=Here is what I normally do with USA:
80% Pac/20% Europe
1. Rounds 1-2 secure Hawaii and New South Wales so Japan can not grab them.
2. Rounds 2-3 Once at war in Europe I try and get a carrier in SZ 92 supported by a UK air base in Gibraltar in order to deny Italy’s Med bonus.
3. Rounds 4-5 I sink what remains of the Italian fleet and get my subs into position in SZ 97 to convoy Italy.
4. Rounds 6+ begin trading Java/Borneo/Celebes/Sumatra with Japan in attempt to save India. (2 things happen here. Either Japan wins the Island exchange or I have to dump so many resources to taking the islands that Germany and Italy break lose in Europe.)
It goes without saying there is a great deal of variability in Axis strategy and any good USA player must adapt to what the enemy is doing.
It seems like what you are doing here is trying to defeat Germany while doing just enough in the Pacific to avert Pacific defeat. I would try a flipped approach. Focus on destroying Japan and then turn your guns on Germany/Italy when Japan is either defeated or you have no choice but to go Atlantic to avert VC defeat. By defeating Japan, I mean getting Japan weak enough to where USA can focus 100% on Europe while Japan can be contained or further weakened by the remaining powers in the Pacific–Anzac, China, and UKPac.
It’s definitely important to contain Italy and achieve Allied objectives in the Med, but for the first 6 rounds that’s UK Europe’s business rather than the USA’s business.
=Here is what I normally do with USA:
80% Pac/20% Europe
1. Rounds 1-2 secure Hawaii and New South Wales so Japan can not grab them.
2. Rounds 2-3 Once at war in Europe I try and get a carrier in SZ 92 supported by a UK air base in Gibraltar in order to deny Italy’s Med bonus.
3. Rounds 4-5 I sink what remains of the Italian fleet and get my subs into position in SZ 97 to convoy Italy.
4. Rounds 6+ begin trading Java/Borneo/Celebes/Sumatra with Japan in attempt to save India. (2 things happen here. Either Japan wins the Island exchange or I have to dump so many resources to taking the islands that Germany and Italy break lose in Europe.)
I would say, US should invest just enough to help uk secure gib, but only if the axis did not over invest into. Other than that, I like the idea on focusing japan hard with the US.
I sometimes like to send anzac fighters and some india forces to support egypt and the middle east when i go balls to the walls pac with the us.
It goes without saying there is a great deal of variability in Axis strategy and any good USA player must adapt to what the enemy is doing.
It seems like what you are doing here is trying to defeat Germany while doing just enough in the Pacific to avert Pacific defeat. I would try a flipped approach. Focus on destroying Japan and then turn your guns on Germany/Italy when Japan is either defeated or you have no choice but to go Atlantic to avert VC defeat. By defeating Japan, I mean getting Japan weak enough to where USA can focus 100% on Europe while Japan can be contained or further weakened by the remaining powers in the Pacific–Anzac, China, and UKPac.
It’s definitely important to contain Italy and achieve Allied objectives in the Med, but for the first 6 rounds that’s UK Europe’s business rather than the USA’s business.
@Young:
Hello Pherman,
Your problem is our problem, that’s why there are so many house rule discussions. Most of us have given up on trying to compete with dominate Axis strategies that can’t seem to be countered, if the Allies win it’s never legit the way the rules demand, it’s because the Axis made a fatal error, or the dice gods crucified them. Either way, the Allies almost never win against experienced players playing the Axis, at least not wins that they earn due to strategy.
Perhaps the game is more historically accurate this way, Allies need Axis mistakes to gain the edge, and then exploit it. Â The Allies role is apply max pressure and force bad decisions. Â Just a thought after watching 3 episodes of WWII In Colour last night.
With relatively new players I think the game is balanced in this sense, and historically accurate. The problem is that some of us play so many games that we no longer make mistakes… Hitler didn’t have the opportunity for a do-over.
@McX:
Slacking? Maybe. We certainly don’t author pages of moves in notation. But I don’t think so, I play with (and have taught) a few people, intellectual types, chess players almost all of them, who are good at this sort of thing. This game is really not that complicated mechanics/strategy-wise, it’s just big - but I like that, the idea that what you do on one side of the planet affects the other. I know my explanation was probably simplistic to many of you, but I was just reporting the success I’ve had playing as the US and watching. I’m mostly here for rules clarifications :)
Sorry if we came across the wrong way, your explanation was excellent and what we meant to say was… stories of the Allies winning most games seems old to us, we now believe the situation to be the opposite because of some well tested strategies by the Axis that the Allies have not yet been able to counter. We had games where the Allies were winning all the time and then someone showed me a strong Axis strategy that someone showed them, etc…
It’s all good - after reading a few posts over the last couple years, I knew the “I don’t bid” bit goes against the dogma. But if you bid, you usually get what? A Russian bomber or four British infantry? Does that really impact the war so much more than sound strategy (and a bit of luck)? I think no. But that’s just the experience I’ve had playing over the years, with different groups and in different cities - not that the Allies dominate, but hold their own, and the good US player should do what the US did in real life, turn the tide of the war from it’s lowest point and give the Allies a collective shot in the arm. Right? Cause whether or not the US comes into the war right away as a result of a Pearl Harbor or stays neutral for the first couple rounds, the Allies get smashed from the get go - UK gets its cash convoyed and bombed, Russians are getting massacred, China usually gets close to elimination or gets eliminated fairly quick, India’s threatened right away and everything looks horrible. Then the US player comes in, and a good one should even it up somewhat. The strategy comes from how well the US player is a factor once its economy is unleashed - how well it plans with the other allies and allocates its resources in protecting its transports and getting a foothold somewhere.
Well, the bid usually gives someone better turn 1 options to handle the axis and/or provides many options for attacks later in the game. The 4 infantry can be used to help kill some important Italian locations which helps UK stabilize and set up for the long game easier. Russian bomber gives Russia more counter attack options and allows him to take places (like Iraq or Japanese places) much easier.
Overall, the point is to slow down the axis enough so that the US can make it’s presence felt in that theater and have an actual impact on the outcome.
To balance our games, we use house rules over bids, bids I feel are better suited for the online forum games rather than table top gatherings. I do find it interesting how most bids are used against the Italians who in my opinion are the weakest threat out of all three Axis, but I do see how 1 or 2 units won’t mater early enough in the Pacific.
@Young:
To balance our games, we use house rules over bids, bids I feel are better suited for the online forum games rather than table top gatherings. I do find it interesting how most bids are used against the Italians who in my opinion are the weakest threat out of all three Axis, but I do see how 1 or 2 units won’t mater early enough in the Pacific.
Yea, it makes sense to go after the weakest power because they are the most vulnerable. The gains you can make after the first round are much higher than if the bid was more focused against a stronger power.
@Young:
To balance our games, we use house rules over bids, bids I feel are better suited for the online forum games rather than table top gatherings. I do find it interesting how most bids are used against the Italians who in my opinion are the weakest threat out of all three Axis, but I do see how 1 or 2 units won’t mater early enough in the Pacific.
Yea, it makes sense to go after the weakest power because they are the most vulnerable. The gains you can make after the first round are much higher than if the bid was more focused against an stronger power.
Good point!
ghr2 the wise
@Young:
@McX:
Slacking? Maybe. We certainly don’t author pages of moves in notation. But I don’t think so, I play with (and have taught) a few people, intellectual types, chess players almost all of them, who are good at this sort of thing. This game is really not that complicated mechanics/strategy-wise, it’s just big - but I like that, the idea that what you do on one side of the planet affects the other. I know my explanation was probably simplistic to many of you, but I was just reporting the success I’ve had playing as the US and watching. I’m mostly here for rules clarifications :)
Sorry if we came across the wrong way, your explanation was excellent and what we meant to say was… stories of the Allies winning most games seems old to us, we now believe the situation to be the opposite because of some well tested strategies by the Axis that the Allies have not yet been able to counter. We had games where the Allies were winning all the time and then someone showed me a strong Axis strategy that someone showed them, etc…
I think I’m over 40ish games this year alone in the league with about 8 in progress now, and I can say what YG is saying is true. Axis play is getting very hard to counter, particularly the use of the German air force as a can opener to the Middle East. Keeping Egypt usually only happens by chance
The standard bid for the allies used to be 6 or 9, but is now creeping up to 12 and 18, depending.
The problem for the allies is that raised by this thread: it takes the US too long to get engaged with any amount of strength. Japan can conquer the pacific before the US can even hope to threaten it navally. You charge against Europe and Japan becomes unstoppable.
I’m currently play testing a house rule that would disallow the purchase of Industrial Complexes, and only allow minor complexes to be placed on territories that have victory cities. So Germany won’t be able to build in Romania, Finland, or Norway, Japan will only have Shanghai, Hong Kong and the Philippines as eligible territories for minor complexes, and the US can pretty much only build a factory on Honolulu. This should slow down the German and Japanese advances while allowing the US to support and advance their navy in the Pacific a lot quicker.
@Young:
I’m currently play testing a house rule that would disallow the purchase of Industrial Complexes, and only allow minor complexes to be placed on territories that have victory cities. So Germany won’t be able to build in Romania, Finland, or Norway, Japan will only have Shanghai, Hong Kong and the Philippines as eligible territories for minor complexes, and the US can pretty much only build a factory on Honolulu. This should slow down the German and Japanese advances while allowing the US to support and advance their navy in the Pacific a lot quicker.
Well, it hurts Japan, but I would think that it gives germany and edge since there can’t be a persia factory, which is huge!
@Young:
I’m currently play testing a house rule that would disallow the purchase of Industrial Complexes, and only allow minor complexes to be placed on territories that have victory cities. So Germany won’t be able to build in Romania, Finland, or Norway, Japan will only have Shanghai, Hong Kong and the Philippines as eligible territories for minor complexes, and the US can pretty much only build a factory on Honolulu. This should slow down the German and Japanese advances while allowing the US to support and advance their navy in the Pacific a lot quicker.
Well, it hurts Japan, but I would think that it gives germany and edge since there can’t be a persia factory, which is huge!
There’s actually more to it than what I mentioned above, you can learn more by visiting my YouTube video explanation…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNX81DAQc6I
Or by visiting the thread in the house rules forum…
If I read the league standings correctly (but only looking at tier1),
Axis wins (Allied losses) total 63% and Allied wins (Axis losses) total 37%. Now this is from only 197 tier1 league games played, but still it should give us some clue about how difficult hardcore strategists find playing the allies and thus, to a certain extend ofc, America.
I find it hard to give advice on the USA because it depends very extremely on what the axis powers do.
1 thing stands out though: it looks like Europe cannot receive too much IPC-love from the USA anymore because otherwise Japan will grab a 6VC win. No more ‘Normandy’…
@Young:
@Young:
I’m currently play testing a house rule that would disallow the purchase of Industrial Complexes, and only allow minor complexes to be placed on territories that have victory cities. So Germany won’t be able to build in Romania, Finland, or Norway, Japan will only have Shanghai, Hong Kong and the Philippines as eligible territories for minor complexes, and the US can pretty much only build a factory on Honolulu. This should slow down the German and Japanese advances while allowing the US to support and advance their navy in the Pacific a lot quicker.
Well, it hurts Japan, but I would think that it gives germany and edge since there can’t be a persia factory, which is huge!
There’s actually more to it than what I mentioned above, you can learn more by visiting my YouTube video explanation…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNX81DAQc6I
Or by visiting the thread in the house rules forum…
Nice video YG. How much have you play-tested the complex change?
You can’t place a factory on the Philippines; it’s an island.
And it’s rare that I see a factory in Norway or Sweden, not as a part of a winning Axis strategy, anyway.
I think, the problem is Canada.
When I play the Allies, the problem I usually get is, that I fail on Logistic.
I can allways ONLY focus on weapons OR personals and trannys on one turn.
But we know from history that Canada was a vital manufactorer of weapons and armour for the allies.
Maybe a HR will fix this problem by:
When the U.S. is at war Canada contributes some portions to the allies as for the us in the Atlantic one DD and a bmbr for the uk.
And for pacific US one DD.
Each round!
For the pacific, Australia must be allied controlled.
As for the atl. .Canada must be allied controll for the DD.
UK must be allied controlled for the bmbr.
What you think??
