1 vs 1 tournament: A&A Anniversary 1941 (2022)

with Russia invested in China (IC in Szechwan and raised territory value to 3) and getting the IPCs, pluss the turn order allowing to consolidate, made a KJF more viable. My friend tried it one game but made a couple mistakes with positioning

Thanks gents. I’m currently editing my video for upload to YouTube and my argument sounds nearly exactly identical to @Cernel .

I appreciate all the feedback.

@xlome_00 Sea Lion is one of those attacks where the threat is mightier than the execution. If you buy a carrier for the Baltic Fleet on G1, that’s a reasonable purchase anyway to protect your supply lines to Norway/Finland/Leningrad/Baltics. If you move the German Med transport to the central Med, it is protected by the Italian fleet and can reinforce Libya, which is a reasonable move anyway. If you then bring the Italian fleet to take Gibraltar and retake Morocco, that helps score your NOs, so that’s a normal attack. So all of these preparatory moves can be done with minimal cost to the standard Axis war effort.

But then the American bomber cannot sink the German transport without landing in either Egypt (where it will die on a G2 Egypt attack) or Caucasus (where it spoils the Russian NO.)

If they leave your Med transport alive, you move it to Western Med on G2 where Italian fleet protects it again, build a second transport in Baltic on G2 plus an extra plane, and now you are threatening UK with 3 inf, 3 tank, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 bmr on a hypothetical G3 sea lion.

UK can of course defend against this, but they will have to build a fat infantry stack in London instead of factories, ships, or air power. This could cost them the Atlantic fleet or at least force them to retreat it back to Canada; if they built a factory in Africa / India, they might lose it because they cannot afford to build units there on a critical turn. Meanwhile those infantry in London will just sit there inefficiently for several turns because there are not enough transports to ship them anywhere, and not enough warships to protect the Atlantic fleet in a forward position.

Your second Baltic transport is reasonably useful for shipping inf/art to Leningrad, and the extra fighter can of course be used for trading on the eastern front, defending France, etc. as usual.

So you never actually attack London in an AA50 game – you just quietly threaten to attack it, thereby forcing the Allies to waste much more money on defense than you spent on creating the threat.

@taamvan Can you say a bit more about what Japan is doing in your games? It’s true that with a well-executed KGF Germany will be contained to the core territories of France, NW Europe, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania – but that’s still worth $30 a turn and it takes the Allies a very long time to build and load enough transports to crack it.

Meanwhile, a pure KGF usually leaves Japan free to take India, then the Caucasuses, then Moscow – the Allies can certainly rush a few fighters to Moscow, but sending even one ruins the only practical Russian national objective, and if you build too many then you never get enough Allied ground troops to crack the German turtle – fighters in Moscow can’t reach to support an attack on France.

In my experience, without a bid and with NOs on, the Japanese attack on Moscow is much faster than the American attack on Paris, let alone Berlin. How does the Pacific play out in your games?

@Octopus:

Interesting topic (for it goes beyond the obvious).

I just finished a long game as the Axis and the potential to sink the Allied fleet was always on my mind. At one point I did pull it off and sink the British fleet after entering SZ 8. The kicker was the cost benefit of attacking the fleet that made it a no brainer. Fighters are worth 10 while cruisers are worth 12. Going 1 for 1 is a cost benefit. The Allied fleet’s cheapest unit defends the strongest (a fighter at a 4) meaning they will lose their cheapest units last and sacrafice their most expensive units early.

Keep in mind that bombers cost the same as a cruiser while having a higher attack value. The advantage goes to the airforce.

Having a fleet with 2 Cruisers, a battleship, and a carrier (with 2 fighters) is looking to get popped by an airforce that consists of fighters and bombers (assume comparable combat values). Economics demands it (especially if there are 4 juicy transports in tow).

To this end, I think the destroyer (cost of 8) is fantastic as a fighter/bomber eater as it will clearly take the fall for the more expensive ships that need to stay in the fight.

Good Luck!

Right.  Regardless of Capital ships the UK (or US) needs some DDs to shift the cost differential.  With 1 BB and maybe 2 DDs, you are only losing 16 ipcs for 3 hits while Germany would be losing 10 for each ftr.  I typically like to have just enough DDs + intial BB hits for the first wave of a potential G attack.  So 6 ftrs require 3 Allied DDs.  The good thing is you can split the cost of DDs between UK and US, meaning each could supply 1-2.  If you buy 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD on UK 1 and US follows with 1 AC, 1 DD on US 1, you probably won’t need another DD unless Germany makes a significant investment in more air.  In Rd 3 you can have a stacked Sz 6 fleet (additional UK3 buy if needed) and also enough to protect Sz 12 with the US ships.

It is beneficial to have a few US ships with firepower in Sz 6 (prior to moving to sz 5) if the Ita ftr is lingering around Fra.  A loaded US AC also gives the US some fighting power up north, even if you only get 1-2 trns up there it still helps and gives you some punch, but it is not enough of an investment to cripple you if you need to start spending in tha Pac or Afr.

@Lynxes:

I think DM is on the right track here, you need to have a core of your fleet in place early and then add DDs as fodder during the game. Getting caught having to buy expensive ships in mid-game when you should be pumping out land units that land in Europe is a bad idea. Also, you need a mix of high and low strength units. 1 CV+2 fig, 2 CA, 2-3 DDs is a nice fleet to have as UK and not too hard to reach. A CV is, as many have said, mandatory, having your fighters parked in UK is useless. And if you send fighters to Karelia, you should STILL buy a CV and put US or UK fighters on it.

Yes, it is a lot easier to find an extra 8 ipcs to buy a dd mid game then to worry about an AC buy.  Plus, if you have enough Capital ships early Germany usually won’t even bother contesting the Atlantic.

/corbeau blanc

Agree with you on Karelia, even though Germany can take it sometimes it’s not too difficult to take it back by Russian counterattack and/or UK invasion. Only once Germany gets heavy inf reinforcement east can they hope to hold it, and if you do a good UK/US invasion combo into Europe there should be tied lots of Germans tied up manning the West wall. In my games, Germany and Italy often seem to end up being inf-heavy hedgehogs, leaving it to Japan to finish Moscow off.

India, on the other hand, isn’t easy to hold at all. This is due to Japanese number of transports and fighters, which will overwhelm you sooner or later. I think ICs in SAF and EGY are a better UK focus, better fighting a delaying action over India and reinforce Russia with aircraft to make it impregneable.

Persia is the true center.  When it falls, allies are usually screwed.  If held, Berlin typically falls.

i think it’s fairly balanced to be honest. i’ve seen both sides win, and i’ve won with both sides. anyone who thinks one side has a much larger advantage needs to play the game a lot more  :-P