Thanks for the quick clarification!
I guess we just had a lot of lucky rolling for these attacks in our first game. I don’t think we ever lost a plane, which made me question whether this was allowed. But I can see that the probabillity makes it a risky strategy in the long term.
Units, Mechanics, etc.
-
I’m kind of an old skool, Classic-ish grognard; I’ve been poking around with the Europe 1940 game (in TripleA, against the ai) mainly as the Allies, but a little bit as Italy.
I guess my question is, which units should each country purchase?
For example, I’ve found that the UK can make use of subs against Italy’s surface fleet (although I guess I’m a n00b for not just YOLO’ing and blowing them up with all of the UK’s planes, on rd1.) But generally, it seems like no one should really want/need to build any navy other than destroyers, transports, and carriers (with aircraft to go on them). Destroyers just do everything…
Is there any sense in bringing along extra carriers, i.e. more than just enough to hold your planes, in case one gets sunk? Why are carriers 2-hit anyway, if they’re effectively useless after the first hit? Are there any good spots to put down new airfields, or is scrambling underused in the Europe map, and really only applies to the Pacific?
I don’t find artillery all that helpful; if you’re the US for example, you have the cash to build tanks, and if your intention is just to send as much stuff as possible to the USSR, then you want units that can race across North Africa quicker. I think for poorer countries, artillery makes sense but even as Italy I tend to go all infantry, and as USSR I maybe crank out 1 artillery per round; if you can get your income up, tanks seem way more helpful for counter-attacking in and around Novosibirsk, while using your planes to clean up along the main front line.
What circumstances do people use mech. infantry in? Honestly, I rarely buy it other than to place at an Allied factory in Persia, Norway, or similar/nearby territories (Greece, Turkey, Finland). I particularly can’t justify putting one on a transport, instead of a tank (or even possibly an artillery.) I’ve heard that it’s a good unit for the Axis, on defense…
I guess I just feel like there’s a lot of chrome/cruft to this version of A&A, and I believe it could improve by being stripped down a little.
-
Well, there are plenty of explainers out there (particularly AndrewAAGamer’s one), and most of what applies to Global 1940 works for Europe 1940 too.
Carriers are indeed more of a Pacific thing and the cost-benefit analysis done by AndrewAAGamer does confirm that battleships and cruisers are useless.
I assume carriers are just double hit to provide some extra firepower on defense, making them more valuable and justifying their high price (I assume the price has to be high to make it more realistic when compared to other ship types). Scale means the double hit probably isn’t required in smaller versions like 1942 and 1941 to justify the cost.
Been a while since I’ve played Europe 1940 by itself, but I generally don’t put facilities down in any of the 1940 games. Many facility locations feel suited for only one plan which can easily be changed or disrupted by your opponent.
Artillery is very useful. If the US is sending forces the long route obviously tanks are better, but artillery is superior in Western Europe. For Italy, I like to buy it to provide some extra counterattacking power if they’re in “defend Fortress Europe” mode. 4 infantry and 3 artillery on the offensive is vastly superior to 8 infantry (not saying that’s a good ratio to scale up, must trying to show how effective artillery can be).
And honestly, as Germany I buy artillery because if you only buy tanks, not many of them reach their “full potential”. If I just want some extra firepower for infantry, tanks are completely wasted in that role. I could see how tanks previously being 5 IPCs might make it worth it, but I’d much rather have 3 artillery accompany my large infantry stack than 2 tanks (especially since it seems that high level players don’t make that much use of blitzing on the Eastern Front, especially in crucial stages).
I rarely buy mechanized infantry too. They’re more for if you need extra movement to have as many forces as possible for a particular, large scale plan to be executed by a certain turn (say, a German assault on Moscow). I’ve never put mechanized infantry on transports.
Sorry if this was a bit long, I didn’t have time to make it shorter.
-
Check out these strategy articles:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1397227
Some comments from my side:
- mechs are excellent for the Germans on their way east. They are also useful for all other nations, but maybe not in the numbers Germany should build them.
- I consider artillery a very useful unit. It helps in particular to give punch to large stacks of infantry, eg those that tend to build around Moscow. The ratio of infantry to artillery is depateable, but you want it at least to be 1:5 if you intend to (threaten) attack.
- your navy analysis seems pretty correct; battleships and cruisers are far too expensive to be build. In my opinion saving the ones on the board is worth it, but building them seems waste of IPC
-
As a follow-up, this might be a slightly controversial opinion:
I think tactical bombers are okay
Now, in terms of actually bombing? They seem useless on the Europe map (although bombing Gibraltar’s naval base as Italy can really screw with the allies.)
That being said:
- As the US, you’re going to be using a combination of destroyers and carriers. I find these carrier aircraft are meant more as a deterrent, rather than expecting them to actually be attacked, and needing to score hits on defense; having a tac. and a fighter paired up comes in handy, since you know you’ll be using those planes offensively over and over again. In this case, the trade-off of 1 defense for 1 attack isn’t that detrimental (although arguably it still doesn’t justify the extra 1 IPC cost.)
- As the UK, pairing the tac. with the tank in East Africa in the early rounds of clearing out the Italians can be really handy, allowing you to put fewer infantry into those battles, and preserving them for defense or for attacking 2 territories instead of only 1, on the same turn.
Generally speaking, my go-to move for building fleets is to just assume 2 fighters for each carrier, but since pivoting to 1 tac. and 1 fighter with the US, I don’t feel like I’m losing out on anything. If there is a downside, it’s when you try and split up your carrier group, sending each of the 2 planes to attack different territories, rather than attacking 1 territory together.
But if you have a carrier in SZ 109 and another in SZ 110 or 112, you can easily use all 4 aircraft in attacking Norway, Denmark, Holland/Belgium, or Normandy. This is particularly powerful when sending minimal landing forces, and just wanting to strafe the enemy down.
I’ve toyed with the idea of going all bombers and destroyers as the US, but it definitely leaves your convoy escort fleet feeling a lot weaker, despite the extra “HP” worth of destroyers (relative to the same cost for a carrier + planes.) I do find the bombers come in handy for neutralizing Germany’s income and production, but also just for their movement; being able to get into theatre on the 2nd turn after being purchased is very valuable.
-
Yeah, tactical bombers are completely useless to attack facilities, but I think it’s historically accurate, since most strategic bombing was done by what would be considered strategic bombers.
Generally, I buy way more fighters than tactical bombers. This is mainly because in combat, if there’s only 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber, I usually take the fighter first (and I try hard to maintain at a minimum a 1 to 1 fighter to tactical bomber ratio), resulting in the need of replacements.
However, I usually like 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber on carriers, which is where I make the bulk of tactical bomber purchases.
Tactical bombers are generally less useful on land (because land units are more cost effective and it’s not that easy to find a battle where their bonus can be activated and is big/important enough to necessitate using air units), while at sea they’re competitive.
AndrewAAGamer’s Global 1940 principles explains it well.
Suggested Topics
