This thread was started in another thread about balance, so I started this one as to not pollute that thread. Hopeful Corbeau Blanc will oblige my questions.
Thanks to Corbeau Blanc for continuing the discussion here.
@Corbeau:
axis_roll,
NO : yes
Tech : noThe first turn of the axis are pretty much scripted to a point. With the allies, it’s easy to plan ahead based upon that fact.
Allies won thoses games by denying Italy NOs and focussing upon weakening Poland/Baltic States to the north (UK) and Romania/Ukraine to the south(USA). This enables for a really agressive Russia which achieve all her NOs.
Think about it, Karelia and Caucasus are the main targets for axis in a standard game before Moscow. By cutting german lines trough thoses 4 territory mentioned above, it prevents reinforcements and even eventually prevent any advance. It enables Russia to keep her NO’s while Germany loses her own NO. More importantly, Allies by doing this are concentrating most of their forces in the same region.
Once the axis offensive is stalled, Allies economy allows them to come on top. Eventually something has to give up, France, Italy or the whole eastern front. By the time Japan arrives, IF it ever arrives, Russia is making 50 ipcs.
I call that policy: The Pincer Attack. :-P
Can you describe the scripted German (Japanese) moves?
I think your strategy is solid, but I think poor axis play has a much greater factor in the allies abilities to win. In other words, the allies should not be given the chance to do what you describe.
Does that make sense?
Every once in a while I try what I call a “United Eastern Front”, with the UK in the North, US in the south, and the Ruskies up the middle. One of the problems though is that the USSR may give up it’s NO. It works well if the Russians are starting to make process, but if the line buckles at any point it becomes a logistical nightmare (I once wound up with my Americans surronded in Poland :-P)
I will need some time to go in details, I can give you a general idea:
Germany has more variants:
Vs UK:
VS Russia: Eastern front viable variants either put focus on Karelia or Caucasus.
Overall, thoses moves always end up about the same and the also what axis buys as far as units goes.
The Pincer Attack or United Eastern Front as previous poster calls it, is not a strategy which cannot be countered but it will really need an axis player who defend his waters.
The strategy aim to take out both Baltic fleet and Italian Fleet by Round 2 and by round 3 to occupy both seas.
UK take out baltic fleet as usual. Build 2 AC, one of which will receive 2 USA fighters, and mass a big enough fleet to move in Baltic to drop. Usually doable by round 3.
US moves it’s 2 fighters on UK carrier and 2 bombers in England (Gibraltar if it can be protected Round 2 from Italians ) then take out Moroco. US build is made to add extra firepower, at least another 1-2 bombers and ships/transports. On turn 2, the UK AC with american fighters moves into sea zone 12, US fighters are now in range of Italian fleet on US 2…
I realise some might contest this move, but as far as triple A is concerned and earlier versions, allied fighters moves with the Carrier as cargo. All in all, you could always go with a 3 UK bomber build and send more US ships to help out UK mass a big enough fleet. Result will be the same, Italian fleet goes bye bye round 2…
Results are pretty much:
So, yes Axis can defend, but what makes this particulary succesful is that most German players disreguard the idea of a German Navy and defending their fleets.
Also, I have yet to see a succesful naval strat from Axis but I suspect it would involve a France IC and japanese fighters support for any would be AC. That or submarines cleverly used.
@Corbeau:
So, yes Axis can defend, but what makes this particulary succesful is that most German players disreguard the idea of a German Navy and defending their fleets.
Also, I have yet to see a succesful naval strat from Axis but I suspect it would involve a France IC and japanese fighters support for any would be AC. That or submarines cleverly used.
Yes, you would need an Italian carrier to prevent a USA2 attack, and additional planes (or fleet) from Japan for round 3.
On USA 2, the two bombers/two fighters, DD should lose to the Italian BB, 2 cruisers, carrier and italy fighter. (only 25% attacker win).
The formosa fleet would have to go to SZ 37 on J1, to SZ 34 on J2 (with enough troops to guarantee keeping the canal open) and to the med J3.
The other options include Germany attacking the USA DD, a France IC, etc. Not sure I like an IC option though.
The above is of course for 1941. 1942 is a bit easier, in that Germany has the extra DD for defense, and Japan goes first, so that they can (if they want) get to the med the first turn of J3.
Finally, the IT fleet cannot survive a combined bomber attack from both UK/USA (but then, UK would not have built 2 carriers UK1 either, so you can see this one coming). They would also need to take/hold morocco or Gibraltar and land planes there in order to be able to do the double attack UK/USA 2. Which presents other problems as to what they have and where…
This can be a good allied strat, but still I have not seen anything which suggest that axis are not favored, at least for the 4 games out of 5 that Egy G1 is left with one or more German units.
To remove the Italian fleet as soon as possible, will be important for allies in any setting.
@Subotai:
To remove the Italian fleet as soon as possible, will be important for allies in any setting.
i agree this is important.
@Corbeau:
So, yes Axis can defend, but what makes this particulary succesful is that most German players disreguard the idea of a German Navy and defending their fleets.
Also, I have yet to see a succesful naval strat from Axis but I suspect it would involve a France IC and japanese fighters support for any would be AC. That or submarines cleverly used.Yes, you would need an Italian carrier to prevent a USA2 attack, and additional planes (or fleet) from Japan for round 3.
On USA 2, the two bombers/two fighters, DD should lose to the Italian BB, 2 cruisers, carrier and italy fighter. (only 25% attacker win).
The formosa fleet would have to go to SZ 37 on J1, to SZ 34 on J2 (with enough troops to guarantee keeping the canal open) and to the med J3.
The other options include Germany attacking the USA DD, a France IC, etc. Not sure I like an IC option though.
Finally, the IT fleet cannot survive a combined bomber attack from both UK/USA (but then, UK would not have built 2 carriers UK1 either, so you can see this one coming). They would also need to take/hold morocco or Gibraltar and land planes there in order to be able to do the double attack UK/USA 2. Which presents other problems as to what they have and where…
Usually I have been building a second Italian fighter on Italy’s turn 1 and then a carrier on Italy’s turn 2, which makes the Italian fleet almost impregnable.
I don’t really see building Italian navy as a viable strategy….unless USA is 100% Pacific. Bombers and fighters bought by the Allies are too cost effective–Italy doesn’t have the IPCS to outspend either Ally, much less both.
The only way I can see is a Romania factory and Germany buys like 1-2 carriers, then flys planes down onto them. Doesn’t seem worth it to me…unless UK is basically all alone and is trying to fight in Africa and Scandinavia at the same time.
Depends though, how long can you hold off the allies from threatening Italy from the sea if you purchase boats? Honestly I wouldn’t buy a fig and a carrier though, if your going that route go all the way and let the Germans and Japaneses lands planes on your carrier for you.
Look at it this way, by the end of J3 there could be a fleet of 2 loaded carriers, 2 cruisers, a battleship, and a destroyer or two. That is 11 hits, 5 @ 4, 2 @ 3, and 1 @ 2. I doubt the allies have the air power on turn 3 to take that out, and if they do they don’t have many trannies to push afterward. The allies also must be careful at that point of splitting there fleet and Italy suicide into the US’s boats if the UK moves her boats. Can be very effective against an all out push from the allies on Europe.
