What are some good strategies for newer players?

@AndrewAAGamer I’m not suggesting players should only buy battleships; I’m just saying they still have value in the game. My personal preference is for a balanced navy. While I still buy 3-4 times more carriers, I like BB for amphibious assaults and to absorb the first hits in any battle.

…And if you’ve never gone up against a misguided player, you really need to meet my friends. :grin:

@oysteilo:

if anyone is interested in taking on a league or non leage game for 0 bid to show I am wrong I am up for it. I am not a very good axis player but feel confident at this one. text me

I’ll do a zero bid G40 game with you.

PM me and we can set it up.

@Boldfresh:

Here is where we disagree omega.  A full on kgf or kjfWOULD be the way to go in a total war, which is why the vc conditions exist.

I prefer the KJF in a total war because Japan is much easier to contain and render irrelevant with a concerted action from all Powers.

The Germans slowly expand in Russia and they can only gain so much from doing that.

I think that the price for leaving Japan entirely alone with the US (Hawaii and Anzac falling) and the trouble that follows, outweighs the incremental benefit that you get from going all out against Germany from the beginning, as opposed to still spending some in the Pacific to render the starting US forces there a potent force that prevents unreasonable Japan expansion.

Taking out SZ 97 is the most crucial move for UK 1.  Even if Germany is threatening Sealion all UK has to do is send the strategic bomber + the SZ 98 fleet (assuming a sub bid) and they have a 78% chance against a 3 fighter scramble.  The only other viable option is buying an air base and Non combating the SZ 98 fleet over to Gibraltar.  This is an inferior move in my opinion.  Smashing Italy’s Cruiser, transport and BB on turn 1 is just so good.

@soulfein:

-middle east fac(s)
-convoy raiding sz97 till ita turns into china in 41 v3
-trying to hold india to fly air to moscow and/or helping egy after moscow s fallen
-looking to normandy drops only after japs caged n usa can stack some transports in sz91

Bam…that’s it.  Most games are going that direction.  Rome and Cairo are the kickbacks before Moscow goes down.  From there it gets even- very long slow grind.

The battle is won in the Med/Africa/MidEast region period.  It gets very tactical and dicey here, which is why I think the game is even, Allied advantaged as the game gets longer, past 10 rounds.

If germany doesn’t have many transports, be sure to slide a few infantry and artillery up into Karelia to force your way into Scandinavia to get those nice No’s and reinforce with Brits and US, let the cash role in

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I think Anzac should take a clear mission for itself. My last game I assigned to Anzac the occupation and defence of the DEI money islands. These are worth 16 IPC to the allies and even 20 IPC to Japan. I just occupy these islands with just enough infantry to make it difficult for Japan to take them without making a sizeable investment.

Even if Japan makes this investment you have succeeded: Japan is not investing that IPC in China/India!

If JP leaves the islands alone, Anzac can build a fleet to support the US!