German AA50 -41 strategy

[axis_roll]

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

We’re discussing strategy in a vacuum:  We don’t even have a complete set of the rules (that I know of).

You are correct if course. But, whats the harm? Let the kids have a bit of fun speculating. :mrgreen:

I guess I don’t have all this giddiness that some others do regarding another A&A game.

Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE A&A.  I’m sure the new game will offer some new fun strategies and discussions will abound.  I guess I just don’t have the time for sheer speculation as A&A strategy discussions already are pretty nebulous even WHEN all the rules are known and games have been played to test these strategies.  :|

Sorry if I seem like a wet blanket.  When I get my copy AND play a few games, THEN I can talk to strategies with some certainty.  :-P

[Adlertag]

In my case, I dont post strategies.

It’s as simple as that !

I just dont post strategies.  :cry:

[Imperious Leader]

what we know is the unit values and costs and the set up. We know that SBR is different and it destroys the industrial capacity. WE know something about technology, but on G1 nobody will have it. We know subs cant be sunk w/o a destroyer and that the transports cant be taken as soaker’s ( thank god) and they are useless as defenders. WE know something about bonus IPC paid for conquest ans the importance of taking Archangel because its one of the Soviet Bonus territories.

I think we have a good idea to prepare preliminary ideas for G1 and speculation like squirecam eluded too is a fun thing to do.

[Imperious Leader]

Sealion is possible:

Germany:

3 fighters, 1 bomber, transport picks up (1 tank 1 infantry)= 17 and 6 units against

UK:

2 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 Art, 1 tank, 2 Infantry= 18 and 7 units defending… not really good but possible.

Also heres my 1.1 revision of G1 combats:

Naval combat:

1 bomber
1 fighter ( norway)
1 sub

against UK BB and transport in Labrador

1 sub
2 fighters ( holland and Germany)

against UK CA and DD at Gibraltar ( planes land in Algeria)

1 sub
1fighter

against UK North Sea DD

Land combat:

Baltic States:
Baltic transport picks up 2 Inf from Germany w/ BB SB against Baltic States
plus: 2 infantry, 1 Art, and 2 Tanks

against: 3 Soviet infantry

East Poland:
2 Infantry, 3 tanks

against: 2 Soviet infantry

Ukraine:
3 Infantry, 1 Art, 1 Tank

against: 2 Soviet infantry

NCM:

German transport lands 1 Infantry, 1 tank in Libya

On turn 2 German planes in Algeria in range of Egypt and take it out on turn two.

with this i think German G1 builds ( using 30 IPC base) are:

1 Bomber (13)
4 Infantry (12)-- Need the transports to shuck in Baltic and medd and you cant spare a tank for Africa on turn 2
1 Tank  ( 5)

[Guest]

@Imperious:

Sealion is possible:

Germany:

3 fighters, 1 bomber, transport picks up (1 tank 1 infantry)= 17 and 6 units against

UK:

2 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 Art, 1 tank, 2 Infantry= 18 and 7 units defending… not really good but possible.

Also heres my 1.1 revision of G1 combats:

Naval combat:

1 bomber
1 fighter ( norway)
1 sub

against UK BB and transport in Labrador

1 sub
2 fighters ( holland and Germany)

against UK CA and DD at Gibraltar ( planes land in Algeria)

1 sub
1fighter

against UK North Sea DD

Land combat:

Baltic States:
Baltic transport picks up 2 Inf from Germany w/ BB SB against Baltic States
plus: 2 infantry, 1 Art, and 2 Tanks

against: 3 Soviet infantry

East Poland:
2 Infantry, 3 tanks

against: 2 Soviet infantry

Ukraine:
3 Infantry, 1 Art, 1 Tank

against: 2 Soviet infantry

NCM:

German transport lands 1 Infantry, 1 tank in Libya

On turn 2 German planes in Algeria in range of Egypt and take it out on turn two.

with this i think German G1 builds ( using 30 IPC base) are:

1 Bomber (13)
4 Infantry (12)-- Need the transports to shuck in Baltic and medd and you cant spare a tank for Africa on turn 2
1 Tank  ( 5)

Hmm, let’s see what I can do to that.  Build the UK and US navies to correct force ratio with respect to the Italian Navy.  That adds 2 BB, I carrier with planes, 2 cruisers, and at least 4 destroyers to Home Fleet, and at least 1 sub.  The UK gets at least one more artillery, shore batteries you know, AA gun with Radar, and at least 2 more infantry.  Add one A&A Classic bomber to represent Coastal Command ASW aircraft. May shift one BB to Gibralter force, and add one carrier there, with aircraft.  Due to armored flight decks, UK carriers take two hits from air attact to sink.  British in SZ 15 get at least one sub, and a cruiser and destroyer, plus transport in Red Sea, an Infantry Unit in Ethiopia, and a bomber in Egypt.  Germans in Libya loose the artillery and the infantry, and get another Italian infantry, supply problems you know.  Egypt and Libya each get split into two sections, with German and Italian units in Tripolitania or Cyrenaica and British in Western Desert and Egypt.  Might give the UK another tank there.  Need to think about having fighters get two attacks because of the advantage of Ground Control Radar Intercept if operating in the same territory as an Industrial Center.

US set up.  One BB, one carrier with planes, one cruiser, and probably two destroyers in Atlantic.  If Iceland is on the map, one US infantry in Iceland, along with one fighter and one bomber for ASW patrol.  Need to use a Classic bomber for that.  Need to see exact US set up.  US will automatically get one transport on each coast the first turn.  On Turn 2 and following, the US gets 2 transport and 1 destroyer automatically on each coast, in addition to IPC builds.  On Turn 3 and following, US automatically gets 1 fighter or 1 bomber per turn, US players choice each turn.  Need to compensate for the poor US IPC allowance somehow.  Lend-Lease credits:  UK gets 12 plus a 2D6 roll, along with one destroyer and one transport a turn automatically.  Russia gets 6 plus a 2D6 roll, equipment must be transported to Russia either to Karelia or to Siberia.  Aircraft can be flown via Alaska.  Russia gets a free transport in the Pacific.  US can offer Italian player 12 plus a D6 roll of Lean-Lease credits if he switches sides immediately.  Lend-Lease credits spent in Turn 1 have purchases delivered at the end of the Player’s turn in Turn 2.

The rest of my additions will be dependent on actual set up and starting IPC.  Depending on what is in Panama, may use some Classic units and/or some of my Attack units to represent Panama Canal defenses.  Attack artillery pieces will represent the heavy gun batteries, and attack ships on 4 and defend at 4, heavy caliber guns and very good fire control.  Troops would be 2 Attack artillery pieces, 1 AA gun, 2 fighters, 1 Classic bomber for ASW patrol, and 2 infantry units.  Probably add a sub to that as well.  The US was very sensitive about the Panama Canal.  Units there may not move elsewhere. defenders only.

ASW patrol planes, US and UK only, may attack submarines without a destroyer present, may not be used as regular bombers and may not attack surface combat ships.  May kill transports.

I figure that if Imperious Leader can speculate on Axis strategies, I can speculate on Allied counters, including house rules.

[variant]

timerover51, yes we know, you hate Axis. Why not just add the feature “You win” to the Allies instead of wasting all the time with putting pieces here and there. Whatever you do, your post doesn’t belong in this thread.

[Guest]

Imperious Leader is speculating on Axis strategies.  I do not see why it is inadmissable to speculate on how his strategies may be countered.  He is automatically assuming that the Italian player will do precisely as he is told.  I suspect that Imperious Leader will make sure that he controls both the German and Italian player, which defeats the whole purpose of adding Italy.

[variant]

@timerover51:

Imperious Leader is speculating on Axis strategies.  I do not see why it is inadmissable to speculate on how his strategies may be countered.  He is automatically assuming that the Italian player will do precisely as he is told.  I suspect that Imperious Leader will make sure that he controls both the German and Italian player, which defeats the whole purpose of adding Italy.

Countering is all fine. Adding stupid house rules is completely different.

[Imperious Leader]

Imperious Leader is speculating on Axis strategies.  I do not see why it is inadmissable to speculate on how his strategies may be countered.  He is automatically assuming that the Italian player will do precisely as he is told.  I suspect that Imperious Leader will make sure that he controls both the German and Italian player, which defeats the whole purpose of adding Italy.

Do you not know the German player plays first? You cant counter the opening move. It is not advisable to counter G1 if im the first player.

And i have said nothing about Italy. I am doing Germany which is called G1 for German turn 1.

Read first then comment second.

The basic idea is i am setting up Archangel to fall on G2, to protect my fleets by presenting many targets to UK forcing her to devote her 2 remaining ships and 3 planes to exchange further, and have enough to have another round against the British in Egypt (using the planes in Algeria) and as i said Archangel ( using the planes in Norway).

But for you it would be easier to just remove the axis pieces entirely and ponder how quickly that balancing act makes the game a waste of time.

For we all know the Axis must lose 100% of the time or 1) the game is not historical and 2) the outcome of an axis victory will change history and people begin to disappear… because we changed the spacetime continuum.

[Guest]

I do not recall saying anything about countering Germany’s first move.  I am fully aware that the Germans move first.  The added units go into the set up of the game.  They are there prior to any movement by Germany.  Lend-Lease purchases made in Turn 1 get delivered at the end of the Player’s turn 2.  Most of the UK naval units should be on the table, based on the relationship of forces between the Italian Navy and the Royal Navy.  Both the Royal Navy and US Navy are severely cut in all of the Axis and Allied games, except Pacific.  If they were not, Axis wins would be few and far between.

In the same way, in order to achieve that sacred objective of Play Balance, the ground forces that would have actually been present in the UK, and by now fully reequipped from the Dunkirk experience are heavily reduced, along with no allowance for the literally hundreds of shore batteries and coastal defenses erected by the British in case Sea Lion was actually tried.  Coastal Command was virtually the same size as Bomber Command, but is not reflected in the game.

As for the US Navy, it is reduced to a point where it is ludicrious, again in the name of Play Balance.

As for Italy, the following comments are made in one of your previous posts.  What do you plan on doing if the Italian player decides not to cooperate?

**2 subs in SZ-7 and fighter ( Finland ) attack Uk BB and transport (the Italian fleet will destroy the UK CA and DD off Gibraltar.

ON Italy’s turn they take Jordan with tranny landing 1 inf, 1 tank and 1 fighter against 2 infantry  ( Italian infantry in Libya move up to Egypt. ( now both sides can pass thru canal on second turn)**

And of course, if the Axis had really won WW2, I would not have been born. And many millions more would have died in the death camps and under the tender mercies of the Japanese Army. And how many individuals presently posting to the forum would have been part of those millions?

[Hobbes]

One of the key decisions on G1 will be: where to send the bomber?

1. Send it to attack Egypt, raising the odds of victory to 75%. Because if the amphibious attack by G on Egypt fails to kill the UK fighter then the G transport is automatically killed by the UK fighter during the UK’s turn before Italy’s navy can move to protect it.

2. Send it to Karelia, together with the rest of the Luftwaffe + 5 Inf and 1 Arm.

3. Use it for an attack on any of the UK fleets.

4. SBR Karelia to make Russians pay in case they want to reinforce it

[Romulus]

@timerover51:

And of course, if the Axis had really won WW2, I would not have been born. And many millions more would have died in the death camps and under the tender mercies of the Japanese Army. And how many individuals presently posting to the forum would have been part of those millions?

Without the possibility to read your rule for obtaining “Play Balance”? This is so terrible.

Timerover51, you are posting in each thread regarding Anniversary Edition, and your contribution to the discussion are “balancing rules” that results in “Allies have to win always”. This make the game impossible to play.

Maybe we are not interested in buying a game and then modify it to the point of being not possible to play. If you want to do that, do it with your own copy, win each game with Allies and have fun.

Me and my friends are used to play A&A boardgames, trying to win using brain to think to strategies and moves and not adding units at will. We like a game that is challenging to each other, with the objective of spending time together having quite same posibilities to win. We do not want to change History nor to reply the History moves per moves plying a scripted game.

Note: Edited trying to be more clear.

[Imperious Leader]

One of the key decisions on G1 will be: where to send the bomber?

1. Send it to attack Egypt, raising the odds of victory to 75%. Because if the amphibious attack by G on Egypt fails to kill the UK fighter then the G transport is automatically killed by the UK fighter during the UK’s turn before Italy’s navy can move to protect it.

2. Send it to Karelia, together with the rest of the Luftwaffe + 5 Inf and 1 Arm.

3. Use it for an attack on any of the UK fleets.

4. SBR Karelia to make Russians pay in case they want to reinforce it

I see the vital need to jump on Karelia and Egypt. If Germany goes to Egypt they need the bomber, but doing that leaves that UK BB and tranny to also take Finland and make a starter fleet.

Getting the jump on Karelia too a big hit because Norway is not connected to Karelia, so against like 5 infantry, 1 art and aa gun, Germans need most of the air force, which leaves the German subs with possible lost opportunity, and The Italian fleet is now less stable.

I think if Germany buys that bomber and hits Moscow on turn 2 w/o Soviet air units Moscow will start feeling pain with SBR. Germany should buy either a fighter or bomber on G2 and keep the pressure up i think.

[Hobbes]

@Imperious:

I see the vital need to jump on Karelia and Egypt. If Germany goes to Egypt they need the bomber, but doing that leaves that UK BB and tranny to also take Finland and make a starter fleet.

Jumping right away to Egypt on G1 might not be essential. G can use the med transport to reinforce Libya, move 1 Inf and 1 Arm to Bulg/Rom and leave the UK with a decision to make: pull back from Egypt and reinforce India against J or bring units from India to prevent Egypt from falling to the Germans/Italians?

[Greand Stone]

The russian front is quit straight forward for the first round: take as much as you can, and with a decent defence in each province the Russian having almost only infanteri cannot fight back the first round.
What to do with the two subs in the atlantic is somewhat troublesome. Those submarines are preaty toast in the UK round whatevery you do, so atleast try to attack something with them. If you take out a transport, UK has few transport available for attacking Europe.

Egypt is the painfull battle.

It is Italy which have interest in Egypt as they definitivly need the bonus IPC. Not germany.

Attacking egypt with 75% probability to win is risky, if you loose you loose a lot of stash, maybe including a bomber and a transport. Keeping a transport might prove very valueble.

The problem with Italy & Egypt is that Italy cannot afford to loose its transport. So if UK send ships into the medetarian, I would say that it might be to risky to send troops into egypt AND take out the UK ships at the same time, espesialy if UK still have a fighter in Egypt (which can kill a lone transport and maybe even a transport protected by a cruiser).

If left alone in the medeterian, Italy got quit the punch with three shorebombardment, killing 1-2 units before combat starts.
Without reinforcements in Egypt by UK, Italy can take egypt sending 3 infanteri, one artellery and one fighter. The problem is that UK gets to go first and decide what to do. Italy has to respond…

[Imperious Leader]

If Germany brings the bomber its Libya force and transport picks up tank and infantry…Egypt is gone.

Italy can take Jordan and the canal is Axis.

The problem is Egypt has that fighter, so japan must send like a cruiser to protect lone transports, and also India has no fighter, so the uk fighter in Egypt is vital.

If the game is historically scripted it must be very important to take egypt and open the way to Persia into Russia.

But the issue is the bomber is critical for getting the UK BB…so its a trade off.

[Imperious Leader]

Here is another variation of the German plan with targets of Archangel and Egypt on G1, but the odds are not really good and the pay off in terms of allied loses is reduced. Its however a better positional result.

Purchases: 30 IPC gets 5 INf, 1 fighter, 1 tank or 5 inf/3 tanks

Archangel:

2 inf from Finland
Baltic transport gets 1 tank 1 inf
3 fighters

against: 4 infantry, 1 art, 1 AA

15 vs.10 ( 7 vs. 6)

Egypt:
1 tank, 1 inf, 1 Art
plus Medd transport gets 1 tank ( france) and 1 infantry
Bomber

14 vs. 13 (6 vs. 5)

Eastern front:

Baltic states:
3 inf, 1 tank, 1 Art

East Poland:
3 tanks 2 infantry

Ukraine:
2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Tank

Naval:

2 subs and fighter on UK BB/AP in Labrador

Baltic sub goes against UK DD in North sea.

[03321]

@Imperious:

Archangel:

2 inf from Finland
Baltic transport gets 1 tank 1 inf
3 fighters

against: 5 infantry, 1 art, 1 AA

15 vs. 12 ( 7 vs. 6)

fixed ;)

I think a very important discussion/consideration as far as whether or not G1 Egypt is worthwhile is how much long-term benefit there is to keep the German Med. trans and the bomber, as well as what drawbacks there are to waiting a turn to take it.  Without sacrificing the bomber in front of the tank for the purpose of taking egypt, there is a 60% chance of taking it on G1 with everything you can get there.  Good odds, certainly, but nothing to hang your hat on.  If you lose badly the fighter could remain to take out the German transport, or even if you kill everything in egypt but with only the bomber remaining, UK can send his India destroyer through the Suez.  Or he could crazily send his UK bomber down to sz 15 (depending on what other needs it can serve) and land in TJ, possibly shipping 1-2 units from India.  My point being that even if you take Egypt you can still lose your transport.  So, is the risk of losing your transport without even taking Egypt worth the payoff of either taking Egypt yourself on G1 or clearing it for Italy?  I dunno, but I’m tired and shouldn’t be thinking that hard right now.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes thats right. On reason why (big reason) that Egypt was not a target on the first revision. I like you like to wait one turn, but the tradeoff is the UK fighter can go to India and the transport can bring more Inf from India, which added with at least 1-2 infantry from Jordan, brings in 3-4 more units. My medd tranny is also gonna bring 2 more men, (plus the 2 from the first turn landed in Libya)…

This makes for a similar battle but of course obviously the bomber and the structure of the other air units could be better used against UK ships on turn 1 and possibly having only a one turn window to do any damage on UK naval.

Personally, i prefer getting after the UK naval and then turning on Egypt and Karelia on turn G2.

It gives Italy a safer position to start the game with all those naval units gone. Italy can possibly support an attack on Ukraine if Russians retake, using the BB for SB

Italy should really buy a Transport on I1 because she has too many good land units that will take too long to get into battle.

I think Italy sets up for Jordan/ Egypt on I2 and in the meantime hits a soviet territory, or brings her entire fleet minus cruiser to protect central medd transports to the SZ right west of Gibraltar and gives the UK player a real test of nerves seeing all those Axis warships ready to stop remaining UK naval.

[squirecam]

@timerover51:

I do not recall saying anything about countering Germany’s first move.  I am fully aware that the Germans move first.  The added units go into the set up of the game.  They are there prior to any movement by Germany.  Lend-Lease purchases made in Turn 1 get delivered at the end of the Player’s turn 2.  Most of the UK naval units should be on the table, based on the relationship of forces between the Italian Navy and the Royal Navy.  Both the Royal Navy and US Navy are severely cut in all of the Axis and Allied games, except Pacific.  If they were not, Axis wins would be few and far between.

In the same way, in order to achieve that sacred objective of Play Balance, the ground forces that would have actually been present in the UK, and by now fully reequipped from the Dunkirk experience are heavily reduced, along with no allowance for the literally hundreds of shore batteries and coastal defenses erected by the British in case Sea Lion was actually tried.  Coastal Command was virtually the same size as Bomber Command, but is not reflected in the game.

As for the US Navy, it is reduced to a point where it is ludicrious, again in the name of Play Balance.

As for Italy, the following comments are made in one of your previous posts.  What do you plan on doing if the Italian player decides not to cooperate?

**2 subs in SZ-7 and fighter ( Finland ) attack Uk BB and transport (the Italian fleet will destroy the UK CA and DD off Gibraltar.

ON Italy’s turn they take Jordan with tranny landing 1 inf, 1 tank and 1 fighter against 2 infantry  ( Italian infantry in Libya move up to Egypt. ( now both sides can pass thru canal on second turn)**

And of course, if the Axis had really won WW2, I would not have been born. And many millions more would have died in the death camps and under the tender mercies of the Japanese Army. And how many individuals presently posting to the forum would have been part of those millions?

Its really starting to grate on me. This continual theme of yours really has nothing to do with a GAME. Its a FREAKIN GAME we are playing.

If you cant discuss a GAME without seeing the need to adjust it so that the Allies always win so you “feel better”, then you probably need to leave this forum.