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.
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.
The carrier/2 tran build makes England nervous and does give Germany the utility to reinforce Scandinavia. I’m not a super fan of it yet, but I see merit in it.
@Cmdr:
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?
From wiki;
"Malta, as part of the British Empire from 1814, was a shipping station and was the headquarters for the Mediterranean Fleet until the mid-1930s. Due to the perceived threat of air-attack from the Italian mainland, the fleet was moved to Alexandria, Egypt shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. This decision contributed to the continuing ability of the Fleet to sustainably fight against the Axis forces.
There weren’t any warships in Valetta harbour, only submarines used Malta. As for the sea lanes, the Royal Navy failed to keep them open, only at great risk and great loss did Churchill send a few convoys direct through the Med. Otherwise traffic to Egypt was redirected around the Cape. So Malta was important, but its defence was not the most important, and much less the sole purpose of the Royal Navy’s presence in the Med.
As for the German subs, I’d be up to try that. Though that would mean one less sub to throw at the British ships around the UK on G1.
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.
You might be right about that but I wanted to give the Romanian Factory a try for myself. I was amazed at how much it allowed me to just own Russia. That being said it was too much for Italy to overcome after losing half their Navy and then have the UK building troops in the SA complex all on UK1. The Baltic Fleet would have changed all that.
I am starting to think the game might still favor the Allies a bit. Not saying it is anything like OBB but there are some hard Allied warplans to beat. I have seen stomp Italy first be very effective while the US then bounces back over to Japan to make sure they can’t win the game. At that point the Axis are playing with 2 strong countries but 1 next to broken one. At that point it is hard to win the game on either side of the board victory city wise. I have also seen reel in Japan first work really well as also.
That being said I may have been playing with too much of a focus on winning victory cities and not the economic advantage. Maybe it would be better to focus on economics first and victory cities second.
I think it favors the allies a lot! There are two nearly completely broken allied strategies thus far:
Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans
Pacific Domination
@Cmdr:
Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans
?? Explain please
@Zallomallo:
@Cmdr:
Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans
?? Explain please
9 or 10 Strategic Bombers hitting Germany, W. Germany each round capping damage as they go.
As you gain more territories against the Axis and have landing zones.
Couldn’t they just buy fighters or something
Yes, but America would also send fighters, so Germany ends up losing fighters in the intercepts and taking damage to the complexes.
Where do fighter escorts stage for a bomb run on Germany? Carriers off Denmark?
Where do fighter escorts stage for a bomb run on Germany? Carriers off Denmark?
One could stage fighters on carriers for this, but it seems more common to have them on Norway. Make Norway Russian controlled, reinforce the heck out of it with American aircraft and British ground units and set up your SBR runs from there.
If I lose Norway as Germany, the writing is on the wall for me.
If I lose Norway as Germany, the writing is on the wall for me.
It’s pretty rare I see Norway survive if Germany does not go Sea Lion.
This American all-pacific strategy sorta requires that A&A40 Europe be broken, doesn’t it? This requires that Moscow be absolutely impenetrable in the standalone game……it is not. This strat is testable by playing each game standalone.
This entire strategy requires Moscow to somehow hold out. Nevermind the Pacific, play Europe alone with no American involvement for 8 turns. The strategy has nothing to do with the Pacific whatsoever, does it? It is really a balance question about Europe, specifically the viability of Barbarossa.
If I take UK with Sealion on G3 or G4, I’m going to take Leningrad and Stalingrad both before G8, guaranteed, with no American involvement. Game over.
Additionally, all the talk of tossing away 3 DD a round to stop American advance by sea is sorta ridiculous when you taken into account noncombat movement, isn’t it? I kill the Jap DD with air units, then advance in NCM anyway with my entire fleet. They can block movement of the main fleet for a single round, not round after round losing 24 IPC per round, or whatever number you conjured up to account for losses of DD that nobody actually ever does. If I want my American fleet in SJ6, I’ll have it there in at most two rounds assuming they’re stationed in Hawaii.
You spend WAY too much time crafting theory, and WAY too little time implementing them. You have almost no concrete examples of how games have played out for you, it’s just all talk of how things might go, or may go. Tell me how this strategy works against a good Axis player.
Additionally, as the Japan player, I’m going to grab the DEI for the 20, and Malaya since you’ve got India sending units towards the middle east. I’ll take Phillipines denying you that NO, so your 75 is now only 70. I can easily grab two islands, so you’re now at 65. Guess what I’m at…yes, also 65. Your strat demands that you outpace my fleet 900 to 500…well, we’re at general parity right now, so I’d like to see your resolution. ANZAC isn’t building fleet because I’m threatening from my Naval base at…well pick one, Phillipines most likely.
Also, America has to ferry most of their builds from the East coast since the West is limited to 3 units per round until your build on A3. I just don’t see you stopping my economic gains flat cold to be able to get such a huge lead on fleet size.
Best you can hope for is pressuring Japan from grabbing the final VC, while simultaneously (because I don’t think Europe is broken) pushing for Rome, Egypt, or Paris since my Germany will take Moscow.
Well first off I think it is a poor move for the allies to have Calcutta produce and defend the Middle East. They should be at most sending 1 inf 1 arm and perhaps an art and that should be enough to capture Iraq. (2 inf added in Persia) Calcutta’s primary concern after sending that token force west is to capture and hold SE Asia, adding Siam and FIC to their coffers. Also Calcutta is need to take China’s ass outta the fire and save the day in Asia.
In the All Pacfic American build they don’t deal with the land war, that’s China/Calcutta and perhaps Russias job. USA takes the islands, controls the seas and perhaps builds an IC in Philippines or Celebres. If done right I see Japan at most having 6 rounds of fun in the pacific before their options are so limited its flee the pacific or die.
Shadow,
You make one bad assumption in your arguments. You assume OOB rules, since there are no Alpha 2 Global Rules for Europe only. (otherwise, it would be Alpha 2 Europe, no?). OOB Europe probably isn’t “broken” but then, America cannot go 100% against Japan in Europe because Japan does not exist in Europe.
Alpha 2, a wise Russia, will not fall before Round 13 or 14. A moderate Russia will not fall before Round 10 and only the worst Russian players will fall before Round 10 since it pretty much means you have to build nothing but tanks and planes and leave no blitz blockers to achieve that!
Sure, Germany COULD ignore England and go all in on Russia and maybe if they did that, they could get Muskva before Round 10. The problem there is, Russia still achieved it’s goal, it prevented Germany from getting a Victory City win before Round 10 AND, America can more readily reinforce England than it can Russia! So Muskva falling before London is probably a major boon to the allies! Maybe more than probably, perhaps almost certainly!
Now, first, you are not getting London on Germany 3. I won’t let it. You would have to get almost perfect dice on Germany 1 to even have a slightly better than average chance at it. So let’s assume round 4, eh? By then, Russia’s going to be at war with you (invading you this round) so you are either tied up with all your units in transport range and very weak against Russia, or with not enough units for the amphibious but enough to keep Russia out. But let’s assume you run into someone who builds in Canada or Africa with England and thus cannot readily stop Sea Lion.
You say you will have Stalingrad AND Leningrad AND London? I highly doubt it. How? I mean, before round 12 or 13 at which time you have lost London. There’s no way you are punching through a 50 infantry, 20 artillery, 15 armor army to get anything major in the Russian territories. Perhaps you will get S. Ukraine OR Novgorod, but I doubt you’ll have Volgorod and Novgorod at any point in the game.
Pacific Side: Japan won’t be getting the DEI. I’ll have enough fleet positioned to sink the Japanese one if it moves away from the Philippines and with a combined navy of at least 750 if not 1000 IPCs (not including air power) the Japanese fleet won’t be attacking me. England should be giving me: 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, 2 Destroyers, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Fighters, 2 Transports; Australia should have at least 1 transport, 3 fighters, 1 cruiser, 4 or 5 destroyers and half a dozen submarines to augment the Americans with (airbase for their fighters for added defense.)
At best, Japan will have 40 IPC by round 6, 35 IPC by round 8 and 20 IPC by round 10 - or so it has been achieved in quite a few games now.
As for England in the Middle East, please keep in mind they go there AFTER China is secure. Once Japan is investing 100% into the ocean to stop themselves from having 0 income (after Convoy raids) China and some units from India and Russia should easily liberate territories and keep the Japanese contained in Manchuria/Korea (where they can be convoyed to death.) It is then, and only then, England is heavily invested in the Middle East…and we’re talking about round 8, which is about when Italy is getting there as well.
Overall:
England takes Sumatra, Java, E. Persia, C. Persia, NW. Persia
Australia takes Dutch New Guinea
America takes Formosa, Okinawa, Celebes, Iwo Jima, Mariannas, Pauline, Hainan (latter three if needed to stop an all out air blitz by Japan if the dice are early, else, no point in them they are not worth anything.)
Russia, pulling back, can easily smash whatever Japan sends into Yakut/Yenisey and then push a few infantry back into the far east.
China, pulling the fighter back to Burma to be saved by England if it becomes necessary, should easily get a few dozen infantry and at least a dozen artillery to hold Japanese forces in Manchuria.
From there, it’s all a matter of keeping Germany from getting either London or Moscow depending of in they went Barbarossa or Sea Lion. That’s so easy it isn’t even funny! Germany needs 3 infantry for every 1 defending infantry. That means 20 IPC defense equates to 60 IPC offense needed to win. Worse, Defense is added immediately, offense has to move there. That takes time and money. Time and money that are fast running out for the Axis as America, with 100 IPC a round, is coming to bear on the Atlantic, clearing it, taking Brazil, landing troops below the Sahara, taking Gibraltar, massing an invasion of London from Gibraltar/Canada/Iceland, preparing to drop troops in Norway, France, Italy….
OOB was more scewed towards the allies than A+2, so quite the contrary, I’m seeing a more powerful Germany than before. According to your premise, you’re saying A+2 Europe is so impossible for Germany/Italy to win that America can abandon Europe and go total Pacific, and your conclusion was OOB was EASIER to facilitate this than A+2. Interesting.
Now, I will take DEI with Japan, every single game. It’s up to you as the allies to take them back. I will take Phillipines. I will take either Sydney or Calcutta. The fourth VC is the breaking point where I may or may not fail - accumulated dice rolls from the entire game up until then will decide where Japan’s fate goes from there. I always take DEI and 3 VC. You can go all out America for A1, A2, A3, but those rounds are only at 52 and most builds are introduced in the East because of the minor industrial rule. On A4 you’re only collecting 70 since I’ll have Phillipines - this build can get you close to fleet parity but that’s ok since I’ll be done building transports and troops. On A5 you’ll be collecting 65 since I’ll have 5/7 Islands. You’re clearly not building transports to reclaim islands or territories since you’re just building fleet. On that very round, I’ll be collecting at a parity. (26 original, 5+ China, 20 DEI, 5/7, Malaya, Phillipines, Hong Kong). Coincidentally, that round I’m crushing at Sydney to win, and most of your new fleet is at Western or Hawaii. I can outright beat you in IPCs on J5 and continue the trend in J6+. Now against you, I’ll assume I don’t have that window and will need to stockpile my TRN and Troops better for a round or two, but baiting you seems like a good tactic as fleets fair well in defense. You’re too obsessed with SZ6, I’d exploit that. Additionally, Nothing juicier than an ANZAC who tries to build a fleet on turns one and two when they have only a token inf force defending. If I see that, then I’m taking Sydney, Hong Kong, Phillipines, and 2/4 DEI on J4, and I’d love to see you concentrate on SZ6 them, since I’d just walk on int to Honolulu.
Sigh…yeah, it looks like you got it all figured out then.
Within the 50 odd pages of this thread, the 100% US Pacific strat is spelled out, at least how to build a huge american fleet that the Japanese cannot ignore. One powerful enough to take whichever sz’s it wants. In all my games of Alpha 2, I have yet to take Calcutta or Sydney as Japan, and that’s with all types of US builds other than 100% Pacific. You must truly be a master if you can pull all these Jap moves off with a strong Allied player across from you. With such bold statements like ‘I take DEI, Philipines, and my pick of Sydney and Calcutta’ you had better explain those moves so that we are all up to speed with your uber-strategy.
Would also like to add that I am not sold on the crushing strength of the US 100% pacific build just yet.
