@Unknown:
If you Build 5 Infantry and 5 Tanks, all of your starting money, they only win 75% of the time. Add in the Infantry from Central US as well and it drops to about 60%.
Not sure where you’re getting your numbers, but against a defeding force of 6 inf, 5 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmr, 1 aa Japan is only about 38% to take the territory, not 60%. The US can make these odds even worse by sending in the EUS fighter, but let’s suppose they send it to Britain.
@Unknown:
If Japan simply takes Canada, they will be… slaughtered by an Infantry/Tank force
Correct. So what can Japan hope to accomplish by doing this?
Dunno. Assuming that they can’t take West US, I’d vote that they take Alaska with the majority of their forces, and Canada with a token force. This allows them to deploy their air support more effectively.
@Unknown:
Whereupon Italy takes Western US instead
Nope, cause the Italian fleet is dead the moment it sets foot out of the Med. On UK1, they buy 3 bmr, 2 inf. If Italy moves their fleet as you describe, Britain pounds it with 4 bmr, 3 ftr (1 ftr from FWA, escaping from Egypt on UK1), winning easily with no fighter loses.
Fighter from Egypt will have nowhere to land because Gibraltar was taken. Also, if you build such a massive airforce, the Italian fleet will probably stick to Sea Zone 13, meaning you can only hit them with your Bombers, causing you to lose most of them.
@Unknown:
If Britain builds a navy on B2 to block Germany while sinking the Italian force, Germany simply destroys the blocking fleet and invades Britain
Uh, not quite. With the 1 IPC saved from UK1, they have 44 to spend UK2 thanks to the Axis opting not to attack british holdings in Africa, Asia, or the Pacific. They buy 2 cv, 2 dd and place them in sz6, along with the dd and fighters already on board. The US adds its dd and fighter on US2 for a grand total of 2 cv, 4 dd, 4 ftr.
That’s assuming that on G2 Germany doesn’t simply move some or all of its forces to Sea Zone 6 or 7.
Granted, I think you are beginning to dismantle my strategy at this point. The main problem is that I assumed that a typical British build would be navies, not airforce.
@Unknown:
So G3 comes along and, if we’re extremely generous and suppose Germany’s entire airforce is intact and in range of sz6, they have 1 ss, 1 ca, 1 cv, 4 ftr, 1 bmr to attack with according to your builds. That gives them at best 20% to clear sz6 for the invasion force. If they choose not to attack, we all know what will happen on UK3…
0 ss and 2 cv, actually. Unless they decided to go Carrier and double Transports first turn, whereupon Italy would probably go to Sea Zone 12 after all.
@Unknown:
part of the beauty of this strategy is that the Allies are unlikely to see it coming the first time.
The UK and the US get to see both Germany and Japan’s opening moves before they do anything. With Germany buying all navy and Japan sending every single transport towards the US west coast, I think they would see the danger pretty quickly.
I mean, what else would 5 loaded TPs be doing around Iwo Jima?
I think this is one of those plans that looks good on paper when you’re playing solitare, but versus a good opponent who is aware of what’s going on, and will do everything in his power to stop you, it’s just not going to work. I suppose this might work on an inexperienced player, though, and it would certainly be fun to try out if nothing else. I just don’t think its “good” strategy overall.
@Unknown:
Oh, and wodan, I’d be willing to play it out sometime if you want.
Perhaps you’d like to try it out on someone who hasn’t thought about how to counter it yet though, as Comassion points out. That way you’d keep any element of surprise you might have with this. :evil:
The problem is that trying to maintain control of the Baltic isn’t subtle, but this strategy works best if done subtly enough that the Allies aren’t quite sure what you are doing.
One possibility is that Germany spends the first turn building nothing, then building 2 CV and 6 Transports the following turn. If Britain somehow anticipates this anyways, or can stop it, you can drop the strategy, and build 6 Bombers instead, which should still be useful on the eastern front.
Thinking it over, and Germany going 1 CV, 2 Transports on G1 is best. No matter how much they reinforce their Baltic Fleet Britain will try to sink it, so there’s no reason to hide your transport builds. Then on G2, you can either build 1 CV and 4 Transports (to kill Britain) or simply switch to Baltic Zeppelin Gambit instead. Ukraine will be weaker, so Italy will reinforce it to stabilize the gambit.
Granted, Japan can’t switch its strategy at this point. Perhaps its part should be dropped, but that would mean US can help Britain…
Fighter from Egypt will have nowhere to land because Gibraltar was taken.
It can land in French West Africa, or alternatively, Moscow. That way it can be in either sz6 or Britain at the end of UK2.
Also, if you build such a massive airforce, the Italian fleet will probably stick to Sea Zone 13, meaning you can only hit them with your Bombers, causing you to lose most of them.
Well, 4 bombers still have decent odds to kill the whole fleet. But, more importantly, if the Italians are in sz13 they cannot threaten sz6 or the US east coast. I guess they could try to hit Britain with their single TP. :lol:
That’s assuming that on G2 Germany doesn’t simply move some or all of its forces to Sea Zone 6 or 7.
2 points: (1) I can still build in sz6 regarless, and (2) you need your fleet in the baltic to protect your TP build on G2.
The main problem is that I assumed that a typical British build would be navies, not airforce.
Yeah, I think this is it. A big difference with AA50 from other incarnations of the game is that bombers are extremely powerful due to their cheaper cost. They’re fleet killers. They’re support units. They do SBRs. They have the longest operational range of any unit. There are multiple techs which enhance their abilities further, inculding the best one in the game.
Perhaps they’re too good now? I guess time will tell.
I agree with you Unknown. Would be fun to try but I think an experienced player could easily thwart it.
I firmly believe that any major German naval build is a complete waste of time, unless it is done after and only after hevily fortifying the Eastern front. And then only to support Italy in the mediteranian little by little!
I agree with you Unknown. Would be fun to try but I think an experienced player could easily thwart it.
I firmly believe that any major German naval build is a complete waste of time, unless it is done after and only after hevily fortifying the Eastern front. And then only to support Italy in the mediteranian little by little!
Mediterranean… wait a moment…
G1: 1 IC in France, 3 Tanks, do the usual German attack (3 British Fleets sunk and 3 Russian Territories captured), with an emphasis on holding Ukraine. Move Italian fleet to the Sea Zone South of France and have them capture Gibaltrar. Have them build a Transport
G2: Build 6 Transports south of France, while positioning enough Infantry/Tanks (such as the 3 you just built) in France/Algeria to use them. Build a Carrier and 4 Transports if Britain still went Bomber happy (given that you got an IC, that’s probably a yes). Focus your eastern front forces even more in Ukraine. Italy lands units in Ukraine, or lets Germany load units in its transport/s, then moves to Caucasus
G3: Invade Caucasus or UK, probably the Caucasus. Landing 14-16 ground units in Caucasus, along with a large ground force and possibly air force, should be rather difficult for Russia to handle. In the mean time, build 6 Infantry in France and more Infantry+Bombers in Germany, blocking a UK invasion.
Now we’re getting somewhere, I still think 6 transports might be too much in one turn but the complex idea along with maybe a few transports a turn might work and the odd warship.
It will allow you to capture africa, threaten the caucasus and potentially threaten England. Now you’ve got some defense for your fleet with the Italian support.
This could be effective
I was messing around with this in solo play and I came up with something interesting on the japan side of things. This might work well with the german transport idea or just as a separate japan strat to give a regular Germany an easier time of things. Basically you start this out the same as mentioned for japan, except instead of hitting mainland USA you send all their boats and invade Hawaii, and Philippines and Alaska. This puts you with about 4-5 ground troops and a lot of planes(you move all carriers east) in strike range of west US. This forces a US reaction. Then on turn 2 you just move everything back west and then take Aus and the other islands with all the troops in the Pacific. What this does is slows down your china a bit(but you still can take a few countries) and denies US 5 via loosing Hawaii as well as locks down your 5 ipc no in short order. You also stalled 1 turn of US production, or at least 70% of their production, which then has to walk across to Eastern USA which will take 1-2 turns depending on what they built to counter you. If they built all tanks they will have too many tanks for how many transports they have which is another plus. You also get the income from Alaska and Hawaii on round 1. There is room to grab one of the 4 ipc British islands on round 1 as well I believe. Hopefully it messes up their supply lines to Africa for a bit! This is just a neat idea, and not necessarily the end all be all strat. You could even consider killing the the US carrier on J2(is it close enough given a range of 3 for fighters on a carrier that moves towards its target?) to give Italy more breathing room for its navy.
Ok, now suppose you’d be capable to take the US succesfully. At what costs would it be achieved? If you needed to build up during two or three turns (and have to pull back ground-forces and fighters), the eastern front is completely lost imo. This is because you have no airforce left. Any counterattack you plan vs the SU, will be done by armor, which leaves them vulnerable to a counteroffensive. You might be capable to take out the US, but lose Germany herself. China will be invincible and the UK-powerhouse thanks to their empire gargantuesk.
Therefore even if you managed to take and hold the US, Germany would be confined to the Americas at best. You now find yourself in a situation where: the US is down, both SU and UK have all (or almost all) their NO’s. Germany and Italy will probably be lost or find themselves confined to Western Europe/Germany at best (losing a NO and having only 10 unit-production-capacity).
I think you missed what i was saying. This is a feint. It forces a reaction but you never plan to attack. You feint and grab their NO at the same time as making yours easier to get. Its a cash grab not an actual assault on US. after this you are pretty much done with USA. Unless of course they don’t respond and you can take WU on J2.
@kendrick
I was commenting wodan’s ideas.
Your strat seems pretty sound at first sight.
A few problems with that idea.
UK can probably retake alaska or atleast weaken your forces there with 1 inf 1 arm.
US keeps there NO because they’d have midway, wake, and Solomon.
You best keep your destroyer alive or else a sub drop alone will secure there coast (just the fact they can sink your carriers in response)
US can easily shift 1 inf, 1 art to central US, pull back the AA gun, and keep there planes in range to retake LA, stalling them at most 1 turn from africa.
I think you’d be better off hitting Hawaii and buying 2 transports + DD and shift the cruiser to japan, then threating a turn 2 grab of alaska + western canada and setting up for a train. The interesting thing as well is if you move the BB to wake and have all 3 carriers plus your DD and within range and hit Hawaii there is absolutely no fleet purchase the US can make that can survive an attack on J2. Not sure what can be done to capitalize on that but hey.
