Balance, 1941, no national Objectives (reprint)

@Argothair said in Reliable 1941 Axis Strategy:

@cheezhead1252 You’re welcome!

No, I think it is counterproductive to worry about attacking Egypt on G1 – especially with NOs off, it is just not that important, and you need every plane in the German air force to win 2 naval battles + 3 land battles on turn 1 at reasonable odds.

If you want to go heavy in the Med, you can get excellent odds on taking Egypt turn 2 by instead using the German med transport to shuffle another inf + tank to Libya on G1, where it will be protected by the Italian navy for a turn. Italy will do the same, shuffling another 2 units to Libya on I1. If you pre-position another 2 units in Italy / the Balkans on G1, then on G2 you can ferry them to Egypt with your transport, allowing you to attack with ~8 land units, plus the German bomber, which can now be spared from anti-British-navy duties, plus also a German fighter that should have landed in Morocco. This is far more than anything the Allies can bring to the region, and if you somehow roll poorly, the Italians are there to follow up with an equally hard punch (~7 units, 1 plane, and 2 naval bombards).

Italy can build any land units it wants for the eastern front; it’s just a style preference. Tanks allow you to threaten a ‘can opener’ for Germany in a larger number of territories, but they tend to be a one-and-done attack, since Italy doesn’t have enough cash to build many tanks; sooner or later Russia will call your bluff and force you to either attack with the Italian tanks into a stack of 2-3 Russian infantry, or else retreat. If you send in the tanks and Germany can’t take Moscow that turn or stack up with the survivors, then you’ll lose the surviving tanks next turn to a Russian counterattack, and you won’t be able to replace them anytime soon. But, if you build all infantry, then it takes longer to become relevant, and Russia can clearly see where it’s headed. There are pros and cons. I usually build a mix.

Good luck against your old man!

I took the advice from your first post and applied to a game of triple A hard AI before you posted this response. I ended up coming to the same conclusions as above, so it is good to confirm I’m on the right track haha.

I agree that the juice in Egypt isn’t really worth the squeeze. I strafed them in G1 to kill some units. And they end up running to Persia once you pressure India anyways. So the French tank and an Inf got shipped to the Eastern front via Med transport and I did the same with Italian units too.

Also, the tip for transports to pressure India was money, getting it a round earlier than I had been was huge. Was able to rush in some planes to help defend Germany on J2 or maybe it was J3.

Was the first time I beat the AI without No’s, it felt great crushing Russia, not going to lie hehe. It’s a slog on the eastern front and you have to be extremely careful and concentrate your forces at the right spot at the right time or you’re fooked.

Thanks again for the great advice and I look forward to kicking some allied booty, cheers!

@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.

@USS:

I would like to add that I haven’t played without National Objectives so maybe my advice means nothing. The US benefits from NOs a lot, so maybe that will help the Allies?

Actually, the allies lose their National Objectives quickly, whilst the Axis attain (and keep)  theirs.  This makes playing with National Objectives more advantages to the axis.

Overall, no NOs means IPC income is less for all involved.  Units are more valuable, especially reusable ones (like planes and transports).  Once the allies make this initial investment(s) in these type of units and does not lose them, the can have a fighting chance in the game.

With my friends, we play with Dardanelles closed and I gotta say that this limit Italy alot and gives Russia the opportunity to counter attack without fearing the Italian troops. Yes, the Italians can still clear a path, but it’s much harder with their ground troops (Italy have little tanks, and little infantry)

With Dardanelles closed, the Allies certainly see their chance of winning increase.

That said, with or without the Dardanelles closed, I believe this game to be fair for both side. I’ll give a slight advantage to the Axis simply because of their strong start.

Right now, we just discovered 42. We feel it is more balanced than 41 (for some reason, and maybe it is really more balanced).
Personally, I’d say this : If you want to balance (if it isn’t) 41, just remove some Japanese transports (I don’t believe in the “add some Chinese units”). 42 shows how Japan is weaker in the first few turns because it lacks transports. Like force them to take 1-2 more turn in order to take the free 8 ipcs in East Indies/Borne or something, or prevent them from sending that many ground forces in their first turn. From there, you will see how it limits Japan’s capabilities.

Robert

Japan because it’s as if a modern day army/navy was brought back through time and is virtually unstopable. I’m surprised Japan didn’t come with Cruise missiles and M1 Abrams tanks.

Assuming 1941 setup and using NO’s, here are a few minor, simple, yet helpful setup changes to the board.

1.  Exchange the sz4 Russian sub for a Russian destroyer.  In Revised, Russia had an 8 IPC, 2 attack, 2 defense unit which could block ships, so give it back to them.  This both helps Russia and Germany, because if Germany wants to, it can hit it.

2. Exchange the sz56 US transport for a US cruiser.  This seems to make Japan’s opening moves a little more clear and it means that the US cannot immediately take a Pacific island on its first turn which helps Japan, but having a capital ship, helps the US as well.

3. Add 1 Chinese infantry to Yunan.  I know that many people want more than this, but I think that this would force Japan to be more careful with its first turn moves, but I think that Japan could still do just about everything that it wants to.

These changes actually give the Allies 10 IPCs worth of unit/unit upgrades, and with all of the talk about the Axis having the slight advantage, maybe these changes would help.

@Funcioneta:

There is no chance India can resist after J3 agains a decent axis player, even killing China J1. Any axis players should attack Egypt with 6 units

Doing so requires using the Bomber, which means that you will either have to let the Battleship/Transport pair live, or let the Cruiser/Destroyer pair live.  The first will allow them to launch an early D-Day and build a fleet quickly.  The second will allow them to probably wipe out the Italian Fleet nice and early.

@Funcioneta:

at least clearing it in most of cases, probably taking it with some tank, so all UK has to defend India is:

2 inf from trj 3 inf, art, aa gun form ind inf from bur 3 guys built round 2

My units available to defend India for J3 could be as many as 9 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 4 Bombers, and an AA, with a Battleship and a Carrier Group in the waters, plus the Burma Infantry and the Egypt Tank if they survived turn 1.  So total is more like 15 units, plus a nasty fleet off the coast that you need to use those Fighters on.  Oh, and keep in mind, anything sent to attack the India Sea Zone is going to be in range of the US air force and possibly navy.

@Funcioneta:

Japan starts with 5 trannies and it’s pretty probable they can send at least 4 loaded to India round 3 (8 units) plus a swarm of starting figs. Let’s say about 15-16 units and any bombardment shots they can join. India lost (and the IC if UK were so fool of building it). The only chance are soviet units, but they are too busy against western axis. I can wait another turn to more jap units arrive (units saved because you killed the chineses round 1) if I manage soviets send some european units to Japan instead Germany

If you wait another turn, I will have taken French Indochina, Manchuria, Kiangsu, Philipines, East Indies, Borneo, and the Caroline Islands.  Taking an IC in India, were it even possible, would no longer be of limited utility, given that you are being overrun.

@OleOneEye:

True that it is never worthless.  However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player.  The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology.  Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?

As you said yourself, there really isn’t much of an opportunity cost cause chart 1 is weak for Japan anyways.  However, if Japan is not careful, a British IC in Australia combined with an aggressive USA could result in them having less money than you might think.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan.  The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.

I suppose it would let them blitz into Russia/East Asia pretty fast, but shouldn’t America be targeting one of the Axis members directly with their forces rather than liberating their distant holdings?

@OleOneEye:

I don’t understand the way you play Russia.  It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception.  Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.

I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.

Even if Russia intends to take territory and hold it, why would they need to transport Infantry to get there?  Also, I don’t really see any advantage to Russia building Tanks rather building solely Infantry.  Both of them are really just delay tactics until Germany gets reamed from behind by someone, anyways.  Germany won’t have enough forces to break into Moscow until turn 5 if Russia masses Infantry, and that requires them to be neglectful elsewhere.

@OleOneEye:

Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn.  Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each.  Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.

Not really.  The Indian AA is already in range of Russia.  The Japanese AA can be moved into Alaska on the first turn, in theory, putting it in range of West US.

@OleOneEye:

Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit.  Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster.  Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?

Fair enough.  Still think that Russia can get some use out of it though.  They have 30+ Infantry to start, getting a bunch of Artillery can allow them to push back Germany more cheaply than with the vulnerable Tanks.

@OleOneEye:

In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two.  They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.

Perhaps I’m just bad at estimating the long game.  I’ve played mainly Revised, and most games get decided by turn 3.  However, if Russia builds a fighter or two, then it makes it more likely that the game is decided in those first rounds, because if their front forces got demolished without any backups, gameover.

@OleOneEye:

@wodan46:

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.

If Japan has radar AND masses Subs, there is no feasible way for USA to threaten Japan period, regardless of how well or poorly the game goes for Japan.

@OleOneEye:

UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea.  It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them.  If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.

Destroyers have a move of 2, as do Subs.  If Germany builds a group of them on second turn and Britain does not already have a Destroyer nearby, they simply sink any Destroyer that comes into range (air support is nice), or for that matter any naval unit, and with luck can dominate the Atlantic.  If Britain wises up and places a Destroyer blocking the exit to the Sea AND another one behind it, then the Subs should kill the Destroyer, then spread out into 3 different Sea Zones.

Also, in countering my other posts, many people have suggested that Britain build mostly Bombers turn 1.  Airforces will do nothing against a Sub fleet.

@OleOneEye:

We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines.  I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.

Subs are just hard to use, because they are the most different unit in the game.  However, they can potentially have incredible yield, completely denying access to whole oceans if you are fortunate.