It saves a bunch of time when grabbing islands, too. From NSW, you can only really reach Java and the Carolines. From Queensland, you can cause trouble all around.
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
Oh, I want to balance things out, I’m just saying that the British attack in N. Africa is balanced by the ease of Sea Lion.
Besides, I want to get away from new units, if we have to add units to the game (and I don’t think we do) they should be in Libya so they are safe from England, but they don’t hurt England more. England’s already the biggest wuss on the board, yes more than France, I’ve seen the French do some nice things to Germany, they’re just out of position.
-
I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and the thing that no one has explored in depth (unless I missed it) is that Jen’s entire argument rests on Germany always doing Sealion. My question is why. What happens if Germany threatens Sealion, then only goes through with it if UK doesn’t adequately defend itself? If UK does build up a defense, then Germany goes for Moscow instead. Either way, Germany has more resources to use against the Soviets, and UK has less resources to immediately use against the Axis. Can the US realistically ignore Europe in favor of Japan under those circumstances?
-
Krieg:
I assume Sea Lion because it is the best option for Germany given an all out attack on Japan.
Why?
1) If you do not do Sea Lion, you have given the allies +20 IPC (minimum) a round for an extra 6 round (assuming Sea Lion generally works on round 3 and we are assuming America enters on round 9 in any AVERAGE game.)
2) By the time you subdue Russia, England is way too powerful to subjugate. Germany would need transports AND units to hit England, by then, England better have 20 or 30 units on it + naval pressence and Africa. Meaning, Germany needs 40 to 50 units + 20-25 transports to have a realistic chance and that’s just a lot of transports to have, even for the Transport Queen here.
- You could do it in layers, but by then, eh, I don’t see it.
Will you get Moscow? Sure. But Moscow is not really the target, the target is to get 8 Victory Cities. Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Warsaw, Paris, Berlin, Rome right? Or exchange London for Leningrad. (I can see British units holding Leningrad and London easily. Even with 20 or 30 guys on London since Germany cannot afford both a navy and an army simultaniously.)
Add a Jap tank dash? Eh, I still don’t see it. All you’ll do is sap the strength of the Japanese faster, the Russian hammer and anvil will grind your assault into a crawl and the Americans will secure the South Pacific, then Marines (to be defined as naval and army units for use in the Atlantic, as opposed to just the pure navy you need in the Pacific) to help and create a D-Day scenario.
-
Don’t forget Montreal…
-
Well, Geist, if you are taking Montreal, you may as well take London, it’s an easier target.
NEEDING London is more a matter of convenience. Since it is virtually assured that London will fall if you attack it early enough, and there is a National Objective there for you, one that is very hard to take away, and if you wait too long London becomes impossible to take, it seems virtually assinine not to make the attempt in most games. Sure, in the off game where your buttocks are returned to you on a silver platter in your battles in SZ 111 and SZ 113, perhaps it is not feasible, but we’re supposed to be looking at the big picture.
Generally speaking here’s the easiest way for Germany / Italy to win:
- Rome - Italy starting
- Berlin - Germany starting
- Paris - Germany round 1
- Warsaw - Germany starting
- Cairo - Italy by round 3
- London - Germany by round 3
- Novgorod - Germany via Europe/Baltic
- Vologorod - Italy via Middle East
It was never claimed this was the ONLY way, it is the EASIEST way and the way, I suspect, it will happen in most games, with the off game of “fools mate” where a German transport snipes Toronto and America has nothing to liberate it with before the end of France’s turn. Also, it may be routine to see Muskva exchanged for either Volgorod or Novgorod to achieve victory depending on the Russian military lay out.
However, none of these are theoretically plausible before rounds 11 or 12 at the very earliest and 14 or 15 at the most likely. Meanwhile, the American bottling of Japan is assumed to have been completed by rounds 8 or 9 giving America 2 or 3 rounds at the shortest, 5 or 6 rounds at the most likely to liberate a victory city or two and thus, even if Russia falls entirely, the Axis are denied victory. By then, Australian forces (building at least 3 destroyers a round with at least 3 fighters, probably 4 fighters for assistance) can keep the Japanese fleet from having an open run at the allied fleet indefinitently.
-
I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and the thing that no one has explored in depth (unless I missed it) is that Jen’s entire argument rests on Germany always doing Sealion. My question is why. What happens if Germany threatens Sealion, then only goes through with it if UK doesn’t adequately defend itself? If UK does build up a defense, then Germany goes for Moscow instead. Either way, Germany has more resources to use against the Soviets, and UK has less resources to immediately use against the Axis. Can the US realistically ignore Europe in favor of Japan under those circumstances?
Kreig, glad your following. Yes, Jen is right, Sealion IS the best option and unfortunely (unless the sea battles around England go really bad) Germany can take it every time.
By the way- does anyone know the current odds in Sealion??? In Alpha1 it was 88% victory- In Alpha2 I think its like 77% or something- lower but still high. If Larry wanted to change it- just add 2inf to London- something I suggested ages ago.
However, Sealion odds are not the problem, since Allies have the advantage in A2. The problem lies with the US-
1.) They need more incentive to commit forces to Europe. If US goes all out to sack Japan…and yes Russia CAN hold its own (I’ve played the game enough into middle rounds to see this) even with Sealion…then Axis are done for. If played correctly, barring really bad luck- Allies win consistently. This of course is not good.
2.)US still make too much money. They become beastly by round 8+. I guess they should but the Axis need long-term help to give them a fighting chance.
Kreig I’ve even thought about ALL of the following changes- extreme as they may be because of Jen observations and my own. If people follow the strategy (100%Pacific for US for the first 6 rounds) and play Russia correctly more will see. However you have to play deep into rounds like (round 10+) to actually see the effects.
Add 4inf, 1art on Tokyo
Add 2inf, 2art on Rome
Add 3inf, 1art on Berlin
Replace Mexican NO with $5 US NO that states that the Allies (US at war) must control Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Gibraltar at the same time. -
Don’t forget,
I’ve played India where they build up 20-30 infantry, abandon India and send all the material with planes to help defend Russia -giving US even more time to go for Axis after sacking Japan.
-
@Cmdr:
I assume Sea Lion because it is the best option for Germany given an all out attack on Japan.
Why is an all-out attack on Japan a given? If the European Axis puts enough pressure on the Allies, will the US be able to do an all-out attack on Japan? Are you just assuming that the Axis can’t do this without Sealion, or have you actually tried it?
My experience is that a good Sealion feint by Germany (along with the destruction of most of the UK’s home fleet) will put the UK on its heels long enough for Germany to take out the USSR if the US doesn’t help in Europe. If the UK doesn’t respond to the threat by turtling, go ahead and take out England on the cheap; otherwise head for Moscow.
Italy has to do its part as well, keeping UK tied up in the Mediterranean. I keep hearing that Italy is done for after the first round because UK destroys half its fleet. That hasn’t been my experience, either. Moving a couple of German fighters to Southern Italy makes UK pay a steep price for the destruction of that fleet, and Italy can hold its own after that.
You say that Sealion is the best way for the Axis to win, but you also say the Axis can’t win. Have you even tried it my way? How about everyone else? Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?
-
@Cmdr:
I assume Sea Lion because it is the best option for Germany given an all out attack on Japan.
Why is an all-out attack on Japan a given? If the European Axis puts enough pressure on the Allies, will the US be able to do an all-out attack on Japan? Are you just assuming that the Axis can’t do this without Sealion, or have you actually tried it?
My experience is that a good Sealion feint by Germany (along with the destruction of most of the UK’s home fleet) will put the UK on its heels long enough for Germany to take out the USSR if the US doesn’t help in Europe. If the UK doesn’t respond to the threat by turtling, go ahead and take out England on the cheap; otherwise head for Moscow.
Italy has to do its part as well, keeping UK tied up in the Mediterranean. I keep hearing that Italy is done for after the first round because UK destroys half its fleet. That hasn’t been my experience, either. Moving a couple of German fighters to Southern Italy makes UK pay a steep price for the destruction of that fleet, and Italy can hold its own after that.
You say that Sealion is the best way for the Axis to win, but you also say the Axis can’t win. Have you even tried it my way? How about everyone else? Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?
I believe Jenn’s argument is based not on what Germany does (Sealion or no, but Sealion gives Germany the quickest income boost), but on what the US is able to do. If the US fully commits to the Pacific, Russia & the UK can hold Germany back long enough for Japan to be neutered and the US to be able to go to the Atlantic with overwhelming income, even when ignoring them for 6 rounds.
The advocates of this theory want to see National Objectives for the US that pursuade them to put money into the Atlantic. They believe there is very little incentive to fight there if they can completely obliterate Japan (I have no opinion on this, this is only what I’ve read here).
-
In most of our games USA Is forced to build on both sides of the map due to the fact that Germany and Italy will gain too much steam and together they can fend off the USA if they don’t build on that side of the board. Left alone Italy should be making close to 60 a turn and same with Germany. The one two punch with these countries is very devastating.
-
Correct, KCD. Krieg’s arguement is that if Germany goes all into Russia that America will be forced to invest in the Atlantic. I disagree and I do so because it has been my experience that not hitting England and taking it out early means that England is now in a superior position to reinforce Russia and thus, prevent Germany from even pushing them back to Volgorod and Novgorod like they could have if they had taken out England.
BTW, I prefer to move my Indians through China and into Russia that way with about 8 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 armor and then send double that into the middle east. With Japan pushed back and British forces in China, China should quickly grow in strength to prevent a Japanese incursion from happening again. (Assumes the fighter was not lost.) And with England coming in through SE Asia, that means more Russians can be diverted to Moscow so you have British forces moving into Vologrod from India and British forces landing in Novgorod by way of Scandinavia and Russia turtleing the hell out of itself.
Yes, Russia loses the 5 IPC NO for no allied units on red territories (originally red territories) but if you work it right (and why wouldn’t you?) Russia should have 3 IPC for Norway and 3 IPC NO for Norway to counter balance that.
-
Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?
Moscow, in our games.
-
I want to see a Krieg vs Jen game :)
-
I don’t see Muskva as viable, for the given reasons:
1) England can take the Middle East with India
2) England can hold Africa with London
3) England can reinforce Russia with London (exchange for N. Africa)
4) Russia can turtle hard
5) German supply trains are really long
6) Germany has to reinforce the west while fighting in the eastEssentially, it’s the same problem that destroyed Hitler. Germany (all things being equal) shouldn’t be able to take out Russia before England goes. Not with players of equable skill and dice not biased for one side or the other.
-
For myself i do it like Krieg. I just freak U.K long enough for me to attack Russia with a massive force. I mean, if U.K d’ont protect London after seeing transports in range and all the planes then ok go for sealion. I Understand the fact that sealion is very a good option for Germany. But if U.K put all the possible defense in there and buy some good stuff then the battle is not won. As U.S.A i always go in both theaters. If Londonc fall its not game over but if Moscow fall then i call it a game over.
But im for a + 2 inf on Londonc or a canadian fighter who can land on U.K 1 in London. Cause i know that if U.K doesnt put all he can in London with a german player who wants London then it fall.
-
Put it all in London on R1. When Germany doesn’t buy transports on R2, then buy fighters on R2. If Germany doesn’t buy transports on R3, buy units for Africa and naval assets in Canada on R3. By Round 4 or 5, it’s too late for Germany.
-
I believe Jenn’s argument is based not on what Germany does (Sealion or no, but Sealion gives Germany the quickest income boost), but on what the US is able to do. If the US fully commits to the Pacific, Russia & the UK can hold Germany back long enough for Japan to be neutered and the US to be able to go to the Atlantic with overwhelming income, even when ignoring them for 6 rounds.
I understand the basis of the argument. It’s been well-documented here. However, I’m seeing only one other person that agrees with it, while several others disagree. What I’m not seeing is explanations of why people disagree with it. I see lots of posts of things like “that’s not my experience”, but few of them give specifics as to why. Explanations from anyone who disagrees would be helpful.
@Cmdr:
I don’t see Muskva as viable, for the given reasons:
- England can take the Middle East with India
- England can hold Africa with London
- England can reinforce Russia with London (exchange for N. Africa)
- Russia can turtle hard
- German supply trains are really long
- Germany has to reinforce the west while fighting in the east
Essentially, it’s the same problem that destroyed Hitler. Germany (all things being equal) shouldn’t be able to take out Russia before England goes. Not with players of equable skill and dice not biased for one side or the other.
Is Germany destroying England’s home fleet? What are Italy and Japan doing while UK is running rampant in Africa and the Middle East? If India is moving significant forces west, Japan should be able to take it and the DEI easily. I’m not seeing UK having this kind of power in my games.
Also, what is Germany buying and sending against the Soviets? Sealion can be effectively threatened without buying a single transport, and the Luftwaffe can keep London at arm’s length for a few rounds after that, allowing Germany to buy quite a few land units in the next several rounds after the first.
-
Is Germany destroying England’s home fleet?
What are Italy and Japan doing while UK is running rampant in Africa and the Middle East?
If India is moving significant forces west, Japan should be able to take it and the DEI easily. I’m not seeing UK having this kind of power in my games.
Also, what is Germany buying and sending against the Soviets?
Sealion can be effectively threatened without buying a single transport, and the Luftwaffe can keep London at arm’s length for a few rounds after that, allowing Germany to buy quite a few land units in the next several rounds after the first.
1.) Yes
2.) Pushing forward toward China and India
3.) India doesn’t move west right away- maybe around round 5-6. By that time US (if going 100% Pacific) has built a massive stack in the South Pacific, threatening a counter attack on DEI, launch on Tokyo itself, solidly defending ANZAC and Honolulu. India moves toward Russia when and if necessary- if Japan take the bait, the US makes them pay- very simple. Your not seeing it because nobody has the balls to try the 100% Pacific approach- don’t knock til you try. Granted you must play Russia wisely with efficient buys and such.
4.) Germany buys what they always buy- a combo of inf and art/tanks maybe a plane or two over a few rounds- in other words- efficient buys that max the most punch possible.
5.) If you go Barby, then England makes cash, you lose a VC you need- doesn’t matter if you hold them for a few rounds AND you will NOT get Africa- you make it easier for the US by round 9-10.
-
The full pacific monty is what I routinely pull now. It’s just a matter of when I switch out.
A variant: Minor Complex in Brazil, 2 infantry, fighter a round into Central Africa. No word yet on the viability of that, but as it’s only a large initial outlay and only really 6 or 7 IPC a round (occassional 10 for a fighter) it isn’t going to have a large impact on a nation producting 82 IPC a round or more.
Anyway yes, India moves en masse into the Middle East starting on round 5 or 6 once America has unified with Australia and established a large foot hold in the Pacific. This allows India to focus on self defense primarily, sail the BB/CA out to join the American fleet and then move into the Middle East denying 5 IPC for Caucasus, 2 IPC for Iraq, 2 IPC for C. Persia and 2 IPC for N. Persia to Italy. (Not including actual land mass value being denied.)
Also, I like putting a complex in C. Persia for England by this point, assuming England has been liberated (and by round 12, I don’t see why it isn’t.)
As for “putzing around Africa all this time” what’s putzing? You hit Ethiopia, Tobruk and SZ 97 round 1. It’ll be 3 or 4 rounds before Italy’s recovered from that, unless the dice go badly. And that’s just recovered, that’s not really moving forward as they would be if you had left it. What did you invest? a couple aircraft the rest was already trapped there.
From there, it’s a matter of securing London (if you are not doing Sea Lion, this just gives me a bunch of guys to ferry later once I have my fleet up).
And yes, I assume SZ 111, SZ 91 and SZ 106 were hit with no losses to Germany in this plan.
-
The allies attack on tobruk round 1 is a little ridiculous. The Italian navy is in no position to attack the British fleet based off malta and going for cairo leaves rome/northern italy exposed and will be a temporary gain at best. In my game all of tobruk was killed with only 2 british inf deaths. Also, I tried a direct push for moscow from south and it was impossible. I had built a major in romania and it still wasn’t enough. How does one win at barbarossa in alpha 2?
Suggested Topics
