ANZAC Navy vs ANZAC Island Trading

@marshmallowofwar @crockett36 et alii

In the Pacific and in general-- BB is the way to go, IMO.

Personally, I prefer CV SUB FIG over either BB or CA/DD in bulk. Having 2-3 BB is intimidating (psychological), has soak (adsorbs hits), has bombardment–and the BBs are the last stuff to survive in a pyrrhic battle where both sides took great losses.

Numbers have an advantage, and so having 2 units might be better than 1 because they are more flexible.

However, the reason the CA (Cruiser) is so weak is that it can’t defend (either itself, or the fleet) against the subshot. Whether this is psychological or odds-driven, all your CA must be given up before your last DD is. Moreover, the DD is required to cover each fleet, and block other squares–so it has a much higher utility value.

I’ve tried to design a “Cruiser Crush” KGF/ATL and it wont work. You need ##s… the small advantage of novelty and bombardments isn’t worth it. With 5-6 CA in SZ 91, you’re going to get creamed, and you’ll have to lose your higher units first!

To broaden the conversation, the cruiser isn’t overpriced…its correctly priced. There are two rules that nerf it out 1) 1 bombard per amphibious unit drop 2) any interference (scramble, killing defenseless unit or sub, prebattle) blocks all shots.

I think all the rules work flavorfully, though imperfectly with one another. So to make the cruiser better, something has to give which is why people try to repurpose or reprice the cruiser.

Summation: Go big, Go BB instead.

Better to prepare for a counter attack where you won’t have to deal with fighters in the battle and coastal bombardments. So no defending the atlantic wall in this version of the game.

I think this take is mostly accurate but sometimes Allies have so many transports and (UK) fighters that they might be able to hold Normandy (especially in cases when the bulk of the Luftwaffe is far away).  In cases like that, it might behoove Germany/Italy (let’s say they are defending Germany, West Germany, and France from a big Allied fleet) to move the France stack to Normandy.  If the USA force is relatively small and the UK force is not enough to take Normandy, a 1-2 attack would be costly and risky.  Landing in Holland instead is not always an option, since it’s adjacent to Normandy and W Germany and within tank/mech range of Germany).

In circumstances like that I’ve had success stacking Normandy with a combined German/Italian stack.

Let these three Infantry stay put is the best option.
Egypt: If Italy really want to get Egypt, you need every unit for defence. Especially if the Taranto-Raid did not occur or failed. Needless to say that they should be the first casualties. Sorry lads!
Persia: A nice idea. But UK needs the 2 IPC’s and the place for the IC. Australian money should be invested in a fleet (sub’s?!) to harass the IJN and the Japanese convoys.
Malaya: Since it took too long to move this guy to the “Treasure Islands” (aka Dutch East Indies), let him dug in and wait for the Japanese invasion.

@kcdzim:

@Global-commander:

can you change your attack after your opponent declares his intent to scramble? I don’t think so, but am not sure.

No.  Scrambling is declared after combat moves are completed. that’s what I thought.

I agree that Japan should be split, and have two sz"s.

Then we could have Sea Lion on the Euro side, and Sea Serpent on the Pac side.

Thanks

I’m a big fan of doing damage to Italy early on and basicly keeping them from accomplishing anything meaningful. In Alpha 3 this is accomplished namely by trading navy’s in the med. I brought the cruiser and transport from India to Africa to facilitate amphibious assults on Italian territores on the eastern coast.

My buys for turn 1 Europe almost always include a transport (placed in South Africa to bring my Infantry up the coast), 1 in New Brunswick (shift material from Canada to the UK, but this will depend on U-Boat positions) and a Minor IC for Egypt (implications of this should be obvious). I’ve never lost Egypt to Italy so I don’t think this is a huge risk.

The only real danger to this strategy of focusing on the Med is if Germany takes Southern France, with that Minor IC they can do what I’ve done and place ships directly in the med. Because Germany is such a power house they can (and likely will) obliterate the RN there. You’ll certainly lose Gibratler and likely Malta as well.

For England I generally end up trading navy’s with Germany as well, after Germany has gone and you’ve taken the usual losses to shipping it’s simply too dangerous to leave the German Battleship and Crusier (can’t recall if it’s a cruiser or not offhand) laying around and they must be attacked. I haven’t found a way around doing this yet. With the destruction of Germany’s surface fleet you arn’t under serious threat from Sea Lion until Germany’s 3rd turn.

In the Pacfic I keep the ANZAC island hopping and use them to harass the islands Japan leaves lightly defended. I generally also use them to take Brazil. I never thought of using ANZAC fighters to land on US Carriers (can’t happen until the US enters the war) but I think it deserves some thought. Generally they end up used in an attempt to contain the Imperial Navy.

Hope this was helpful and offered some ideas. I’m open to any critiisms/thoughts on this strategy, always looking to build on my game.

C

I want to start it AND finish it.

The axis have more options, the allies are more reactive.  That’s not to say the axis are not reactive and the allies have no options, just which is their primary role.

Right now, the game is gambit-ish to me.  The Iceland Gambit, the Gibraltar Gambit, the SZ 9 Gambit, the Indian Gambit, the Australian Gambit, the American-Pac Strat Gambit.  That last is a bit less gambit like since it is seen coming a long ways off, it’s just mostly unstopable atm. Alpha 3 will fix that and we should see the American Pac-Strat be required, partially, with a required investment in Europe by America - either not happening should default a win for the Axis. yay