@amp12 What were you doing with these Allied countries in Europe at the same time? Just curious.
Help against the allies
-
Buy 60% tanks, 35% infantry, and 5% artillery, and head your a** to moscow,
Better…at first buy 90% inf, 5% art, maybe 1 plane and 1 tank per turn. When you are ready, switch to half tanks/half inf. Eventually, you may want all or mostly tanks, or all or mostly planes, as the situation requires. When you are ready, a good inf/tank ratio should be somewhere between 3:1 to 2:1.
Axis should go after Africa (as well as Aussie/NZ/Mad) but the main goal is always Moscow. Getting the colonies increases Axis income and decreases British income, and is a big part of winning the game. Tank dash to Moscow is not the only way to win and can be countered–the less dicey way for the Axis to win is by building a bigger economy.
-
Buy 60% tanks, 35% infantry, and 5% artillery, and head your a** to moscow,
Better…at first buy 90% inf, 5% art, maybe 1 plane and 1 tank per turn. When you are ready, switch to half tanks/half inf. Eventually, you may want all or mostly tanks, or all or mostly planes, as the situation requires. When you are ready, a good inf/tank ratio should be somewhere between 3:1 to 2:1.
Axis should go after Africa (as well as Aussie/NZ/Mad) but the main goal is always Moscow. Getting the colonies increases Axis income and decreases British income, and is a big part of winning the game. Tank dash to Moscow is not the only way to win and can be countered–the less dicey way for the Axis to win is by building a bigger economy.
The problem with heavy tank buys early in the game for Germany is that they run out of inf as they get closer to Moscow allowing the Russians to counter with huge inf stacks and destroying your expensive tank divisions for relatively little which lessens your IPC advantage. this can cost Germany the war, at the very least a two turn setback. I have found that this doesn’t become evident until rd 2 or 3, but buy then it is too late. Its any easy mistake that many axis players make, if your lucky Russia makes this mistake first.
-
my friend likes to buy a lot of subs as the allies because of the new sub rules, but i dont know how to equal him in naval strength as the axis. help?
My advice….don’t buy navy with either Axis. The only time to buy any navy (besides transports) for Japan is when you are trying to defend the sz around Japan. For Germany, don’t buy navy. Instead, buy planes and attack their fleets (or don’t attack their fleets, either way they have to spend on useless carriers and destroyers to defend themselves against the THREAT of you attacking via air). If you buy subs, you are essentally committing to attacking the Allies once they are in range (or they will kill your subs the next turn). With planes, you can attack at a time of your choosing.
It should be interesting to see whether it becomes more cost-efficient for the Germans to buy tons of air to ward off enemy fleets or buy tons of infantry to hold the territories. The latter strategy, more common in Revised, will still work well, but the former may have a lot of promise too.
As Germany, I think sub purchases are important. I use the subs in concert with the airforce to hold off Allied invasions. Using the subs as fodder, you can keep the allies at bay without having to lose a single aircraft in a naval battle. I do not buy any naval units other than subs as they are usually easy prey for Allied aircraft.
For land units, I buy mostly infantry for the first few rounds to stabilize the eastern front and secure capitals. Once I’ve stabilized my lines, I start buying more tanks to put pressure on the Soviets.
-
WIth all the respect to the good strategic thought found here, I think you are not answering the original concern of the founder of the thread. Surely there are different strategies in terms of what needs or can be done in the sea. But my experience so far tells me there are three crucial strategic issues related to the sea. 1. How to delay Allies landing in Europe 2. Who controls Africa. 3. How to confront a swift demolishon of Japan with the tons of US subs.
I am not sure but my guess is the founder of the thread wanted to discuss the option 3 – he was referring to the subs. And subs are not a weapon to be used against Germany.
In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.
-
In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.
With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker. -
In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.
With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker.As long as there’s a DD you can take those subs as casualties though.
-
In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.
With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker.As long as there’s a DD you can take those subs as casualties though.
In the case above the presence of US destroyers doesn’t allow the US player to take US submarines as casualties from the Japanese planes. The manual states:
“When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle” -
In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.
With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker.As long as there’s a DD you can take those subs as casualties though.
In the case above the presence of US destroyers doesn’t allow the US player to take US submarines as casualties from the Japanese planes. The manual states:
“When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle”In what way does that mean they can’t? The defending airplanes are friendly to the defending subs. As long is there is also a friendly destroyer there than it’s all good.
-
Because the friendly airplanes aren’t going to be scoring hits on friendly subs. :wink: You need a Japanese destroyer for the attacking Japanese planes to score hits on the defending US subs, which are still useless regardless because if Japan is attacking with only planes, the US subs still can’t hit the planes even though there’s a US destroyer. So you’re both right and wrong. :-P
-
Because the friendly airplanes aren’t going to be scoring hits on friendly subs. :wink: You need a Japanese destroyer for the attacking Japanese planes to score hits on the defending US subs, which are still useless regardless because if Japan is attacking with only planes, the US subs still can’t hit the planes even though there’s a US destroyer. So you’re both right and wrong. :-P
I’m going to use a different approach, as I understand where he’s coming from better now. I should’ve said, "but the attackers aren’t assigning the hits, it’s the defenders that are chosing the casualties. If the fight is say, a cruiser, a destroyer and two subs, and 5 planes, the planes are going to roll all at once, he scores 3 hits, he doesn’t assign what the defenders are going to lose, the defender is the one chosing the casualties, in every fight, so he can chose to lose subs without returns and another boat. No?
-
Because the friendly airplanes aren’t going to be scoring hits on friendly subs. :wink: You need a Japanese destroyer for the attacking Japanese planes to score hits on the defending US subs, which are still useless regardless because if Japan is attacking with only planes, the US subs still can’t hit the planes even though there’s a US destroyer. So you’re both right and wrong. :-P
I’m going to use a different approach, as I understand where he’s coming from better now. I should’ve said, "but the attackers aren’t assigning the hits, it’s the defenders that are chosing the casualties. If the fight is say, a cruiser, a destroyer and two subs, and 5 planes, the planes are going to roll all at once, he scores 3 hits, he doesn’t assign what the defenders are going to lose, the defender is the one chosing the casualties, in every fight, so he can chose to lose subs without returns and another boat. No?
No. Since the attacker hasn’t brought a DD along any hits scored by the planes can only be assigned to surface warships. Since he got 3 hits but there’s only 2 units that can be hit (the cruiser and the DD) the 3rd hit will be wasted.
It is the defender who assigns the hits but the rules state that a defending sub can only be hit by planes if there’s an attacking destroyer. If there isn’t a DD the defending player can’t assign those hits to the subs. -
Because the friendly airplanes aren’t going to be scoring hits on friendly subs. :wink: You need a Japanese destroyer for the attacking Japanese planes to score hits on the defending US subs, which are still useless regardless because if Japan is attacking with only planes, the US subs still can’t hit the planes even though there’s a US destroyer. So you’re both right and wrong. :-P
I’m going to use a different approach, as I understand where he’s coming from better now. I should’ve said, "but the attackers aren’t assigning the hits, it’s the defenders that are chosing the casualties. If the fight is say, a cruiser, a destroyer and two subs, and 5 planes, the planes are going to roll all at once, he scores 3 hits, he doesn’t assign what the defenders are going to lose, the defender is the one chosing the casualties, in every fight, so he can chose to lose subs without returns and another boat. No?
No. Since the attacker hasn’t brought a DD along any hits scored by the planes can only be assigned to surface warships. Since he got 3 hits but there’s only 2 units that can be hit (the cruiser and the DD) the 3rd hit will be wasted.
It is the defender who assigns the hits but the rules state that a defending sub can only be hit by planes if there’s an attacking destroyer. If there isn’t a DD the defending player can’t assign those hits to the subs.But it says attacking or DEFENDING. What do you think they mean by defending (and it’s specifcally referring to airplanes)? It’s the only thing it can mean. With a destroyer, taking subs as casualities is the only defensive advantage possible.
Here’s another thing, if you think it only works on D if the attacker has a DD and plane (friendly to the area) would you think it applies if the defender had a sub, DD,AC with a plane on it in the same sea zone? Could they then take a sub as casualty?
-
P. 29 under Destroyer - “…if a destroyer is along the battle strip, it cancels the Submersible, Surprise Strike, and Cannot Be Hit By Air Units unit characteristics of all ENEMY submarines in that battle.” Doesn’t say it cancels out friendly submarines’ abilities in those areas…
P. 30 under Submarine - “When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is FRIENDLY to the air units in the battle.”
While I can see where one could construe that it means that the presence of a destroyer allows hits to be assigned to friendly or enemy submarines, I don’t believe that this is the intent of the sentence. “Air units” in this context means either attacking air units with a DD friendly, or defending air units with a DD friendly.
Example: US Carrier, 2 planes, cruiser, and sub attacks Japanese carrier, 2 planes, DD, and sub. While DEFENDING, both Japanese planes hit. Because of the presence of the Japanese DD, the American sub can be taken as a casualty. That is an example of an air unit DEFENDING with the presence of a FRIENDLY DD. If the American planes hit, the hits must be assigned to surface ships because there is no FRIENDLY DD.
Let me use my teacher English and parse the rule: “When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units (that are attacking or being attacked) cannot be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is FRIENDLY to the air units (that scored hits) in the battle.” We are talking about hits scored by air units in this sentence. When referred back to later in the sentence for the friendly DD exception, the air units referred to are the same air units at the beginning of the sentence that scored hits.
The rule must mean enemy subs. If I read the rule the way it is written, a hit scored by an air unit is assigned by the power that receives it. So if I am the American player in the above example with both Japanese planes hitting, I assign two hits. Because of the Japanese destroyer friendly to the Japanese planes that hit, hits can be assigned by the American player to the American submarine. The Japanese would not assign those hits to their own submarine. Conversely, if the American planes hit, the Japanese player cannot assign air unit hits to their sub because there is not a destroyer friendly to the American planes doing the hitting.
Thinking of it in a practical sense, how could the presence of say, an American destroyer allow Luftwaffe units to see American submarines under the water and sink them? That would be highly treasonous if the Americans were helping the Germans kill US subs. What is clear to me is that if you are attacking subs with planes, you cannot hit them without a friendly destroyer to sight them in for you.P. 30 under Submarine - “When attacking or defending, submarines cannot hit air units.” Pretty black and white to me.
-
We’re not talking about P30. Under no circumstances can subs return on planes. We know that. But planes can hit subs, so since defenders always chose there own casualties it makes sense to me. The way the ruling is worded makes it sound like you guys are right but it doesn’t make sense. In certain circumstances it makes having a destroyer as part of your attack force, a disadvantage. It also leads to more broken game play like Russia sinking the Baltic german trans and DD turn one or, if you want to hit a sub, you buy an 8 IPC DD. If you want a sub to be taken as a casualty, you need to buy a destroyer, a carrier and a plane (32 IPCs).
As far as practicality goes, defenders in war don’t have the luxury of chosing what to lose anyway.
-
Another thing, about that scenario, the US is not defending, they are attacking. Just because they are removing casualties doesn’t mean they are the defenders.
-
Well, well, it is all very interesting and maybe someone who designed the rules can give the final answer, though I think Derek77 eloquent explanation is correct.
But I believe no one has answered the original question. What Japan is going to do if the US comes after her with floods of subs (and of course a limited number of other ships too). So far I have found that if the allies manage to push Japan back for about 3 rounds on the land, it can be really crippled very quickly. It happened to me, I did it once and I cannot see a proper counter strategy yet since the subs are so effecient attacking tool in Spring42.
-
Well, well, it is all very interesting and maybe someone who designed the rules can give the final answer, though I think Derek77 eloquent explanation is correct.
But I believe no one has answered the original question. What Japan is going to do if the US comes after her with floods of subs (and of course a limited number of other ships too). So far I have found that if the allies manage to push Japan back for about 3 rounds on the land, it can be really crippled very quickly. It happened to me, I did it once and I cannot see a proper counter strategy yet since the subs are so effecient attacking tool in Spring42.
Japan is all about getting inf on the mainland, as many and as fast as possible. Always keep your navy together. By round two, it should be consolidated and should establish a shuck between Japan and French Indo. Don’t deviate! By the time the US gets there with enough subs to threaten them you should have control of the land and Germany should be in good shape too if US is spending so much.
-
I agree with Col.Stauffenberg on how to respond to a US sub flood. Just make sure your transports are escorted by your massive starting navy, and add a destroyer or two to let your airforce help defend against those subs. Either the US player will give up and have to do something else to get at you, or they’ll just keep wasting extra IPCs trying to break through.
-
We’re not talking about P30. Under no circumstances can subs return on planes. We know that. But planes can hit subs, so since defenders always chose there own casualties it makes sense to me. The way the ruling is worded makes it sound like you guys are right but it doesn’t make sense. In certain circumstances it makes having a destroyer as part of your attack force, a disadvantage. It also leads to more broken game play like Russia sinking the Baltic german trans and DD turn one or, if you want to hit a sub, you buy an 8 IPC DD. If you want a sub to be taken as a casualty, you need to buy a destroyer, a carrier and a plane (32 IPCs).
As far as practicality goes, defenders in war don’t have the luxury of chosing what to lose anyway.
It does lead to G’s Baltic navy being nothing more than ducks in the water (but the same was true to Revised unless you bought at least 1 carrier) but if Russia wants to use (and risk them, since the fighter on Russia has to land on Karelia) its planes that way, that’s the players’ decision to make.
On the other hand not being able to hit subs unless you bring a destroyer really works both ways: the german subs are protected from allied planes during the 1st round and the same happens to allied subs on the Pacific.This change in the rules (along with the defenseless transports) really changes the dynamic of naval battles. And yes, sometimes it is best not to bring a attacking destroyer so that any hits scored by the attacking planes can only be assigned to costly defending surface warships/planes instead of 6 IPC submarines.
Above all, this can lead to new opportunities when attacking. Fleets are not just the sum of their attacking/defending points and number of hits: you need to pay attention to the mix of units and their capabilities (or be ready for some surprises).
-
Hopefully I’ll be playing my friend on Friday. We’ll try it this way and see how it works.
Suggested Topics
