@smildgeii said in US Pacific Ocean Movement Restriction:
So the US could if it wanted while at peace put vessels adjacent to Guam?
Yes.
You are right that the USA will using the Spanish beachhead and Russia will have enough forces to either counter-attack or at least not be being crushed yet.
However by killing the UK in the Middle East and taking over both the gold as the oil (it does not matter that Caucasus is skirmishes instead of absolute control around this time) you have changed the situation for the Axis drasticly.
Germany is a juggernout with 70/80+ IPC and two strong strategic fleets difficult to snipe with bombers. Italy has its NO’s and therefore very healthy, able to defend Italy on its own and maybe even strong enough to man Fort Europa, allowing Germany to focus on the offense only. I do not need Spain retaken every turn, I can even lose France if I must. It will not matter, I will have the IPC to spawn infantry and artillery in Western Germany against UK/USA and Romania against Russia.
Normally you need to have a clear advantage against Russia in G4, because if you don’t, the Western Allies come and break you down. You only have enough IPC to focus on 1 side at a time. My suggestion is that when you captured the oil and gold, this is not the case anymore. You can take it steady but slowly, as your internal logistics and economy is very well organized.
PS. Ah I see what you mean with the French! Yes indeed they must not be allowed to flee in F1 to block in F2 to Italy.
You can achieve the income with the Germans without attacking through Turkey. If you can force Russians to retreat from Bryansk as expected, you’ll be in Volgorad/Caucasus in no time.
That’s my problem with the idea too. You can achieve the same things, a few turns later, without the real problem of turning the neutrals against you.
Is this really true? Imagine turn 6 that Germany has Caucasus in Russia Crush
Germany has around +75 with Afrika Korps
Germany has around +53 with Russia Crush
Italy has around +20 with Afrika Korps
Italy has around +3 with Russia Crush
Germany + Italy have around +95 with Afrika Korps
Germany + Italy have arouns +56 with Russia Crush
Nearly twice as much!
Yes, you have to kill a lot more non-Allied infantry to achieve this, but you can achieve this nonetheless (if it works). Besides that, you have your 7th VC, so when you take Moscow you win the game. Around the time that you take Moscow with Russia Crush you face a heavily reinforced Middle East and possibly being supported by the USA.
The only thing that gives me difficulties is Spain! It is absolutely not a place where I want to send initial troops to take it G3, Italy is to weak to do it after Turkey I3 and nothing stops the UK or USA from taking it turn 3 when I want to do India Crush J4.
There is one big upside though, I personally think Spain is a trap for the Allies. Nothing within reach of importance and enormour production output for the Axis to defend against it. Much better USA focuses on holding / expanding Spain, than infesting the Med, amphibious assault on Rome or Egypt and convoying Italy to death. After all, Spain can maximally just produce 3 units + landing troops of which 1 infantry per transport.
I do find my France attack risky, with only 7 infantry, 3 artillery and 6 tanks? With the Romanian buy the UK might full scramble so need all Luftwaffe. I might send in the German Tactical? Do you think it is enough?
Is this really true? Imagine turn 6 that Germany has Caucasus in Russia Crush
Germany has around +75 with Afrika Korps
Germany has around +53 with Russia CrushItaly has around +20 with Afrika Korps
Italy has around +3 with Russia CrushGermany + Italy have around +95 with Afrika Korps
Germany + Italy have arouns +56 with Russia CrushNearly twice as much!
Yes, you have to kill a lot more non-Allied infantry to achieve this, but you can achieve this nonetheless (if it works). Besides that, you have your 7th VC, so when you take Moscow you win the game. Around the time that you take Moscow with Russia Crush you face a heavily reinforced Middle East and possibly being supported by the USA.
The only thing that gives me difficulties is Spain! It is absolutely not a place where I want to send initial troops to take it G3, Italy is to weak to do it after Turkey I3 and nothing stops the UK or USA from taking it turn 3 when I want to do India Crush J4.
There is one big upside though, I personally think Spain is a trap for the Allies. Nothing within reach of importance and enormour production output for the Axis to defend against it. Much better USA focuses on holding / expanding Spain, than infesting the Med, amphibious assault on Rome or Egypt and convoying Italy to death. After all, Spain can maximally just produce 3 units + landing troops of which 1 infantry per transport.
I do find my France attack risky, with only 7 infantry, 3 artillery and 6 tanks? With the Romanian buy the UK might full scramble so need all Luftwaffe. I might send in the German Tactical? Do you think it is enough?
Do you want to try your strategy? I’ll take allies and we’ll see how it goes.
Afrika Korps focuses on getting Egypt and Southern Russia fast because of the $$.
I like how you talk in the 3rd person about your plan….reminds me of the Rock.
Is this really true? Imagine turn 6 that Germany has Caucasus in Russia Crush
Germany has around +75 with Afrika Korps
Germany has around +53 with Russia CrushItaly has around +20 with Afrika Korps
Italy has around +3 with Russia CrushGermany + Italy have around +95 with Afrika Korps
Germany + Italy have arouns +56 with Russia CrushNearly twice as much!
Yes, you have to kill a lot more non-Allied infantry to achieve this, but you can achieve this nonetheless (if it works). Besides that, you have your 7th VC, so when you take Moscow you win the game. Around the time that you take Moscow with Russia Crush you face a heavily reinforced Middle East and possibly being supported by the USA.
The only thing that gives me difficulties is Spain! It is absolutely not a place where I want to send initial troops to take it G3, Italy is to weak to do it after Turkey I3 and nothing stops the UK or USA from taking it turn 3 when I want to do India Crush J4.
There is one big upside though, I personally think Spain is a trap for the Allies. Nothing within reach of importance and enormour production output for the Axis to defend against it. Much better USA focuses on holding / expanding Spain, than infesting the Med, amphibious assault on Rome or Egypt and convoying Italy to death. After all, Spain can maximally just produce 3 units + landing troops of which 1 infantry per transport.
I do find my France attack risky, with only 7 infantry, 3 artillery and 6 tanks? With the Romanian buy the UK might full scramble so need all Luftwaffe. I might send in the German Tactical? Do you think it is enough?
Do you want to try your strategy? I’ll take allies and we’ll see how it goes.
Yes love to, but travelling until end March currently and last time I tried to play online it was frustrating and could not figure it out yet.
Ok. You’re spending quite a bit of time thinking and writing, might as well play if you want to prove your point.
I would play a friendly game of Afrika Korps plan if somebody else wants to try it out. I am fine playing either side.
General Hand Grenade made an excellent video about the strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxSfedTpnbI
Cool the Afrika Korps is still kicking ass!
@afrikakorps said in The Afrika Korps:
General Hand Grenade made an excellent video about the strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxSfedTpnbI
Cool the Afrika Korps is still kicking ass!
If you are going with a middle east strategy then I think the best way is to use Japan to force the US into building in the pacific. This allows the axis to take africa without the neutrals or if so, with less risk as US cant get Spain easily.
@squirecam I’m late to this thread, but what’s the importance of taking Sweden before you take Turkey? Wouldn’t it be better to just let Sweden be for a turn? If you’re building a second carrier to hold the Baltic and putting pressure on Leningrad, it’s quite hard for the Allies to get any troops into Sweden; Sweden doesn’t have a coastline on the White Sea. I’d much rather risk the Allies getting control of Sweden around turn 6 than risk having the Russians reinforce Turkey on turn 4. If you lose Sweden it creates moderate economic problems later in the game; if you lose Turkey the entire strategy falls apart.
@argothair said in The Afrika Korps:
@squirecam I’m late to this thread, but what’s the importance of taking Sweden before you take Turkey? Wouldn’t it be better to just let Sweden be for a turn? If you’re building a second carrier to hold the Baltic and putting pressure on Leningrad, it’s quite hard for the Allies to get any troops into Sweden; Sweden doesn’t have a coastline on the White Sea. I’d much rather risk the Allies getting control of Sweden around turn 6 than risk having the Russians reinforce Turkey on turn 4. If you lose Sweden it creates moderate economic problems later in the game; if you lose Turkey the entire strategy falls apart.
If I were to attack the neutrals then I would be planning it from the start, or at least planning that I might be. Which means I’d be planning on taking all 3 neutrals on the same turn.
Let’s say G4. In that case, Italy would attack USSR I3. Germany would not declare war but simply reinforce the Italy territory. Then Germany takes all 3 neutrals so that it keeps the bonuses, both for Sweden and not attacking USSR.
Italy should have troops in Greece to follow Germany into Turkey. If the USSR had too many forces to somehow threaten Turkey then you wouldnt attack the neutrals but would move into Ukraine.
All of this depends upon Germany supporting Italy from the start. Which is why attacking the neutrals needs to be somewhat planned instead of a spur of the moment idea.
@squirecam have you done this strategy in a play-by-forum match before?
@arthur-bomber-harris said in The Afrika Korps:
@squirecam have you done this strategy in a play-by-forum match before?
Yes. My typical opening is purchase of the German fleet (carrier either with transports or sub/des) and moving J1 fleet to Caroline Islands.
This doesnt mean I’m moving into the med with the fleet, or intent on attacking the neutrals, or that I won’t attack J2 into the money Islands. It’s simply a round 1 placement that allows me options and the knowledge of what the allies are doing before I strike.
If you attack J1 the allies know where you are going and that India is the target. India can still be the target from my placement but so can Australia or Hawaii.
Likewise I can have options for the med or a sea lion or attack back into Lenningrad.
@squirecam my apologies, I looked through your post history and can’t find any of your play-by-forum matches. Do you have a link to a forum game?
This is from my last testing with Crockett. It was a different scenario where Crockett was saying he had a KJF strategy he wanted to test. I just moved everything to Hawaii to show that Japan couldn’t be blocked if it wanted it. So that was a weird version of a test, but it has the opening move in it.
If Japan is the subject of a KJF then I think it should give up China and kill the US fleet, which is what happened in the test.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37066/squirecam-vs-crockett?page=1
@squirecam It appears that you lost the exhibition match by Turn 6 despite Crocket being a very bottom-tier opponent?
@arthur-bomber-harris said in The Afrika Korps:
@squirecam It appears that you lost the exhibition match by Turn 6 despite Crocket being a very bottom-tier opponent?
I think not.
The test was supposed to be to see if Japan could be killed by a KJF. It couldnt. The usa fleet was wiped. Japan, though temporarily losing china, kept its entire fleet. It was poised to take the money Islands back and nothing was between it and australia. It still had Hawaii. So it just needed the India or the Chinese VC to win after that.
Crockett then switched sides. Moving to the atlantic. Which wasnt part of what we were testing.
But in any event there was no troops between Germany and the middle east. Germany could have stalingrad and moved in troops to take india. The middle east was wide open. Germany also could have went into Turkey with troops and the italians or played more conservative and just taken territories and held.
As a further example, the next round attack on Australia, not counting shore bombards, would be 93% win.
As I said it was a different parameters. But you wanted a link to the opening move which is what that test had.
Also, whatever you think or dont think about someone, its rather rude to say what you did about him.
@squirecam There is a big range of skill levels in G40. I used to be in the upper half of the League players and now I have fallen to the lower half of the talent as I haven’t been active for the last four years. I can only beat players like Axis Dominion with incredible luck of the dice. Players like Adam wouldn’t even put themselves in a situation where I can have variance make up for the talent gap. It is what it is.
Crocket is way, way below me currently. Perhaps he will catch up in skill if he plays a bunch of games, or perhaps he will enjoy his current casual level of gameplay. Nothing wrong with either option. It is what it is.
My point is that the strategies need to be tested against a decent opponent to find flaws. Almost everything works against players that make a ton of mistakes. Heck, Japan could have attacked Amur on J1 in your game and essentially ended the match on the first turn in your game. Hard to come back after having the entire Siberian army destroyed, leaving the entire Soviet Far East open for rapid conquest.
@squirecam triplea_37066_1 japan better.tsvg
This is what you do when they place all of the Russian units in Amur on R1 (low-luck outcome). DoW on Turn 3 allows the Japanese Navy and air force to be back in position. Meanwhile Russia and China are essentially annihilated.