Wich setup do you use ?

[cyanight]

WildBill - thanks so much for the in depth answer to Mongolian neutrality.  With the G42 rules I must have missed that it does not put Japan and Russia at war with each other at the start of the game.  That then makes perfect sense why the Mongolian rule still applies.

KNP - love your house rules especially the one concerning the Flying Tigers.  Its very similar to one of our house rules.  We did something similar to the following Battleships (IOWA, KING GEORGE V , YAMATO, BISMARK, LITTORIO).  On our painted set we have these 5 battleships enlarged.  If you sink one you get 2 ipcs.  We added them for looks then it became like a prestige thing.  Sea zone 110 became a concern because of the King George as well as sacrificing the German’s Bismark.  We also have the MARAT - Russian Battleship and RICHELIEU French Battleship but they never get used.

[k-rizma]

Thanks WB for the A&A history crash course, it put me up to date  :-)

No offense but can we get Back to the main topic now ? I’m curious about what others have to say about it.

[knp7765]

@cyanight:

WildBill - thanks so much for the in depth answer to Mongolian neutrality.  With the G42 rules I must have missed that it does not put Japan and Russia at war with each other at the start of the game.  That then makes perfect sense why the Mongolian rule still applies. Â

KNP - love your house rules especially the one concerning the Flying Tigers.  Its very similar to one of our house rules.  We did something similar to the following Battleships (IOWA, KING GEORGE V , YAMATO, BISMARK, LITTORIO).  On our painted set we have these 5 battleships enlarged.  If you sink one you get 2 ipcs.  We added them for looks then it became like a prestige thing.  Sea zone 110 became a concern because of the King George as well as sacrificing the German’s Bismark.  We also have the MARAT - Russian Battleship and RICHELIEU French Battleship but they never get used.

That’s an interesting HR you have with the battleships. Have you ever played A&A Guadalcanal? It’s USA vs. Japan and you play for victory points. The first to reach 15 wins the game. The main way you get victory points is by how many undamaged airfields you have but you also get 1 victory point for sinking a capital ship (battleship or carrier). Your HR reminded me of that.
Just curious, how much bigger are the named battleships? I got a set of 1/2400 scale battleships that might fit the bill. They are quite a bit bigger than the board game pieces, but could still work on the G40 board I think.

[k-rizma]

I just start a game alone to understand the game mechanics and explain it to my friends when we will play.

I finished the first round. Germany has taken France, Normandy, yougoslavia and bulgaria, wipe out  most of the UK fleet (Uk has taken Back Normandy).  Italy wipe out all of the UK mediteranean fleet and take alexandria (Uk take it Back). Japan advance in China and put all the fleet in the same Sz.

In turn two Sea Lion will surely work and also Calcutta and Egypt And barbarossa will begin.  The way i see the game, the axis must made the most possible damage before Us comes to war. If USA make Germany and Italy goes backward while URSS resist, than it is some for the Axis.  If USA is innefective, the axis win.  All is playing in Europe, in Pacific, USA just have to resist at Honolulu while Anzac do the same at Sydney.

Am I right or in the left field ?

[ChocolatePancake]

In my experience, you are correct about the Pacific. USA just needs to spend enough there to keep Japan from taking Hawaii or Sydney.

On the Europe side, Germany shouldn’t be able to take London on turn 2 ever unless the UK player just abandons it. To even have a chance, Germany would have to build all transports on turn 1, and then UK could just easily build max infantry in London, not move any units out, move the Scotland units in and Germany would have little or no chance of taking it.

In the Mediterranean, usually the UK destroys most of Italy’s fleet before Italy has a chance to use it. Sometimes they get lucky and are able to destroy the rest of the UK fleet on their turn, but usually it seems to require Germany to help finish off the UK fleet.

Generally though, yes, if the USA is unwise and ineffective, then the Allies will usually lose. If they invest nothing in either the Pacific or Europe sides, the Axis should be able to win fairly easily on that side most of the time.

[knp7765]

I disagree. I think the best way for the Allies to win is for the US to spend mostly (not ALL, but most) in the Pacific and pound Japan good. The US has to eliminate the Japanese Navy and corner them on their island. With SBRs and convoy raiding, Japan will be having less and less money to spend. India/China/Russia should be able to get Japan under control on the mainland and ANZAC can retake the DEI, thus starving Japan of precious IPCs. The US doesn’t even need to invade Japan, just hold it there making little to no money and Japan will be effectively neutralized. Then the US can start spending in the Atlantic big time.
If done right, UK and Russia should be able to hold of Germany/Italy long enough for the US to show up in force, probably knock Italy out and then all three will squeeze Germany into nothingness.

If US goes heavy in Europe from the start, yeah it will be rough on Germany/Italy but Japan will grow too huge to stop in time.

[ghr2]

This basically teeters on how well UK can do vs Italy.

[ChocolatePancake]

A strategy of spending most of the USA’s money to kill Japan can certainly work, I’ve just found that it isn’t usually necessary.
A lot really does depend on what Germany/Italy do and how well the UK can bottle up Italy.

If Germany goes G1, and Japan waits until, say, round 3, I’ve found that spending heavily in the Atlantic can be very effective. It really depends on what the Axis does as to how I decide to allocate the USA money.

[knp7765]

@ChocolatePancake:

A strategy of spending most of the USA’s money to kill Japan can certainly work, I’ve just found that it isn’t usually necessary.
A lot really does depend on what Germany/Italy do and how well the UK can bottle up Italy.

If Germany goes G1, and Japan waits until, say, round 3, I’ve found that spending heavily in the Atlantic can be very effective. It really depends on what the Axis does as to how I decide to allocate the USA money.

You mean if Germany attacks Russia G1? In my opinion, that would be silly for Germany. Their front forces would be too weak and Russia could chop them to bits R2. Then Germany would have to rely on a stronger second wave that might be too far behind.
If Japan waits until round 3 to drag the US into the war, then that will be 2 rounds that the US can’t do anything on either side. However, if the US does build up a lot in the Atlantic on those first 2 rounds, you are right. Once they enter the war they can bring a lot over to Europe all in one clump while using the existing Pacific fleet to at least keep Japan at bay.

This brings up a question for me. When playing the US, if you decide to go heavy Atlantic, Which of the following do you think is the better strategy for the US and it’s big opening movement?
1 - Go to Gibraltar, then go after Italy.
2 - Go to Gibraltar, then go to Normandy or Southern France.
3 - Go to Gibraltar, then sail up to Norway.
4 - Go to Gibraltar, then try an attack on West Germany.
5 - Get everything over to stage in England. (assuming no Sealion)

[ghr2]

6 - Go to Gibraltar, see how the axis responds.

[captainwalker]

If I go heavy Atlantic with the US I’ll go to Gib first (91) and on that same turn send two transports with one art to Brazil.
On the following turn I’ll move the US fleet from 91 to 92 (there’s usually a blocker there you have to take out) and bring the Brazil units and any I purchased for the Eus to 91.
This gives me several options for the next turn…I can throw everything at Italy,attack Normandy, Norway,Greece or even move to Egypt if it is under Italian control.
If the US is fortunate to have control over Morroco I’ll also build an airbase there to protect both seazones.
This does take more time for the US to get into the actual fighting, but it also causes the axis to plan defense for several areas.

[knp7765]

Hmmm. Some good ideas. One more question: What do you do about protection for your US transports?
1 - Move the Pacific fleet over to the Atlantic
2 - Build a new fleet in the Atlantic (which would mean less transports, men, tanks, artillery, etc.)
3 - Go light and hope the Luftwaffe is busy in Russia
4 - Go light and depend on England to supply warships

If you pick one of the above, please tell me why. Or is there another option I am not thinking of?

I have gone light and paid for it. Sitting in SZ 91 with just a cruiser and destroyer and stack of transports. Then along come a couple of German Bombers to paste everything and all my guys are stuck on Gibraltar or Morocco.
I have built a new fleet and that worked well for protection. Problem then was not having enough transports with men and material to be able to hit someplace and stay there. While most single spots could be taken, Germany (and in some cases Italy) seems to always have enough stuff around to counter attack and wipe me out. Then I have a bunch of empty ships far from home.
I am afraid to move the pacific fleet over for fear of Japan getting too big. Indian and ANZAC navies are certainly no match for them.
Usually, England has a hard time rebuilding a fleet, but I imagine that could be changed in certain circumstances.

[captainwalker]

Airbases in Gib and Morroco tend to discourage Luftwaffe attacks, although some axis players will not take Morrocco to prevent a US build there.
I’ll usually have a loaded carrier in 91 and 92 so I’ll be able to have eight fighters for defense in either seazone. The UK has to help with that so I don’t usually scramble in 110 on G1….plus any fleet they have in 106 can be added to the mix.
Germany would have to send a big stack of bombers just to clear one of the seazones…they’re not going to get both of them. Plus, attacking even one of them will cost them some bombers.
You do have to block any naval units in 112 from getting to 91, so be prepared to lose some destroyers.

[WILD BILL]

Captain walker, I’m not trashing this strategy, but wouldn’t an extra carrier for each power be more helpful, and give you more mobility for roughly the same cost?  Although an English AB on Gib, and an American AB on Morocco sounds intriguing giving you a really good air def for your transport navies(s) it sounds very costly. I’m not sure how that helps you when you move to Norway or deeper into the Med though because you would be leaving the cover of those bases, and the Luftwaffe could hit you then.

I could see it helping though if you build your fleet(s) then next turn move to Gib and drop AB(s) on the same turn so you could get immediate air cover. You wouldn’t have to wait for a carrier built that turn to catch up, but you would still need to bulk-up the navy before you move towards your objectives so I’m not seeing a major benefit for spending 30 IPCs on AB(s). Sounds like you may be going light on your navy builds for protection of your transports, and are compensating with the AB’s but the cost of the ABs is what is causing the weaker navy builds to start with.

I guess it would help to shuck-shuck through Gib though needing fewer naval units to protect your ships off Gib. I can see this would hold off the Luftwaffe for some time as well so there are some pro"s and con’s to say the least.