Allied Strategy

[Black_Elk]

I just played my third game of AA50-41, using the current info, and without the National Objectives, the set up seems to heavily favor KGF. I’m not sure we can get away with having them as optional.

What sort of patterns are you guys seeing?

Oh also, for those of you who are playing with the NOs, how many are seeing G go after Karelia in the first round?

[Bluestroke]

Hey black Elk,

We have completed three AA50-42 games.  We have not used National Objectives.  We did use the Techs. 
The Axis took two out of three.  I have said before, more fluid game then AAR.
which sides did you play?

[Lucifer]

Just finished my second AA50 game, with mostly AA50 rules, using TripleA and edit to get some details rightly  :-)

No tech and no NO’s, the map and such seems fine, but I wont use NO’s until they are coded in the java engine of TripleA.

Seems allies are favored, I think that AA50 with NO’s this could be very different, maybe even need bid for allies?

This is KGF all the way, just send all units to Moscow, Stalin will give u free vodka  :mrgreen: 8-) :-D

I believe the setup is wrong, but as it is now without any optional rules, it seems really unbalanced towards allies, as I am not a top player.

As in AAR the German fleet will be sunk ASAP after game starts….

Italy cant do anything but defend itself and Rome from invading barbarians.

US looses many ships in pacific in J1, the CV is out of reach, but none of this matters, except I would be tempted to go after Jap if Jap left my fleet alone, Jap almost forces US to Europe and KGF. US+UK threaten both Italy and France from the coast of Algeria.
Also there are more sz’s in AA50, so this means that US navy must travel longer than in AAR, if it should want to go from WUS to Tokyo.

It looks good, and its a new game,
hopefully it will not be broken by my new allie AA50 strat: infantry-push-towards-Russia-mechanicism  :evil:

[Lynxes]

Just my five cents after two test games of AA50-41 with supposed setup with NOs and Techs is that NOs heavily favours the Axis. It is quite easy for Germany and Japan to get all their three bonuses and then they have a heavy IPC-production.

Whereas Germany’s bonuses are pretty much what you go after anyway (ICs on Russian soil), Japan’s bonuses also tends to change game-play since trying for India or Australia becomes more worthwhile than invading Siberia. The only way for the game not to be KGF-biased is to use NOs I think, and I suppose that’s also why they were added.

[Perry]

Playing with NO’s are a must , in order to get the game balanced imho.

Allied Strats so far (two games, that both ended before round 5…)

• UK: Wipe out German fleet ASAP, then clear out Scand and free KAR. After that, go for Africa
• US: Going pacific (not sure this is actually a good idea…)
• RUS: Just roll with the punches for a couple of turns. German infantry will take time to make it to the frontlines - try counterattacking when their front gets extended

Dunno wheter US should go Pac or KGF (KGI???). We’re on our third game now. We’ll see what happens.

[Lynxes]

• US: Going pacific (not sure this is actually a good idea…)

The big “if…” is if a US build-up alone can stop Japan from getting their three bonuses and keeping naval superiority. So far, Japan has looked very hard to get at, but we would need a consistent US strat vs. Japan for something like 5 turns to see if it is doable and we haven’t got around to that just yet. If US alone can’t get at Japan we have two options for the Allies:

a) India IC build a must, and then you need Russian support. (I don’t even consider an Australian IC because I can’t figure out how to defend it.)
b) Ignoring Japan and just going all-in for a KGF strategy, hoping to crush Germany before Japan can make an impact vs. Moscow.

I hope we don’t end up in scenario b!

[Driel310]

In the game we played where USA went 100% in the Pacific we saw a showdown of Japan teasing the US to attack at a 60% battle. Of course USA rolled HB just that turn so the Japanese were wiped, but normally (8% chance getting HB with 20 IPC invested) this wouldn’t happen.

We (=axis) expected to end up with an empty pacific which would have been very good for the axis since the Japanese were already running on the mainland and had two new trannies at Japan harbor. The Usa however would need to rebuild and this would take another two turns. Two turns the allies didn’t have since Germany and Italy were already at Stalingrad and building up near Moscow.

So IMHO if you want to play Pacific war, you need an Indian IC as well. Still I don’t see how Germany and Italy are stopped against Russia with this strategy……, seems like we have a KGF after all… :wink:

[Perry]

Driel310: What happened in your game, after Jap fleet was wiped?

Was that enough for the Allies to turn the tide of the war?

[Driel310]

When the Japanese fleet was wiped, US got heavies as I wrote. US then went for the SBR on Germany + started to shuck to Europe. However it was too late, Germany + Italy moved in for the kill on Moscow.

Also I have to mention that Germany shot down 3 out of 3 heavies on a SBR run (sorry for that John  :-P). Still I don’t believe that would have prevented the fall of Moscow.  :wink:

[Imperious Leader]

So are you buying more naval, more air or more tech compared to Revised?

I am hoping the naval costs allowed some axis ships.

ON axis land did Japan buy factories and where?

[Black_Elk]

Right now I’m spending most of the cash on Air.

I’m starting to think that the new transport and sub rules really favor the Allies more than the Axis. A few rounds of concentrated Air purchases from Britain and the USA, and you can pretty much shut down any hopes at an Axis naval game.

I had heard that there would be a lot more sub purchases on account of the reduced cost and new rules, but absent some sort of economic damage I still don’t see why anyone would buy them. The fact that they can’t be hit from the air unless a destroyer is present, means that they also can’t be used to defend your main fleet from air attacks. Under the old rules they were basically fodder and blocking units. I’m not sure how it’s supposed to work exactly, now that that fodder role has been coopted, but I don’t see a huge benefit. I guess we’ll probably notice more of them in the Pacific, if the US decides to go that route, but from what I’ve seen so far the new rules just make Fighters and Bombers even more effective than they already were. Now you don’t have to get through subs and transports to trade aircraft for ships, so I’m seeing a greater focus on that type of dynamic.

How is it with the rest of you guys?

[Driel310]

@Imperious:

So are you buying more naval, more air or more tech compared to Revised?

I am hoping the naval costs allowed some axis ships.

ON axis land did Japan buy factories and where?

In our games, Germany didn’t bought any. Japan bought some ships besides trannies when the USA went full blown Pacific, but still only DD’s and CA’s, no capital ships.

As Black already wrote, air is a more attractive buy. They are cheaper and more effective on sea and land. USA had 5 bombers already before they became heavies.

Japan bought an IC on J3 (that’s default) to be placed on Manchuria. In the first game with Japan Godzilla at 70, they also built one on India (the two 3 IPC countries).
By the way, Germany also build an IC on France on both games, the best spot there is and also a default buy at G2.  :wink:

[Stockus13]

Was the IC in France vulnerable to invasion? It seems exposed to combined UK/US invasions. It would help with both defending the coast, and naval purchases, but is it worth it?

[Ó Ruanaidh]

I think that buying a IC for France is a great idea, it can be fairly easily defended due to proximity to Germany and Italy, and it has numerous advantages. One, you can buy planes to bomb Britain, buy subs or destroyers to prevent a the British from sailing about whereever they feel like and instead concentrate on home waters and finally they can build ships in the Mediterranean, which besides being a safe place to build a fleet, especially if Italy does the same, but you can also swiftly ship new units from Europe to Africa. I have been toying with the idea of perhaps standing on the defensive against Russia by building a bunch of infantry and having the artillery and armour in the rear, so when the Russians bleed themslves against the infantry I can counterattack with the heavy hitting units and break their armies. I haven’t tried it yet so I can’t say if it will work. The allied strategy I believe, seems to be the same as in history, clear the Axis of Africa, attempt to distract Germany from exerting all it’s formidable power against Russia, and struggle to restrain the Japanese from running wild in the east. But there are probably many strategies that work. KGF is incredibly boring and it won’t work against experienced German players, Italy and Germany can prevent landings indefinitely with some destroyers and subs, supported by land based planes, while they go after Russia’s throat. Once Russia is down then the Germans can start building bigger fleets than the British, and with the U.S. distrated by Japan, them to. So I believe a KGF is courting disaster if you are facing a decent German player.

[JohnBarbarossa]

@Stockus13:

Was the IC in France vulnerable to invasion? It seems exposed to combined UK/US invasions. It would help with both defending the coast, and naval purchases, but is it worth it?

In our first game when I played Germany and Italy, the IC in France was never taken by the allies.
On UK 1 they invaded France, but it was retaken by Italy so that Germany could buy the IC on G2. After that it was really well defended and there was never a real problem.
However if the allies place their fleet in the correct position they both threathen France and Germany. Since France nor Germany may never be taken, the defense of it costs a lot of Infantry which of course give the Russians some breathing space in the east.
But since Germany cashes out very high mid game, without it it will only be able to place 10 units. And now with the IC they bought 14-16 units a turn.

[Flying Tiger]

IMO the real problem right now is Japan is too strong. They are so strong that it is futile to face them. This is the reason for KGF stratagies right now. In AAR I could fight Japan as USA and have a small force secure Africa. In this game if I try to go after Japan I have to put 100% of my builds in WUSA, I CANNOT afford to send anything to Africa. EVEN THEN I am still too weak to stop Japan. Japan becomes too powerful. The problem is that they start the game with mega fire power and they have been given the ability to ramp up ipc production EQUAL to USA.

Another problem is that the NOs for the USA are essential to get them to the production level that is more realistic so if you don’t play with NOs you are making USA weaker than they should be.

They never should have made Axis have the advantage like this. It’s not even close right now.

[Funcioneta]

I don’t think KGF is the solution. Axis will have economic advantage soon if Japan takes Moscow path or even if you try Alaska path. The solution is making China a viable power and quit that buggy special rules that cripple the Middle Kingdom.

[crimhead]

KIF!

[Ó Ruanaidh]

Seconded! Take them Italians out quick and get at “the soft underbelly of Europe,” as Winston Churchill so grandeliquently put it. Soon as Italy goes down Germany will have to worry about both the full production of the Soviet Union and the U.K., and seeing as how the U.K. will be practically invunerable by then, Germany will fold sooner or later. Then it’s all against Japan, who even if they are tweaked to be to powerful and have to much money, still cannot hope to fight a three on one against the rest of the World.

[crimhead]

If the Allies play KIF/KGF (which I think they should), I think Jpan should try to cripple the  Allied economies rather than bulldozing towards Moscow.  This means rushing full force to India, Africa, and the Mediterranean while Taking Australia, Hawaii, etc cheaply and slowly (but right away).

If Japan does this, U.K will not be in full production.  All the more reason the Allies should be in Italy so as to meet Japan in Africa.

I’m not sure about China.  Letting the Chinese into Manchuria means five National Objective IPCs fo England, and Hong Kong makes six.  But it’s such a drain on Japan to fight China.  They could be getting into India and Africa sooner instead, or even pestering Panama, Alaska and Western US.