Why the Allies have the upper hand

[Ó Ruanaidh]

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.

[claborne]

IMO the allies do indeed have the upper hand.  US can easily ignore Japan and pour everything into Europe.  Japan trying to take west coast or even build enough stuff to scare the US is not going to accomplish anything besides wasting 2x as much money as the US spends to defend it.  In the games I’ve played Germany is pretty much sunk by the time Japan has enough to put a legitimate threat on Moscow.

[Ó Ruanaidh]

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.

[Uncle_Joe]

If the US ignores Japan, I think Japan can make a mess out of Russia faster than the US can make a mess out of Germany. With no US Pacific threat, the Japanese can quickly reduce Brit money to minimal. She can also take away all but 1 of the US NOs, leaving the US making ~43 IPCs a turn while Japan is heading up to 60+. With that kind of disparity, Japan can make nuisance attacks on the US West Coast to pin forces and cause the US to waste on defense while at the same time, sending tanks and bombers to wreck Russia.

Economically, the US ignoring the Pacific usually results in about:
US: ~43 IPCs/turn
UK: ~22-26 IPCs/turn
USSR: ~25 IPCs/turn

90-95/turn

Japan: ~60+ IPCs/turn
Germany: ~32-38 IPCs/turn
Italy: ~10-15 IPcs/turn

102-113/turn

On top of that, both the US and UK pretty much have to ship everything they want to send meaning an overhead of TRs and fleets to protect them. Japan shares some of that, but Germany and Italy do not, meaning every IPC they spend will be either airpower (forcing larger naval defense) or boots on the ground for defense or for trading with Russia.

Obviously this requires an experienced Japanese player to recognize the situation and quickly build to simultaneously expel Britain from the area, take the US NOs away, and smash Russia into paste. But left completely alone by the US, it really isnt that hard to do all of those things AND threat the US West Coast/Alaska with nuisance raids.

[Ó Ruanaidh]

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.

[Stoney229]

@Cmdr:

I only mentioned it because U505 has blown every penny England has ever had on getting 7 Cruisers for his Battleship so he can have 8 Shore Bombardments each time he lands.

It’s an okay tactic I guess, but I’d rather have 7 bombers myself.

Based on a few things I have found on these forums, I have to wonder if people have noticed the new rule that you cannot fire more bombardments than you have land units landing.  Was U-505 really able to build 7 cruisers, 4 transports, AND 8 land units to land?

[DarthMaximus]

I had 5 cruisers with UK in one game, so I see 7 as definite possibilty if you go that route.  But IMO 4-6 will do.

As for KGF (KIF) and ignoring Japan, I think it is still very viable, it may result in a slower set up, but once you are set up you can get inf from Ecan to Kar in 2 turns (Mos in 4), or Ecan to Cauc in 3 turns.  Which means you have the first 3-4 turns to set up your shuck before Japan can even remotely get a compitent army to Mos (Round 6 earliest but not a threat to take, so more like rd 7-8).

As always one of your top priorities should be to sink the Italian Fleet which should be done by Rd 3-4 at the latest in most cases.  After that you have a lot more freedom.

UK can buy Air+Navy in rd 1, US can buy Air+Navy+inf.
UK follows up with more air (bom if you anticipate hitting Ita fleet on UK 3), US buys more air plus inf.

At the end of Rd 2 you have a massive Allied fleet (I perfer with both UK and US AC) in Sz 12 which means Afr will soon be yours and the Ita fleet must run or die.  Your US shuck should then consist of 8 inf per turn + air (give or take a few inf).  What Japan will see is 8 inf Wus, 8 inf Wcan, 8 inf Ecan and new ftrs to Wus (to fly to sz 12). 
Now what commitment is Japan going to make to the US in say round 4-6?  Remember they see an apparent clear path to Mos.
Are they really going to double up on trns and start shucking inf to Ala?  Again the US will see this coming and once the Ita fleet is wiped out the US has tons of freedom where they can let up on reinforments to the Atlantic if they have to.  There is little difference in shucking 4 or 6 inf to the Atlantic for a few turns compared to 8 since the UK is doing the heavy lifting.  The US only needs to be there for support.  At the moment I like the UK in Sz 6-5 and US in Sz 12 with only 2-3 trns.  This provides tons of freedom and Afr is always secure as is the Middle East.  UK supports Kar and Russia and the US can then sit back and decide the best route, full commitment to Europe, continue with the Afr/Ita push, or spend more resources on the Pac.

In a KGF there should be no way the Axis have any signifcant control of Afr.

[666]

@DarthMaximus:

I had 5 cruisers with UK in one game, so I see 7 as definite possibilty if you go that route.  But IMO 4-6 will do.

As for KGF (KIF) and ignoring Japan, I think it is still very viable, it may result in a slower set up, but once you are set up you can get inf from Ecan to Kar in 2 turns (Mos in 4), or Ecan to Cauc in 3 turns.  Which means you have the first 3-4 turns to set up your shuck before Japan can even remotely get a compitent army to Mos (Round 6 earliest but not a threat to take, so more like rd 7-8).

As always one of your top priorities should be to sink the Italian Fleet which should be done by Rd 3-4 at the latest in most cases.  After that you have a lot more freedom.

UK can buy Air+Navy in rd 1, US can buy Air+Navy+inf.
UK follows up with more air (bom if you anticipate hitting Ita fleet on UK 3), US buys more air plus inf.

At the end of Rd 2 you have a massive Allied fleet (I perfer with both UK and US AC) in Sz 12 which means Afr will soon be yours and the Ita fleet must run or die.  Your US shuck should then consist of 8 inf per turn + air (give or take a few inf).  What Japan will see is 8 inf Wus, 8 inf Wcan, 8 inf Ecan and new ftrs to Wus (to fly to sz 12). 
Now what commitment is Japan going to make to the US in say round 4-6?  Remember they see an apparent clear path to Mos.
Are they really going to double up on trns and start shucking inf to Ala?  Again the US will see this coming and once the Ita fleet is wiped out the US has tons of freedom where they can let up on reinforments to the Atlantic if they have to.  There is little difference in shucking 4 or 6 inf to the Atlantic for a few turns compared to 8 since the UK is doing the heavy lifting.  The US only needs to be there for support.  At the moment I like the UK in Sz 6-5 and US in Sz 12 with only 2-3 trns.  This provides tons of freedom and Afr is always secure as is the Middle East.  UK supports Kar and Russia and the US can then sit back and decide the best route, full commitment to Europe, continue with the Afr/Ita push, or spend more resources on the Pac.

In a KGF there should be no way the Axis have any signifcant control of Afr.

Exactly, So what should we do? I’ve thought about a bid but it doesn’t seem like a basic bid would be enough. Where would you put a bid that would be enough to balance this out? I’m thinking maybe we need to add units before the game even starts.

G gets a DD in sz5? The G baltic fleet is even more pathetic than in revised. Turn the G trn in the med into an ITA trn? and give it a dd or two?

Give G a real fleet in the med? A CA and a DD perhaps.

Give G another ss or a another fgt? And a bid?

Even if ITA was eliminated and became controlled by G with G absorbing their IPC’s IC etc….that would certainly help matters??? maybe we just beat the axis into the ground for a year or so and then decide.

[marcelvdpol]

Yes, there is. Japan will take Africa, and can do so as early as J3. As far as my games usually go:

G1: Germany jumps on Egypt. If Germany wins, so much the better. If Germany doesn’t, Italy will take it (I1). Italy will enjoy several turns of about 20 IPC (2 minimum, as that is how long it will take the UK or US to bring down a strikeforce large enough to take it out). What to do with 20 IPC? As Italy, I usually try to build a Carrier, a fighter and a Destroyer, but I should also be spending some money on ground forces.

While the USA is building up a fleet in the Atlantic, Japan takes control of the Pacific and all the Islands there, costing the US and UK several National Objectives. Because there is no US threat here (and probably the UK did not build a factory in India because of this), I race my Carriers as fast as possible in the direction of the Mediteranian, capturing India en-route. The Carriers can be there as early as turn four, meaning that the Italian fleet might still be alive and if it is not, then the US/UK will have to be watchfull for a Japanese fleet in the Atlantic.

In any case, this game is about the projection of Threat. Not projecting any Threat on Japan is imho a big mistake, as Japan will run rampant through the pacific, cutting off a lot of money for the UK/US, opening up the possibilities of invading Africa and/or Stalingrad. The latter one is specifically a huge problem for Russia, because of the limitation of the Russian Factory of 6.

[bbrett3]

@marcelvdpol:

Yes, there is. Japan will take Africa, and can do so as early as J3. As far as my games usually go:

G1: Germany jumps on Egypt. If Germany wins, so much the better. If Germany doesn’t, Italy will take it (I1). Italy will enjoy several turns of about 20 IPC (2 minimum, as that is how long it will take the UK or US to bring down a strikeforce large enough to take it out). What to do with 20 IPC? As Italy, I usually try to build a Carrier, a fighter and a Destroyer, but I should also be spending some money on ground forces.

While the USA is building up a fleet in the Atlantic, Japan takes control of the Pacific and all the Islands there, costing the US and UK several National Objectives. Because there is no US threat here (and probably the UK did not build a factory in India because of this), I race my Carriers as fast as possible in the direction of the Mediteranian, capturing India en-route. The Carriers can be there as early as turn four, meaning that the Italian fleet might still be alive and if it is not, then the US/UK will have to be watchfull for a Japanese fleet in the Atlantic.

In any case, this game is about the projection of Threat. Not projecting any Threat on Japan is imho a big mistake, as Japan will run rampant through the pacific, cutting off a lot of money for the UK/US, opening up the possibilities of invading Africa and/or Stalingrad. The latter one is specifically a huge problem for Russia, because of the limitation of the Russian Factory of 6.

I have a few issues with what you’ve said here

A) Building a carrier for Italy? Seriously? Even with the 20 IPC income Italy can’t manage to supply a carrier, fighters AND land you units to hold the African coasts from the allies

B) the Allies ( America) can pretty much retake Africa whenever they feel like it, as they can get 2 trans, 2inf, 1arm and 1art and reach pretty much anywhere in Africa in 1-2 turns, so unless you set up your navy to cover west africa it’s just sitting in the Med.

On the flip side I think that the Japanese carries getting to the Med. is a very usable strat, considering you’re taking the Middle Easy anyway

[Stoney229]

@bbrett3:

A) Building a carrier for Italy? Seriously? Even with the 20 IPC income Italy can’t manage to supply a carrier, fighters AND land you units to hold the
African coasts from the
allies

I think this is very doable as long as germany isn’t desperate.  all you have to do is plan ahead, maybe save a couple bucks one turn if need be.  With Italy having so little income, it’s not a bad idea to think about what you might need to buy next turn when deciding what you want to buy this turn, so you can make sure you have the money for what you need next turn.

[marcelvdpol]

If the current discussion shows anything, its that the game is not a clear-cut “Axis must win all the time”/“The axis don’t stand a chance” kind-of-game.

No one strategy is invincible, no one strategy is uncounterable. I think that the game will reward the better strategist and ofcourse the “lucky” player.

[Lynxes]

/JWW

Exactly, So what should we do? I’ve thought about a bid but it doesn’t seem like a basic bid would be enough. Where would you put a bid that would be enough to balance this out? I’m thinking maybe we need to add units before the game even starts.

Hey, have you thought about the optional rule interceptors put out by Larry Harris and Krieghund? It should be pro-Axis since Germany is usually the one hit hardest by SBR. Or do your strategies as the Allies not include SBR? Maybe the interceptor rule will make the '41+NOs scenario more balanced and we can get by without bids which I think are a bit random.

[bbrett3]

Can you explain the interceptor rule, or give the link?

[marcelvdpol]

The Interceptor rule is from World at War isn’t it? I think it goes something like this:

• Before you roll for the damage the bomber does, you first have to fight against defending fighters. Fighters can take off and defend their country on 2’s. Bombers hit fighters on 1’s. The country sending the bombers can send along a fighter escort, which also hit at 2’s. Only bombers making it through the defensive fighter screen get to drop their bombs.
• AA guns work normally, which means they shoot before the fighters/bombers engage defending fighters.

The rule favours defenders, as currently there are very few ways to defend against Strategic Bombing. I might have the numbers wrong, but i’m sure this is the general idea.

[Lynxes]

Here’s the FAQ by Larry Harris & Krieghund:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

The rule is just as in AAE. Maybe World at war was first to have it, but interceptors are a part of almost every strategic World War II game and I think it’s natural to include it.

Krieghund was asked somewhere about if it isn’t too strong for the defender, but answered that keeping fighters in your home IC is a hassle since you want them at the front. What the rule would do though is to make fighter bases for SBR escort really important. I.e., Norway or a carrier in North Sea is necessary to do SBR on Germany with reasonable odds if the German player keeps fighters at home (or, of course, Long-range aircraft!).

[axis_roll]

IMHO, the interceptor optional rule removes SBR from the game.

That penduleum has swung hard from SBR’s being way too powerful (with $12 bombers) all the way to never being conducted, as it’s too expensive.

The AA fire at all planes before air-to-air is really nasty.

[Lynxes]

/axis_roll

It’s only one round after all, and we should factor in two things:

1. The defender has to keep fighters in the home IC. Certainly a factor for UK and Germany, who would rather have fighters on a carrier/in Russia or at the front, respectively.
2. The defender will be losing a fighter here and there if the attacker has interceptors, actually a way of whittling down defences, which should be a problem for Germany and Russia especially.

It’s too early to say what the balance effects will be with this rule!

[bbrett3]

@Stoob:

RE: SBR “intercept” optional rule.  So much of this game is just threats, not actual attacks.  If you have a bomber, and your enemy doesn’t have any fighters in his home territory, then do an SBR.  If he has fighters on defense, don’t do an SBR.    This will “put him on notice” and he’ll either be forced to bring back a fighter or two permanently from the front (where he needs them) for SBR defense or put up with you bombing him every turn.   If he moves the fighters away, then do an SBR again and annoy him.   People over-react to these types of optional rules.  Chill the %$#& out people, it’s an optional rule.

truer words have never been spoken :-D

[axis_roll]

As far as I have seen, a good move is for Germany to buy some sort of plane every round.  With this in mind, it is quite easy for Germany to leave a ftr or two in Berlin.

These are not really out of range of anything.

Germany needs to either push as hard and fast as possible or to slowly build and let Japan do all the work.

If Germany is pushing hard, then a few SBR’s will be too little too late
and a slow build allows the ftrs to keep the allied bombers off them.  It’s not easy for the allies to mount a bombing campaign.

I still maintain my position as the escort rule makes SBRs too expensive to happen (expensive can be measured by opportunity cost, or as people are pointing out… that ftrs have to be places they would rather not want to be).

And of course it’s an optional rule.  We happen to be playing it, so to us, its part of the game and hence, part of the discussion.