Too Lazy To Play? Listen to us play!

Ok So first priority is to prevent any German Sealion Attacks. For this you would build Infantry and a few fighters.

You should have about 25-30 income so a Fighter and 6 inf isn’t out of the question.

Once you have secured you home island its time to consider offensive operations.

A good idea is to reinforce Africa ASAP. If you have managed to grab Persia or secure Egypt a factory here is a good way to boost India’s Defenses or annoy Italy.

Amphibious operations against France or Norway can also be considered but this will require many turns investment in fleet building or else the ships will be sunk as quickly as they are built. Typically a decent fleet will need carriers, destroyers and subs to protect the transports.

Typical build might be (

tank + Mech + Inf = 13 (for S-AFRICA)
Plane (str  ftr or tac) 10 - 12
1-2 inf to round out purchases

After about turn 5 you will see which way game is going (based on uS pacific v Atlantic focus) Then you can turn your attention to helping India or reinforcing US moves in Europe.

@wittmann:

Thanks for finding time for the write up. 1940 is a game you can play 100s of times and still not master it, so don’t worry if you feel you could improve on Germany. Will just have to play again!
It does sound,  however,  like next time you will have to hire the room until 6am and take turns sleeping under the table.

Lol are you on the level?

Thanks!

Silly would indeed be the correct word for any India/ANZAC player doing such a thing…

Anyway, wasn’t this about Egypt?

@Redjac:

Commander Jennifer,

How do we check on your games? Where are they?

Redjac

On these forums in the play games section.

Round 4 with Corriganbp, I have England and India and a large show of force down in the DEI for Japan.  He’s got infantry in China, but that does not bother me.  They are not getting reinfroced, they cannot take a VC and I am already close to a VC win for Japan.  Figure another 3 rounds and it’s lights out for the Allies.  (He evacuated the Pacific in hopes of being able to liberate London.)

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I will be playing the allies tonight

Let us know how the game went???