True, threatening Sealion is strong German play, but as Young Grasshopper himself has said, many British players do not fear it much these days, so you might as well hit Russia hard, right from the start, and get the killing blow(in my strategic opinion).
Thanks and God Bless You All from AxisandAlliesGeneral
My Allied Strategy for UK & US
-
lol that’s funny. Japan was hard the first time I played because you have so much to do, but I now I see almost exactly how to play every round and counter every move. Nothing japan can do if US goes all out, but europe board should be looking pretty nice in that case. What seems to be the problem when you play Japan? I can stall US out with Japan from holding phillipines for at least 9 turns if not longer. By then Russia should have been taken and Germany should be a juggernaught.
If you playout my blue print, you will see that my entire American strategy is focused on protecting or retaking the Phillipenes as early as turn 4.
-
Grasshopper, I was wondering if you’ve ever heard of/tried the “fortress DIE” strat? In short it has the ANZAC grabbing one of the DEI islands, usually Java (I think), on their first turn and then building an airbase on it on their second turn. The idea, as near as I can tell, is to then have the UK Indian forces land more troops and the US fly airforces there to try and keep the Japanese tied up in the DEI longer and keep them from geting the NO associated with it. Do you think an idea like this would work well with your over all blue print put forward here?
We actually tried this in one game. I don’t remember all the details but we had mixture of ANZAC and UK airforce on Java with inf and the Air base.The navy was a mix of UK and ANZAC in the seazone with the US in striking distance. I remember it being taken out fairly easy by the Japanese but what it did accomplish was a heavy distraction for Japan. They were constantly out of position and were soon taken out. Could of been the skill of the player and never seeing that before that led to the demise but it was an interesting way to go.
Grasshopper, I totally agree with your American Navy strategy I love to use it as a hunter/killer force seems to work great. My question for you is how does this strategy pan out for you if Germany has a successful sealion? My problem with the Pacific navy build is every time i do it sealion is always successful and i have to run and save the UK. I guess i just have bad luck.
-
Majikforce, to answer your question, I have only recently tried this idea in the past 2 games that I have played the allies and both those games, we were using the latest Alpha+3 ruleset. Seeing as there has been no sealion attempts since we started playing Alpha+3, it is difficult to present a senerio where my American strategy is concerned. Although I have only tried my strategy twice, it was incredibly successfull against Japan in terms of keeping them away from Calcutta, and sinking their entire fleet before it can do any damage in the Pacific. I have been developing the strategy for some time now as I always thought that there could be something more productive for America to do during peace time other than just stacking in Hawaii. Obviously, if there was a ligitemate threat to England, my blue print would be comprimised, however, a Russian advance by Germany would allow the Calcutta factory to support Russia, which is the goal of the American plan.
-
Let me give you my numbers for japan in my current game. UK attacked japan so I was able to keep america out of the war until turn 5. I just purchased for japan round 5. Here is my fleet numbers. I have 20 aircraft so I will keep these out. This is only a tally of my fleet I also have 6 transports. 15 subs, 6 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 2 battleships, and 4 carriers. With your American buys I don’t see you taking and hold the phillipines for a long time.
-
Let me give you my numbers for japan in my current game. UK attacked japan so I was able to keep america out of the war until turn 5. I just purchased for japan round 5. Here is my fleet numbers. I have 20 aircraft so I will keep these out. This is only a tally of my fleet I also have 6 transports. 15 subs, 6 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 2 battleships, and 4 carriers. With your American buys I don’t see you taking and hold the phillipines for a long time.
I’m sorry, but this post is ridiculous on many different levels. For one, how can Japan keep America out of the war for 5 rounds?
-
By turn 5 you will have 40 units comprised of air and see. Japan will have 49. The units you buy in western can’t do much of anything so if we subtract that it is even less units. Still don’t see you taking and holding phillipines for a long time. since if I see a possible take and hold of phillipines coming my 10 subs I buy in sea zone 6 and possibly 2 more in sea zone 19 if I can afford it would mean that I could counter with far more than you can bring because you would have had 2 less buys than me since it is 3 turns from western US to phillipines. While as only 1 from sea zone 6.
-
I mean by this I didn’t even attack america on turn 4. So they couldn’t actually attack any territory until their turn 5. They did collect 77 at end of turn 4, but since they aren’t able to declare war till after their combat phase 5 turns…
-
I’m sorry, but you need to read the rule book (cover to cover). I can’t spend any more time on this.
-
sorry you are correct T4 america attacks.
-
Have I been playing this wrong all along? US can attack on turn4? sorry for the missunderstanding grasshopper I really don’t know.
If you read the political situations in your rulebook, it says that the United states may declare war at the end of turn 3, if you private message me your e mail address I will send you a easy to read global rule set including Alpha+2.
-
LOL i’ll shut up now :)
-
LOL i’ll shut up now :)
Don’t stop posting, this is a complex game and it requires constant learning, just read the book and you will find out lots of stuff, don’t rely on your opponent to state the rules, and use the questions thread on this forum.
-
I’m just good at strategy. All the new rules of this game are still a little fuzzy lol.
-
I’m just good at strategy. All the new rules of this game are still a little fuzzy lol.
The American political situation in this case is from the original rules, but I understand how confusing it can be with all the changes.
-
See, I knew something had to be off. Fair enough of a mistake though, happens to the best of us. I also think that you are under-estimating the power of a defensive India, I dont think 3 ground units a turn for 3 turns will be enough on their own, as I dont know where you’ll be concentrating them before hand to attack India in time.
I really like this Java idea. If the US has a fleet off the coast of Queensland, then as the ANZAC, I really dont see any need to keep my navy there, and I could keep them all off the coast of Java. I think I could get around 6 UK and ANZAC infantry there before turn 3 with 3 ANZAC fighters and an air base there by then as well. if the US could move their destroyer from the Philippines there, and possible land their air force there as well, then so much the better. Japan could probably still take it, but it would take a greater concentration of their fleet and naval air power (as I dont think their land based stuff could reach) and they would suffer heavier losses as well. Then, the US forces off of Queensland could counter attack this weakened fleet and finish it off. I think this could work well with your blueprint Grasshopper
-
See, I knew something had to be off. Fair enough of a mistake though, happens to the best of us. I also think that you are under-estimating the power of a defensive India, I dont think 3 ground units a turn for 3 turns will be enough on their own, as I dont know where you’ll be concentrating them before hand to attack India in time.
I really like this Java idea. If the US has a fleet off the coast of Queensland, then as the ANZAC, I really dont see any need to keep my navy there, and I could keep them all off the coast of Java. I think I could get around 6 UK and ANZAC infantry there before turn 3 with 3 ANZAC fighters and an air base there by then as well. if the US could move their destroyer from the Philippines there, and possible land their air force there as well, then so much the better. Japan could probably still take it, but it would take a greater concentration of their fleet and naval air power (as I dont think their land based stuff could reach) and they would suffer heavier losses as well. Then, the US forces off of Queensland could counter attack this weakened fleet and finish it off. I think this could work well with your blueprint Grasshopper
I like your creativity, but I don’t share your obsession with Java. I’m all for ANZAC landing there turn 1 and grabbing extra cash because that same transport need to swing around to new guini so they can claim their NO, but an ANZAC air base is not nessasary. The American destroyer and sub will need to consolidate with the Hawaiian force off the coast of Queensland, in order to build strength and size before the other ships can get there. The air base that ANZAC should be using is the one in the Phillipenes, and all efforts should come together in that single cause. Imagine, the Americans and ANZAC control the Phillipenes with a formidable force, Japan is cut off from moving freely up and down the coast, and the US get an extra $5 NO every turn. Forget Java, America and ANZAC should be all in for the Phillipenes location, income, and facilities.
-
I can see what you’re saying about the focus on the Phillippines, going for the jugular and all, im just doubtful that you could attack and hold it early on. I could see the Japanese improvising a counter-attack, as aircraft based in Japan can reach the seazone around the Phillippines, as well as any aircraft based around the south of China, the latter without the need for an airbase. Java is further away and harder for Japan to reinforce. If you could force the Japanese to commit a large amount of its resources here, you can destroy them with out having to worry about an immediate counter-attack and force Japan into a reactionary defensive game, throwing any offensive operations against India off the balance and out the window. I know I shouldnt worry about the loss of the ships off the phillippines, the whole point is to force Japan to attack and lose pieces to maxamize the US’s economic edge. This might just be me being over-cautious and thinking of this from the commonwealth point of view as thats what I usually play (Britian, ANZAC, France, and China the “hold the line” group as I call them). However, I think a more methodic approach could work just as well with your blueprint. Imagine how much more potent your plan would be if you didnt lose the first wave of American naval power, and all your subsequent naval unit built upon this.
-
Clyde, Grasshopper has it right. Every expert would agree you want to maximize IPC lost vs gained. SO if you are going to hold a southern island put an airbase there and planes you are going to loose A LOT more IPC’s than Japan is going to in taking it out. Granted japan won’t be able to get their NO bonus or attack other Islands, but taking out that many IP’Cs is way more worth it. Killing UK India men and planes will make it even easier to take out india later on because what can india counter attack with when all her fighters are dead? The allies have the economic edge if anything were to be said about playing methodically it would 100% be with the allies. Play methodically NEVER get in a big battle unless youare favored to win. In poker you don’t call an all in with 27 just because you have 10 times as many chips as the player going all in. If you kept doing this you would eventually be knocked out. Wait around for the right oppertunity and when that comes capitalize on it. If US is putting as much money in the pacific as grasshopper is saying, then Japan will eventually get beat. There is no way around it. No need to sacrafice units in an attempt to make it easier for the US when in reality is makes it harder for UK and anzac since you are loosing units with both.
-
I wouldn’t be interested in building an airbase and losing many units tring to hold it (sounds a lot like guadal canal). I would build 2 fighters for ANZAC in 2 turns and place all 5 fighters in Western Australia. The US has 3 full transports in Queensland, the goal would be to land all 6 units in the Phillipenes either during an uncontested non combat movement, or a unsupported landing after the smoke clears from a large battle. If there are jap ships remaining, the US has 4 bombers @4 to mop up, and the goal is to land those 5 ANZAC fighters on a friendly phillipenes with 6-8 land units on it. If the US reenforces The phillipenes uncontested with their entire fleet and landing units during non combat, that will make the Australian fighters that much more important, as they will provide 3@4 when scrabbling and they will give the land 2@4. Also, if you look at the later rounds of the blue print, there is a formidable fleet building and moving toward the phillipenes that the Japs won’t be able to match after the loses of the intitial battle.
-
but wouldn’t the losses of the initial battle be pretty slight? by turn 4-5 I would have built another carrier. This would give me 6 free hits I can absorb when this battle comes to fruition. Along with my subs I can take as fodder it would be very hard for me to loose enough to where you would be able to counter attack it. I’d love to play a game sometime where we can see how this plays out. I am just waiting on Gazza so we can finish up our game Thats been sitting of over a month now. Still haven’t figured out how in the hell to use battlemap.
Suggested Topics
