New Axis strategy….has not failed yet....

@argothair yes that indeed is an issue. That is why i stop doing taranto but this form of Gibastion. This way i save the fleet and carrier. So UK 2 i move them (UK fighters from the Med and London who are now in algeria) to Egypte and there on to Moscow. Togethee with the Anzac fighters this gives Russia a bit of breathing space.
The factory in Egypte buys subs and a fighter turn two and from turn 3 on fighters abd Land units .
It is not the perfect plan but wirh a US going 75% KJF you can’t invade Europe direct.

No discussion for a while now…

Any new conclusions about this strategy?

What’s about an airbase at Gibraltar and moving Egypt fleet west? Yet, I guess there was this topic deep down at forum’s splanchnic times ago but couldn’t find it…

I will try it next game I play, probably use it for Italy, since they need the Navy the most.

A lot of times what usually breaks the Allies is how poor US reacts to what side of the world to fight on.

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

@Zhukov44:

There are several good reasons to get an ac instead of a battleship.  The first is that Germany already has fighters to land on the AC.  So with the AC (plus fighters) you get a defense punch of 10, with a count of 4, compared to the bb’s punch of 4 and count of 2.  The second is that you won’t get many bombards out of that battleship unless you are using it in the Baltic.  You might get the one bombard when you attack England, but ultimately that one bombard shot is pretty useless compared to 2 fighters (also 20 ipc) that would participate in every round of the battle.

Another reason is acs extend the range of your fighters.  Unlike ships, fighters can’t be blocked.

Whether you intend to go for London or go for Moscow, there are better ways to spend that 20 ipcs.

Agreed, all good points.

Remember this:

Hitler, in trying to defend everything, could defend nothing.

I always try to be proactive in my sea and land defenses, but if you see the Allies attempting to land, pull back, build artillery and counterattack when the Allied airforces and navies can’t hit you. The exception is Germany, West Germany, Denmark. But you should defend 5 tt’s from the US (perhaps 6 depending on the Med): France, WGer, Ger, Den and Greece (and maybe N. Italy or Rome…)

Yes but that would be costly for the Brits.