anyone interested in playing one or more live/forum games? I want to practice against different people. no bids, national objectives on, dardanelles open, research+development on/off and interceptors on/off.

@Poptech Referring to the NW Europe infantry, you are completely correct. I want to make some excuse regarding the fact that I play the table-top version more than TripleA but even the board game has NW Europe clearly next to sea zone 5 so you’re right and I don’t know how I never saw that lol.

Anyway,

Any good Japan player is going to roll through India if you waste all you money money on a UK navy instead of defending India.

You’re right here, but also Japan can take India on turn 2 anyway so there’s no way UK can defend India at all without help from Russia. Also, this next idea is subjective, but USA and UK should focus on the European battle to win rather than trying to hinder Japan. So USA and UK players are naturally going to build up navies in the Atlantic.

Most UK players attack the German navy with the UK’s starting fighters and bomber turn one but the German carrier negates that. Even if the UK focuses completely on their navy, Germany can continue to build up their navy (with mainly subs and the two carriers) and not leave sea zone 5 but statistically be able to win any naval battle against the UK. This certainly means the UK are not defending India or Africa and that will let Japan get out of control.

Right, so I think many players would instead build up to prepare to defeat the German navy on a future turn, and Germany cannot outrace UK in terms of naval presence if they are both buying ships.

If the UK builds up in sea zone 6, then Germany simply builds a second carrier and as many subs as necessary to counter the UK instead of transports, this usually leaves left over PUs for infantry. The UK cannot statistically wipe out the German navy on their own this way.

If all UK does is stalemate Germany in the water all game then the Allies are probably very happy that USA has time to build and that Russia is not dying.

It is easy to say what you are going to do knowing what I am doing but the whole point is most people are not going to know.

You may be right, but as I said before, most real players who have a few games of experience will not take actions that could lead to their death in 1-2 turns, as in a UK player not buying ships or aircraft when the German player clearly wants a naval presence. If you do encounter a player that likes to play off-meta strategies like pushing hard in the pacific as USA then I think you would have a shot at it.

@Poptech
Sea Lion is always a fun topic to discuss, and it’s something different than the typical “kill Russia” gameplay. It’s definitely something you can go for in a group of newer players, but against an experienced player, unfortunately it just won’t fly. I say this from a standpoint of really wanting this to work because it’s so cool.

Firstly, I just have to comment that half of the moves that you put under “combat move” are actually non-combat moves, though that doesn’t matter. Another thing is that in your attack on Baltic States, you can’t actually get the infantry from NW Europe to attack Baltic States, so the easiest solution is to just take an infantry from Germany instead. (technically you can get the infantry from NW Europe to Baltic States, but that would have to happen in the non-combat move phase and just using an infantry from Germany works fine.)

As for the actual Sea Lion strategy, USA doesn’t even have to intervene at all for UK to be able to defend against the attack. One of UK’s top priorities in every game is to kick Germany completely out of the water to be able to transport troops freely. So, UK is already incentivized to buy ships/planes and destroy Germany’s ships.

If I’m UK and I see your Germany turn 1 happen, I’m probably going to buy something like 1 carrier, 1 battleship, and 1 destroyer, and put them in sea zone 6 along with a destroyer and a cruiser that I already have. (and then I’m landing my 2 fighters on the carrier.) Now, the UK player doesn’t even have to see the Sea Lion coming. UK is just going to be thinking that they want to destroy Germany’s entire navy, as normal. If UK were to do some more thinking and calculating, they’d be able to come up with a better way of defeating Germany’s navy. The few ships that I talked about buying on turn 1 were just my initial thoughts. But even with that initial thought, Germany can’t (really) get through the ships.

Just so that we’re on the same page, I’m looking at a scenario in which Germany attacks UK’s navy on turn 2, because if Germany waits until turn 3 to attack then there’s absolutely no way Germany will win in sea combat as UK will just buy more ships. I’m seeing a UK navy of 2 destroyers, 1 carrier, 2 fighters, and 1 battleship. And for Germany’s attack I’m seeing 1 carrier, 4 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 cruiser, and 1 submarine. Again, the UK can probably buy something that will give them better odds, but even here Germany doesn’t have better than a 50/50 shot of destroying the UK navy, and even if they do they aren’t in any place to take UK.

This isn’t even mentioning that when Germany buys 7 transports, UK and USA will definitely know what is happening and can (and will) do everything in their power to destroy the German navy or just defend UK.

anyone interested in playing one or more live/forum games? I want to practice against different people. no bids, national objectives on, dardanelles open, research+development on/off and interceptors on/off.

Re: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/12058/is-the-g1-egypt-attack-a-good-move

(with NO’s on) Germany is favored to take Egypt on G1, in which case Italy takes trans jordan on their turn to get both NO’s and be way stronger than any other option, so it is really a must. Even if G1 fails and Egypt is empty or has 1 british fighter, Italy takes Egypt on turn 1 and sets up for trans on turn 2 for the national objective and much needed cash. In my experience, buffing Italy up with more money for at least the beginning of the game is more important than a few british ships being let to live on G1.

@luftwaffles41 so I’ve attached a picture of what Japan usually looks like after I play their turn 1 (give or take 1 infantry in certain places like Burma and China). I think it’s a strong opening because I destroy America’s fleet, grab the money islands + Philippines + part of china, and prepare to take India. India has no fleet in India’s waters because I take it out with 2 fighters on turn 1. So, India must defend on turn 2 with nothing more than 3 infantry and 1 artillery. It is possible they get 1 fighter from Egypt into India on their turn 1 for some extra defense, but that’s assuming they didn’t lose Egypt on Germany’s first turn, and if they want to weaken Egypt even further. Even if they move the fighter to India, Japan takes India on turn 2 with 4 infantry from the money islands, 1-3 infantry from Burma, and 2-3 fighters from sea zone 37 and French Indo China. (the one fighter in Kwangtung still needs to land in french indo china). Unless UK gets really lucky with the aa gun shots, Japan will take India. https://imgur.com/Zom4aad

@luftwaffles41 if UK puts a factory turn 1, they don’t get to put anything there cuz japan is there by turn 2. Then, japan gets to spawn their own units there on turn 3 if UK put a factory there on turn 1. Japan goes before UK so turn 1 - Japan moves, UK places factory. Turn 2 - Japan takes India, UK doesn’t have chance to spawn units there. If UK wants to keep India reliably then you gotta do something weird like have russia move some guys from caucuses into persia on turn 1 and then into india on turn 2 to help defend it.

as a japan player, I really love when UK players put a factory in India on turn 1. I can reliably take India turn 2, which gives me a nice boost into Russia. So for UK players I would not recommend doing that.