Does the 1941 scenario even work without the NOs? I solitaired it for a bit once and the board seemed almost empty of units after about three turns. Germany collapsed because its lost income from the rather easy NOs really makes a difference. Japan seemed rather irrelevant since it takes longer to gain momentum without the NOs, and Germany falls sooner to a KGF.
The 1942 scenario seems better suited for a non-NO game because it´s got more starting units and the theaters are better balanced. Germany is stronger so a KGF will take longer and Asia has got more options since India won´t fall as easily, China is tougher and the US Pacific fleet is stronger.
New Thoughts and Revisions After a Few Months of Playing
-
I like sending the 2 subs to SZ2 because they get the free shot. I send 3 fighters against the fleet in SZ12 and Ground forces to Egypt.
In my current game this has worked out pretty well with a CV+DD purchase on G1 and a TP, DD, CA on G2, and added a 2nd BB for Italy on I2, the axis rule the seas, and Germany is entrenched in Karelia. Those pesky allies have a huge bomber fleet which is worrisome, we’ll see how it works out.
-
@Emperor:
I like sending the 2 subs to SZ2 because they get the free shot. I send 3 fighters against the fleet in SZ12 and Ground forces to Egypt.
In my current game this has worked out pretty well with a CV+DD purchase on G1 and a TP, DD, CA on G2, and added a 2nd BB for Italy on I2, the axis rule the seas, and Germany is entrenched in Karelia. Those pesky allies have a huge bomber fleet which is worrisome, we’ll see how it works out.
I like your style MOllari. Finally someone openly admitting investing in the Baltic is worthwile :)
And let the Bombers come. If the board looks like anything I think it should look, that’s all the Allie can send in against your fleet.However, Axis >>>>> Allies money wise, so even if they blow up your entire fleet, they will definitely lose some bombers aswell…but you are in the position to easily replenish the forces, whereas the Allies can’t.
-
@Emperor:
I like sending the 2 subs to SZ2 because they get the free shot. I send 3 fighters against the fleet in SZ12 and Ground forces to Egypt.
In my current game this has worked out pretty well with a CV+DD purchase on G1 and a TP, DD, CA on G2, and added a 2nd BB for Italy on I2, the axis rule the seas, and Germany is entrenched in Karelia. Those pesky allies have a huge bomber fleet which is worrisome, we’ll see how it works out.
I like your style MOllari. Finally someone openly admitting investing in the Baltic is worthwile :)
And let the Bombers come. If the board looks like anything I think it should look, that’s all the Allie can send in against your fleet.However, Axis >>>>> Allies money wise, so even if they blow up your entire fleet, they will definitely lose some bombers aswell…but you are in the position to easily replenish the forces, whereas the Allies can’t.
Thanks! UK will no doubt sink my baltic fleet this turn with 4fgt, 3bmb, the most likely outcome 2-3 bombers left. That’s ok, it served it’s purpose which was to take and hold Karelia G2. Reinforced on G3 so it now has 6inf, 2art, 7tnk, 1fgt.
-
And Japan is making it’s way o Russia aswell I assume, so that should be another Axis win ;-)
-
And Japan is making it’s way o Russia aswell I assume, so that should be another Axis win ;-)
Yes, UK has an IC and 6inf, 1tnk, 1fgt, 1bmb in India which will have to be eliminated, and the US has been building ships in the Pacific, that helps Germany. The only allied ships in the atlantic are 1DD, 1TP-US and lone soviet sub. US has 6fgt, 3CV, 2DD, 1TP in the Pacific.
It’s the end of J3, here’s the map.
-
Germany better get a move on because it looks like Japan is about to be ejected from the Pacific.
And why did you take the Caroline Islands so heavy when you’re going to leave those guys stranded?
-
Germany better get a move on because it looks like Japan is about to be ejected from the Pacific.
And why did you take the Caroline Islands so heavy when you’re going to leave those guys stranded?
Naw, Japan will still be around. The move to Caroline Is. was to prevent UK from landing for the NO and then the US parking their fleet there so Japan couldn’t eject UK, and giving the allies a a nice spot to hit the spice rich islands. Caroline is 1 move from the US so they could continue to funnel ships there. But if they have no ground forces there, it’s useless. Nice place to park fighters too.
-
I don’t want to go any further if the UK and the US haven’t moved yet, but let me know when they do. :-D
-
@Emperor:
@Emperor:
I like sending the 2 subs to SZ2 because they get the free shot. I send 3 fighters against the fleet in SZ12 and Ground forces to Egypt.
In my current game this has worked out pretty well with a CV+DD purchase on G1 and a TP, DD, CA on G2, and added a 2nd BB for Italy on I2, the axis rule the seas, and Germany is entrenched in Karelia. Those pesky allies have a huge bomber fleet which is worrisome, we’ll see how it works out.
I like your style MOllari. Finally someone openly admitting investing in the Baltic is worthwile :)
And let the Bombers come. If the board looks like anything I think it should look, that’s all the Allie can send in against your fleet.However, Axis >>>>> Allies money wise, so even if they blow up your entire fleet, they will definitely lose some bombers aswell…but you are in the position to easily replenish the forces, whereas the Allies can’t.
Thanks! UK will no doubt sink my baltic fleet this turn with 4fgt, 3bmb, the most likely outcome 2-3 bombers left. That’s ok, it served it’s purpose which was to take and hold Karelia G2. Reinforced on G3 so it now has 6inf, 2art, 7tnk, 1fgt.
Actually, that battle is 50/50 according to the sim with the axis probably surviving with 2 fighters and a cruiser. (and of course the transport.)
-
@Emperor:
Germany better get a move on because it looks like Japan is about to be ejected from the Pacific.
And why did you take the Caroline Islands so heavy when you’re going to leave those guys stranded?
Naw, Japan will still be around. The move to Caroline Is. was to prevent UK from landing for the NO and then the US parking their fleet there so Japan couldn’t eject UK, and giving the allies a a nice spot to hit the spice rich islands. Caroline is 1 move from the US so they could continue to funnel ships there. But if they have no ground forces there, it’s useless. Nice place to park fighters too.
UK could move to Okinawa for the IPC and the NO. But honestly, with 10 fighters in range of everything, you should have invited the allies to land in Carolines and sent all their boats into the drink at the cost of a few fighters.
-
@Cmdr:
@Emperor:
@Emperor:
I like sending the 2 subs to SZ2 because they get the free shot. I send 3 fighters against the fleet in SZ12 and Ground forces to Egypt.
In my current game this has worked out pretty well with a CV+DD purchase on G1 and a TP, DD, CA on G2, and added a 2nd BB for Italy on I2, the axis rule the seas, and Germany is entrenched in Karelia. Those pesky allies have a huge bomber fleet which is worrisome, we’ll see how it works out.
I like your style MOllari. Finally someone openly admitting investing in the Baltic is worthwile :)
And let the Bombers come. If the board looks like anything I think it should look, that’s all the Allie can send in against your fleet.However, Axis >>>>> Allies money wise, so even if they blow up your entire fleet, they will definitely lose some bombers aswell…but you are in the position to easily replenish the forces, whereas the Allies can’t.
Thanks! UK will no doubt sink my baltic fleet this turn with 4fgt, 3bmb, the most likely outcome 2-3 bombers left. That’s ok, it served it’s purpose which was to take and hold Karelia G2. Reinforced on G3 so it now has 6inf, 2art, 7tnk, 1fgt.
Actually, that battle is 50/50 according to the sim with the axis probably surviving with 2 fighters and a cruiser. (and of course the transport.)
My numbers say roughly 62% win with an average of 1 bmb remaining, 6% clear, and 32% loss.
-
@Cmdr:
UK could move to Okinawa for the IPC and the NO. But honestly, with 10 fighters in range of everything, you should have invited the allies to land in Carolines and sent all their boats into the drink at the cost of a few fighters.
When I’m playing Japan I don’t really worry too much about the UK taking it’s Pacific NO because that extra money is rarely spent against Japan. At best, it can be used to convert inf into arm at an India IC but I usually assume that the UK is always building armor there, anyway.
My focus is strictly on the US in KJF. If I have a chance to reclaim my territory from the UK and take away their NO without sacrificing units then I’ll do it, but I won’t go out of my way to deal with them.
-
When I’m playing Japan I don’t really worry too much about the UK taking it’s Pacific NO because that extra money is rarely spent against Japan.
i can’t see how which country one is playing makes any difference. the extra money will get used against germany, which is bad for your side.
axis and allies is a multiplayer game in name only.
-
@Cmdr:
UK could move to Okinawa for the IPC and the NO. But honestly, with 10 fighters in range of everything, you should have invited the allies to land in Carolines and sent all their boats into the drink at the cost of a few fighters.
When I’m playing Japan I don’t really worry too much about the UK taking it’s Pacific NO because that extra money is rarely spent against Japan. At best, it can be used to convert inf into arm at an India IC but I usually assume that the UK is always building armor there, anyway.
My focus is strictly on the US in KJF. If I have a chance to reclaim my territory from the UK and take away their NO without sacrificing units then I’ll do it, but I won’t go out of my way to deal with them.
It wasn’t just the NO, it was the strategic location. Had I allowed UK to take that undefended and then the us followed up, Japan would have had to divert forces to deal with that, placing those forces there made it an unactractive move and now I can concentrate forces elsewhere.
-
When I’m playing Japan I don’t really worry too much about the UK taking it’s Pacific NO because that extra money is rarely spent against Japan.
i can’t see how which country one is playing makes any difference. the extra money will get used against germany, which is bad for your side.
axis and allies is a multiplayer game in name only.
It has nothing to do with the multiplayer aspect of the game. Five extra IPC’s against Germany in a KJF is peanuts. There is no point putting my Japanese fleet into a weak position just to try to prevent the UK from getting an extra 5 IPC’s that won’t even be spent against Japan. Keep the Japanese fleet along the coast against a KJF and don’t stick your neck out unless it comes with a big payoff.
Case in point. The map shows that 1 CA, 2 TP has to be sacrificed and 2 inf, 2 arm will be stranded on the Caroline Islands to prevent the UK from getting the NO when a landing in Iwo Jima gets the UK NO, anyway. Now, tell me if that is worth it.
-
@Emperor:
@Cmdr:
UK could move to Okinawa for the IPC and the NO. But honestly, with 10 fighters in range of everything, you should have invited the allies to land in Carolines and sent all their boats into the drink at the cost of a few fighters.
When I’m playing Japan I don’t really worry too much about the UK taking it’s Pacific NO because that extra money is rarely spent against Japan. At best, it can be used to convert inf into arm at an India IC but I usually assume that the UK is always building armor there, anyway.
My focus is strictly on the US in KJF. If I have a chance to reclaim my territory from the UK and take away their NO without sacrificing units then I’ll do it, but I won’t go out of my way to deal with them.
It wasn’t just the NO, it was the strategic location. Had I allowed UK to take that undefended and then the us followed up, Japan would have had to divert forces to deal with that, placing those forces there made it an unactractive move and now I can concentrate forces elsewhere.
Well the point is moot now so I can comment on that turn.
First, the UK should have built 3 SS in India to force you to move your sz37 fleet and keep it from landing units on your turn or you would risk an attack of 3 SS, 1 fig, 1 bmb against your fleet of 2 fig, 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 TP. Assuming 2 hits for each side, if she took her first 2 casualties as the aircraft it would have rendered your fighters useless against the subs most likely leaving you with 1 BB(dmgd), 1 CV, 1 fig v. 3 SS. Even if you did an unorthodox move and took your 2 fig as your first 2 casualties and left the BB undamaged she could instead lose 1 or 2 of the subs and save her aircraft to still have an advantage.
The UK would follow it up with a landing in Iwo Jima and the W Can inf to AK.
On the US turn, they build 1 CV, 2 fig, 1 DD, 1 SS in sz56. Next, they attack sz51 with 6 fighters and if they take no casualties they move everything to sz59 and also land in Iwo Jima. If they lose a fighter they could still go to sz59 but an all out attack would be at a small Japanese advantage so they could always just land 3 of their fighters to protect Iwo Jima from a landing and put the rest of their fleet in sz57. And last, they move the 4 bmb from the UK. 2 into AK with the W Can inf to try to sucker you into attacking there and the other 2 into W Can. Sz62 is now under threat from 4 bmb, 7 or 8 fighters, 2 DD, and 3 CV.
With those 2 turns, they get the NO, clear sz51 stranding the ground units in the Carolines, and force both of your fleets out of sz37 temporarily and, even worse, out of sz62 possibly for good.
-
@Emperor:
@Cmdr:
UK could move to Okinawa for the IPC and the NO. But honestly, with 10 fighters in range of everything, you should have invited the allies to land in Carolines and sent all their boats into the drink at the cost of a few fighters.
When I’m playing Japan I don’t really worry too much about the UK taking it’s Pacific NO because that extra money is rarely spent against Japan. At best, it can be used to convert inf into arm at an India IC but I usually assume that the UK is always building armor there, anyway.
My focus is strictly on the US in KJF. If I have a chance to reclaim my territory from the UK and take away their NO without sacrificing units then I’ll do it, but I won’t go out of my way to deal with them.
It wasn’t just the NO, it was the strategic location. Had I allowed UK to take that undefended and then the us followed up, Japan would have had to divert forces to deal with that, placing those forces there made it an unactractive move and now I can concentrate forces elsewhere.
Well the point is moot now so I can comment on that turn.
First, the UK should have built 3 SS in India to force you to move your sz37 fleet and keep it from landing units on your turn or you would risk an attack of 3 SS, 1 fig, 1 bmb against your fleet of 2 fig, 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 TP. Assuming 2 hits for each side, if she took her first 2 casualties as the aircraft it would have rendered your fighters useless against the subs most likely leaving you with 1 BB(dmgd), 1 CV, 1 fig v. 3 SS. Even if you did an unorthodox move and took your 2 fig as your first 2 casualties and left the BB undamaged she could instead lose 1 or 2 of the subs and save her aircraft to still have an advantage.
The UK would follow it up with a landing in Iwo Jima and the W Can inf to AK.
On the US turn, they build 1 CV, 2 fig, 1 DD, 1 SS in sz56. Next, they attack sz51 with 6 fighters and if they take no casualties they move everything to sz59 and also land in Iwo Jima. If they lose a fighter they could still go to sz59 but an all out attack would be at a small Japanese advantage so they could always just land 3 of their fighters to protect Iwo Jima from a landing and put the rest of their fleet in sz57. And last, they move the 4 bmb from the UK. 2 into AK with the W Can inf to try to sucker you into attacking there and the other 2 into W Can. Sz62 is now under threat from 4 bmb, 7 or 8 fighters, 2 DD, and 3 CV.
With those 2 turns, they get the NO, clear sz51 stranding the ground units in the Carolines, and force both of your fleets out of sz37 temporarily and, even worse, out of sz62 possibly for good.
A 3SS build in India could be easily countered with a move of my fleet to sz38 where Sumatra has an IC, a 4 ship build with fighters from Caroline should do nicely.
-
One of my thoughts after playing allies is france is bait that is not worth it. Unless it can be taken, and held, nine times out of ten it is not worth trading.
Not worth trading at 11 bucks a pop?
No, not if you loose more than 11 IPCs worth in units to trade it. You’d end up with a net loss. Now, if you could thereby impose a higher net loss on Germany, that’s one thing, but it’'s unlikely if your force is too small to hold France.
-
@Emperor:
A 3SS build in India could be easily countered with a move of my fleet to sz38 where Sumatra has an IC, a 4 ship build with fighters from Caroline should do nicely.
Right. But, the point I was trying to make was that you are too spread out. In order to protect 1 of those sea zones you have to give up the other and the goal was to get you to move to protect the home waters. Protecting sz37 at the expense of sz62 could backfire because once the US establishes dominance over sz62, it’s just a matter of time before Japan starts to collapse. After that, it’s all fighters, subs, and ground units coming out of sz56 with a couple transports to support the next move which is to start landing through Alaska into Bury to clear out Asia and take away their income before moving on to the home island.
-
No, not if you loose(sic) more than 11 IPCs worth in units to trade it.
I believe what is relevant is some formula based on the total cost in units in proportion to the difference in economies between the axis and the allies. if the allies are ahead economically, then a 1 - 1 trade in units is to their advantage, for instance.
Suggested Topics
