I’m kind of an old skool, Classic-ish grognard; I’ve been poking around with the Europe 1940 game (in TripleA, against the ai) mainly as the Allies, but a little bit as Italy.
I guess my question is, which units should each country purchase?
For example, I’ve found that the UK can make use of subs against Italy’s surface fleet (although I guess I’m a n00b for not just YOLO’ing and blowing them up with all of the UK’s planes, on rd1.) But generally, it seems like no one should really want/need to build any navy other than destroyers, transports, and carriers (with aircraft to go on them). Destroyers just do everything…
Is there any sense in bringing along extra carriers, i.e. more than just enough to hold your planes, in case one gets sunk? Why are carriers 2-hit anyway, if they’re effectively useless after the first hit? Are there any good spots to put down new airfields, or is scrambling underused in the Europe map, and really only applies to the Pacific?
I don’t find artillery all that helpful; if you’re the US for example, you have the cash to build tanks, and if your intention is just to send as much stuff as possible to the USSR, then you want units that can race across North Africa quicker. I think for poorer countries, artillery makes sense but even as Italy I tend to go all infantry, and as USSR I maybe crank out 1 artillery per round; if you can get your income up, tanks seem way more helpful for counter-attacking in and around Novosibirsk, while using your planes to clean up along the main front line.
What circumstances do people use mech. infantry in? Honestly, I rarely buy it other than to place at an Allied factory in Persia, Norway, or similar/nearby territories (Greece, Turkey, Finland). I particularly can’t justify putting one on a transport, instead of a tank (or even possibly an artillery.) I’ve heard that it’s a good unit for the Axis, on defense…
I guess I just feel like there’s a lot of chrome/cruft to this version of A&A, and I believe it could improve by being stripped down a little.
Well, there are plenty of explainers out there (particularly AndrewAAGamer’s one), and most of what applies to Global 1940 works for Europe 1940 too.
Carriers are indeed more of a Pacific thing and the cost-benefit analysis done by AndrewAAGamer does confirm that battleships and cruisers are useless.
I assume carriers are just double hit to provide some extra firepower on defense, making them more valuable and justifying their high price (I assume the price has to be high to make it more realistic when compared to other ship types). Scale means the double hit probably isn’t required in smaller versions like 1942 and 1941 to justify the cost.
Been a while since I’ve played Europe 1940 by itself, but I generally don’t put facilities down in any of the 1940 games. Many facility locations feel suited for only one plan which can easily be changed or disrupted by your opponent.
Artillery is very useful. If the US is sending forces the long route obviously tanks are better, but artillery is superior in Western Europe. For Italy, I like to buy it to provide some extra counterattacking power if they’re in “defend Fortress Europe” mode. 4 infantry and 3 artillery on the offensive is vastly superior to 8 infantry (not saying that’s a good ratio to scale up, must trying to show how effective artillery can be).
And honestly, as Germany I buy artillery because if you only buy tanks, not many of them reach their “full potential”. If I just want some extra firepower for infantry, tanks are completely wasted in that role. I could see how tanks previously being 5 IPCs might make it worth it, but I’d much rather have 3 artillery accompany my large infantry stack than 2 tanks (especially since it seems that high level players don’t make that much use of blitzing on the Eastern Front, especially in crucial stages).
I rarely buy mechanized infantry too. They’re more for if you need extra movement to have as many forces as possible for a particular, large scale plan to be executed by a certain turn (say, a German assault on Moscow). I’ve never put mechanized infantry on transports.
Sorry if this was a bit long, I didn’t have time to make it shorter.
Check out these strategy articles:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1397227
Some comments from my side:
As a follow-up, this might be a slightly controversial opinion:
I think tactical bombers are okay
Now, in terms of actually bombing? They seem useless on the Europe map (although bombing Gibraltar’s naval base as Italy can really screw with the allies.)
That being said:
Generally speaking, my go-to move for building fleets is to just assume 2 fighters for each carrier, but since pivoting to 1 tac. and 1 fighter with the US, I don’t feel like I’m losing out on anything. If there is a downside, it’s when you try and split up your carrier group, sending each of the 2 planes to attack different territories, rather than attacking 1 territory together.
But if you have a carrier in SZ 109 and another in SZ 110 or 112, you can easily use all 4 aircraft in attacking Norway, Denmark, Holland/Belgium, or Normandy. This is particularly powerful when sending minimal landing forces, and just wanting to strafe the enemy down.
I’ve toyed with the idea of going all bombers and destroyers as the US, but it definitely leaves your convoy escort fleet feeling a lot weaker, despite the extra “HP” worth of destroyers (relative to the same cost for a carrier + planes.) I do find the bombers come in handy for neutralizing Germany’s income and production, but also just for their movement; being able to get into theatre on the 2nd turn after being purchased is very valuable.
Yeah, tactical bombers are completely useless to attack facilities, but I think it’s historically accurate, since most strategic bombing was done by what would be considered strategic bombers.
Generally, I buy way more fighters than tactical bombers. This is mainly because in combat, if there’s only 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber, I usually take the fighter first (and I try hard to maintain at a minimum a 1 to 1 fighter to tactical bomber ratio), resulting in the need of replacements.
However, I usually like 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber on carriers, which is where I make the bulk of tactical bomber purchases.
Tactical bombers are generally less useful on land (because land units are more cost effective and it’s not that easy to find a battle where their bonus can be activated and is big/important enough to necessitate using air units), while at sea they’re competitive.
AndrewAAGamer’s Global 1940 principles explains it well.
Having just fired up the game again, for the first time in a long time…
Looking at it from the American perspective in particular, it feels like destroyers are just too good(?) If they were a little more expensive, it might feel more worth it to mix in submarines; likewise, cruisers feel too expensive for the value they provide. Is there a consensus on how cruisers should be re-balanced?
Also, I forgot to mention it earlier, but submarines defending on a 1? That’s a hard sell for me. It makes them feel too much like battleships, in that they’re more of a “unit that exists on the board” rather than something anyone actually buys.
FWIW I have been poking around with the Revised game, and I feel like it really nailed the unit balance; destroyers still feel like a “must have” but the higher price-point is a better fit for such a quality. Subs still probably needed to be cheaper, if anything. For the scale of the game, I think the tanks costing 5 works out fine, too. I think battleships auto-repairing at the end of every turn is a bit much; without naval bases, I think the obvious way to handle it is “once per round” either at the start of the owning nation’s turn, or at the end (…probably the former).
Hi Janus
Nice to see you. :) I know yours is a reply to the Global 40 Europe thread, but @The-Captain has created a mod for both Theaters https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36945/axis-allies-global-1940-house-rules-expansion that deals with some of the issues you raise.
For example
Destroyers Cost 7
Cruisers Cost 9
Tanks Cost 5
Anyway, I think you would find it interesting.
P
Destroyers are great all around units, but I’ve found them quite lacking in actual offensive and defensive abilities. You really need loaded carriers to have a solid defense, and submarines to have a tough punch. This applies less on the European side where land based aircraft are abundant and there’s less naval warfare.
In the Pacific area, I often find fleets consisting mostly or of just destroyers aren’t powerful enough to spar off with mixed fleets of carriers, destroyers, and submarines. They’re just cost inefficient in terms of defense points compared to carriers and attack points compared to submarines (I use the TripleA battle calculator):
288 IPCs of destroyers (36 destroyers, attacking) vs 288 IPCs of carriers, fighters, and destroyers (6 carriers, 12 fighters, and 9 destroyers, defending) = destroyers win 18% of the time, carriers and destroyers win 81.5% of the time. Obviously if the defending fleet was just destroyers both sides win 50% of the time, so having carriers is clearly superior. TUV swing of -65 to -70.
Meanwhile, 288 IPCs of submarines (48 submarines, attacking) vs 288 IPCs of carriers, fighters, and destroyers (6 carriers, 12 fighters, and 9 destroyers, defending) = while the attacker cannot fully destroy the defender, they on average end up with 25 to 26 submarines left (meaning they lost 23x6 = 138 IPCs) after all the defender’s ships are lost (6x16+9x8 = 168 IPCs) with a TUV swing of 32 to 36 IPCs. In other words, significantly better than the destroyers. If instead of carriers we replaced the defending units with destroyers of equivalent value the submarines win nearly 100% of the time and get a 155 to 159 TUV swing.
I hope I was able to demonstrate how, while destroyers are incredibly useful, they have to be complemented by carriers and submarines.
Also submarine defense points are really not all that bad. 1 cruiser attacking 2 defending submarines (12 IPCs on each side) is actually 50-50, while the submarine advantage attacking exceeds their distadvantage defending when compared to destroyers. As mentioned, while the cost efficient attack points of submarines absolutely decimate a destroyer fleet of the same cost 100% of the time, 36 destroyers attacking 48 submarines only win 72% of the time with a TUV swing of 43 to 44, while the likelihood of success for both sides decline at roughly equal rates when the costs of both fleets go down to more realistic levels (9 destroyers attacking 12 submarines, with both sides costing 36 IPCs, win only 63% of the time with a TUV swing of 10 to 14, while 12 submarine attacking 9 destroyers win 92% of the time with a TUV swing 33 to 35).
Cruisers and battleships are unfortunately unbuyable. I’m sure you can find some ideas to rebalance them on this forum.
@SuperbattleshipYamato
I’ve only poked around with the Europe game, hence this thread being in the Europe subforum ;)
I definitely agree that you want carriers (with planes) along with destroyers – and not just purely destroyers. But my point mainly is that, in the European theatre (and particularly as the allies) you need destroyers (and planes) to attack enemy subs, and you also need destroyers (and planes) to defend against enemy aircraft.
What I tend to see the Ai do, is basically once the allied navy sticks its neck out too far (if it isn’t strong enough) the German planes will just suicide attack them. It’s easy enough to “out-defense” the Italian navy, and just box them in, but it requires a lot more of a surface fleet to fend off Germany’s air force. My point is essentially that submarines can “out-offense” the Italian fleet, but they don’t do anything about the latter problem, of German air power.
Like, I appreciate the validity of the math you’re putting forward, but to me the problem is that if my job (as the allies) is to kill 288 IPCs of submarines…? Guess what, I still have to use destroyers (and planes) because the game literally doesn’t let me use any other units to do that job – including other subs!
A game I talk about a lot on these forums (East & West) has a similar problem, whereby the submarine tech that makes it so subs can’t be attacked by planes is actually a tech nobody wants – because everyone more or less wants to use subs as cheap fodder, so that transports (which aren’t picked last, in E&W) and other units can be spared.
So, as I’ve said up-thread, destroyers are hogging up too much of the design space:
So the only thing cruisers have over destroyers is that they can do shore bombards – but a cruiser costs more than a fighter that you could throw into the same amphibious assault for multiple rounds of combat, whereas a cruiser only fires once.
Another thing E&W did was have it so that units hit by shore bombardment actually do not fire back, which makes this ability much more useful. It also makes this mechanic functionally the same as submarine or AA gun hits; I think unifying these outlier mechanics for combat is indicative of good design, personally.
My immediate hunch is that, in order to make cruisers useful, you’d need to start by (probably) making shore bombardment be insta-kills – particularly if you’re still (for some reason) limiting the number of shots to the number of units being landed. The other thing that jumps off the page to me is that there’s no way a cruiser should cost more than a fighter.
FWIW, I also think the reason that in Classic you have carriers at A1/D3 and transports at A0/D1 (and not chosen last) is precisely because there isn’t a destroyer unit. So that version does a better job of spreading the design space around, to have those other ships fulfill the role that destroyers play; even letting subs get hit by planes is useful, if your goal is to preserve transports (as mentioned with the E&W example). It allows subs to be cheap fodder, while still packing an offensive punch; transports can do the former, but not the latter, so you still need a good mix.
Edit: (to add)
I can see a case for limiting shore bombardments in the Pacific, where nearly every land battle is going to be an amphibious battle. Again, I feel certain mechanics lend themselves to one theatre and not the other (naval and air bases for example, seem fairly shoe-horned into the Europe map.) It might be the case that each theatre only really needs one “middleweight” surface ship and not two. From a realism perspective, sure you’d want both – but from a mechanical and gameplay perspective? The unit balance is clearly busted.
@The-Janus said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
because the game literally doesn’t let me use any other units to do that job – including other subs!
Hi Janus
While true Subs can’t attack Subs on their own, they can if attacking with a DD. Also, if there is no defending DD present, Subs attacking with a DD get their First Strike Shot and the defending Subs don’t.
You can use them as fodder still as well. You just need to keep 1 DD with them.
About Europe 1940:
I do think you’re right that submarines don’t have much to do on the Allied side. But that’s historically accurate. Despite the clear competency Allied submarines had in the Pacific, there was just not much for them to do in the European Theater of Operations historically (one of the reasons we don’t hear of their escapades all that much) relative to other units. Personally I prefer historical accuracy even if it renders some units utterly unbuyable (like almost any naval unit for the USSR).
As you correctly pointed out, cruisers are not powerful enough to justify their purchase while destroyers are quite powerful. I don’t understand your complaint about destroyers “taking away” the fodder role from submarines. Maybe that’s the case in Europe, but destroyers historically were the fodder units for surface fleets (at least out of the ones that are in the game, obviously torpedo boats, frigates, etc. are the true fodder units). In the Pacific sumbarines are effective as fodder.
I think battleships and cruisers can stay as they are, as I quite like the reasoning in here that cruisers* and battleships are purposely unbuyable to reflect them growing obsolete during the war. I do think to be historically accurate there should be a mechanism to reflect ships under construction being finished, maybe a one-time discount for a set number of battleships and cruisers, like allowing the US to buy one battleship on turn 7 for 17 IPCs to reflect the Iowas finishing construction, and one cruiser for 10 IPCs to reflect the later Baltimores finishing construction (both representing the fact that part of the “cost” of the ships was already paid for before the game started). We can do a similar thing for Japan, the UK, etc.
Anyhow, I no longer think we should lower the price of cruisers for historical accuracy. For example, a Fletcher class destroyer, which the game uses to represent American destroyers, allegedly cost 6 million USD while the heavy cruiser Portland, used to represent American cruisers, allegedly cost 10 million USD, so cruisers being about 150% of a destroyer’s cost works well.
Thanks for helping me think through my views on cruisers.
*I used to think cruisers didn’t become obsolete until later, but after some further thought I realized they were fast becoming obsolete during and after World War 2. As I wrote in the discussion I linked, the three original uses of cruisers when they were first created were superseded by aircraft and submarines during and after the war. While I still think they served an important role as destroyer squadron commanders, I now imagine those commanding light cruisers are “embedded” within the destroyer unit as each piece represetns a fully independent formation. Heavy cruiser squardons were not much better than battleship squardons, which was why most powers gave up gun armed cruisers soon after the war (and as destroyers have been getting bigger and bigger, all cruisers are rapidly aging and are being succeeded by large destroyers).
Is an allied harbor in Norway as strong as I think it is?
This enables US forces to effectively be 2 turns away from Norway/Denmark/Western Germany – which feels huge.
Marching guys from Norway to Leningrad is a bit of a slog, but honestly the ability to land units in Denmark and put pressure on Germany that way, might be even more helpful to the USSR in the long run.
Also, does anyone do the more conventional “Classic” shuck-shuck, i.e. routing US forces through eastern Canada and then to the UK? IME it seems like “east US to Gibraltar” is always the way to go (although admittedly the Ai is probably putting way less pressure on London than an experienced Germany player might.)
I had mentioned it upthread, but bombing harbors to disrupt the allied naval supply lines might be one of the more underrated use-cases of tactical bombers; I don’t think I’ve seen the Ai ever try it, FWIW.
Hi Janus
In case you are interested, Roger is going to mod East vs West for triplea
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/4059/a-new-year-and-a-new-mod/17?_=1737940118197
@barnee said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
Hi Janus
In case you are interested, Roger is going to mod East vs West for triplea
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/4059/a-new-year-and-a-new-mod/17?_=1737940118197
“East & West, a variant published in 2025” – might want to inform Roger that it’s a little older than that 😂
:)
In my opinion, I think a naval base in Norway is only really worth it if the Allies commit into moving forces in that direction (i.e no large amphibious war in the Mediterranean).
Regarding tactical bombers:
While Norway is definitely a good target from Germans ones if the Allies build a naval base there, I actually don’t see many places where tactical bombers would be effective:
Axis Europe:
London: Situational, but its naval base is less used than I’d expect (the base the US mainly uses as a jumping-off point is mainly Gibraltar).
Gibraltar: Very useful, but unless you invade Spain it’s hard for tactical bombers to hit there. The Axis need to control Algeria, Morocco, or have a carrier.
Egypt: I don’t find the naval base there used much after the first few turns (though if you eschew Taranto and preserve the British fleet it’ll probably see more use). Still, I find it easier to temporarily disable the Suez Canal by going after Trans-Jordan. Similar to Gibraltar though, it’s often out of the way for the Axis to have tactical bombers hit there. Unless you’re having an ongoing offensive campaign in sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East or furiously trading North Africa, there’s not much else for a tactical bomber in Tobruk, Syria, Ethiopia or Iraq to do.
The Gibraltar issue actually covers most of the other useful targets:
Eastern and Western United States, Queensland, Hawaii, Western Germany, Southern Italy, Tokyo, Caroline Islands, and the Philippines.
In each case, particularly in the Pacific, tactical bombers don’t have long enough range to attack from land bases, so you’ll need carriers to operate within striking range from the enemy. If you can afford that, your opponent either has no navy (or a very badly misplaced one) or is so weak you can probably just conquer the territory instead.
Normandy Bordeaux’s naval base, much like London, is situational, but I concede that it could be a good target.
Malaya and Calcutta are both easy to attack from land bases and should be exploited by either side. Also French Indochina if the Japanese opt to build one there.
Bottom line is that owing to their range limitations, I find that tactical bombers just aren’t that effective at bombing enemy bases. They’re probably better off cooperating with fighters to support 2-3 move naval unit attacks or 1-2 move land unit attacks (an added bonus is that such attacks also usually eliminate a significant threat to the tactical bomber’s landing area).
Now, strategic bombers (or even better, the Rockets technology) don’t have this range problem and should be used to attack naval bases when appropriate. I’ve seen the Rocket technology be used quite effectively by Japan, Germany, and the US. Their many air bases allow rockets to strike many of the useful naval bases I outlined above.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
Egypt: I don’t find the naval base there used much after the first few turns (though if you eschew Taranto and preserve the British fleet it’ll probably see more use). Still, I find it easier to temporarily disable the Suez Canal by going after Trans-Jordan. Similar to Gibraltar though, it’s often out of the way for the Axis to have tactical bombers hit there. Unless you’re having an ongoing offensive campaign in sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East or furiously trading North Africa, there’s not much else for a tactical bomber in Tobruk, Syria, Ethiopia or Iraq to do.
I find the harbor in Egypt to be pretty handy, if you’re planning to transport a steady flow of 2 units at a time from South Africa; TBH with the strategies I use as the British, controlling the port is more important than controlling the actual canal, most of the time.
In each case, particularly in the Pacific, tactical bombers don’t have long enough range to attack from land bases
I think this is the crux of it, and strategic bombers can do the same job better/easier. I guess it’s more the tactic of bombing harbors that I think is underappreciated, rather than it being a thing that makes tactical bombers underappreciated as a unit… if that makes sense.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:
In my opinion, I think a naval base in Norway is only really worth it if the Allies commit into moving forces in that direction (i.e no large amphibious war in the Mediterranean).
I think the Norway harbor provides access to more “soft targets” – which I would say is kind of the thinking behind the shuck-shuck in Classic A&A. From Gibraltar, it can be hard to crack either Southern France or Normandy-Bordeaux, most of the time; putting guys in Norway or Denmark should be a lot easier, by comparison.
Extending the “floating bridge” out to Greece can be very effective (and fun, IMO) but it’s also a big investment in time and money, since I feel like you need solid fleets on both sides of Gibraltar, in addition to one at Greece – plus, needing a harbor in Greece, too. The Norway supply line seems simpler, particularly since you only need really strong defensive fleets at Norway; the fleet off the west of Gibraltar is usually out of range of Axis planes, so as long as enemy subs are accounted for, you’re good.
Agreed.
