• 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    To Frederick, I think a transport sacrifice could be interesting, if you’re willing to bring air into a fight instead of the battleship. It can draw off an enemy attack on the more valuable sea unit as the opponent usually calculates that its worth while to send a fighter or bomber against the easy target that presents no risk. This can be done in the med on the canal if you want to get risky in combat. I’d say 2 fighters would make it a safe play, if the Ukraine fighter survives to back up the Bulgarian one, but otherwise it’s kind of dicey sending a loaded transport and pining all your hopes on a 50/50 hit at a 3. Other places you can do a sacrifice move would be sz 14 gibraltar or sz 16 Russia, use fighters to cover the sz battle, and just keep the battleship in 15. The difficulty there is that with no transport capacity the battleship just sits around and can’t exploit the bombardment advantage, so I’d think 7 ipcs spent on G1 for another transport might keep the fight going. Or I suppose just give the battleship 1 round to float about as a distraction, and decide what to do with it on G2.


  • ICinBrazil I think 1 inf in east africa is not a bad choice. But I feel like putting a few extra inf in south and east africa is one choice and 1 extra inf in egypt is another. Because if you do both you are making the British to strong in africa for the axis to take. Is this changing the question to more in other parts parts of africa or the inf in egypt? :-o

    Black_Elk, I like your point about relying on rolling a 3 or less so you should get another fighter but I think a good russian player would usually attack Ukr which is hard.


  • I took a long look at this.  We’ve played two games with 1942.2 so far.  I’ve been the Allies both times.  As the Brits, I’d certainly love to have more units in Africa at the start.  However, I voted for ‘as-is’ because I like the challenge.  I have to make a choice:  Use my Indian Ocean fleet to bring support from India (which means the token American/Russian force is much easier pickens) or do I try to build an IC in South Africa?  Even at only 2 units per turn, it could be enough to turn the tide and kick the Germans out, without pulling troops from India and that A.O.

    Of course an IC in South Africa is going to cost initially, and at the expense of other interests.  But then, like I said, I like the challenge.
    :-)

  • '17 '16

    Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

    Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.


  • @Baron:

    Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

    Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.

    That’s a interesting one - think I’ll try it!


  • @Baron:

    Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

    Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.

    IDK, my concern is that the ability for troops to be placed in South Africa on GB1 would really neuter the Germans too much in having the opportunity to fight for Africa.  Being able to place troops there on GB1, along with America being able to land some troops on the west coast, along with possible troops from India (with only a temporary sacrifice against fighting the Japanese in southeast Asia) may be a little too much.  I could be wrong, but that’s my initial impression.

    Making GB buy an IC on GB1 is safe enough for South Africa as neither Germany or Japan is in a position to get to it before GB2.  And thinking about it, even though the Russians could use the American fighter from China sitting in Moscow (or GB having it sit in India), a third (temporary) option would be making it all the way down to South Africa by A2 (I believe it will make it there by A2) for defense of the IC as well as for use with American troops on the west coast of Afica (assuming they’ve put some there).

  • '17 '16

    @SEP:

    @Baron:

    Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

    Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.

    IDK, my concern is that the ability for troops to be placed in South Africa on GB1 would really neuter the Germans too much in having the opportunity to fight for Africa.  Being able to place troops there on GB1, along with America being able to land some troops on the west coast, along with possible troops from India (with only a temporary sacrifice against fighting the Japanese in southeast Asia) may be a little too much.  I could be wrong, but that’s my initial impression.

    Making GB buy an IC on GB1 is safe enough for South Africa as neither Germany or Japan is in a position to get to it before GB2.  And thinking about it, even though the Russians could use the American fighter from China sitting in Moscow (or GB having it sit in India), a third (temporary) option would be making it all the way down to South Africa by A2 (I believe it will make it there by A2) for defense of the IC as well as for use with American troops on the west coast of Afica (assuming they’ve put some there).

    Probably true.


  • Just saying I rather have a small force than a IC to begin with in South Africa.

    I just tested the 1 inf in egypt and it really changes Germany’s approach next I’ll test the more troops in East and South Africa.

  • '17 '16 '15 '14

    How about the Bid for Russia?  1 Bomber…  It does attack and allow for an additional replay in Egypt…

    Not my idea.  Black Elk mentioned it as a valid startup.


  • I don’t see how much a bomber can do in Egypt. The only thing you could do is send a russian fighter to Egypt and use the bomber to take it’s place.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

68

Online

17.5k

Users

40.1k

Topics

1.7m

Posts