Yes, I have played a few well known players on this site that all seem to be making the same mistake, they are investing in the Atlantic with the United States of America and thus, are having a bit more trouble in clearing Japan out.
Don’t get me wrong, they do eventually clear Japan out, they just have a much harder time of it than if they go whole hog after Japan. If the United States ignores the Atlantic for the first 6 rounds of play, Japan is done for. If they are more conservative, they can easily ignore the Atlantic for the first 8 rounds of play and really drive the nails into Japan. Again, all you need to do is bottle Japan up and that is no where near as hard as actually beating Japan.
Once you are too strong to beat (defined: If Japan throws it all at you, they lose and you win) all it really takes is an investment of 30-40 IPC a round to maintain your power. The other 40 IPC a round can go into the Atlantic and CRD the Europeans / Liberate England (Africa should not be lost. Unless the attack on SZ 97 went REALLY badly, Africa should be just about to capitulate to the Italians by about round 8.)
@Cmdr:
Yes, I have played a few well known players on this site that all seem to be making the same mistake, they are investing in the Atlantic with the United States of America and thus, are having a bit more trouble in clearing Japan out.
Don’t get me wrong, they do eventually clear Japan out, they just have a much harder time of it than if they go whole hog after Japan. If the United States ignores the Atlantic for the first 6 rounds of play, Japan is done for. If they are more conservative, they can easily ignore the Atlantic for the first 8 rounds of play and really drive the nails into Japan. Again, all you need to do is bottle Japan up and that is no where near as hard as actually beating Japan.
Once you are too strong to beat (defined: If Japan throws it all at you, they lose and you win) all it really takes is an investment of 30-40 IPC a round to maintain your power. The other 40 IPC a round can go into the Atlantic and CRD the Europeans / Liberate England (Africa should not be lost. Unless the attack on SZ 97 went REALLY badly, Africa should be just about to capitulate to the Italians by about round 8.)
Jen, this is a great synopsis. This is the main problem- go whole hog on Japan, sack them then liberate England. Allies w/o US can hold their own I believe. I have played enough to see this. I would usually go 75% Pacific and 25% Europe with US. Though I didn’t go whole hog against Japan with US- I can easily see the plan working. USSR and UK CAN keep it together until Japan is sacked. Very convinced now that I’ve seen it on the board.
So then let’s work on solutions which should entail the US having to dedicate more to Europe- best way is through an NO I believe. Non-believers of Jen observations will gasp until they are convinced that US can sack Japan with 100% effort and none to Europe for first 6-8rounds.
So here it is:
Replaced Mexico NO with NO (US at war only) that includes Allies controlling all of the following: Gibraltar, Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia.
Add 4inf, 1art on Tokyo
Add 2inf, 2art on Rome
$30 of land material for Axis- now Japan can use $16 on other things, Italy can use $14 on other things.
-$5 per round for US which in gameplay will result to at least $15-$20 (rounds 4-8ish) until they can gain this NO again and keep it.
This may seem a little strong but it may be what is needed.
instead of units on rome, I say make it so that italy cant get totally screwed in tobruk and sz 97, the 2 inf 2 rtl wont mean anything if those battles cripple italy.
The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already. Those I think are in balance, IMHO. Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.
@Cmdr:
The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already. Those I think are in balance, IMHO. Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.
Ya but, the damage is more siginificant on the axis, you said that losing the uk med fleet is worth it for killing 2 german planes. Also, how does italy recover when UK destroys torbruk (its mostly UK sided if UK wants it to be)?
Mantle,
Why don’t you, for once in your career on these pages, back ANYTHING you say with some FACTS.
I’ve demonstrated ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS that it is not only possible, IT’S ASSURED.
Russia does NOT have to push Germany back to Denmark. Russia has to hold Moscow and EITHER Stalingrad OR Leningrad to defeat Germany, that’s IT. Nothing more, nothing less! I’ve seen Russia do that without American aid for 12-15 rounds, I see it so often, it’s almost STANDARD.
You quoted how America gets a 600 IPC fleet, then say I didn’t prove how? 600 IPC fleet is SIMPLE! 900 IPC is more realistic! Sure, Japan has a 600 IPC fleet too, but it’s not strong enough to take out the Americans, therefore, it’s useless.
Italy is making 50 IPC a round, maybe…that’s assuming England isn’t taking out the Middle east, which is like, DUH, what the F are you doing with India anyway???
Germany is making 50 IPC a round, presumably, but again, not enough to win in Russia, even with Italian help. Meanwhile by the time Italy IS making 50 IPC a round, America has bottled the Japanese and is invading Africa via Brazil and moving to CRD Europe for 32 IPC (it’ll take time, but warships are expensive and America will have PLENTY of Warships by the time Japan is bottled up like a rancid bottle of Pepsi, and no were near with as good a flavor in their mouth.)
Honestly, one would assume you couldnt figure out how to tie your shoes, except, you obviously can type.
@Cmdr:
The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already. Those I think are in balance, IMHO. Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.
Ya but, the damage is more siginificant on the axis, you said that losing the uk med fleet is worth it for killing 2 german planes. Also, how does italy recover when UK destroys torbruk (its mostly UK sided if UK wants it to be)?
Yes, but not significantly so. We are talking only the difference between Sea Lion being automatic and Sea Lion requiring the dice to be normal or better, not the difference between Italy getting 50 IPC a round or Italy getting 10 IPC a round. After all, if England is still in the game by round 3, then the Axis screwed up. I’m assuming Italy has all of N. and C. Africa, Germany has England and a strong army in Eastern Europe by round 4 or 5. Even with that, America beats the Japanese back.
Anyway, I’ve given up educating Mantle. From now on, he’s on permanent ignore. He’s dumber than Switch, and I finally shut him up by playing him and beating the ever living crap out of him (so much so, he refused to play and left the boards.)
I thought were were talking about balancing the game, not exclusivey about sealion.
Oh, I want to balance things out, I’m just saying that the British attack in N. Africa is balanced by the ease of Sea Lion.
Besides, I want to get away from new units, if we have to add units to the game (and I don’t think we do) they should be in Libya so they are safe from England, but they don’t hurt England more. England’s already the biggest wuss on the board, yes more than France, I’ve seen the French do some nice things to Germany, they’re just out of position.
I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and the thing that no one has explored in depth (unless I missed it) is that Jen’s entire argument rests on Germany always doing Sealion. My question is why. What happens if Germany threatens Sealion, then only goes through with it if UK doesn’t adequately defend itself? If UK does build up a defense, then Germany goes for Moscow instead. Either way, Germany has more resources to use against the Soviets, and UK has less resources to immediately use against the Axis. Can the US realistically ignore Europe in favor of Japan under those circumstances?
Krieg:
I assume Sea Lion because it is the best option for Germany given an all out attack on Japan.
Why?
1) If you do not do Sea Lion, you have given the allies +20 IPC (minimum) a round for an extra 6 round (assuming Sea Lion generally works on round 3 and we are assuming America enters on round 9 in any AVERAGE game.)
2) By the time you subdue Russia, England is way too powerful to subjugate. Germany would need transports AND units to hit England, by then, England better have 20 or 30 units on it + naval pressence and Africa. Meaning, Germany needs 40 to 50 units + 20-25 transports to have a realistic chance and that’s just a lot of transports to have, even for the Transport Queen here.
Will you get Moscow? Sure. But Moscow is not really the target, the target is to get 8 Victory Cities. Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Warsaw, Paris, Berlin, Rome right? Or exchange London for Leningrad. (I can see British units holding Leningrad and London easily. Even with 20 or 30 guys on London since Germany cannot afford both a navy and an army simultaniously.)
Add a Jap tank dash? Eh, I still don’t see it. All you’ll do is sap the strength of the Japanese faster, the Russian hammer and anvil will grind your assault into a crawl and the Americans will secure the South Pacific, then Marines (to be defined as naval and army units for use in the Atlantic, as opposed to just the pure navy you need in the Pacific) to help and create a D-Day scenario.
Don’t forget Montreal…
Well, Geist, if you are taking Montreal, you may as well take London, it’s an easier target.
NEEDING London is more a matter of convenience. Since it is virtually assured that London will fall if you attack it early enough, and there is a National Objective there for you, one that is very hard to take away, and if you wait too long London becomes impossible to take, it seems virtually assinine not to make the attempt in most games. Sure, in the off game where your buttocks are returned to you on a silver platter in your battles in SZ 111 and SZ 113, perhaps it is not feasible, but we’re supposed to be looking at the big picture.
Generally speaking here’s the easiest way for Germany / Italy to win:
It was never claimed this was the ONLY way, it is the EASIEST way and the way, I suspect, it will happen in most games, with the off game of “fools mate” where a German transport snipes Toronto and America has nothing to liberate it with before the end of France’s turn. Also, it may be routine to see Muskva exchanged for either Volgorod or Novgorod to achieve victory depending on the Russian military lay out.
However, none of these are theoretically plausible before rounds 11 or 12 at the very earliest and 14 or 15 at the most likely. Meanwhile, the American bottling of Japan is assumed to have been completed by rounds 8 or 9 giving America 2 or 3 rounds at the shortest, 5 or 6 rounds at the most likely to liberate a victory city or two and thus, even if Russia falls entirely, the Axis are denied victory. By then, Australian forces (building at least 3 destroyers a round with at least 3 fighters, probably 4 fighters for assistance) can keep the Japanese fleet from having an open run at the allied fleet indefinitently.
I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and the thing that no one has explored in depth (unless I missed it) is that Jen’s entire argument rests on Germany always doing Sealion. My question is why. What happens if Germany threatens Sealion, then only goes through with it if UK doesn’t adequately defend itself? If UK does build up a defense, then Germany goes for Moscow instead. Either way, Germany has more resources to use against the Soviets, and UK has less resources to immediately use against the Axis. Can the US realistically ignore Europe in favor of Japan under those circumstances?
Kreig, glad your following. Yes, Jen is right, Sealion IS the best option and unfortunely (unless the sea battles around England go really bad) Germany can take it every time.
By the way- does anyone know the current odds in Sealion??? In Alpha1 it was 88% victory- In Alpha2 I think its like 77% or something- lower but still high. If Larry wanted to change it- just add 2inf to London- something I suggested ages ago.
However, Sealion odds are not the problem, since Allies have the advantage in A2. The problem lies with the US-
1.) They need more incentive to commit forces to Europe. If US goes all out to sack Japan…and yes Russia CAN hold its own (I’ve played the game enough into middle rounds to see this) even with Sealion…then Axis are done for. If played correctly, barring really bad luck- Allies win consistently. This of course is not good.
2.)US still make too much money. They become beastly by round 8+. I guess they should but the Axis need long-term help to give them a fighting chance.
Kreig I’ve even thought about ALL of the following changes- extreme as they may be because of Jen observations and my own. If people follow the strategy (100%Pacific for US for the first 6 rounds) and play Russia correctly more will see. However you have to play deep into rounds like (round 10+) to actually see the effects.
Add 4inf, 1art on Tokyo
Add 2inf, 2art on Rome
Add 3inf, 1art on Berlin
Replace Mexican NO with $5 US NO that states that the Allies (US at war) must control Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Gibraltar at the same time.
Don’t forget,
I’ve played India where they build up 20-30 infantry, abandon India and send all the material with planes to help defend Russia -giving US even more time to go for Axis after sacking Japan.
@Cmdr:
I assume Sea Lion because it is the best option for Germany given an all out attack on Japan.
Why is an all-out attack on Japan a given? If the European Axis puts enough pressure on the Allies, will the US be able to do an all-out attack on Japan? Are you just assuming that the Axis can’t do this without Sealion, or have you actually tried it?
My experience is that a good Sealion feint by Germany (along with the destruction of most of the UK’s home fleet) will put the UK on its heels long enough for Germany to take out the USSR if the US doesn’t help in Europe. If the UK doesn’t respond to the threat by turtling, go ahead and take out England on the cheap; otherwise head for Moscow.
Italy has to do its part as well, keeping UK tied up in the Mediterranean. I keep hearing that Italy is done for after the first round because UK destroys half its fleet. That hasn’t been my experience, either. Moving a couple of German fighters to Southern Italy makes UK pay a steep price for the destruction of that fleet, and Italy can hold its own after that.
You say that Sealion is the best way for the Axis to win, but you also say the Axis can’t win. Have you even tried it my way? How about everyone else? Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?
@Cmdr:
I assume Sea Lion because it is the best option for Germany given an all out attack on Japan.
Why is an all-out attack on Japan a given? If the European Axis puts enough pressure on the Allies, will the US be able to do an all-out attack on Japan? Are you just assuming that the Axis can’t do this without Sealion, or have you actually tried it?
My experience is that a good Sealion feint by Germany (along with the destruction of most of the UK’s home fleet) will put the UK on its heels long enough for Germany to take out the USSR if the US doesn’t help in Europe. If the UK doesn’t respond to the threat by turtling, go ahead and take out England on the cheap; otherwise head for Moscow.
Italy has to do its part as well, keeping UK tied up in the Mediterranean. I keep hearing that Italy is done for after the first round because UK destroys half its fleet. That hasn’t been my experience, either. Moving a couple of German fighters to Southern Italy makes UK pay a steep price for the destruction of that fleet, and Italy can hold its own after that.
You say that Sealion is the best way for the Axis to win, but you also say the Axis can’t win. Have you even tried it my way? How about everyone else? Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?
I believe Jenn’s argument is based not on what Germany does (Sealion or no, but Sealion gives Germany the quickest income boost), but on what the US is able to do. If the US fully commits to the Pacific, Russia & the UK can hold Germany back long enough for Japan to be neutered and the US to be able to go to the Atlantic with overwhelming income, even when ignoring them for 6 rounds.
The advocates of this theory want to see National Objectives for the US that pursuade them to put money into the Atlantic. They believe there is very little incentive to fight there if they can completely obliterate Japan (I have no opinion on this, this is only what I’ve read here).
In most of our games USA Is forced to build on both sides of the map due to the fact that Germany and Italy will gain too much steam and together they can fend off the USA if they don’t build on that side of the board. Left alone Italy should be making close to 60 a turn and same with Germany. The one two punch with these countries is very devastating.
Correct, KCD. Krieg’s arguement is that if Germany goes all into Russia that America will be forced to invest in the Atlantic. I disagree and I do so because it has been my experience that not hitting England and taking it out early means that England is now in a superior position to reinforce Russia and thus, prevent Germany from even pushing them back to Volgorod and Novgorod like they could have if they had taken out England.
BTW, I prefer to move my Indians through China and into Russia that way with about 8 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 armor and then send double that into the middle east. With Japan pushed back and British forces in China, China should quickly grow in strength to prevent a Japanese incursion from happening again. (Assumes the fighter was not lost.) And with England coming in through SE Asia, that means more Russians can be diverted to Moscow so you have British forces moving into Vologrod from India and British forces landing in Novgorod by way of Scandinavia and Russia turtleing the hell out of itself.
Yes, Russia loses the 5 IPC NO for no allied units on red territories (originally red territories) but if you work it right (and why wouldn’t you?) Russia should have 3 IPC for Norway and 3 IPC NO for Norway to counter balance that.
Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?
Moscow, in our games.
I want to see a Krieg vs Jen game :)
