Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.
Lets discuss Japan Round 1
-
Usually allies cannot hold Egypt enough to build units there. There is a big menace of a 1-2 punch or even a 1-2-3 punch if Japan is near
However, If it can hold, it’s obviously far better than SAF
-
I am curious what Germany is doing in these games you guys are playing. Funcioneta I do not see how England can keep its capitol if it is buying ICs all over the map, because in my mind in 42 a German navy is a must. It is SO very easy to pull off and has the benefits of threatening England while reinforcing Karelia. And since Germany should be knocking out all 3 of its NOs it can also keep investing in this navy. I do not see England being able to take it out alone, and if the US tries to help, I think we all know what that means. Japan had just been given the green light to run amok.
-
That’s the matter, USA simply has no money to fight both in Pacific and Atlantic (at least not a long campaign), but also UK needs keep Africa. It’s a big dilema: if you buy SAF IC, you risk a german naval strat but if not, you risk losing all Africa
It’s a problem I have still to solve because I got beaten badly by a naval strat as you said and I have to rethink the things. Any case, SAF IC will be bought round 2 or later (or you will not have any navy to resist Luftwaffe even without Kriegsmarine built), so I guess the answer is not buy SAF IC if germans go navy and buy it if they skip Kriegsmarine
For the record, the result is not the fall of England (it can be defended without much effort), the result is german control of Atlantic that is deadly because they can take Brazil and put a IC there, annoy Africa even more or trade Ottawa with USA (so UK has no chance of collecting income for it)
I have not a magic wand for this scenario, but it’s better than 1941. I think soon or later we’ll solve 1942 scenario enigma, but I doubt 1941 has any solution with vanilla rules
-
Also, it changes much if axis rolls very poor or very good round 1
-
-
We should probably start another thread for 42 strategy chat as this one is off topic.
AA44Bigdog can you give me a link to a game where you used this naval strategy? On its face I think I would welcome this tactic as Allies. Obviously my counter would be KGF, with only minimal US income going to transports to contest Pacific NOs….so Japan would become a mainland monster. This alone is probably solid justification for a naval strat. Either way, I’m curious what your buying strategy is to keep a Baltic fleet in the water.
More and more I’m thinking this is slanted to Axis and an Allied bid is needed, so lots of different Axis strats could work.
-
The problem with KGF is that Japan can attack Alaska or menace WUSA, they don’t need do a total assault as in Revised, just pin the yanks so you they forced to buy land units at your rear. That’s money that doesn’t goes to Atlantic boats (trust me, you will have no chance of putting any Pacific boats if you skip more than one round of Pacific purchases). At very least, you will be reduced to a 40 IPCs USA (Alaska and Haw lost). Do the maths: Germany will colect 50 IPCs, Italy 20-25 vs 30 from USSR, 20-25 UK and any money Japan let’s USA spent on boats. You are going to halt german naval expansion as much at price of losing all Africa and Asia (since I guess KGF means you don’t IC India). Of all those IPCs, only UK one and maybe 20-30 from USA will go for boats, not enough to do the job
KGF cannot work in AA50, scenario doesn’t mind. I’m still waiting the people appear with a solution non involving KGF, but they stick to the past
-
KGF cannot work in AA50, scenario doesn’t mind. I’m still waiting the people appear with a solution non involving KGF, but they stick to the past
Japan needs to be paid attention to… whether USA decides to do it or are forced to do it by Japan.
USA used to be one of the easier countries to play, now they face very tough decisions on how to split their forces.Strong Axis play does not make it any easier on them either.
-
what is a bid and why is it used.it sounds to me like its a handicap rule for not so good players.is this correct
-
A bid is a way for advanced players to even the playing field and determine sides in mutually fair way. It’s not really necessary for novices, though both versions of AA50 favor Axis.
Returning to Japan 1 discussion… my J1 depends alot on whether its ll or dice. If it’s dice, I tend to play conservative and target the India fleet and push aggressively on all Chinese targets. In ll, Japan can perhaps afford to hit Buryatia as well. I’m not a big fan of the Pearl strike as it seems that Japan has to deploy the cruiser to have overwhelming odds of success, and trading a sub, destroyer and cruiser for the Pearl fleet may not be worth it. On the other hand, I suppose hitting Pearl is the only sure way to deny USA its NO.
Suggested Topics
