@shaper why not just develop a strategy to go after England instead of Russia much easier target in my opinion because Russia is to far I have seen England fall before in 1 game I played as the axis I took England with Germany then I took Russia with Germany the following turn had great luck that day probably my greatest game of axis and allies it was the 1986 classic version
UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy
-
As Germany have you tried building and IC in Western Europe? That would allow you to build directly into the English Channel assuming you’re playing with Second Edition (?) where you can’t blockade port cities. However, that is 15 IPCs, so it might be too much of a burden. Just my thoughts.
-
SUD: On G2 why didn’t the Germans attack the AC, 2ftrs, and transport with its 4 planes and a bomber. This seems like the logical move to me. Waiting to G4 when the whole fleet is together to take action makes no sense. Plus why did you have germany buy 2 subs?
Overall I think Ozone’s strategy would make more sense to hit Hawaii and maybe Mexico on the way though the panama canal to the atlantic; killing the entire US fleet if possible.
If the UK builds an AC on UK1 rather than a IC in India, then operation Sea Lion has no chance because all UK production will come out of the UK.
If the UK builds an IC in India, however, then the UK must spend money to protect that investment which mean a weaker UK mainland. Also I think the mere threat of a UK invasion is as valuable as the invasion itself since it forces the UK player to buy and place units in the UK rather than building in India or shipping stuff off to Karelia where the battles are really taking place.
-
Panama might be a reanonable target
-
I agree. The US Fleet must be taken out in T1. It’ll prove too much of a thorn otherwise.
-
Something to consider:
A Japanese airforce stationed in Alaska can hit the UK seazone and land in Western Europe. I think this is a good way to smackdown a British/US fleet and provide extra defense for Germany to boot.
-
Wow I never thought of that. The only problem is that it the Zeros can only go as far as the English Channel. It takes 5 movements in order to reach Western Europe. However it does give Japan the element of surprise when making a mad dash to the Atlantic supported by CVs.
-
Actually, Western Canada is connected to the Seazone above Eastern Canada. Its mentioned in the rules addendum for 2nd Edition at least. That makes it 4 spaces from Alaska to Western Europe. :smile: So let’s go kick some Allied butt!
-
No, the rules state that you can land/pickup troops from the Eastern Canada Seazone. This does not mean you can cross from Alaska to Eastern Canada.
-
Yanny, you don’t need to go from Alaska to the East Canada SeaZone for this trick to work. The planes start in Alaska and then move: Western Canada->East Canada SZ (Hudson Bay?) -> UK SZ (Attack) -> Western Europe = 4 spaces.
Unfortunately, this only works in the 2nd edition rules. The 3rd edition rules say that Western canada is no longer connected to the Easy Canada SZ. Bummer. Of course that jkust means Japan has to base its airforce in Western Canada, which is certainly doable, and would be highly entertaining.
-
Plus an invasion by the Japanese onto American soil would take some of America’s attention from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
-
I think the idea of landing Japanese planes on Western Canada to make an attack on UK is GREAT if you can pull it off! I never thought of that. Also moving the Japanese fleet through Panama is a good idea, but I would be afraid of too much exposure to Allied airstrikes along the way–I’d prefer going thru Suez to link up because of this.
Any ships the UK or USA place in the Atlantic should be destroyed if at all possible before the invasion begins. To a certain extent, the more of UKs dwindling resources she spends on ships is actually the better for the Axis–after T3, UKs IPC income should be small enough that capital ships are difficult to impossible to purchase, and each TR represents 3 INF UK cannot build…Germany should be building as many FTRs as she can reasonably do so so as to build up for the major attack: don’t forget to hold off USSR, though!
Japan could conceivably launch an attack on Hawaiian Islands SZ using only 3 FTRs a BMR and the SUB T1 with NO capital ships. Heavy losses in FTRs, but your fleet remains intact (and isn’t in a position to be countered next turn) and that is very important for the strategy. Just state your plan to move the CV in the Carolines to p/u surviving planes in a SZ adjacent to Hawaiian Islands SZ–if 2 FTRs are destroyed you aren’t even obligated to move it there on Non Combat at all!
Or just try moving the entire Japanese fleet (instead of just 1/2) to the Med thru the Atlantic. This way you can crush the US fleet (since everyone is so married to this plan) and you are HEAVILY superior in the Atlantic now. I just don’t like risking the whole fleet this way–I think Japan should at least retain some kind of battle fleet in the Pacific, but I may be just too conservative…
Ozone27
-
SUD, how do you type so much?
I dont understand, are you planning on moving naval ships from Alaska to West Canada? Because that is illegal. Are you planning to use Planes? That will never go through, America will take it back.
-
How about America? If Britain can’t afford to defend itself, America can ship in their own infantry, bombers, fighters, and what not. This strategy leaves Russia too powerful, though I agree with the “no-hawaii” part :smile:.
Taking UK before Russia would be a fun thing to attempt one day, though when it actually does happen, it wouldn’t be done in such an intricate fashion.
Germany can try building a fleet, but they would have to use it to trick russia or america as well.
-
SUD:
Its irrelevant that the US can take Panama back. Its interesting that the US would divert a trans 2 inf and a plane to do so, since the whole point of the Jap attack is to pull US resources out of Europe. So a Jap attack on Panama is having the ideal result in this case.
If the UK builds an AC on turn 1, the US fighters are committed to fly to it and can do nothing in the Pacific theatre or else the German airforce will kill the AC with ease. At this point the Allied assault into Europe would stall for 1 maybe 2 turns. Against a good Axis player you have just lost the game. So by attacking Alaska, and you responding as you said you would will cost you the game.
The optimal response to the tired shuck-shuck strategy is for Japan to shuck-shuck into Alaska, and move its Airforce to Western Europe or Canada. The US will be tied up, and all the shuck shuck transports become wasted. The UK is at low teens income and effectively out of the game. Russia is caught in a 2 front war which it will eventually lose.
Japan can build an IC in Alaska, to build 2 tanks per turn and ship 4 to 6 inf per turn into Alaska while still pumping a tank and 4 inf into Asia. That’s enough for Asia because the only Allied player in Asia is Russia. The US will not be able to hard pressed to destroy the invading Jap forces. Any US ships lauched into the Pacific will be sunk by the Jap airforce in Western Canada. A force of 8+Jap infantry some tanks will take Western canada on J3. The US has to be careful, if it attacks Western Canada, it still needs to park enough forces in Western US to avoid a Japanese amphibious assault from Alaska to Western US. Most US players are not used to being invaded, and I think you would be surprised how hard the Japanese will hit you.
The Allied shuck-shuck strategy is flawed because it is so predicable, and easy to counter if the Axis works together. Germany sinks the AC on G2, and builds a fighter every other turn. Japan builds a fighter every turn and sends all its airforce to Western Canada/Europe. No allied ship in range goes unattacked. The Allied shuck-shuck stalls. Asia is now Axis dominated, and Germany has most of Africa. The allies are in dire straits because the UK has no IPCs, and America has no transports. Capital ships are expensive, and irrelevant. If the axis sinks all the transports, the allies are dead. Sorry I’m rambling.
-
Yes. If Japan was to land into Panama or Alaska if would definately tie up some of USA’s resources. This would probably delay the invasion 1 or 2 turns as USA now has to protect WUSA. Also what is this “shuck-shuck”? I know I have been playing A&A for many years but I have never come across that term before.
-
Zeros strategy is a good idea. This is an example of where the USA might regret having moved their whole fleet to (and built most of their units in) Eastern USA. In my experience, USA players often do freak out when Axis troops land on North America, and the attack from Western Canada to North Sea SZ would come as a shock to many players. Even if it only happened once, a combined Axis airstrike on UK SZ with the remaining airforces combining in Western Europe, could set the Western Allies back just long enough for you to pinch USSR–or possibly even invade UK… :grin: ?
Ozone27
-
Shuck Shuck is the name I’ve seen given for the strategy of having two sets of transports and cycling them back and forth to make a continuous stream of landings across come body of water. Usually its from East US to somewhere in Africa or Europe.
I don’t know why its called shuck shuck.
-
I call it “the conveyer belt.”
-
Yeah, Conveyor belt does sound better.
-
yes, it has a good ring to it :smile:
Suggested Topics
