@Soviet-Steamroller That is correct.
US is too weak!
-
That is the general thought, and the counter argument is to simply take them all at once before Germany can take them and turn them to Axis designs.
Easier said than done from my experience.
-
you just need to kill Turkey. Sweeden and Switzerland not so big of a deal. Turkey on the other hand… can be really bad.
I suggest doing spain thing only if the middle east is secure and your british forces want to go through turkey to open up a front there.
-
@Cow:
you just need to kill Turkey. Sweeden and Switzerland not so big of a deal. Turkey on the other hand… can be really bad.
I suggest doing spain thing only if the middle east is secure and your british forces want to go through turkey to open up a front there.
I must be missing something here. I have seen this suggestion before – British forces taking out Turkey to keep it out of Axis hands if the US decides to take Spain. I understand the reasoning, you don’t want Germany opening another front against Russia or having access to the Middle Eastern territories. What I don’t understand is WHERE are you getting these extra British units? Turkey is the strongest of the Neutrals with 8 guys as a standing army. That takes a fair amount of units to overcome just by itself. I am assuming that as Britain you also take out Iraq while you are there, so that’s another 3 guys to kill.
So, after fighting 11 guys in two territories, you still have enough British units to create a new front against the Axis in the Balkans? So where are you getting these British units to do all of this with? Are you abandoning India and using all those troops? British ICs in Persia, Egypt and Iraq?
In our games, UK has just enough to keep hold of Egypt from Italy. If the British are going up to take Turkey and move into the Balkans, and the Italians still have transports, Egypt will fall. Now, if the UK has managed to sink the Italian navy, then I could see this working. Plus, Italy won’t be able to afford to build new navy because they will have to start defending the Balkans.
So please tell me where you are getting this strong British force in the Middle East without losing Egypt and/or North Africa to Italy. -
@Cow:
you just need to kill Turkey. Sweeden and Switzerland not so big of a deal. Turkey on the other hand… can be really bad.
I suggest doing spain thing only if the middle east is secure and your british forces want to go through turkey to open up a front there.
I must be missing something here. I have seen this suggestion before – British forces taking out Turkey to keep it out of Axis hands if the US decides to take Spain. I understand the reasoning, you don’t want Germany opening another front against Russia or having access to the Middle Eastern territories. What I don’t understand is WHERE are you getting these extra British units? Turkey is the strongest of the Neutrals with 8 guys as a standing army. That takes a fair amount of units to overcome just by itself. I am assuming that as Britain you also take out Iraq while you are there, so that’s another 3 guys to kill.
So, after fighting 11 guys in two territories, you still have enough British units to create a new front against the Axis in the Balkans? So where are you getting these British units to do all of this with? Are you abandoning India and using all those troops? British ICs in Persia, Egypt and Iraq?
In our games, UK has just enough to keep hold of Egypt from Italy. If the British are going up to take Turkey and move into the Balkans, and the Italians still have transports, Egypt will fall. Now, if the UK has managed to sink the Italian navy, then I could see this working. Plus, Italy won’t be able to afford to build new navy because they will have to start defending the Balkans.
So please tell me where you are getting this strong British force in the Middle East without losing Egypt and/or North Africa to Italy.I agree with you knp. The best I can figure is taking a tank and inf with a transport from Alex to activate Persia on round1. Then on round 2 take NW Persia with 3 inf + tank and move 2 fighters and tactical from India to Persia. Move 1 fighter and tactical from Malta to Eqypt, assuming they are still alive. Move 1 mech from Egypt to Syria or Trans-Jordan Then on round 3 when USA takes Spain, UK can attack with 3 inf, 1 tank, 1 mech, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers with 98.2 but there will be near to nothing left after a couple rounds of combat and UK may lose their planes. Hopefully Japan has been delayed and cant take India on turn 4 because India will have no fighters or tactical for defense. You could send ANZAC’s planes to defend India in place of theirs. There is no taking Sweden though and those 6inf could become a problem for Russia but not near as bad as Turkey being activated by the axis.
-
So UK usually does not have naval in the Atlantic. It has minors in persia and egypt and sometimes Iraq (if you hit too many times so Russia cannot get his NO there).
So you got minors there anyway and units… Italy situation handled… so you help out India / defending Russia… USA wants in on Europe but germany has 12 air units… so going to spain makes sense UK can go through turkey, USA can go through Spain, Russia can do what it does.
That is how I win with the allies on Europe without the Pacific half. That is the only way I know how to win with the allies. Everything I tried sucked. Dumping 12 guys a round on Spain kicked butt.
Otherwise it is like… I got 12 guys to drop… then I got nothin after that… It is true UK can load and unload units from london every other round if I park naval there, but I can dump units in Spain with USA every other round with the same transports and less naval to defend it. I like that better.
-
I just played game as the allies in which I had 36 units cross turkey into greece. It was pretty cool.
-
Theoretically you can:
Get 4 Mech from Calcutta to Turkey for UK3 to attack.
UK can easily take Iraq on UK2 if you wish, but you relocate resources that quell Italian advances in Africa as well as relocate aircraft from Calcutta to the Middle East.Turkey is not impossible to sack as early as UK3, but I think you give up a lot of resources to do it.
Thinking long term, UK3 purchasing and placing a Minor IC in Iraq/Persia may become a strategic requirement to help reclaim a potentially lost Cairo to Italy, reinforcing or reclaiming Calcutta if it is lost to Japan, and funneling units through Turkey into Greece.
I do think the intent of Persia and Greece (plus starting UK units) was to support dealing with a pro-axis Turkey. Problem is that Greek units are generally eliminated before the Allies can activate and put them to good use. I’ve yet to see an Axis on Round 1/Round 2 that does not address the Greek territory. Allies activating Greece on the UK’s turn almost always leads to Italy sending the house there on I1, or if Italy lost the SZ, Germany handling it on G2.
Personally I don’t like the idea of 9 Axis INF so close to Egypt, so there has to be good communication between UK/US controllers to coordinate a response to that risk. Which includes some significant opportunity costs in Africa and Asia for the UK.
-
@Cow:
It is true UK can load and unload units from london every other round if I park naval there, but I can dump units in Spain with USA every other round with the same transports and less naval to defend it. I like that better.
Thats the opportunity cost. Save US IPC in Europe (to be spent in Pacific) at the cost of the UK having to play through the Middle East by sending starting resources there.
I honestly don’t think Italy would be happy to have Cairo seeing minor IC in Persia, Iraq and South Africa and honestly I don’t think Italy could keep up with 6+ units / round being placed within 3 spaces of Cairo. Additionally, you may temporarily lose Calcutta, but having a Minor in Persia puts a wrench in Japanese plans to keep it.
-
Italy? Man you got to shove your 14 ipc bid against that. I have never lost a game when Italy was making bank.
-
@Cow:
So UK usually does not have naval in the Atlantic. It has minors in persia and egypt and sometimes Iraq (if you hit too many times so Russia cannot get his NO there).
So you got minors there anyway and units… Italy situation handled… so you help out India / defending Russia… USA wants in on Europe but germany has 12 air units… so going to spain makes sense UK can go through turkey, USA can go through Spain, Russia can do what it does.
That is how I win with the allies on Europe without the Pacific half. That is the only way I know how to win with the allies. Everything I tried sucked. Dumping 12 guys a round on Spain kicked butt.
Otherwise it is like… I got 12 guys to drop… then I got nothin after that… It is true UK can load and unload units from london every other round if I park naval there, but I can dump units in Spain with USA every other round with the same transports and less naval to defend it. I like that better.
How are you doing this in Europe stand alone? Germany takes Russia 100% turn 6. UK might be able to take out Turkey on turn 5, but that is only if Italy is neutered in the med. Sweeden is a problem because she is 6 free guys and 3 free dollars… Taking Norway is one is your key objectives, and with him having all those extra free guys to counter you with makes it much harder.
-
US can attack Spain with 23 total units on turn 5. These are my buys
1. Carrier, fighter, DD =34
2. BB, 2 DD’s =36
3. 4 transports, 2 infantry =34
4. 4 transports, 3 infantry, 2 arty, tank, bomber = 63Turn 4 take Brazil with 2 transports and 1 mech. 3 transports go to Gibraltar and offload guys.
Turn 5 attack Spain with 10 infantry, 3 arty, 3 mech, 2 Tanks, 2 fighters, 2 bombers, and 2 bombards.
This looks interesting on paper because of the 1 turn shuck ability that it gives the US. What I’d like to see is how the axis would respond to this. Taking Turkey is going to cost UK a lot of guys.
-
My solution to the thread’s topic would be to give America a $10 “War Economy” bonus, each collect income phase that the US are at war.
-
Agreed. The US should have 80 income a turn, not 70.
-
In europe alone. I full scramble round 1 with UK. You still have enough to sink Italy. Especially if you have a sub for your bid.
UK goes full middle east. A bunch of air comes to Russia. I am not too worried about sea lion since UK 1 is 9 inf or 6 inf 1 fighter.
Chances are you will cut into Germany’s air units scrambling from UK. So it is not too bad. Even if you are playing low luck you generally get your moneys worth. 3 fighters = 2 hits then 2 more hits (2x cruiser 2x bb, germany is sending 4 hits usually sometimes sub hits so it is 5, in which case your fighters go even). SZ 111 Germany can score 2-4 hits so you expect a 2nd roll with the fighter scrambling. You get a roll @ 1 then a roll @ 4 when germany gets good dice, Germany gets bad dice you get a 3rd roll. Okay dice you get 2 rolls @ 1 (on the bright side you are not rolling @3 which you can miss and be sad).
In dice games, you may as well try to luck out early game.
-
I think US income is fine. I would have prefer more starting inf in central usa or east USA. A mexico inf. Anything would be welcomed.
-
@Young:
My solution to the thread’s topic would be to give America a $10 “War Economy” bonus, each collect income phase that the US are at war.
@wittmann:
Agreed. The US should have 80 income a turn, not 70.
Okay guys, excuse me if I’m getting this wrong, but it sounds to me like you have come up with a certain plan for the US (perhaps taking Spain to stage an offensive against the Axis) but the US can’t do it because they are not making quite enough money. Then it sounds to me like you want to add income to the US so they can use the plan.
That doesn’t exactly seem fair to me. I mean, any of the countries, Allied or Axis, could work out some sort of winning plan if you increase their income enough to make it work.
So am I missing something? -
hehheh, I like knp’s reasoning here. Evil sense of humor too :evil:.
Compared to history its income is way too low, ofc. Gamewise it is a rather fragile balance.
I was thinking the other day, why not let the USA have a slowly increasing wartime ‘NO’. For example, first turn it is at war USA gets +10 only but this increases by +5 every turn. So, +10, +15, +20, +25, +30 (on the fourth turn USA is in the war), etc. Numbers need to be worked out ofc., this is only an example.That way the average US income stays the same for the first 7 to 10 turns (depending on when Japan DOWs) but after that it becomes really large. One more reason for Japan to think twice about when to DOW exactly and such a system would hopefully erase the need to play a dragging-on game for like 12 to 20 turns. The consensus with an increasing US income should easily be that if the allies are still alive after turn 7-10 the axis will have lost because the US income becomes a real problem. It should not affect early gameplay too much, if only giving the axis a slightly better position if they wait pulling the USA into the war. Which is only fair because they will now have real low chance of winning the game after ~turn 10 or so, when the US income starts to become a real problem.
-
Hi guys.
Have been following, but not commenting.
For me, it goes back to the old games and the US always seeming poor compared to the, soon to be all conquering, Axis. I just think the US would have stomped up its production more, if it had needed to, if the war had gone worse for the Allies.
I was very happy when in 1940, it seemed the US had, at last, a reasonable seeming income. But it was not to be. The Germans and more especially the Japanese, can easily run up 70 IPCs and their money is there to be spent on land, without the need to cross an ocean.
Italy’s reaching 30-45 is also ridiculous. It all comes down to far too generous Axis NOs.
I only want to see a competitive US. -
Yeah I need a bid for the allies against experienced players and my opponents need a big bid against me when I am the axis.
Like a non bid solution could be +10 usa and +1 russia bomber in archangel. Otherwise it seems like +12-15 allies is the way to go.
-
@wittmann:
(…)I just think the US would have stomped up its production more, if it had needed to, if the war had gone worse for the Allies.(…)
That is exactly what the US did.
All Major Powers actually. The thing with production is that a Major Power has a basic production capacity. Some of it is reserved for war production, some of it must remain for production of civil goods (food, clothes, whatever).During the course of WW2 the production of all Major Powers did not increase that much because of the conquest of new lands, but much more so because war production was geared up at the cost of civil production!
An exeption is of course the acquisition of a strategic material that lifts a certain production/utilisation inability. Oil for example. a MP can build carriers but why would it if it hasn’t got any oil to fuel it…
Suggested Topics
