Newly Joined, looking for strategy advice. Germany.

@Fabius:

Hello everybody this is my first message, I’m an Italian player of A&A and I would like to know your impressions on this KJF strategy.

First Round:
UK: purchase 2 transport 1 Inf 1 Arm and attacks Norway with 2 Inf 1 Arm 1 Artillery (assuming Germany uses his Atlantic Submarine with the fighters to destroy the Brits Battelship in Med). Uk destroyer goes from India to S59 and destroy the Jap transport. Uk moves his South African Inf to Kenya (assuming Germany destroyed Brits in Angloegypt) and Persian Inf to India.
Uk also moves the Indian Fleet in S30 and also the Australian Fleet.
Uk also moves one armor from East Canada to Alaska, and one Inf from West Canada to Alaska.

What do you think?

I think I’m either going to take London or destroy your North Sea fleet on G2.

Also, an IC in Alaska doesn’t seem a good use of ipcs–-why not buy an extra AC with that cash or consider a Sink IC?  In the strat you describe Japan is going to get rich on mainland ICs which will allow them to buy air to resist the dual fleet threat.

:-D
This game is all about trying something different, may not always work, but it keeps it interresting :wink:
  It is my experience that no matter how great a strategy may be, the dice will still make you lose  :cry:
Or win  :lol:
So try anything, and just have fun  :-D

@Bean:

It’s ok Jen, and it turned out to help you in your game ^^

Yea, well he was a royal prick in the game and got the mod to force that the worst outcome of the two results be applied, even though the first outcome was obviously first.

I had to go back to a previous roll to check and make sure my artillery was applied right, they were not.  So he lost 1 hit, but because my worst of two was like -12 hits, he still came out like a bandit.

Anyway, thanks, because Germany now has +42 IPC for next round and I AM sticking him with it.  18 rounds of illegal rocket fire. (I just took every rocket on S. Europe, figured it was the most fair.  Germany’s a higher value target then S. Europe, so it would probably be the target shot at anyway.  Besides, Germany was the first rocket rolled in every round, S. Europe was the second, Caucasus the third.)

Germany lost 400 IPC in armies (killing only 215 because of that dice fiasco) but she also has 120 to spend and Japan’s going to finish off the enemy anyway!

In a good KJF, Germany will be stopped before getting 50 IPC, Switch.  Any layman player who puts some thought into it can easily slow Germany enough to prevent them from being at the doorstep of Moscow before Round 10, at which point, Japan should be castrated.

The trick is to put 2-3 transports of troops into Africa a turn.  Easy to do without building a single extra transport.  Actually, odds are, you’re putting 4 transports in a round.  Maybe more, if England is focused on Africa and fighters for Russia.  America can take Japan without England’s help.  Just use the English fleet to make it near impossible to sink the American fleet and let America take the islands.

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

@newpaintbrush:

@Jennifer:

How do you plan to invade England when they have 2 fighters, 2, armor, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 bombers + 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 artillery, 1 armor from America on it?

Keep in mind you have maybe 6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 transports and 1 battleship to use on Germany 2 and that’s making some assumptions that you did not loose any of those assets prior to your second turn and that you landed all those aircraft in France somehow knowing that England was going to buy a bomber and an IC instead of something else.

How is it that every time I propose a move, that the Allies mysteriously pop up with these shadow forces in the ideal place?  That’s why I really dislike Jennifer’s responses.  Somehow the Allies always watched to see what Germany would do, and did something that would otherwise be almost retarded to counter Germany’s response.  But in that case, Germany can just have done the other thing.

Hmm, possibly because you keep changing what Germany does to fit the actions of England who moves after Germany???

However, I’ve never changed my English strategy.  They always end up with 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 infantry, armor and artillery + America can land more if Germany appears to be setting up Sea Lion.

Not my fault you’re not capable of seeing the short falls in your own plans.  I’d say I’m sorry, but I’m not.  You need to pay closer attention to details that are posted instead of assuming.

I presume you assumed England sent her bomber to Egypt, retook Egypt with the SZ 35/India equipment, landed troops in Algeria, leaving their capital with only a few infantry to defend it, huh?  Because, unless that’s exactly what England does, Germany hasn’t a chance in hell of taking it on G2 and everyone on the board knows it.

K, thanks very much.  I was a little bit in doubt and didn’t know the background of when that was started.

The main reason you could do that is because you took London on G2, so he couldn’t possibly increase his naval force (not to mention he lost a fighter off his carrier). Plus, the US didn’t really put any effort into co-guarding the UK fleet because he is trying to go after Japan first.

You made an excellent choice in this circumstance and it is a good example of what I think the German navy was designed for, but in normal circumstances the costs would have been greater and the benefits less if the US/UK had united in SZ8 and built some navy together (and not lose the capital  :lol:)