I don’t think a DOW should be up to dice either. A direct attack against UK or ANZAC forces should open the door. An attack on Sumatra, Celebes or Java that isn’t under UK or ANZAC control shouldn’t allow a US DOW. Keep the turn 3 collect income DOW if Japan hasn’t attacked the US already.
Because the United States of America needs the approval of its people to declare war. Further, its people were thoroughly disgusted with war after The Great World War and resisted the idea of America entering another war. Thus, it took an act of aggression so agregious that the American people would set aside their pacificistic hopes and desires and agree to enter the war with full abandon.
Historically, this was accomplished by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and other minor Japanese incursions on American war materials and territories. Without those incursions, America may (or may not) have stayed out of the war until too late.
Requiring a die roll for America to enter the war symbolizes the politicians of America’s need to keep their constituents happy by entering or staying out of the war. Obviously, the American people immediately demand vengeance if America is attacked, as they did after Pearl Harbor (greatest mistake in Japanese history) but the sniping of islands in the Pacific was never enough to justify America’s entrance in the war.
It seems logical, on paper, that on Round 3, collect income phase, and each subsequent round thereof until America is in the war that the player of the United States of America throws one die. If the die throw is two or less, the United States collects their war time National Objectives and may declare war on any nation thereafter. The target number is increased by 1 for each of the following events:
America is automatically in the war if any American warship, plane, ground unit or territory is attacked.
Too many rules for it then Jen. It adds complexity, it may be more accurate, but too complex for the game.
Too many rules for it then Jen. It adds complexity, it may be more accurate, but too complex for the game.
Uh, have you SEEN how many rules there are now? Sure, if we were talking classic, I would so agree! Maybe revised (but even then, with the popularity of enhanced revised, I’d be on the fence) but now? Nah.
It seems like a lot, but not really when you think of it.
Any Russian city taken +1 to enter the war
Any Dutch territory taken +1 to enter the war
Any American territory or unit destroyed/taken, automatic entrance into the war.
Any allied capitol taken, +1 to enter the war
That’s not really a lot to keep in mind. Hardly on the level of trying to track every possible flight path and trajectory for every naval and airship that can possibly reach every sea zone or land territory to ensure you have enough defense to survive an attack, especially in the Pacific.
I disagree that adding more rules to a game with enough rules already is going to make it better.
I also don’t think Japan taking an unoccupied Dutch territory would have done much to public opinion. If the Japanese had attacked the UK directly unprovoked, it would have.
Great thread! I got on to search for Axis strategies because all my games (15+) of Alpha 2 Global essentially followed the KJF strategy so I was looking for high level strats to counter. I had only come up with one successful Axis strat which I summarize below, but it would be nice to be able to use a variety of strats that can be successful with an earlier DOW by the Axis.
After reading the thread I really like the idea of putting US NO’s in Europe, in particular the N. Afr/Gib NO for 5 instead of Mexico. Replacing another 5 for the Continental US with something in Europe would help as well. Adding transport capacity to Japan would also help so they can grab the DEI quickly and have enough IPCs to go toe to toe with the US, but if I had to vote for only one it would be for putting US NO’s in Europe.
The only successful Axis strat I’ve developed so far is to delay US entry for as long as possible (i.e. let them declare war and end of turn 3), and to use that time to:
a) wipe out China
b) set up convoys of all the UK (pac and europe/africa - don’t bother with Canada since US can wipe them out to easily) and Anzac
c) grab and secure Gibraltar
d) set up Italy as the can opener on the Russian front for Germany and
e) have a huge Japanese transport fleet (8-9) loaded for a star burst attack across the pacific on turn 4.
This strat worked the last couple games for Axis victories. One time UK/Anzac attacked Japan turn 2, the second game they waited until Japan declared war, but both time it worked for the Axis. It has downsides (UK-Pac and Anzac get pretty big while you wait, and I did have some very good rolling in battles where I only had a minor numerical advantage in the pacific), but by the time the US got in on turn 4 they basically had to put some resources into Europe because the situation was desperate for the UK.
Also lets not forget that this game can be played by more than 2 people. I know a lot of us prefer no allies, but some people want 6-7 players. In that case, who would want to be the US? If lucky you can fight after round 5 or 6 or whatever? If you draw US you might as well go home and come back in a few hours. Call me when you attack pearl!
I like having the US come into the war at a defined time, and not too late because this gives the US player something to do. I think this is not the place to search for balance.
The Axis won both games this weekend that brings the score to 3 to 2, both were the ALPHA+2 rules and set up.
London was never able to get liberated and after 3 or 4 rounds of being held by the fascist’s. The USA was still trying to deal with the Germ fleet unsuccessfully , and the push was on Russia for 2 rounds. Japan was pushing into Russia, China, and the Islands. It was just a matter of time before Russia fell and Germ was staying strong in the UK. so we reset
The second game was a fake sea lion, then an all out operation BARBAROSSA. Japan went for Pearl harbor, the Phill., the Aleutian Islands and Hong Kong on J2. I also had a minor IC on J2 and another Minor on J4 the first Minor IC went in Manch. the other went on Kiangsu . My opening purchase was 2 SS and 2 Troop Trans.
I was Japan in both games
They were both very good games the dice were pretty even in both. The first seemed like there were lots of mistakes, the second I think we all learned from the first.
More in a week or so…… I should take at least one weekend off in 3 months
The Axis won one and the Allies won one It’s a GREAT game!
Well my next match is going to be with me as Allies and I am going to try this 100% pacific strategy. I was wondering what will be best for the UK to do to assist in this strategy. Is it to blow its load early trying to stymie Italy, or escape with as much material as possible to fight in the South Pacific?
<snip>I was wondering what will be best for the UK to do to assist in this strategy. </snip>
Basically - avoid being invaded successfully :D
And then harass Germany/support Russia IMO.
<snip>I was wondering what will be best for the UK to do to assist in this strategy. </snip>
Basically - avoid being invaded successfully :D
And then harass Germany/support Russia IMO.
Indeed. UK needs to survive.
Also, spare a few subs as USA to help the UK out in the Atlantic. (call it the 95% Pacific Strat ;) )
Does the Axis know if you are going to go all-Pacific? If not, place your USA purchases in a way this is not all too clear at first. For example: aircrafts in E-USA, ground troops in Central USA (up to 1 turn before you want to leave) and naval units in W-USA. Being on each ends of the board makes it easy to over-see the amount of units that will gather then next turn.
Greetings,
I’m new to posting on the boards but I have an idea about the USA. It could be done in a somewhat historical fashion.
1. All US forces are frozen at starting positions except West Coast. The US can build in the PAcific and move only between US west coast and Europe board freely (don’t remember SZ numbers for shortest route). If the US moves forces from West Coast to Hawaii Those forces are now frozen (remember the US fleet was moved to Pearl as a warning to Japan or something like that).
2. US DOW triggers:
A. Japan DOW on UK/ANZAC
B. Japan takes all of China.
C. Japan attacks USA.
D. USA combat move turn 4. Note no NO’s on T3.
3. Japan loses FIC NO after taking 3 China territories (Jap agression in Asia causes US embargo).
4. If Japan DOW USA before turn 4, conduct a special sneak attack turn. ALL US forces outside of the WEST Coast defend at a 1.
This would actually encourage Japan to actually attack the US before T4. It somewhat forces them to if they are agressive in Chian (loss of NO).
And it also give Japan the ability to do a Pearl Harbor.
FYI: We play this game with 5-6 people in a club and it is a whole different game vs 1 on 1. We use Alpha +2. As of now we have had more victories as Axis than Allies, but overall think it is somewhat balanced depending on players.
@Cmdr:
In exchange, maybe move the Med fleet to India. There should be no significant British pressence in the Med at the start of the game…puh-lease, if there should be a carrier there, give me a link showing me what HMS carrier was in the Med in 1940, otherwise, it’s a “crappy” placement, IMHO.
I’m sorry, I know this is so many pages back, and I apologise if someone already answered this, but um, Taranto? British Aircraft from HMS Illustrious bombed the Italian Fleet at anchor in its main base in Taranto in 1940. The British Mediterranean Fleet was actually quite large, having several battleships and actually more than one aircraft carrier, as HMS Glorious and the older carrier HMS Eagle were also there. What did you think the planes that attacked Taranto were launched from destroyers?
@Lord:
@Cmdr:
In exchange, maybe move the Med fleet to India. There should be no significant British pressence in the Med at the start of the game…puh-lease, if there should be a carrier there, give me a link showing me what HMS carrier was in the Med in 1940, otherwise, it’s a “crappy” placement, IMHO.
I’m sorry, I know this is so many pages back, and I apologise if someone already answered this, but um, Taranto? British Aircraft from HMS Illustrious bombed the Italian Fleet at anchor in its main base in Taranto in 1940. The British Mediterranean Fleet was actually quite large, having several battleships and actually more than one aircraft carrier, as HMS Glorious and the older carrier HMS Eagle were also there. What did you think the planes that attacked Taranto were launched from destroyers?
The Mediterranean was a traditional focus of British maritime power. Out-numbered by the forces of Regia Marina, the British plan was to hold the three decisive strategic points of Gibraltar, Malta, and the Suez Canal. By holding these points, the Mediterranean Fleet held open vital supply routes. Malta was the lynch-pin of the whole system. It provided a needed stop for Allied convoys and a base from which to attack the Axis supply routes.
Note: Regia Marina was the Italian Navy. Thus, it is said, the Italian navy had MORE ships than the British navy in the Med in 1940. So while there may have been a carrier present in the Med with which to launch an airial attack, the Italians had more ships than the British with which to absorb said attack. This is not represented on the game board.
The warships of the Royal Navy (Regia Marina) had a general reputation as well-designed. Italian small attack craft lived up to expectations and were responsible for many brave and successful actions in the Mediterranean.
So essentially, if we are to leave the British fleet in the Med, perhaps to be more historically accurate we should add more Italian destroyers. Thus the Italian fleet would “out-number” the British AND would be more representative of their “well-designed” and “brave” reputations?
More than 60 U-boats were sent to disrupt shipping in the sea, though many were already attacked at the Strait of Gibraltar controlled by Britain (of which nine were sunk while attempting passage and ten more were damaged).
Perhaps Germany should have a few U-Boats in the Med too? If we are going for realism.
Okay, so it’s probably a bit ridiculous to just add 2 Italian destroyers and 1 or 2 German U-boats, it would unbalance the game, I think. Unless it was rebalanced.
If you want it to be more realistic, then move the British fleet from SZ 98 to SZ 96, they were there to protect Malta, not Egypt. Add 2 destroyers and a cruiser to the Italian fleet in SZ 97, but remove the Battleship. Italy out numbered the British, but they were “well known” for their “highly effective small warships”. Further, add 1 or 2 German U-Boats in SZ 92 to represent the German campaign in the Med.
The state of the Malta defences was poor, verging on non-existent. This stemmed from a pre-war conclusion that the island was indefensible and should not be defended.
Given that information, remove the British infantry from Malta to represent the “poor” defenses. However, since it was the “lynch pin” in the Med (providing a way station between Egypt and Gibraltar) it is plausible to think there should be more aircraft present, so add a fighter. (Note, this fighter is more intended to counter the increased Naval units of Italy which has traded 1 battleship in for 2 destroyers and a cruiser. Italy + 7 punch - 4 Punch = 3 Punch, England + 3 Punch, it’s a wash with combat values, but Italy gets an added hit which should make the Italian fleet a bit more survivable.)
Above the single line, quotes are my thoughts, unquoted text comes from internet searches. Below the single line quoted text comes form internet searches.
@Cmdr:
The Mediterranean was a traditional focus of British maritime power. Out-numbered by the forces of Regia Marina, the British plan was to hold the three decisive strategic points of Gibraltar, Malta, and the Suez Canal. By holding these points, the Mediterranean Fleet held open vital supply routes. Malta was the lynch-pin of the whole system. It provided a needed stop for Allied convoys and a base from which to attack the Axis supply routes.
Indeed, Malta was extremely important, and every effort was made to sustain it.
Note: Regia Marina was the Italian Navy. Thus, it is said, the Italian navy had MORE ships than the British navy in the Med in 1940. So while there may have been a carrier present in the Med with which to launch an airial attack, the Italians had more ships than the British with which to absorb said attack. This is not represented on the game board.
The Italian Navy had six battleships in the Med in 1940, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham had 5, HMS Malaya, HMS Barham, HMS Valiant, HMS Warspite and HMS Ramillies, as well as the Battlercruiser HMS Renown, and the carriers HMS Glorious, HMS Illustrious, and HMS Eagle. The Italian fleet was clearly outmatched entirely. In fact, it failed miserably in just about every major fleet action, even where it outnumbered the British.
The warships of the Royal Navy (Regia Marina) had a general reputation as well-designed. Italian small attack craft lived up to expectations and were responsible for many brave and successful actions in the Mediterranean.
Such as? The Trieste was sunk with one shell from HMS Barham in literally seconds. As was the Fiume at Cape Matapan. The only “successful action” I can think of was the attack by Italian Frogmen on HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant at Alexandria.
So essentially, if we are to leave the British fleet in the Med, perhaps to be more historically accurate we should add more Italian destroyers. Thus the Italian fleet would “out-number” the British AND would be more representative of their “well-designed” and “brave” reputations?
I can agree with this.
More than 60 U-boats were sent to disrupt shipping in the sea, though many were already attacked at the Strait of Gibraltar controlled by Britain (of which nine were sunk while attempting passage and ten more were damaged).
Perhaps Germany should have a few U-Boats in the Med too? If we are going for realism.
This I can agree with as well, though it was not until September, 1941 that the first U-Boat, U-371, entered the Med.
Okay, so it’s probably a bit ridiculous to just add 2 Italian destroyers and 1 or 2 German U-boats, it would unbalance the game, I think. Unless it was rebalanced.
If you want it to be more realistic, then move the British fleet from SZ 98 to SZ 96, they were there to protect Malta, not Egypt. Add 2 destroyers and a cruiser to the Italian fleet in SZ 97, but remove the Battleship. Italy out numbered the British, but they were “well known” for their “highly effective small warships”. Further, add 1 or 2 German U-Boats in SZ 92 to represent the German campaign in the Med.
The British Fleet was not there to protect Malta, it could not. The German and Italian aircraft based in Sicily would chew it up. The main British Fleet in the Med was confined to the Eastern Med, to protect Egypt, as well as Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Cyprus and to give encouragement to Turkey and Greece. The British would conduct raids in the central Med but they could not stay there long because of the close proximity of Axis aircraft. As for the dispositions you mentioned, I quite like that idea.
The state of the Malta defences was poor, verging on non-existent. This stemmed from a pre-war conclusion that the island was indefensible and should not be defended.
Given that information, remove the British infantry from Malta to represent the “poor” defenses. However, since it was the “lynch pin” in the Med (providing a way station between Egypt and Gibraltar) it is plausible to think there should be more aircraft present, so add a fighter. (Note, this fighter is more intended to counter the increased Naval units of Italy which has traded 1 battleship in for 2 destroyers and a cruiser. Italy + 7 punch - 4 Punch = 3 Punch, England + 3 Punch, it’s a wash with combat values, but Italy gets an added hit which should make the Italian fleet a bit more survivable.)
Above the single line, quotes are my thoughts, unquoted text comes from internet searches. Below the single line quoted text comes form internet searches.
I quite like your ideas. I might adopt them as House Rules, I’d only throw one German sub in though, Germany has enough subs in the Atlantic to begin with, and I’d keep the British Fleet in the Eastern Med, covering Egypt and the Middle-East.
Claremorris:
Yes, I believe I mentioned the flaw in the Italian armor on their cruisers. The ship you mentioned was a cruiser, hence, it died to one shell hit (allegedly, I claim no ownership on your statement).
However, it is clear by a google search (German Warships Med) that the sole purpose of the British fleet in the Med was to protect Malta and the shipping lanes from Gibraltar to Egypt (of which, Malta was the lynch pin). So I have to disagree with your disagreements until such time as you give me some references to support your claim. As I said, use the search parameters above and you’ll get the same information I did to make these statements.
As for whether or not the British fleet “could” protect Malta, I have no comment. I can only say they were sent there specifically to protect Malta, despite their ability or inability to do so.
As for German submarines, perhaps just moving a submarine from the Atlantic to the Med might be a solution? Perhaps one of the submarines that can hit SZ 106 but not SZ 91, that way you might give England the boost they need to win against a G3 Sea Lion as well (unless England does not build with the intention to stop Sea Lion.)
Two birds, one stone?
@Cmdr Jennifter,
I just played a game where my opponent went all in after Japan first with the first 5 or 6 turns of US spending. I lost the game though I was able to sack Moscow with Germany. The problem was Italy got beat in Africa because I never built the Baltic fleet as I choose the Romanian complext G1. Since my opponent knew I was not going to Sea Lion he sank half of the Italian Navy UK1 and built troops to fight in Africa from UK1.
Japan and America did Naval dances in the Pacifc and I eventually ran away from him to try and help out in Cairo but it was too late as at the point America could spend 100% of its points in the Atlantic.
The highlight for me was the Romanian Complex helped me blast Moscow to the ground even though he had over 70 units sitting in Moscow when the final battle took place.
So I got beat like you said would happen :( I am not sure I played as good as I could of but does appear that attacking Japan first as the Allies is a good way too go. I was probably too focused on getting Victory cities and not focused enough on winning the economic advantage. Though I would also argue that stomping Italy to the ground is also a good way to good for the Allies :)
I believe that is the fundamental flaw, Frank. Japan can zig and zag to avoid losing their fleet, but eventually, they will lose their income and be forced to pull back. Germany can either go after Russia or England, but in either event, they cannot get enough Victory Cities to win before America comes in to help, or so it has been my experience thus far.
I think Frank has also learned why the Romanian IC is bad. It telegraphs your moves so that UK knows it doesn’t have to worry about a sealion and can hit Italy hard.
You might have been okay Frank if you had bought fleet G1 and perhaps pushed your offensive on Russia back a turn.
