Help against the allies

You won’t equal him in naval strength as Germany, period.  The best you can do as Germany is use your sea forces to keep the Allies from landing in Europe as long as possible.  This is probably the biggest change in feel from Revised- with cheaper sea units, buying a few every now and then as Germany can stall US/UK for a longer period of time without hurting Germany too much.

As Japan, you have the initial advantage.  If they are deploying naval units in the Pacific, just attack them before they get enough to be a big nuisance.  Once again… eventually, they WILL overcome your navy.  The goal is to make this take as long as possible while you conquer the rest of the world.

Buy 60% tanks, 35% infantry, and 5% artillery, and head your ass to moscow, while defending france and putting marginal pressure on africa.  Keep your strategy simple and try to keep all your fighters and bombers alive.  Move them around, sometimes to eastern front, then sometimes back to western front.  6 ftrs and 1 bomber can take out almost all fleets, even really big ones, if necessary.  Don’t actually get too aggressive with moscow, or you may lose everything.  Let him have western russia and archangel, they are death traps for you.  Only take the caucasus if you can reinforce it with japanese troops.  With a little luck, you will keep the allies at bay while japan gets really big and takes moscow for you.  If the USA tries to go after japan, then you can go ahead and take africa and possibly moscow too afterwards.

axis strategy is super simple, don’t make it complex

Take africa first. Yes I agree with the moscow thing Veqryn posted, but that extra ten IPC will totally boost your economy while decimating the UK. As japan decide if China or India is better to punch through.

if the allies are good, you will not take africa

BUT you need to try to take africa because it will force the allies to spend 2 or 3 ipcs for each single 1 ipc you send to africa.  its a very cost effective campaign and distracts them badly from europe.  if you don’t go after africa, they can go straight to europe, meaning you will see a lot more pressure much more early, however if you go for africa and they don’t go after you there, you will eventually be making 7-11 more ipcs a turn and will win definitely, and if you do go after africa and they come after you, you and screw with them for a good 3 turns, costing them tons of money of soon to be out of place allied troops before losing africa

If you can, (after taking africa) plop down some subs in the atlantic. With the new transport rules they HAVE to protct them. Last game I played I forced the USA player to waste money on destroyers he didnt need.

Ive never tried it for those same reasons… IMO German planes are more cost effective than a fleet. Stacking 2 fighters with 10+ infantry defending an area is usually how I stall the Allies.

but in theory  –

Consider buying a navy rd 1 (carrier/cruiser) into sz15. Capture Gibraltar with the Med battleship/transport (strictly defensive move to stop the UK from sinking your battleship). Combine said battleship with your new fleet off of Western Europe and eventually back to sz15 to build the rest of your fleet and make sure your fighters/bomber are always in range of attacking. I usually keep all of my fighters in Germany to stop bombing raids and protect the coast. I’m assuming against an aggressive opponent you can bait them into invading Western Europe with a small force early, it sets you up to sink their fleet and invade the UK.
.
Essentially the idea is to destroy the initial UK/US fleet before the US has a chance to reinforce it and as a bonus with the transports saved you delay them rebuilding it for a few rds because the UK is forced to defend against a small amphibious assault. If you dont take the gamble early by rd4 that UK/US fleet will be too strong for Germany to do anything about, and this whole strategy will probably be a bust though.

@Veqryn:

if the allies are good, you will not take africa

BUT you need to try to take africa because it will force the allies to spend 2 or 3 ipcs for each single 1 ipc you send to africa.  its a very cost effective campaign and distracts them badly from europe.  if you don’t go after africa, they can go straight to europe, meaning you will see a lot more pressure much more early, however if you go for africa and they don’t go after you there, you will eventually be making 7-11 more ipcs a turn and will win definitely, and if you do go after africa and they come after you, you and screw with them for a good 3 turns, costing them tons of money of soon to be out of place allied troops before losing africa

Well said, against mediocre and novice allies this strategy is perfect. Stealing 7-11 IPCs per turn from the UK is as good as sinking 14-22 IPCs of there navy, plus you can use the money elsewhere like against Russia.

@GEneral:

my friend likes to buy a lot of subs as the allies because of the new sub rules, but i dont know how to equal him in naval strength as the axis. help?

My advice….don’t buy navy with either Axis.  The only time to buy any navy (besides transports) for Japan is when you are trying to defend the sz around Japan.  For Germany, don’t buy navy.   Instead, buy planes and attack their fleets (or don’t attack their fleets, either way they have to spend on useless carriers and destroyers to defend themselves against the THREAT of you attacking via air).  If you buy subs, you are essentally committing to attacking the Allies once they are in range (or they will kill your subs the next turn).  With planes, you can attack at a time of your choosing.

It should be interesting to see whether it becomes more cost-efficient for the Germans to buy tons of air to ward off enemy fleets or buy tons of infantry to hold the territories.  The latter strategy, more common in Revised, will still work well, but the former may have a lot of promise too.

@Veqryn:

Buy 60% tanks, 35% infantry, and 5% artillery, and head your a** to moscow,

Better…at first buy 90% inf, 5% art, maybe 1 plane and 1 tank per turn.  When you are ready, switch to half tanks/half inf.  Eventually, you may want all or mostly tanks, or all or mostly planes, as the situation requires.  When you are ready, a good inf/tank ratio should be somewhere between 3:1 to 2:1.

Axis should go after Africa (as well as Aussie/NZ/Mad) but the main goal is always Moscow.  Getting the colonies increases Axis income and decreases British income, and is a big part of winning the game.  Tank dash to Moscow is not the only way to win and can be countered–the less dicey way for the Axis to win is by building a bigger economy.

@Zhukov44:

@Veqryn:

Buy 60% tanks, 35% infantry, and 5% artillery, and head your a** to moscow,

Better…at first buy 90% inf, 5% art, maybe 1 plane and 1 tank per turn.  When you are ready, switch to half tanks/half inf.  Eventually, you may want all or mostly tanks, or all or mostly planes, as the situation requires.  When you are ready, a good inf/tank ratio should be somewhere between 3:1 to 2:1.

Axis should go after Africa (as well as Aussie/NZ/Mad) but the main goal is always Moscow.  Getting the colonies increases Axis income and decreases British income, and is a big part of winning the game.  Tank dash to Moscow is not the only way to win and can be countered–the less dicey way for the Axis to win is by building a bigger economy.

The problem with heavy tank buys early in the game for Germany is that they run out of inf as they get closer to Moscow allowing the Russians to counter with huge inf stacks and destroying your expensive tank divisions for relatively little which lessens your IPC advantage. this can cost Germany the war, at the very least a two turn setback. I have found that this doesn’t become evident until rd 2 or 3, but buy then it is too late. Its any easy mistake that many axis players make, if your lucky Russia makes this mistake first.

@Zhukov44:

@GEneral:

my friend likes to buy a lot of subs as the allies because of the new sub rules, but i dont know how to equal him in naval strength as the axis. help?

My advice….don’t buy navy with either Axis.  The only time to buy any navy (besides transports) for Japan is when you are trying to defend the sz around Japan.  For Germany, don’t buy navy.   Instead, buy planes and attack their fleets (or don’t attack their fleets, either way they have to spend on useless carriers and destroyers to defend themselves against the THREAT of you attacking via air).  If you buy subs, you are essentally committing to attacking the Allies once they are in range (or they will kill your subs the next turn).  With planes, you can attack at a time of your choosing.

It should be interesting to see whether it becomes more cost-efficient for the Germans to buy tons of air to ward off enemy fleets or buy tons of infantry to hold the territories.  The latter strategy, more common in Revised, will still work well, but the former may have a lot of promise too.

As Germany, I think sub purchases are important.  I use the subs in concert with the airforce to hold off Allied invasions.  Using the subs as fodder, you can keep the allies at bay without having to lose a single aircraft in a naval battle.  I do not buy any naval units other than subs as they are usually easy prey for Allied aircraft.

For land units, I buy mostly infantry for the first few rounds to stabilize the eastern front and secure capitals.  Once I’ve stabilized my lines, I start buying more tanks to put pressure on the Soviets.

WIth all the respect to the good strategic thought found here, I think you are not answering the original concern of the founder of the thread. Surely there are different strategies in terms of what needs or can be done in the sea. But my experience so far tells me there are three crucial strategic issues related to the sea. 1. How to delay Allies landing in Europe 2. Who controls Africa. 3. How to confront a swift demolishon of Japan with the tons of US subs.

I am not sure but my guess is the founder of the thread wanted to discuss the option 3 – he was referring to the subs. And subs are not a weapon to be used against Germany.

In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.

@Granada:

In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.

With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker.

@Hobbes:

@Granada:

In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.

With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker.

As long as there’s a DD you can take those subs as casualties though.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@Hobbes:

@Granada:

In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.

With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker.

As long as there’s a DD you can take those subs as casualties though.

In the case above the presence of US destroyers doesn’t allow the US player to take US submarines as casualties from the Japanese planes. The manual states:
“When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle”

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@Hobbes:

@Granada:

In my modest experience I think the difference in the dynamics compared to Revised make Japan suprisingly weak against the combined push of the three allies on the continent AND A FLOOD OF US SUBS threataning it from R4. Japan once you sink its fleet is doomed. And it looks it can be really done quickly and easily here with the US subs.

With 1942 I’ve been heavily favoring a Pacific strategy for the US because of Japan’s weakness. The advantage of subs comes from requering DDs to be sunk but at the same time the US needs carriers and transports and destroyers and fighters to be able to get to the big income islands.
Subs can definitely help, you can send them 1 to each SZ in range of Japan to force the IJN to defend any transports on SZ60 but stationing more than 1 sub is risky (Japan can send 1 DD and plenty of planes to sink all) and they can’t be taken as casualties from air units unless there’s a DD present.
This is very important to remember. Imagine a US fleet with 5 subs, 2 DDs, 1 AC and 2 fighters. If Japan attacks with only planes then the US subs are useless during combat. Quite a few times it is better not to send any destroyers to support an attack because it will swing the odds towards the attacker.

As long as there’s a DD you can take those subs as casualties though.

In the case above the presence of US destroyers doesn’t allow the US player to take US submarines as casualties from the Japanese planes. The manual states:
“When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines unless there is a destroyer that is friendly to the air units in the battle”

In what way does that mean they can’t? The defending airplanes are friendly to the defending subs. As long is there is also a friendly destroyer there than it’s all good.

Because the friendly airplanes aren’t going to be scoring hits on friendly subs.  :wink:  You need a Japanese destroyer for the attacking Japanese planes to score hits on the defending US subs, which are still useless regardless because if Japan is attacking with only planes, the US subs still can’t hit the planes even though there’s a US destroyer. So you’re both right and wrong. :-P

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Because the friendly airplanes aren’t going to be scoring hits on friendly subs.  :wink:  You need a Japanese destroyer for the attacking Japanese planes to score hits on the defending US subs, which are still useless regardless because if Japan is attacking with only planes, the US subs still can’t hit the planes even though there’s a US destroyer. So you’re both right and wrong. :-P

I’m going to use a different approach, as I understand where he’s coming from better now. I should’ve said, "but the attackers aren’t assigning the hits, it’s the defenders that are chosing the casualties. If the fight is say, a cruiser, a destroyer and two subs, and 5 planes, the planes are going to roll all at once, he scores 3 hits, he doesn’t assign what the defenders are going to lose, the defender is the one chosing the casualties, in every fight, so he can chose to lose subs without returns and another boat. No?

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Because the friendly airplanes aren’t going to be scoring hits on friendly subs.  :wink:  You need a Japanese destroyer for the attacking Japanese planes to score hits on the defending US subs, which are still useless regardless because if Japan is attacking with only planes, the US subs still can’t hit the planes even though there’s a US destroyer. So you’re both right and wrong. :-P

I’m going to use a different approach, as I understand where he’s coming from better now. I should’ve said, "but the attackers aren’t assigning the hits, it’s the defenders that are chosing the casualties. If the fight is say, a cruiser, a destroyer and two subs, and 5 planes, the planes are going to roll all at once, he scores 3 hits, he doesn’t assign what the defenders are going to lose, the defender is the one chosing the casualties, in every fight, so he can chose to lose subs without returns and another boat. No?

No. Since the attacker hasn’t brought a DD along any hits scored by the planes can only be assigned to surface warships. Since he got 3 hits but there’s only 2 units that can be hit (the cruiser and the DD) the 3rd hit will be wasted.
It is the defender who assigns the hits but the rules state that a defending sub can only be hit by planes if there’s an attacking destroyer. If there isn’t a DD the defending player can’t assign those hits to the subs.