@ShadowHAwk ya, and i don’t think i’ll be able to put an airbase on Gibralter like i’ve been doing and hold london, could be a long road back for the allies!
Uk minor ic persia egypt iraq
-
hmmm, this choo choo business seems to be logical if italy is prepping a homefront defense force. SOUND LEGIT.
-
Depends on UK’s position and strategy. If UK had its navy sunk round 1 and doesn’t want to get in a naval arms race with Germany a minor there is great assuming you build units in London to keep it safe. It also has the advantage of getting units to India, although if that is something you wish to do a naval base will be required in the middle east. However long term I think money is better spent elsewhere. A naval base and minor is a lot of money not going against germany.
-
This works really well vs. a G1 Barbarossa. If you go Egypt and build mech/tanks there and in Union, you can press up around Caucasus (denying Germany NO’s) and otherwise screw with Germany/defend Moscow, or even take Stalingrad after Russia falls. That’s a beyatch for Germany to retake especially with a pipeline.
-
naval base meh. no need. real ground forces seem more legit. 9 units a round without relying on transport or naval guardians. I like this considering 100 tuv in air requires 5 fighters carrier and some dds. screw that.
-
At some point I like to tpt the inf & AA gun from Malta to Egypt placing the tpt in sz81 (w/cruiser or Egyptian air base to cover it). Then buy a tpt for S Africa so you can always have one tpt coming and one going between the two naval bases. Having another naval base and IC in Persia would be cool (gives you more options), but wouldn’t that be like a magnet for Japan? Persia with an IC & NB would be a pretty big target.
-
For Japan to take the minors down there that’s kind of a stretch. that’s 4 turns from japan dawg. and you are placing 30 ipc down there worth of ground. and you got air so i don’t know how much japan can put and once he ships out there is no return for that fleet. i don’t know how much japan can risk not having around in the pacific before he gets convoy disrupted to 0 income lol.
-
If they are down there anyway taking India anyway, they could go the extra mile and get Central Persia, Egypt and South Africa, then sail the fleet into the med to protect Italy. Meanwhile they build infantry in Tokyo. No pacific win, but UK in bad shape and Italy safe from harm.
-
Japan can try to take africa. good luck with that. it’ll be seen from a mile away.
-
Yes it will be seen a mile away, but what can the allies really do about it?
-
@Vance:
Yes it will be seen a mile away, but what can the allies really do about it?
India and Union/Mideast IC can pump out navy/air to stop them or ground to hit the landing force which is nearly irreplacable.
-
35 income worth of stuff going down is pretty good. 3 complexes 9 units. not bad. considering drops are only 10 a round from uk itself… pumping out 1 less unit a turn with no risk of being sunk. ic can be taken and taken back less risk in my opinion.
plus it takes away from germany air’s triple threat issue. how it threatens 2 naval forces and ruskies. now it is just double threat.
-
I have done this, with great effect.
We played alpha +3, with some rulechanges;
-
the russian NO being; “+3 IPC for each land terr in europe”, meaning no NO for iraq, or any african terr, or any islands. So it didn’t make sense for ussr to take iraq.
-
we also added the rule that if london was lost, UK would lose income the next turn while moving their capitol. (so if UK lost on G3, UK would collect income again on UK4)
-
we played for 14 VC.
-we bid extra income.
germany got the bid on +8 income each turn for the entire game.
the german threathend sealion with all nav buy on G1
UK 1 we hit italian fleet in 95 and 96 (since he had not flown a german ftr to s Italy) build inf. The battle in 95 went really bad, so egypt dropped on I1.on g2 he did major IC in romania and Bombers, and started bombing london to dust.
UK started producing mechs in SA and built a MIC in iran, then later in iraq, while pushing back towards egypt with up to 9 produced landunits/ turn.
when egypt fell, UK built a MIC there, so that one could stop producing in SA.the game was won when med was under control and we where going to land in norway, and threathened everything in europe.
I should mention that Japan decleared on J2 (UK forgot to block the jap fleet from hitting the stack in burma), but UK managed to strafe shan state, so ANZAK could take it and he didn’t have a good enough attack to take india on J3.
-
-
Major IC in romania is suboptimal. you could just buy 10 inf round 1 and move it up or better yet since germany has naval, get 2 transports and upgrade what would be infantry into mech/tanks.
sorry I just don’t like suboptimal german play. Especially since they made germany and west germany majors.
axis bid, coupled with russia NO nerf… makes no sense. how he failed to take russia, makes no sense. I blame suboptimal play. -.-
Also changing the VC to 14 changes the dynamics of the game. It is really bad news for axis.
Losing london is not the end of the world. You should win everygame germany takes london (he’ll have a tank and maybe half his air left after).
If germany threatens sea lion, russia threatens artillery/inf in novo/ukraine with mech /tank from russia. The turn london falls is the turn ruskies park romania and collect 61 as you hit the 3 bordering axis spots. you will end up stayin in romania for awhile and when it looks like you got to move… that is usually the same turn uk is back in business. instead of upgrading major IC on uk, he’ll get a minor in egypt or something.
~also if I see naval buy from germany, I buy 4 bombers USA 1 and put the starting bomber east usa. if Japan DOW round 2. I fly 5 bombers into UK. if Japan does not DOW, I will rest assure that UK pac and ANZAC will have lots of money to stay safe till I can get some pacific play going.
you may find a more enjoyable game without the UK move capital rule and without the bid. 14 vc is fine if coupled with russian NO nerf.
I usually win games where germany buys naval round 1. I generally have up to 10 bombers to chuck at german naval… carrier bb dd cruiser 2 fighter… don’t stand a chance. it comes early enough that it can land safely amongst russians.
-
Actually, there’s a delay between UK falling and UK getting back–the US fleet will be stuck off Eastern US, and therefore it’s a 2 turn deal.
-
yeah but russia boost to income is a big deal as well as the UK Pac and ANZAC boosts to income. It pretty much compensates for losing UK. Then there is a positioning ordeal for germany the fact that he invested in transports which need to be guarded so that’s a -70 or -77 sink when it gets blown away.
Plus it pretty much insures russia’s survival well into the late game. Russia matching germany income for awhile is really bad… the only reason russia gets kicked out is because the supply line from russia to romania is far.
So Japan has to make a pacific win happen because you can’t expect a europe win unless russia overstays his welcome in romania for some reason.
as long as usa splits income past round 3. germany can’t kick russia out AND hold UK forever. Italy’s success in africa may not occur, because if Italy isn’t buying ground forces… russia could push towards taking rome… I have done that before.
Sea lion ain’t what it used to be, because now the casualties are so much higher for germany.
-
@Cow:
axis bid, coupled with russia NO nerf… makes no sense. how he failed to take russia, makes no sense. I blame suboptimal play. -.-
Also changing the VC to 14 changes the dynamics of the game. It is really bad news for axis.
Losing london is not the end of the world. You should win everygame germany takes london (he’ll have a tank and maybe half his air left after).
you may find a more enjoyable game without the UK move capital rule and without the bid. 14 vc is fine if coupled with russian NO nerf.
remember this was alpha +3, not +3.9. we felt that the sealion was to strong, so we gave the move capitol option, and added a bid.
NOs where nerfed because rules as written when we started the game meant that ussr could get NO for eire.
we believed that 14 VC was so bad for the axis that the bid had to be substantial to compare.
anyways, I would prefer for iraq/iran to belong to USSR in 3.9, and maybe build minor IC in egypt, when it is safe. (ie no sealion, dead it fleet). I would maybe chose to take iran with UK, then strafe iraq, and let USSR with 2 mech and 1 tank/ftr finish the job. that way I can get some from both world, altho it might be abit too expecive for ussr.
I think the reason my opponent went for major in rumania was that he thought he would be able to fil it up, bc of the bid.
I do agree that it is not good to make plan based on suboptimal play, but I do think a UK minor in iran will make UK a very potent force in the indian ocean, africa and later the med front. that way USA can focus on carriers DDs and subs for the atlantic, while UK can focus on ftrs for atlantic (1-2 per turn), while the rest can fill the factories in iran and SA with mechs and toys for the med front
-
OOOOO. I refer to 3.9 as +3, just the way it is now a days.
sorry, yes I understand now. Why not just add +3 infantry to UK?
-
players wanted to play global campaign
the nerfed NOs was bc we made the rule before they where nerfed in 3.9, so we didn’t know what it would change into (so we did what we read into the rule instead).
capitol movement rules was to make sealion still posible, but limited gains (uk lose 32-35 IPC twice, and ger gains it once, so it is a gain on about 100 IPC, which might make UK evac their airforce to reduce losses).
also forgot, we changed the UK bomber to 4 inf.
My philosophy about axis and allies is that there should ALWAYS be a bid. Because the game is never truly balanced and in any regular group there will be misconceptions and misscalculations, meaning that it is more or less impossible to get perfect play, which again means even a perfectly balanced game will be unbalanced when playing with mistakes
We chose to not do a bid for extra troops because whenever you have to bid a substancial number of troops, it all becomes about who has the best idea. I figured that the number of IPC axis would have to have with these rules could be used 2 insanely good places. Imagine having to build 15 IPC worth of axis units. that can be 5 extra inf in Tobruk or kwangsi. that means either no chinese counterattack in round 1 or egypt falls on I2. That is why we bid extra income each turn. +8 might have been abit high.
(Edit; specified bid part)
-
I actually prefer the axis in global for that version and 3.9… they were always good.
-
I meant there should always be a bid in the game axis and allies, I know the axis side might be stronger, but a bid is needed always.
btw, question; do you prefer the axis because you think they are better with perfect strat, or because you think it is easier to not lose the game to mistakes?
in most axis games I have played, the allies have been the harder side to play, but they have also been the stronger side. for me it seems like the playtesters have not been skilled enough to play very good, so they have concluded with that the allies need more help. then when the game is released, the game will be fairly even when people play it the first time, but later the allies will will, because learning how to play them gives much more strength than learning now to play the axis.
Suggested Topics
