Tobruk does mean sacrificing a transport. Ethopia crush or Middle East conquest has an advantage here. Not sure which is best on this one.
While Sumatra does commit 13IPC on largely a suicide mission, what is the alternative use for the TT?
What I like to do is use 1 TT with an inf from India/Alex and strafe Iraq and with the other TT with an inf use it to activate Persia. The attack on Iraq uses the mech from Egypt and the planes from India. It lasts one round and then everything that can retreat does and goes to Trans-Jordan. The best result from this is 1 inf left in Iraq as well as the mech and planes in Trans-Jordan.
With this you now have 2 transports in sz 80 off of Persia and 4 inf between East Persia and Persia (assuming you activate East Persia w/the inf from West Indai). These can then go to reinforce the med or be used to strike the African Coast if need be.
This is my go to strategy with a J1 DOW but I still prefer it to the other options as well.
And your neutrals point is well taken; the rules are so abusive that I simply discounted these but I have a buddy that constantly attacks Spain and Turkey. You’d think killing 14 men would be hard, but its not because you have a full strikeforce over there doing nothing else. Germany only gets Sweden and Switzerland and 8 troops when you do this, and your transports can then go home or pick up a second wave as your main army attacks the Axis over land.
when allies attack the true neutrals do you guys ever have anzac set up a force in south america and grab the neutrals there or is that too far out of position for them?
Hi guys,
very important: It makes almost no sense to give strategy advice based on builds as this depends from the beginning about what the Axis did and how it went.
1)The first objective for the allies should be protecting against sea lion.
Protecting against sea lion is not an essential goal as sea lion is good for the Allies unless it’s ridiculously cheap. However your suggestion is ok as air and AB Gib makes sense in the most cases. but it’s not an essential Allies objective to protect against sea lion. If Germans to it, Allies are good in most cases.
3)The UK needs to hold Egypt. This can be done by spending mos if not all of your bid on land units in Africa. Only 2 inf are needed but obviously more should be placed. I like to spend 12 on land units with 2 inf and 1 tank.
Egypt is overrated and spending the entire bid in Africa is a bad idea. Allies need to squeeze the Germans with Russia and by Dday. Liberating africa is not a major objective. Supply lines are too long from Africa to hurt the Axis, that’s why dday is perferable as UK can reinforce every turn.
Now the not so obvious ones.
4)Russia should try to get 25+ art by round 5.
The goal is not to get a certain amount of Arty but look for an opportunity to stop the German army to progress for one turn by having enough fire power. However this also heavily depends on what the Germans have. In some cases there is no way to put attack power on Russia because surviving is everything Russia can do. In other cases buying 6 tanks Round 1 or 2 can be the best buy if this keeps the Germans from progressing.
and so on.
Cheers,
Tobias
Did you get that the wrong way around? If the Allies attack Spain those true neutrals in S America become pro Axis and ANZAC would need to attack them.
A couple of times I’ve used ANZAC to activate Brazil. This makes a bit more sense against my usual opponent’s axis play which is: sink all the UK DD & TT G1, no J1 DOW. Often no J2 DOW.
One time the troops were used to reinforce Southern France. And the TT used to help the UK reach. In general, ANZAC have better use for a transport than this.
Now you own both Persia and Iraq.
But that does take income which could belong to USSR away from them and not going into Sumatra reduces UK_Pac’s income. Sometimes the combination of convoy disruption and SBR makes London pretty weak, but even so 2IPC/turn isn’t likely to achieve as much for them as for USSR. Or 2 vs 5 in the case of Iraq. UK_Pac’s income is also more valuable than London’s IMO. They don’t have much of it.
A few more points. With a bid means you can do Tobruk without sacrificing a TT. Bid an art in Alexandria and a sub off Egypt. Then you can use the Malta fighter to support the Tobruk attack. It’s a bit of a dodgy attack without the Mech Inf from Egypt which could be going to Ethiopia. EDIT: But then what value does Tobruk add? Only thing I can really think of is that it prevents combining with the 2 troops in Libya and any brought over on a transport. Might be better to wait until air support is available UK2. /EDIT
Some further thoughts on Finland. Someone has pointed out that fighters can stage UK->Finland->Moscow. The major problem with going into Finland is the troops can be hit by the Luftwaffe, with some troops supporting. A few UK fighters reduces the force needed significantly. The two AAA starting in Leningrad would be really useful if this attack eventuates but the chances are that it won’t happen G2, because the Luftwaffe will be better used attacking the survivors of Taranto.
Going back to the OP, doesn’t the airbase on Gibraltar make Sea Lion too easy? It does nothing to deter it, and SBR (assuming it happens) will make unit purchases in London difficult G2 and virtually stop it G3.
In my usual games, London is pretty inactive with convoy disruption and SBR stopping it almost dead.
Going back to the OP, doesn’t the airbase on Gibraltar make Sea Lion too easy? It does nothing to deter it, and SBR (assuming it happens) will make unit purchases in London difficult G2 and virtually stop it G3.
The reason the AB on Gib stops Sealion in its tracks is because if need be all of your air force and navy that you had in sz 92 can now be used to defend against Sealion. Germany does not have enough to break through all of that. This means Germany will not be able to hit london r3 and by that time a good German player will have turned their eyes on the real prize which is Russia.
One thing I’ll give my two cents. If the German’s go ahead with operation Sea Lion, whether successful or not, is the key to allied success. Now setting up for a fake is a must just to keep UK putting their IPCs on an island rather then somewhere else. But actually doing it is basically telling Japan that the game is in their hands. This is from limited experience and watching a couple games online when it has happened mind you. However, youget UK money that’s great. But now your forces are depleted. You own London now but in order to hold it you need to invest in it which means fixing the IC, the damaged you as Germany caused. And Russia is moving in and the States are on their way.
I’m not an experienced player but this is just from what I seen. Germany didn’t attempt it in the actual war and I don’t think they should attempt it in this game. Barbarossa is the way to go to stop an allied victory. Also anything later then a J2 DOW in the Pacific is a key to allied victory.
Going back to the OP, doesn’t the airbase on Gibraltar make Sea Lion too easy? It does nothing to deter it, and SBR (assuming it happens) will make unit purchases in London difficult G2 and virtually stop it G3.
The reason the AB on Gib stops Sealion in its tracks is because if need be all of your air force and navy that you had in sz 92 can now be used to defend against Sealion. Germany does not have enough to break through all of that. This means Germany will not be able to hit london r3 and by that time a good German player will have turned their eyes on the real prize which is Russia.
You’ve lost me here. How does an AB defend against Sea Lion? Planes can just fly back to London or Scotland without it, and it wastes 15IPC on something which does nothing to defend London.
You’ve lost me here. How does an AB defend against Sea Lion? Planes can just fly back to London or Scotland without it, and it wastes 15IPC on something which does nothing to defend London.
I suppose you are correct in that it does nothing to directly defend London since all of the planes that can land on Gib or in sz 92 could get back to London with out one. However one of the reasons I like the buy is that it makes an attack on your navy in 92 a suicide mission, where as without it the Italians could hit it with a comparable force.
The main reason I like the buy though has to do with the options it then opens up in Round 2. With Sea lion now off the table, since Germany would not have committed another buy to it, the AB can be used to fly planes to Egypt/Trans-Jordan that would not be able to reach with one.
So you are correct in that it does not help defend London but I can not think of a better buy R1 in terms of getting the right troops in the right places from R2 onward.
Re AB in Gib UK1: The AB in Gib is only advisable if any planes there protect a fleet in 91 or 92.
Protection against sea lion would occur in case UK does not attack 97 and wants to put her fleet to 92. Usually an AB is required then in order to not invite G/I to make an 1,2 attack on 92.
It would be nice if AldoRaine could post a Triple A save of how things should look like at end of round 4. Interesting ideas, and also easier to follow if you can look at it with the computer
An AB at Gib gives the US a fleet staging post to the Channel and the Med. Those 3 fighters do both, so 15 ipcs is very well spent.
It will minimise the navy required to the east of Gib to deny Italy its NO and gain control of sz97 as a convoy disruption opportunity that takes Italy out as an effective force.
It will minimise the navy required to the west of Gib to protect landings in north Africa and reinforce an allied fleet in the Channel, enabling landings in Normandy & Holland, thereby helping Russia.
It would be nice if AldoRaine could post a Triple A save of how things should look like at end of round 4. Interesting ideas, and also easier to follow if you can look at it with the computer
I will definitely try and do that. Hopefully I can find some time in the next few days.
I think the allies need to do more of what helps them win in classic 2nd ed Axis & Allies. Russia build all inf and send some to China, USA build some capital ships and then all inf and trn, and, since London is vulnerable in this game, all inf for the first couple of turns as well.
I think India should also build all inf with the occasional artillery.
1)The first objective for the allies should be protecting against sea lion. �
Protecting against sea lion is not an essential goal as sea lion is good for the Allies unless it’s ridiculously cheap. However your suggestion is ok as air and AB Gib makes sense in the most cases. but it’s not an essential Allies objective to protect against sea lion. If Germans to it, Allies are good in most cases.
I can see why you believe that defending against Sealion is not a critical goal but I must disagree with you on this one. �Losing London, even if costly to the Germans, is still a severe blow to the allies. The most likely result is that Italy is now in control of Africa and the Middle East. �This is offset by the fact that Russia is most likely now pushing into German territory but it is unlikely that Germany will fall to Russia with out help from the US. �This will greatly increase the ability for Japan to win the game in the pacific. �
I just feel that not securing London early is a mistake as it is far to much of a risk. As soon as London is captured the production advantage the Allies need to keep is now gone. �
3)The UK needs to hold Egypt. �This can be done by spending mos if not all of your bid on land units in Africa. �Only 2 inf are needed but obviously more should be placed. I like to spend 12 on land units with 2 inf and 1 tank.
Egypt is overrated and spending the entire bid in Africa is a bad idea. Allies need to squeeze the Germans with Russia and by Dday. Liberating africa is not a major objective. Supply lines are too long from Africa to hurt the Axis, that’s why dday is perferable as UK can reinforce every turn.
I agree completely with your assessment that the Allies need to squeeze the Germans with Russia and US/UK. �I just disagree wholeheartedly with you in your stance that Africa is not worth the bid or that the supply lines are to long from Africa. �The UK can have factories in Egypt and Persia before the attack on the True Neutrals takes place and Saudi Arabia and Turkey after.
This is more than enough production capability for a formidable third front. �I am a firm believer in the idea that the area stretching from Egypt through the Middle East all the way to India is where UK needs to project its power. �
Now the not so obvious ones. �
4)Russia should try to get 25+ art by round 5.�
The goal is not to get a certain amount of Arty but look for an opportunity to stop the German army to progress for one turn by having enough fire power. However this also heavily depends on what the Germans have. In some cases there is no way to put attack power on Russia because surviving is everything Russia can do. In other cases buying 6 tanks Round 1 or 2 can be the best buy if this keeps the Germans from progressing.
The only thing I will add to this is that the main reason I like getting the artillery early has to do with the fact that once the other two fronts are opened up by the US and UK, Russia should now have the ability to strafe whatever stack the Germans have in Russia. �Since the Germans now have two other fronts to worry about Russia can now focus on just replacing the infantry it is now loosing in the strafing / skirmishing. �
Here are a couple of shots of how the Middle east/ Africa should look like for UK after round 2 and 3. In this game I declared war on the true neutrals round 5 and I was able to go on the offensive with Russia by round 7.
I have been playing on Triple A lately and I will say that my strategy has been having a lot of success. I realize that the level of competition varies a lot on when playing over their servers but I have not lost with this strategy in the last 4 games.
Most of my bids ranged from 9-12. (It seems the bids are lower when playing over their servers.
I am not sure the best way to post the images so I just attached them.
Hmm, does this assume that the Germans don’t hammer SZ110 G1 and you stack much of the UK navy in SZ92? Ignoring that violating a local rule/interpretation I play, that is only possible because of a poor (IMO) choice G1.
My G1 opening is to hit SZ111, 110 and 91. That doesn’t leave much room for an SZ92 stack - would be 2DD, 1CV, 1 Cruiser. Easily taken down I1. Even with the Gibraltar airbase, a 1-2 punch is possible before the Naval Base can repair the CV.
The contrary opening of hitting SZ111 & 109, the stack would be 1DD, 1CV, 1BB and 2 Cruisers. The Italians can only hit this with a BB, DD, Sub, SB and 2 Cruisers. Not quite enough, assuming 2ftrs are on the CV.
My G1 opening is to hit SZ111, 110 and 91. That doesn’t leave much room for an SZ92 stack - would be 2DD, 1CV, 1 Cruiser. Easily taken down I1. Even with the Gibraltar airbase, a 1-2 punch is possible before the Naval Base can repair the CV.
Lets say you as UK buy the AB and stack SZ92 with 2DD, 1CV and 1 Cruiser. At this point I would welcome a 1-2 punch from Italy and Germany. As a defender UK can bring the 2DD, 1CV, 1 Cruiser and 5 fighters against Italy’s 1 sub, 1 DD, 2 Cruisers, 1 BB 2 fighters and 1 Bomber. This gives the UK and 81% chance of victory (with no bid towards a navy).
This has higher chance of victory than Taranto attack even with a bid of a sub. Not to mention the added bonus of almost certainly closing off sealion and forcing Italy to commit its entire navy to a decisive battle that is unfavorable to them in R1.
Also most games i play i don’t see an attack on sz 91 due to the fact most people seem to feel the subs are better used in sz110 and sz106.
That being said. If I were playing as Italy and I saw the UK stack sz 92 like that I would be very tempted attack it R1. It should be recognized that if the axis let the UK navies in the pacific and the Med meet up in R2 then the Italian navy will never be able to move from sz97. The attack on sz 92 is the best chance Italy would have of establishing dominance in the Med. Although i feel Italy should more concerned with establishing the can opener and defense.
I’m in two minds about what I’d do as Axis against that gambit.
Option 1:
Hammer SZ92 fleet and retreat once the carrier’s damaged, take Algeria, find something to do with the other transport. Germany finishes off the fleet, landings its ftrs/TBs on Algeria. If I’ve used subs to take down the SZ91 cruiser G1 and they’ve both survived, as they do 5 in 7, they could support the attack but more likely a UK DD stood outside in SZ91 to finish these off with air support. So realistic combat losses after one round of combat are:
Italy - dent on BB, ftr, sub & DD.
UK from Italy: dent on CV, Cruiser, DD, ftr. Or perhaps they’re hip to your jive and lose another ftr instead of the Cruiser.
The remaining UK force can be taken down quite easily by 1tb 2sb 3ftr (80%) at the cost of 3ftr 1tb
One funny addition to this assault would be an amphibious on Gibraltar, assuming it has no land troops and no extra planes. If the UK scrambles to meet it, that strips the SZ92 fleet of plane(s). If the US isn’t at war, this is conceivably not a suicide mission.
In fact, the Italian fighters can only come in if Germany has taken down Southern France, which is not a move I greatly like.
Option 2:
Amphibiously assault Gibraltar. Problem seems to be that you can’t in any way provide plane support unless you send in a CV.
Option 3:
Put down destroyer blockers SZ91. I guess this costs you 8 per turn and is only useful if you’re determined to do a Sea Lion.
Let’s scrub option 3. I can see how Sea Lion is less attractive if you have to do that.
