well i dont know about some break out stradegy but if u are the allies and of course u have russia if u wont them to win they need some more ipc’s and the best way to do that is to just give them allie territory like have the us pull out of there two asia spots by attaking japan and have the english attack japan from india with what little stuff tthey have that gives the russians 7 more to spend each turn then 2 more u mostlikely get from there first move atatck to make a front other wise ur going to be hammering it away with germany for a long time in till either side gets a little ahead then ur screwd ive found thjis plan to work several times and ur thinking then russia has to deal with japan no just have the us put alot of heat on them and have britan take germany out of africa and then there pertected there
Wacky UK Strategy
-
You may face some problems with Japan getting too strong too fast. Also, your going to have to deal with bombers getting shot down, never a good thing. I’ve tried it before actually, and I’ve been pretty much unsuccessful. Japan gets too big too fast.
Your idea works somewhat in AAE for the germans though :wink:
-
“had an idea last night for a slightly crazy, somewhat abstract UK strategy that combines two questionable tactics:
Strategic Bombing Runs and a South African Factory.”Ha just sounds like TM’s ( :grin:) strat of buying nothing but bombers and IC. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, it’s awfully risky. By building nothing but bombers, you are jeopardizing a little too much on future investment plans. Now it’s not to say building pure bombers won’t pay off. With enough bombers, you can tip the Allied economy in your favor even if Axis has the territorial IPC lead. The problem is that the Axis can and usually will win before this pays off in the long run. The successful strategy revolves around a two-pronged system of both bombers and another front. You mentioned Africa, which leaves the USA to better help Africa. However, like Wild2000, I wouldn’t suggest a South Africa IC, even if you’re playing without a bid.
If you’re looking for an IC somewhere in Africa, Egypt is key, not South Africa. This ensures that Japan does not boil over into Africa via the Persia, Iran, and India. With a South Africa IC, you have to worry about supply lines. After all, you have to climb all the way up to North Africa where the real action is. It also gives the probability of a UK invasion in Southern Europe, which is usually left unprotected. As an added bonus, bombers can be placed directed in Egypt on your placement phase and used in SBRs on Southern Europe following your next turn.
-
Hahaha… that was me. :smile:
-
Now Yanny and Wild both mentioned Japan, and the suggestion was of puissant importance. Excuse me if I borrow the term for “critical mass,” but if the Japanese have a better chance of reaching it if UK stays home and buys bombers.
Now if you really want to bring the war to Japanese waters, an IC in Australia (not South Africa) will do nicely (preferably first turn). Australia is positioned in the heart of the Japanese Island Chains and in two turns can wreck total devastation to Japan’s merchant fleet, forcing them to build their own Navy for defensive operations. South Africa is out horribly out of location, I can reach nowhere with my transports on the first turn and decreasing my ATB. Egypt does offer some of the same advantage as Australia, but is turn economy. It takes me three turns to move from Egypt to Japan, while from Australia that measure is reduced by one. Australia also presents a gambit for the Japanese between choosing a buildup of the Britain or the challenge of the American fleet.
-
Unfortunately, it can be taken the turn it is built without any difficulty :sad:
-
Well first, before I reply in depth, what do you plan to attack Australia with?
-
2 Infantry from Philipeens, 1 Fighter (bringing AC along to land fighter).
-
Okay fair enough, your 1 ftr (where is this fighter coming from, the AC or Philippines) and 2 inf have a 59% chance of taking the island vs my Australian home defense.
Do you plan to attack Pearl Harbor also? If so, with what forces? What about the Asia mainland?
-
It’s got to be said that Moses is right on this one Yanny.
2 INF + 1 FGt vs 2 INF is 59% keeping the FGT alive, 76% to take the territory at all costs.
Your maximum attacking Japanese force is:
2 INF, 1 FGT (Car SZ), 1 BB (Car SZ). (FGT in PHI is too far away).
The maximum defending force in Australia is:
2 INF (+2 INF IND), 1 FGT (IND), and a TRN defending the EAUS SZ.
This negates the BB onshore attack, and 2 INF , 1 FGT vs 4 INF, 1 FGT does not give high odds of winning for the attacker.
But, even if it wasn’t defended…
In addition, your carrier, BB and TRN are out of position, and you’ve used two much needed infantry and one FGT. And of course, no Pearl Harbour - you are begging the US to buy SUBS, consolodate the navy in Hawaii, and threaten to park the entire job lot of it in SOJ by US3.
With Japan operating on two fronts (Asia and Pacific) at the start of the game, the last thing they want to do is to pull more troops away and capture an IC that would be absolutely useless to them.
Would you take the risk?
Stu
-
Darn you Desert_Viper! You stole my response from right under me! :smile:
What I’m trying to do is draw the main Japanese transport fleet and ftrs away from Asia where they are desperately needed. Also I’m trying to split the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor so I can hit them hard on America’s turn. Without that carrier Japan needs to defend against a possible counter attack, I have a great chance of keep my US forces alive.
-
Well, I tried my strategy out twice this weekend. In general, it works but it takes longer to put the Axis away, as is to be expected I guess. Needless to say, the German player didn’t have too much fun in either game. The one thing that was readily apparent is that you can build up a force of bombers fairly easily - you don’t even come close to losing a bomber a turn until you have 5 or six of them, and even then there were many times when I hit Germany with 6+ bombers and wouldn’t lose a single one. There is more of a luck factor in constant bombing, but with the high numbers of planes and attacks it’s not nearly as much as you think. Of course theoretically you could have some kind of freak round where you lost 4 or 5 bombers in one attack, but that’s A&A for you - no different then a freak round that tips a large battle in the opposite direction.
As for the IC in South Africa - the first time I pushed the troops towards Japan through Persia once Africa was wrapped up. That was basically too slow, although the troops could pack a lot of punch with those bombers backing them up. I never tried it though, I stuck to my plan of bombing Germany every turn no matter what.
The second time I quit using the IC after Africa was taken back and just saved the extra IPCs to buy extra bombers - that probably worked better, as I was buying two bombers every three rounds.
Basically, the strongest part of this strategy is that Germany is totally under your thumb after about the sixth turn. What happens is that Germany is never an offensive threat, but since you only have America shipping troops to Karelia, it takes longer to knock Germany out, which means that Japan threatens Russia more, so you have to divert American troops to Russia, which delays Germany’s fall even longer. However, Germany was never a danger - the delay was just a logistical one, so the real danger was Japan. After Germany has lost Eastern Europe, they basically never build another troop because they always have about 0 IPCs. I was even able to start turning the bombers against Japan in the end of the second game. The next game I am going to turn the UK bombers on the Japanese factories sooner - I think that will be even more effective. The first six always hit Germany and any remainder hit Japan.
A few notes from a psychological perspective: 1.) The German player almost literally doesn’t get to play, so it’s not much fun for them. You think being ganged up on 3 to 1 is no fun, try not getting to buy any new troops. This is a game, and I felt a little bad about that. 2.) It wasn’t that hard to force myself to buy a bomber every turn, even after a couple of bad losses (lost 2 bombers 3 turns in a row one game). 3.) The worst thing about this strategy is fighting the temptation to use the bombers somewhere else every once in a while, especially against Japan. I just had to keep asking myself, “Is that better than knocking 6-8 infantry out of Germany?”
If I were grading this strategy I would give it about a 5 on a scale of 1-10, but I think I can bring it up to about a 7 with some tweaking.
I am also going to try a spinoff strategy, where I plan on switching the bombers to hit Japan as soon as they build a mainland factory. For that strategy I will not be buying an IC in Africa - instead I will use all excess money to send troops to Norway. It will probably be a disaster though. :smile:
-
Please tell me you guys are joking about an IC in Australia!!! That has got to be the worst place for an IC in the game!
-
No, actually it is probably one of the best places to construct an IC.
-
Yes, I do plan on attacking Pearl harbor. I’ll just take a bit more of a beating. Fighter is from Phil. I see it as a great move, shutting UK’s investment down.
Now, maybe if you moved the Indian pieces to Australia, I might have a problem.
-
Well from India I would only move 1 ftr to Australia from India, and use the transport (unloaded) as a blocking movement. If Japan has any hope of taking Australia they must send a sub and carrier w/ 2 ftrs to Australia. The forces used in such an invasion are really a Coral Sea to the Japanese.
-
You don’t even have to worry about an IC in Australia - ignore it at first, then on J3 just divert your fleet and troops from Burma for one turn and you can flush all of the UKs efforts down the toilet in one move, without skipping a beat on J1 and J2!
On Japan 3 you can hit Australia with 8-10 infantry, 2 Battleships, 1 AC, 2 fighters, 1 bomber, maybe a sub, up to 3 extra fighters if you really wanted to (say if UK did something crazy like spent UK2 and UK3 buying 4 fighters). Honestly, an IC in Australia is the least bang for your buck IC you can buy.
If you really want to be agressive, you can hit them on J2 with the same force as above except for 4 infantry instead of 8-10.
Personally, though, I think kicking them out of Australia that early may be a bad move. It’s probably smarter to just ignore the factory and harass/blockade any navy UK tries to build - the more time and money the UK wastes in Australia, the better it is for the Axis!
Ok TG, I know an IC in Australia is fun, and I’m not trying to be too harsh on you, but two things:
1.) Please play Devil’s Advocate for one minute and tell us how you would take back Australia with Japan - you will quickly see how easy it is, and that an Australia IC is a minor distraction that falls quickly.
2.) Do you realize that you are trying to tell us that the most isolated country on the board, farthest from the action, is one of the best places to put an IC???
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-28 14:25 ]
-
Exactly, 2 units a turn is nothing. Japan starts out with a huge navy.
-
Moses, I’m going to have to join this gang bang here and attack your Australian IC strategy. Now, if Japan goes to take it I can see how it’s a sound (although not the best) UK move to stall Japan. But, if the Japan player ignores you for a turn or two, what are you going to do with this complex? You’re on an island, pretty far away from Japan or the mainland, and the Japanese navy will soon be coming at you. Producing only 2 units a turn isn’t going to let you overcome the navy to build enough guys to be a threat, or even a distraction, to Japan. You might be able to take an island or two, but Japan will earn that back when India falls. And it will much sooner because pulling that fighter out of India really gives Japan free reign of south asia. Anyway, I know that you are aware of better UK strategies, but this Aussie IC isn’t even an acceptable strategy.
-
Ha, 3 on 1? Sounds like my sort of odds. :smile:
"[Han] the odds of successfully navigating through an asteroid field are – " - C3P0
Try to get a proper response as soon as possible, but an IC in Australia was never my strategy. It was really invented by TM who was sick of standing around doing nothing with UK and really wanted to get some ATB and VATB. Try to get her to respond to this one.
-
I am often reminded the words of John F. Kennedy when he said, “We do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” [the quote seems to loss the essence of how his speech and its context]
If I wanted to I could formulate any tried and true strategy for United Kingdom like spend the game ferrying troops to Karelia or preparing for the Normandy Invasion. Personally I never enjoyed it. There’s plainly no fun to by being the “merchant woman” and spending turn after turn shipping troops, whereupon most of these troops to nothing but sit and defend. I’m a firm believer in ATB and VATB because it skips the dullness of being a virtually nonexistent force for most of the game. TG Moses’s strategy for the United Kingdom is the worst example of this. He would be better off saving all of his money until turn three before finally having a chance to use it. In my Australia strategy, I’m at least doing something. The bored player is more likely to make mistakes, and I see that a lot when I play. I use my Australia to freshen times up. It’s time to break away from the conformists mold and not be dictated on what to buy and what to do. Turn after turn, game after game. With that said…“On Japan 3 you can hit Australia with 8-10 infantry, 2 Battleships, 1 AC, 2 fighters, 1 bomber, maybe a sub, up to 3 extra fighters if you really wanted to”
What strikes me as odd is where you are getting 2 Battleships, 1 Aircraft carrier, and a sub. Do you plan to attack Hawaii on the first turn? I would think that if this were to happen, then there wouldn’t be much of a Japanese fleet left, after America counterattacks on her turn.
“tell us how you would take back Australia with Japan”
Of course, any area that threatens Japan’s sphere of influence is an immediate threat. What I’m trying to do is divert much need supplies and manpower to Australia, instead of where they are needed, Asia. Also, the United Kingdom is at a huge advantage since it goes first before Japan. In terms of placement, this is a one-turn lead for UK that I can used to build up a Navy or fortify. Then you also have to deal with supply lines and plane movement, a real mess for Japan.
“farthest from the action, is one of the best places to put an IC???”
Purely the idea of a factory in Australia is a “action-based” concept under ATB. This gives me the chance of conquering crucial Japanese held islands and forcing the Japanese player to react to my playing style.
“You’re on an island, pretty far away from Japan or the mainland, and the Japanese navy will soon be coming at you.”
There are two aspects that I am unsure of here. One is the supposed Japanese navy and the other is if I’m trying to go straight after Japan. With Australia, in two turns I can reach every single territory in Asia. On turn one alone, I have the opportunity to take or recapture: East Indies, Borneo, India (mainland), Burma (mainland), Philippines, and New Guinea.
“But, if the Japan player ignores you for a turn or two, what are you going to do with this complex?”
Give the simplicity of the weakly defended Japanese-held islands, I’ll probably spend a turn or two build up a navy.
“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”
[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-28 22:59 ]
[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-28 23:02 ]
Suggested Topics
