threw Churchill and the Brits off balance by being so unpredictable, he attacked in Greece, and in Egypt, and other places, and the British stretched themselves thin trying to counter that. In fact, if Germany had intervened decisively in Africa after the evacuation of the British from Somalia and Greece, they would likely have knocked the Brits right out of the Med. So the same applies to this game, if your opponent is not sure what you are doing, he as to guess, and has to place forces to counter what he thinks you are going to do. Comes in handy sometimes, whereas with 3 tanks, he knows precisely what you’re going to do with them, and be easily able to counter it, as long as he has money.

Hmmm, so it would be, perhaps if you buy a destroyer one round, then a transport the next, that why the Germans have to decide if they want to risk losing a bomber for some Russian ships.

Sure it would be in the possession of the U.K. on turn 1, but where do all those pieces come from (besides the planes, I know where they would come from), assuming that the Germans did attack on their turn? Even if the British survived that attack I doubt they’d have all the troops you say, unless they sacrificed India to bolster Egypt.

That is assuming that England is even in possession of Egypt, which this thread hopefully has limited the chances of. Being a British player primarily, I would not dare make a complex in Egypt, it is much to close to Italy and Southern Europe, and it only has 2 ipc’s, so South Africa has the same benefits without the risks, I’d throw on there instead of risking losing Egypt to the Italians anyday, for what happens when the Italians take Egypt? You might as well give up dreams of holding Africa.

I agree with letter A, the plan is hardly feasible with Italian Battleships and cruisers cruising around the Med, but to B I say, not necessarily. If you wanted to buy a fighter, you could perhaps get a transport instead, so that way, Germany would have to leave at least 2 infantry behind in Bulgaria/Romania, and Italy would have to garrison the Balkans and Italy itself, which ultimately pays off on the Eastern Front in my opinion.

Fully agree. A good Japanese player can quickly make the game a living hell, KGF just isn’t feasible in this version in my opinion. Japan is just to strong, and it has a much larger Fleet, it can take India Australia, Philippines, all in 2 or 3 turns, and it can destroy China in the same time, tear Eastwards, threatening the U.S. mainland, and slowly marching west towards the gates of Moscow. Germany is also a tough nut to crack, and a good German player can waste all of the Allies time while Japan wrecks them. After about turn 5 I’d say the U.K. would have Japanese troops in Africa, would be reduced horribly in income to be hardly a threat to Germany, and Russia would be forced to meet their threat to the East, and it will fall between remaining German troops and advancing Japanese, which it will almost certainly succumb to, while the U.S. is to far away and harassed by Japan anyway to decisively affect the game. I repeat, leaving Japan alone is a BAD idea.

I disagree. Japan usually moves fast and far, and if the U.S. ignores them, then they move opposed across the Pacific. By the time Germany goes down, You’ll have a monster Japan that can destroy the Allies in detail. I’m usually a British Player and I don’t dare ignore Japan, I try and do what I can to stop them from tearing across that half of the board. If you ignore them, than you’ll see U.K. and Russia losing all kinds of money, as well as forfeiting U.K.'s NO, and the U.S.'s as well. Bad idea in my opinion.

Super Submarines are useful. They are the cheapest ship and they can sink otehr ships without them retaliating. Of course Destroyers are their bane, but that doesn’t mean if the opponent has destroyers your subs are useless. Far from it, they can be used to pick off lonely ships, which would force your opponent to mass his fleet, which is in itself an advantage because they cannot sprawl all across the oceans hitting multiple targets. And subs can take out ships more powerful than themselves, I’ve seen plenty of battles where subs kill destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and even battleships. I’ll trade a sub for any of those, any day. Super Subs just make them even better at attacking. I’ll admit that it isn’t a huge improvement, but still it’s nice to sink those ships on a 3, when they could have fired back and killed your sub otherwise.

I love the randomness that technology offers. Then again, I’m Irish and I believe strongly in luck and like to take chances. Besides, Karl von Clausewitz, the great German military theorist himself recognized that “War is the Realm of Chance.” I think it accurately protrays the war as well, since the U.S. took a gamble on the Manhatten Project, and though it could have been a huge waste of money, it paid off and it changed the whole situation of the War in the Pacific. I agree totally with Jenn, if your strategy is so flimsy as to fall apart if someone rolled “Shipyards” or “Long Range Aircraft” then it probably wouldn’t hold up without techs.

That being said, I do recognize that techs can decisively alter the situation of the board. If Japan gets shipyards, then it will be in a position to fight the U.S. much more effectively and for alot longer. Likewise if Russia gets Improved Artillery, then they can hold back Germany much easier, I would not underestimate this techs value. They can also be decisive in another way, much more favourable to those who hate techs. They can be a huge waste of money, and while your opponent spends money hoping to get Paratroops or Heavy Bombers, you can be pumping out more units to overwhelm them. Everything has consequences in this game.

Nice, I’m glad that people are finding ways to beat the “German Ogre.” I also realized that Italy can help Germany out in Caucasus, but every game I’ve played the Italian player is to greedy for land in Africa and cares little about Germany’s position in Russia, though they themselves depend on it.

I played out my strategy of building 1 transport and 1 destroyer on turn 3, but as predicted the Italians laid waste that small fleet with their cruisers, the turn before the British came in and annihilated their fleet. Though I think it would have been quite effective if I hadn’t jumped the gun. As it was though it was a wasted investment and cost me dearly. Germany was able to take Caucasus and I failed to take it back turn 5, then we ended the game because it was getting late, and some of our players are horribly indecisive and take 20 minutes for their turn.

I’ve only played Russia once, and when I did, I bought all infantry and artillery. I decided that I’d absorb Germany’s opening offensive and hopefully take out their starting units with some punch. It went well and I ended Turn 1 holding everything except Eastern Poland, Ukraine, and Baltic States. On R2 I built tanks only, and managed to retake some territory. By G3 the Front in Russia had stabilized, Germany could take land once it’s troops came up (an excellent reason to build an IC in Poland, now I see the wisdom in that Cmdr), but it would be spread out for a counterattack.

Unfortunately for me, the U.K. player (who usually plays Japan) wasted all his troops in fruitless assaults on Japanese territory, he island hopped with his Australian troops, and his small Pacific fleet was of course sunk on J2, and his 2 inf on Borneo isolated and destroyed, and on J3 both Australia and India fell. So the U.K. was on hard times, and the U.S. player amazingly didn’t do anything in Europe but moved all it’s ships and men to the West Coast, where they slugged it out with Japan. So by J4, the Japanese player was in position to take out my troops in Buryatia S.S.R. and by J5 had taken my 3 infantry in Soviet Far East and Yukut. As I had no more troops in the East they just walked all over. I had to divert troops Eastward which allowed Germany to take Caucasus and I was pretty much done by then. I was tempted to shout to my allies Stalin’s famous quote “When are you going to start fighting? You’ll find it’s not so bad once you start.”

I suppose they could go that route. I wasn’t aware that planes from the U.K. could be put on a newly created carrier. I always remembered that in the Original Axis and Allies for the PC, a newly created carrier would have no planes on it, and that is how I always played. Now, if there were two planes and an aircraft carrier along with 2 cruisers and a battleship, then the situation changes completely. Though you have to decide what’s more important, knocking England out of Egypt, and crippling their position in Africa, and threatening their position in India for awhile, or taking out that battleship. Priority is the key to this it would seem, and I personally believe taking out Egypt is a higher priority, since Italy cannot do it alone, and the chance will most likely never present itself again, since there are reinforcements close at hand.

That sounds like an absolutely brilliant idea. The British would be thrown out of Egypt and Trans-Jordan, India would be threatend from the west as well as the east, most of Africa would have a chance chance of duly falling into Italy’s lap. As for leaving the British Battleship there on turn one, why not? I mean, the U.K. is not in any real position to do anything with it on turn one, since they have few transports and troops. True they could use it to take Morocco, but like someone mentioned, Italy could simply retake it next turn, and the Battleship would be by itself (and a transport) off the Coast of Europe, in range of German aircraft. So what’s that battleships gonna do? The answer, it’s not going to do anything. If I was the U.K. and faced with that situation, I would simply move it out of range and build ships in that SZ, then I might be in a position to take Africa, but that’s still risking it, as Italy would have plenty of money, which they could buy planes with, and Germany would still have many planes, so chances are it’ll go down anyhow.

Fair enough. I completely forgot that subs are useless for blocking in AA50. Anyhow, I found out that a group of destroyers and transports, backed by one cruiser, should always be in the Baltic. In the game I played last night, the U.K. player had a vast fleet lying in the SZ between Iceland and England, because he feared being attacked by German bombers in SZ 6. So amazingly, the German player pulled off the unexpected. He was bogged down in Russia, so he lashed out and landed 2 infantry and 2 artillery, plus the cruiser shot, and all of his planes in England. Needless to say, he took the U.K.'s capital even while they had a massive fleet right there. So Germany, simply because it chose to keep some ships tucked and out of the way in the Baltic won that game at a stroke by boldly assailing the U.K.

Now I’m not saying this is going to happen every time, and if the British player had been paying attention, he would have destroyed the German Fleet in the Baltic, but he was to in love with his ships, which he feared losing to Germany’s planes. Also, he should not have been so confident in his naval power as to leave merely 2 infantry and 1 tank, with 2 fighters as the sole defense of England. Anyway, what I’m trying to say is you should have ships somewhere to take advantage of any opportunity. And I particularly like subs sprawled out across the seas, sneak attacking any lone ships. It’s worked for me many times, and ships are incredibly useful in attacking Karelia. I think if Russia does a stupid buy one turn (unlikely, but it does happen) than Germany should use that turn to pump out ships, as that’s what happened basically last night. The Russian player bought 2 fighters 2 artillery and a cruiser, for god knows what reason, he told his allies that “He had a plan.” Anyway, this took pressure off the Russian front, which allowed the German player to expand his fleet, to dire consequences.

It’s obvious that the Allies will control the sea, as the U.K. will more than likely be spending most of it’s money in securing the Atlantic against Italy and Germany, and the U.S. likewise with the Pacific against Japan. However, by building ships every so often, you concentrate their focus on the seas. If you have no ships, than they will not bother to buy anymore, and instead prepare for amphibious assaults in Europe, or by bombing the hell out of everything. If the Fleets disappear than Italy loses it’s bonuses, and the U.K. secures all theirs (unless Japan takes India or Australia), not to say that Italy is relegated to doing nothing as they cannot expand anywhere. If nothing else than at least Italy should be building ships. There’s nothing I hate more than seeing allied ships sprawled out by Canada and Eastern U.S., transports with only one destroyer as escort, or with no escort at all, and not being able to do anything about it. Having ships forces their fleets to stay together for fear of being picked off, and that lets you slip past them in the night, and capture territories not contiguous with your capital. Hardly something I would throw away lightly.

And you could completely counter that strategy with but one destroyer or Sub, negating the shore bombardment of all those ships. To let the allies sail about where-ever they desire is foolish in my opinion. As they can take advantage of every situation, moving troops anywhere faster than you, and even prop up the Russians at the last second from the sea. Also, I’ve successfully used weak ships as bait. In the game I played tonight I used a destroyer based of France to bring two British ships (both cruisers) close to the shore, where one was sunk by the destroyer and the other by aircraft my next turn. Also, keeping at least one transport around forces the British to keep some troops in the U.K. itself, as when I’m England, I can usually empty the British Isles of all my troops without having to worry at all, since the people who play Germany, like you, concentrate solely on the destruction of Russia, and I therefore have freedom of action everywhere and anywhere I choose. It all depends on your style though I suppose, if taking Russia out quick while neglecting the sea works for you, then go for it, but I always see it as chancey that Germany will knock Russia out before the U.K./U.S. can bring large forces across the sea without hinderance, with all those uninterrupted shore bombardments.

Yes, you are correct in that notion, ships may not pass unless you’ve control both sides of the Suez Canal. However, I think that you can still pass through even if you just captured both sides on your combat phase. I’m not definite but I’m thinking it’s more than likely. Speaking of which, I meant to propose to people who wish it, that the Dardenelles (between Bulgaria/Romania and Turkey) cannot be passed unless on controls Bulgaria Romania, and that the Straits of Gibraltar (between Gibraltar and Morroco/Algeria) cannot be passed unless one controls Gibraltar. Of course this is nowhere stated in the rules, but it is more realistic historically, as Russian ships could not leave the Black Sea, and Axis ships could not leave the Mediterranean. My friends and I have agreed on this, though it curtails Italian expansion to the West, unless the Axis take Gibraltar. We thought about similiar rules regarding the Sound between Denmark and Southern Sweden, gaining or denying entrance to the Baltic, but found them unfair, as Germany could then build a massive fleet with impunity. Anyway those are simply some house rules we use, to add more historic flavor, if you like the sound of them, use them, if you think it’s a bad idea, don’t use them. Just putting in my 2 cents……

I should hardly use the word “navies” still less fleets. Just cheap ships every now and again that cannot be immediately neutralized by Perfidious Albion. Essentially, it is in Germany’s best interests to keep at least some ships afloat. That way the Americans and English cannot sail about where-ever they please and have to spend precious ICP’s on counters to sink Germany’s subs or destroyers. I hardly advocate building Battleships or carriers, though a cruiser every now and again can’t hurt. I guess it all depends on what type of player you are, the type of players your opponents are, and the particular situation you are in relative to the game.

Poland is also only one territory away from Germany, and unlike France, has only a coast on the Baltic. So is it worth 15 IPC’s simply to save one move? I don’t think so, whereas in France, one could build ships in three different sea zones and maintain a link with North Africa. Even if that means throwing one or two units across every now and again, England will have to deal with that, and it will most likely ignore France anyway, if there is a large build-up and AA gun. I think If I were Germany and going to place an IC anywhere, it would be in France. Not to mention that’s a perfect spot to lauch a U-boat war from, as the British cannot simply bottle ships put out here up in the Baltic.

What I think is that the German player should decide right away whether he is going for an all out “destroy Russia ASAP” strategy, or if he is going to go for a strategy of fighting Russia mostly, but also harassing the U.K. and supporting Italy. The U.K. and U.S. can long be distracted by the war at sea, and the war in Africa, perhaps enough to let Germany destroy Russia. I myself would go for the latter strategy, as I hate seeing games where England goes about sailing freely with 2 destroyers and 10 transports, with nothing to oppose them, with subs coming out of the Bay of Biscay every now and again then the British will have to spend more to convoy their transports, and to defend their pricey capital ships, which a lucky sneak attack can destroy real quickly. So it’s a test to see who spends more, either Germany, by building a factory and subs, or the U.K., by building counters to the subs, and sending more units to Africa.

My thoughts exactly. I’ve seen some people play foolishly with both Russia and Germany, with Germany exhausting it’s momentum prematurely, then the Russians launching an all out offensive only to be thrown back with terrible losses, putting each back at square one.

When I mentioned the Russian Black Sea Fleet, I meant it to be no more than a transport and one or maybe, if you could spare the money, two destroyers. Of course this force would have absolutely no hope of contending with the Italian Fleet, but this is where the Brits come in, if the British player is informed of the Russian strategy, he can perhaps (after a few turns) destroy the Italian Fleet and clear the Mediterranean. Seeing as how this is in the U.K.'s best interest anyway, as it allows them to take all of Africa, then things don’t look so good. As now both Russia and England could throw units ashore anywhere in Southern Europe, and I kinda like the thought of Russia launching an amphibious assault, followed immediately by the U.K. (if Russia fails) before Germany and Italy can prepare for it.

So basically I think that if certain situations allow it, why not go for it? As for Japan I greatly like your plan of holding back away from the coast with the bulk of your eastern forces, that way you could at least negate the advantage of the Japanese Navy, though it could be problematical if you counterattack, and then Japan counterattacks that same turn, before you had a chance to pull back, and uses it’s battleships and cruisers to wipe your troops put before you can retreat to the safety of Siberia.

As for Cmd Jennifer, I think that plan is very bold, as it would imply that Russia is planning to hit back on it’s next turn, giving it plenty of firepower. I like that idea, since you can hurt Germany bad by narrowing the advanced units gap, and if the German player is to proud to retreat closer to his reinforcements. However, I believe that I would only take that option if my infantry was not so horribly reduced by Germany’s initial attack. If the die roll favors me, and many infantry are left standing, then I will definitely do that. So I guess another, rather ironic, strength of Russia, is that Germany goes first, and thus Russia can develope it’s strategies as a reaction to German moves.

Ok, so a decided to create a thread entirely dedicated to the strategy of the U.S.S.R. (throughout either called Russia or Soviet Union). I was wondering how one could successfully resist Germany while also putting up a good fight against Japan. For starters,

Assuming that Germany has attacked Russia and gained land, I suggest a player make immediate and vigorous counterattack, or on the other hand retreat farther back. The one big advantage Russia has over Germany is that if Germany pushes to far to fast, Russia will be able to throw their new units into the fray next turn, while Germany’s reinforcements have to wait some time to come up from Germany.

So, I advocate a strategy of trading space, and letting the intial German offensive exhaust itself, then fall back on your factories, where units created in a timely fashion, would then pounce on their outnumbered adversaries and hurl them back.

I was also wondering what your ideas for a first turn build would be, I myself prefer the idea of 3 Tanks, and 5 Infantry, the infantry to defend one of your precious factories, and the tanks to give your already plentiful Infantry some hitting power, and therefore counterattack potential, to the overwhelmingly technologically superior Germans (in terms of aircraft, tanks, and artillery), though I also believe if you plan on a stalwart defensive instead of an “aggressive defense,” that Infantry and Artillery combination is excellent.

Now comes Japan, I wonder what you guys think should be done about the Rising Sun. I myself had liked the strategy of building an IC in Soviet Far East in previous game editions, though it was highly risky against good Japanese players. The AE has killed this plan though, because all lands in Siberia are worth only one, and it is hardly worth 15 ICP to pump out one unit a turn, when Japan can quickly overwhelm you.

Therefore I propose that a defensive line should be set up to the somewhere in Siberia to the East of Moscow, and that Japan should be made to pay dearly for its gains in Siberia, and that troops should be placed in Moscow, to bolster this line, once Japan starts creeping up to territories that are actually valuable.

An intersting strategy suggested to me by a friend also deserves some examination, what if the Russians constructed a Black Sea Fleet? Nothing major, the Soviet Union can ill afford battleships and carriers when the Germans are pounding at the gates. But destroyers every now and again, with some transports. Since there is a good chance there will always be some troops in the Caucasus, Germany and Italy will have to constantly worry about a lightning Russian descent on the Balkans or Bulgaria/Romania, or if the Axis are being careless, Italy itself. In this regard the U.K. can help immensely, and the Germans and their Italian buddies will be forced to hold valuable troops back to defend against this.

So the question for that is, is it cost effective? Is it worth building the ships, or will the Axis find it cheaper to defend, then Russia to threaten? I am intrigued by such responses and thoughts as you trusty forum members can conceive of.