Im looking for an experienced classic opponent, any variant will be fine.
IRL on triplea or pbem.
Not only that, but it seems to depend on Germany hitting Karelia & maybe North Sea SZ on T1 & nowhere else.
Ozone27
Germany is expected to be conservative in Africa and to send the Luftwaffe to sink the royal and US navies on turn one and two. The Germans will probably take Caucasus as well.
Japan is just asleep or drunk or both! USA has abandoned Ssinkiang & China & yet Japan has lost Manchuria & sluggishly (even begrudgingly) moved ahead, into China I guess, on T2–since as you said USA still has 34 IPCs.Ozone27
In order to take and hold Sinkiang, the Japanese must leave French Indo-China vulnerable to a counterattack from the British Factory in India. (which could have four infantry, three tanks and a fighter ready to go on turn three, leaving two american infantry (from Sinkiang) and three more tanks left to defend it). This, combined with a Russian attack into Manchuria on Turn Two, tends to give them a lot of problems. The Russians won’t hold, since the Japanese should pull the fleet back to use the battleships and carrier planes against the soviet army before they can advance down the coastline or into China.
In the games we’ve played, Sinkiang tends to fluctuate between the British and Japanese. Granted, when I play Japan, I devote 100% of my resources to crush India on turn one.
They apparently won in Hawaii T1, but their mighty fleet did nothing thereafter but sit & watch while the remnants of the US fleet slipped out of their grasp. Why didn’t they take Australia?Ozone27
The problem with taking Australia is that it allows for precious few reinforcements into Asia. The Japanese Fleet spends turn one winning the Battle of Midway in Hawaii. Then spends Turn Two ignoring the US Navy, which usually runs towards the panama canal. Chasing them to panama puts the Japanese fleet two turns away from asia, which means they can show up in Australia on turn three, and back to asia on turn four or five. Meanwhile, the surviving carrier planes and battleships are needed on turn two to hit the Soviets on the coastline of asia. This leaves them with no time for dilly dallying in Australia.
End of turn 3 Japan owns virtually every important territory in the Far East, has 0 threat from USA Pacific fleet & faces NO units in USSR. Better hope Germany has been defeated by T5, 'cuz otherwise you’re sunk…Ozone27
This is similar to my timetable for Japan, which I will cover in another post. Mostly, I transport troops from the Philippenes and Japan to the continent in my program to destroy the british factory and seize china/sinkiang. My other dirty trick is to lure the Soviet army (maximum size of seven infantry and a tank. and possibly two planes if the soviets are nuts) to the coastline where the battleships and carrier planes returning from the victory in Hawaii can strike them on turn two. This leaves no time for an Australian expedition, especially as turn three and four require that Japan replenish it’s infantry supply on the mainland.
If russia can counterattack karelia so well (and it could) why do you expect the germans to just park their tanks in Karelia waiting for them to be attacked?BB
If the Germans take Karelia on turn one, the russians counterattack on turn two. Then the german armor is whittled down from 10 to about four to six units. If they ignore Karelia, then the war is fought in Eastern Europe and Germany gives up six dollars of income from Caucasus and Karelia. They’ll end up being bombed in Germany or Southern Europe instead of Karelia.
Russia builds 6 Inf, 2 tanks and saves 2 IPC on turn #1? By my calculations that’s 30 IPC, what game are you playing?BB
Oops, that should be four inf and two tanks for Russia on turn one.
With the brits building a factory in India they really can’t build lots of bombers as well so it’s going to be only the US player doing strategic raids and it takes time to get 6+ bombers going and that’s what you well need to affect germany making 35+IPCs. With no real allied navy in the Atlantic the germans will be able to mass forces against russia without fear of protecting against allied landings.
BB
Actually, Britain builds one bomber a turn, alternating between tanks and infantry into India. By turn four the UK has four bombers. The US builds one or two bombers a turn. So by turn four the US Air Force should have about four to six bombers, depending on how US Naval procurement is going. This assumes that the Anti-Aircraft causalties have been limited by forcing Germany to build an anti-aircraft battery or just being bombed in an unprotected Karelia.
Consider this table:
Turn Allied Bombing German IPC’s
1 2d6 32-7=25
2 5d6 40-17-23
3 7d6 42-24=18
4 9d6 37-30=7
5 11d6 32-37=-5
This table is moderate in both the allied production of bombers, which could be slightly more, and the amount of territory that Germany has been able to hold onto, which could be much less.
MIB, like I said, if you left 1 infantry in Karelia, why would the Germans put all their tanks in there knowing they would be lost, is he drunk? The other guy should always determine what can hit him.
The Germans, assuming they are not drunk, would take Caucus for sure and most likely Karelia. They would do it with 2-3 units each. They would move up all their armour and infantry to both Ukraine and EE because you can’t attack them since Karelia and Caucus is occupied. Germany then out-builds Russia for at least 3 turns before SBR’s reduce their 35-40+ income.
Britain will lose Africa quick as you can’t defend India and counter the German build up via the untouched med fleet. The English income would rapidly fall to the 20 IPC level. You have to build 3 units/turn in India and use all your fighter airforce to defend it. You’d be lucky to build 1 bomber/round.
Your IPC table doesn’t make any sense. The Germans get their full 32 IPC build on R1 as the bombing takes place AFTER the german turn. At the end of the German turn it’s income after taking 3-4 IPC in Aftrica on R1 as well as Karelia AND Caucus is in the 40’s right away. As your bombers scale up so does the German income as it takes more of Africa. It will be 3-4 turns before you get Germany below 30. By then the Germans have soundly out-built the russians that are now feeling the affects of an ever increasting Jap pressure. Russia falls before you get Germany below 10 IPC builds IMHO.
BB
What about this.
G1: Bomb Karellia but otherwise leave it alone. Move the AA out of Southern Europe to Eastern Europe.
G2: If Karellia is still an easy bait, take it, move your AA into it on your non combat turn and, if necessary, build a new one in SE. Else proceed as usual.
If this occurs, the Russians should be able to grab and hold the Ukraine on turn two. This forces the battle into Eastern Europe for turn two and three instead of Karelia. I’d say this puts the German timetable back a turn. Also, Germany spends 5 IPC to build an anti-aircraft, weakening it’s land forces by a tank or two infantry. The bombing contines, only this time, the USA should strengthen it’s commitment to Africa, threatening Southern Europe with both Strategic Bombing and Amphibious Assault. Furthermore, if the Germans send their bomber to an unprotected Karelia, then it won’t be sinking allied shipping. This seems like an acceptable trade-off for the Allies.
Even with anti-aircraft coverage, the bombing continues. See my poorly rendered table in my other post for average losses to Germany for turns one to five.
Britain will lose Africa quick as you can’t defend India and counter the German build up via the untouched med fleet. The English income would rapidly fall to the 20 IPC level. You have to build 3 units/turn in India and use all your fighter airforce to defend it. You’d be lucky to build 1 bomber/round.BB
This is the worry factor for me, that Germany will defend on the continent for the first couple of turns and attack aggressively in Africa. But then I said earlier that the strategy assumes Germany will be conservative in Africa…
If Germany pursued an aggressive African campaign on turn one and two, I would build Fortress Russia (all infantry builds from turn two onwards, with numerous UK and USA fighters to reinforce Russia). I’d also pursue a vigorous naval program to liberate Africa and threaten Southern and Western Europe with the UK and USA.
The med fleet is too much of a wild card for the allies to predict accurately. Sometimes Britain can inflict casualties on it on turn one or two, sometimes they steam into the Black Sea to deliver Italian troops into the Caucasus or Ukraine (putting them in range of the russian fighters). Sometimes they stay put to guard Southern Europe from the USA (who sinks them with air power), sometimes they conduct amphibious landings in Africa etc etc.
As your bombers scale up so does the German income as it takes more of Africa. It will be 3-4 turns before you get Germany below 30. .BB
Math was never my strong suit, but the gist of it is that Germany has less and less money every turn. Your assumption of Germany’s income level relies on a Rommellian Africa, which is contrary to my previously stated assumption of German passivity on the Dark Continent.
@C_F:
I guess you don’t play Russia restricted, which pretty much gives the game to the allies if you are not bidding.
It depends on the relative skill levels of who’s playing and what sort of strategy we’ve decided to test that determines whether the “Go For Broke!” boys of the 442nd Axis & Allies Regimental Combat Team plays with a restricted russia or not.
@C_F:
The strategy of giving Karelia to Germany so you can run bombing raids on it is interesting, but I have to say that as Germany I would let you keep Karelia and use my German and Japanese bomber to bomb Russia.
If Germany refuses the Gambit on turn one and proceeds to aggressively attack in Africa (remember that the bombing assumes that Germany will relinquish Africa) , then UK/USA must spend 30-40 IPC for turns 1-3 on Operation TORCH in Africa. They can also send bombers to africa and bomb Italy to irritate Axis players who like to drag the Southern Europe AA to Eastern Europe.
@C_F:
I can just sit in EE and the Ukraine, straif Moscow now and then, and wait for Japan to swallow Asia. If the allies see after a couple of turns that I am not taking the bait and decide to start transportnig troops to WE, FN, and Karelia then the Japanese have gained much needed time to win the race.
This is why the UK builds a Factory in India. This annoying move, combined with a Russian invasion of Manchuria on turn two, delays the Japanese Invasion of Russia until turn 5-7. It also destroys any illusions the Japanese might entertain concerning Africa. It would be devastating to the Allies if the Japanese were able to take India on turn one or two though.
@C_F:
I really do like the idea of giving someone a IC so you can bomb them though, but only the allies are rich enough. Maybe let Japan have the UK complex or have the US build in Sinkiang, since they have more disposable $$$. As soon as they put an AA gun there though it is not very attractive.
A factory in Sinkiang by the USA, and/or a UK Factory in India would be something to look at. I dunno if it would prove successful, but it would certainly be interesting… I’d fear that if the Japanese could capture the Sinkiang Factory on turn two, and they build a factory in French Indo-China on turn one, then Japan could outproduce the UK in Asia on turn three and beyond. Not a good thing. Perhaps the Industrialization of Asia could prove fruitful in an all out allied effort against Japan, but that ill-considered plan usually becomes a bottomless pit for IPC’s…
With no Russia restriced and no bidding the allied player would have to be much much weaker a player then the axis player to lose.
I’ve played the allies this way, moved the russian navy in with the brit BB/transport and put everything I could into Karelia save 1 INF. The germans built a ftr thinking they might lose one. They took out every single allied naval unit including the USA transport without taking a hit… I was whining something fierce… But the allies can be patient, as long as they don’t make a huge mistake it’s always gonna end the same. Either Germany fails as the Japs are almost ready to take Russia or the Germans are bottled up and allied units run wild over asia, the allies out build and bide their time…
BB
If it works for him let him use it until someone finds a hole in his plan.
Xi, this is a forum where we critque each others strategies, I don’t like to be told effectively to shut up. You really seem to have a problem with me in particular, is this just my imagination I hope?
BB
I agree w/ BigBlocky’s 1st 1/2 (though he may be being too sensitive about the alleged “personal” nature of Xi’s posts. If not, I’ll stay out of it!).
If you post a strategy on the forum, you MUST be expecting SOME critique from fellow players here. Personally, when I post a strategy or a question, I am usually SOLICITING responses because I want to see what other (especially more experienced) players think.
Of course if a strategy works for you, then there is no reason to change it until the enemy catches on. But it’s often useful to acquire the opinions of other players–especially their means of countering the strategy–to see the limits of your ideas. The forum ought to be a give-&-take: by posting here it seems to me one is accepting whatever feedback one gets (as long as it’s not mean-spirited or unproductive–neither of which I’ve seen on this topic)…
JMO
Ozone27
Ozone, hear hear. Perhaps I am a bit too sensitive. I don’t however recall telling anybody NOT to use a strategy, I get a bit defensive over false charges I suppose.
By playing ‘devil’s advocate’ for each other we become better. It should never be personal and hopefully it itsn’t.
BB
That’s exectly what disussion should be about.
And this site certainly helped me to get better.