WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@gen-manstein i’m a twitch affiliate. I think affiliate VODs get stored for longer.

What’s that mean ?

Ok Aint even probably close to that. Stream normally 1 12 hour game a month with 12 viewers so far.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@gen-manstein what’s ur twitch name. I follow.

ssgen69

just had a game Saturday finally

So in about 5h10m. May not be home. Hmm.

If the Bid is at least 6 to the Axis, adding a TT in SZ7 and doing a J1 should be pretty awesome. You can claim the Carolines objective as well as doing the Pearl Harbour attack. Main risk being if the Borneo attack goes bad (even though above it was listed as 100%, it should be 98%). This also means you don’t have to worry about claiming that objective in later turns, which saves hassle for Japan. It is likely this will delay getting the DEI but that isn’t so important any more and it is better to grab all the other islands to stop ANZAC and USA objectives.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

If the Bid is at least 6 to the Axis, adding a TT in SZ7 and doing a J1 should be pretty awesome. You can claim the Carolines objective as well as doing the Pearl Harbour attack. Main risk being if the Borneo attack goes bad (even though above it was listed as 100%, it should be 98%). This also means you don’t have to worry about claiming that objective in later turns, which saves hassle for Japan. It is likely this will delay getting the DEI but that isn’t so important any more and it is better to grab all the other islands to stop ANZAC and USA objectives.

This is a pretty popular bid use in our group, with a slight variation. We usually put the TT with the Carolines fleet to use the inf there that are normally stranded while increasing the amount available for TTs to pick up from Japan on J2/J3. You can still get all the DEI on J2 if you are willing to sacrifice a TT in 45 (worth it from a net IPC perspective). The rest of the southern fleet can consolidate in 42 and be safe from a UK or AZ attack.

@mikawagunichi How high are bids in your group?

I can see why you shouldn’t use the marine to claim Gilbert Islands, because ANZAC can and probably should counter attack and take it back. Then you have less flexibility on following turns. A 2 on 2 counter attack is less attractive though.

Wouldn’t recommend attacking Celebes J1 - only 2IPC whereas Gilberts are 5IPC but also (likely) removing the need to take it later. You can put in a DD to allow a CV scramble to defend the TT to keep it. Next turn you are in a position to take the Solomons probably.

Don’t love taking off the infantry from Carolines though - they can be used later, especially if ANZAC do indeed counter attack successfully.

@simon33 we normally play with a 6 bid. We also normally do take Gilberts with the Marine. Send all 3 Carriers to land planes that attacked Pearl Harbor so you don’t need to take Wake to prevent counter attack. Extra TT is used to take Guam to prevent US from getting that NO.

We don’t take Celebes J1, save that for J2.

Still a bit surprised by going for PH with 3CVs when 2+1 bomber would do. Seems like a compromise to enable attacking the UK BB. Third CV is really useful around the DEI.

If you need to go for Guam to stop the US objective, does that mean you aren’t taking Wake?

And you still aren’t taking Borneo then. Dislike that.

Oh, and I would attack the marine on Gilbert’s with ANZAC, I am pretty sure. Gives me the objective and denies options to Japan.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Still a bit surprised by going for PH with 3CVs when 2+1 bomber would do. Seems like a compromise to enable attacking the UK BB. Third CV is really useful around the DEI.

If you need to go for Guam to stop the US objective, does that mean you aren’t taking Wake?

And you still aren’t taking Borneo then. Dislike that.

We are taking Borneo. To be clear the TTs/marine are allocated as follows:

2 TTs to Davao
1 TT to Borneo
1 TT to Guam
Marine to Gilberts

I’ve found PH attacks with only 2 CVs to not accomplish much. Having all 3 off Wake forces to US to play less aggressively for a turn, which gives you an extra turn to build up in the DEI and FiC. Also, assuming you buy mostly TTs J1, you have a real threat of taking Hawaii if US doesn’t block. If you only have 2 you need to start retreating them immediately on J2.

As Japan I’m fine with Anzac attacking Gilberts, that gives me an easy kill of their TT, and also their CA if they send it for the bombard. And one less TT for the allies to retake any DEIs.

Lastly, regarding Wake vs Guam J1: Wake is far easier for the US to retake later. And a TT off Guam can get units into China J2, whereas a TT off Wake will need 2 turns to do anything useful.

@trulpen what is a “mIC” a “figs and tacs”. What is an “ab” .

What does taking control of DEI mean?

What does SBR the russians mean?

DOW with both G and J?

What does 3-NO at stake mean?

@danleedr01 from the top.

mIC = minor Industrial Complex
fig = fighter (also ftr)
tac = tactical bomber
ab = airbase
DEI = Dutch East Indies
SBR = Strategic Bombing Raid(s)
DOW = Declaration of War
G = Germany
J = Japan
NO = National Objective(s)

Surely some of these are pretty obvious though.

Here’s a Path to Victory map that’s been edited to show the maximum historical extent of Axis expansion – if the Axis ever controlled a territory at some point during the war, I gave it to them, and if the Allies ever failed to control a territory, I took it away from them. Thus, Iraq is Axis because there was a very brief pro-Axis coup; French Central Africa is neutral because it took a little while for the Free French to liberate it. Some territories are judgment calls – you could argue that the Germans took the territory represented by Vologda, near Leningrad, or that the Japanese never took the territory represented by Kweichow, but these are 1-IPC swings that would not greatly affect my conclusion.

The interesting thing about editing this map is that Axis and Allied income are essentially tied. The Axis are collecting 134 IPCs per turn before national objectives, and the Allies are collecting 135 IPCs per turn before NOs. Assuming everyone is at war, the Atlantic Wall is duly garrisoned, there are enough German subs in the water to annoy the British, but not enough to interrupt Russian Lend-Lease, then I count 26 IPCs in Axis national objectives, and 27 IPCs in Allied national objectives. In other words, at the maximum extent of Axis expansion, the Allies were up by a grand total of $2. If the Axis take, e.g., Southern Caucasus or Midway, then the Axis are instead up by about $5. If the Allies liberate British Somaliland or the Solomon Islands, then the Allies are up by about $5.

This is dramatic, but not especially historical – in real life, when the Axis were at their maximum expansion, the Allies were still out-producing them at least 2:1. It’s an interesting game design question whether it is more elegant to give the Axis a fighting chance by making the territories near their capitals worth more money (as Path to Victory seems to do), or by giving the Axis so many starting units that they are able to expand far beyond their historical borders (as, e.g., Anniversary Edition seems to do).

i

@argothair

Very interesting. In reality, it’s even a bit worse for the Axis, since they did reach their peak territorial conquest in all theaters simultaneously.

I see a lot of G3/J3 amongst top players, notably the Championship game between @Daaras and @Ghostglider had a J3 DOW on Allies except USSR, followed by I3/G4 Russia DOW. Late DOWs seem to be fairly common (although I need to comb through many more threads before I have statistics to back that up).

I personally have begun to favor the J2 after working on my “new” strategy, which I cannot take full credit for. After seeing @pacifiersboard using the cruiser/marine at Carolines on J1 taking New Hebrides against @mikawagunichi , I began to contemplate how this might be used effectively.

One of the stickiest points in my usual Japan strategy is the massive Allied fleet that inevitably seems to coalesce off the coast of Queensland. This fleet is constantly threatening the rich DEI and their NO, as well as allowing ANZAC to buy boats & planes, and easily maintain an income of 16. Denying US the opportunity to move a large fleet to sea zone 55 allows Japan to deny at least one of these Nos, and usually both very early, as well as using a sub or 2 to convoy the 3 IPCs in Victoria & NSW.

I have used a variation of this to open several games now, and has been quite effective in the Pacific theater. A bid of 6 to Japan for an extra transport is quite potent, but not entirely necessary for this strategy. Indeed, you might argue that putting the bid into Europe might be a better use.

I used a different, bid-dependent strategy after seeing it in another game recently which was an Italian transport in the sea zone West of Taranto, and a marine in Northern Italy. This requires a bid of 11 and to be all used on Italy, so it is imperative for Germany to do two things, and probably recommended to do a third:

1. Take Normandy & Paris to force Vichy, and land a fighter to contribute to the scramble in case of a Taranto attack.

2. Land several planes in Northern Italy. Preferably all that can reach after being used to attack 113/114. These are needed to land in Alexandria if Italy is allowed to move into it in force, and they cannot do so from W Germany.

3. Naval purchase as Germany on the first round. This puts a lot of stress on UK to defend London from a Sealion buy round 2, most players will buy 4-6 infantry and a fighter for London (assuming average outcomes in 113/114)

If the Italian fleet at Taranto is not attacked, the UK has a couple options. However some are made significantly less appealing due to the bid.

First, they are unlikely to try and hold Gibraltar using a Gibastion setup, as the extra transport and marine make the odds for Algeria very favorable and Malta can simultaneously be secured.

Second, fleet units left above Egypt (101?) are still vulnerable because of the German Air Force in Northern & Southern Italy, assuming Italy can capture Alexandria. This makes the most likely choice to move the carrier into the Red Sea.

Maximizing your early advantage here is imperative, with 3 transports you can move some troops to Tobruk, capture Malta and still take Greece. Often times there will be a destroyer blocking the option to take Gibraltar on turn 1, but if not you can capture GiB and Greece for the +5 NO. Either way, you have 3 transports + the ground units in Alexandria that will be able to attack Egypt. If the UK has managed to reinforce enough to forestall a full-force capture, you can unload units in Syria to actovate the units in Iraq, or reinforce in Alexandria and take Crete with the marine to get Germany their +3 NO starting round 3.

After that it is usually a choice between holding Egypt or Iraq. I would say Egypt is best as long as you can get a German unit there for the +5, as that is net 7 for the Axis. Iraq is good if Germany is already doing very well, as it concentrates a little more income into Italy’s pocket to continue contesting the Med/Middle East while Germany focuses on the Bear. And troops in Iraq should b able to start trading UK in NW Persia for another +2.