Don’t chain yourself to the idea of doing a multi-national attack THIS round…if things go bad for whoever attacks first, rebuild with them and set up for an even stronger strike next round.
Far better to wait a round than have all three attacks be relatively ineffective because the first nation in didn’t get it’s kills.
Turn 1: Transports w/men from SZ 5 to SZ 14
Turn 2: Transports from SZ 14 to SZ 32
Turn 3: Transports from SZ 32 to SZ 43
Turn 4: Attack Siam and/or FIC in conjunction with Chinese forces, select territory as American
Turn 5: Build IC
Turn 6: Profit!!!
…not guaranteed to be worth a damn, but it’d be fun to try. :-P
Against a competent player, Japan will never take Australia….or rather, he might take it, but the US will retake it on his turn, preventing Japanese victory.
Japan has to overextend too much, and place too many of it’s irreplacable naval assets at risk to American attack, to hope for victory by attacking Australia.
Early, UK needs a couple transports, or he’s no threat to German income, and therefore ignorable…more Nazis to Moscow.
Those transports have to stay alive though, so UK usually has to be conservative and coordinate from round 2 onwards with the US.
US needs to build DDs early to help clear the Atlantic, figs and boms help too…if they don’t have to go to Russia, they can help clear the last of the subs, or the Med fleet if it’s wandering north.
Once the Allies have enough DDs, or the German threat is gone, US switches to nothing but loaded transports…maybe a fighter if he’s got money. UK can pretty much do as he likes, exploiting weaknesses and opening things up for the US.
In my experience, Russia has not won without additional Air Force.
I’m playing a game right now where all nations are restricted to territory value for build limit…Russia can only build five units per round to Germany’s ten.
I’ve sent Russia the British Bomber, built a fighter, and recieved three fighters and I’m about to convert two more…
…I’m still alive! I still have Lenningrad!
I’m gonna die! :lol:
…but I’m still alive and it’s almost round five!
is proud :-P
I’ve been pwning my friend in FTF as Germany lately, so I’ll throw my two cents out.
Germany can win any way it chooses so long as the dice go your way…believe me, I’ve been witness to some BAD lucky streaks from my friend lately.
Convoys and the Middle East are important for Germany. Taking IPCs from your opponents is the easiest way to win. Tanks to Moscow can certainly work, and I’ve won that way. But it can also falter, due to poor choices or poor dice…or good opposing strategy.
The Allies have to have a cooridnated plan. Take France with Britain and reenforce with US fighters…if you can hold Leningrad, consider bombing Germany. As with all A&A games, money is the key…if the game takes too long, Germany starts to falter, as the combined incomes of the Allies take hold.
I’ve yet to see the TP have battles that approach anything close to odds…once I see that work, I’ll rethink it, but the game is not a guarantee with that strategy or any other. :-)
My experience is with Revised, Pacific, and Europe.
If you’ve played Revised, you will like both Pacific and Europe, but for different reasons.
In short, Pacific is a naval themed game, and if you like naval/air combat, you will like it.
As for Europe, I’ve been playing it FTF lately (in the middle of a game right now), and I am liking it a lot. Good ground play on the East front, and lots of options in the other theaters to keep play varied.
The consensus here seems to be that a German tank blitz breaks the game, but my group have not found that to be the case…there are many ways to win with Germany, and we have done most of them, my favorite being a Med/Middle East focus to gain money and flank Russia.
Of course, if you blitz/get blitzed all the time, then yeah, the games broken…user error. :lol:
Allied play is difficult…they must coordinate a response early, or they will be fended off seperately. Russia must play well in any game that isn’t an obvious attempt at a Sealion.
And as with Revised, sometimes it all comes down to the dice. :wink:
If you’re looking for something more similar to Revised, I’d go with Europe…if you want something a little different, go with Pacific.
China is a waste of Japanese resources because each territory gained and each man lost is not replaced by income, until the very very end, and even then it’s only 2 IPCs.
Hong-Kong must be taken in the first turn to prevent American air force from immedeatley coming to the aid of the Chinese.
Keep American bombers away by maintaining a constant threat of a amphibious assault in Queensland to force America to spend 2 to 4 turns either building units to protect his landed bombers, or taking a more indirect route should it still be available…which is rare.
Keep fighters in range of China whenever possible to launch counter attacks if necessary.
They are annoying pests, but the Chinese cannot really do much without the assistance of the USAF, so focus on making sure those bombers never get anywhere near Asia, and China becomes largely irrelevant.
@AA:
Hello,I was wondering what is a good AAP Task Force and when it’s good to get your ships moving towards Japan?
UK needs subs, followed by transports guarded by destroyers, plus your starting AC and Battleship if they have managed to survive and move that far.
US needs subs and bombers…your starting surface ships (minus Pearl Harbor), and the occasional loaded transport, are all that are necessary to gain ground against the Japanese. Subs and bombers both serve well in keeping the Japanese from attacking your smaller fleet. Individual subs blocking attack against your fleet by placing themselves between you and the Japanese, and large numbers of subs and bombers force the Japanese to run the risk of a decisive counterattack if they attempt to force the issue…and subs are ideal for retaking convoy routes and denying the Japanese necessary income because they cannot be killed by aircraft alone. Any destroyers that aid in such a fight will fall prey to your bombers unless they are well guarded. Eventually, Japan will have to invest in replacement destroyers just to keep his income up.
@AA:
I’m just trying to inprove my game,I usually am on the defensive,so,I’m not that good at AAP,I’ve tried every Country and I stink. :|I ROCK in the AAR as Russia though.
As Japan, you might want an extra bomber, but you won’t be conducting any bombing runs, and you have Battleships, so usually the two you start with are enough.
As UK, you can’t afford 'em…it’d be nice, but ground troops for India and navy for Austraila are far more important. Perhaps in later rounds if things are going very well for the Allies one can splurge IPCs on a bomber, but by then it probably won’t see much action.
As US, pretty much all I build is bombers and subs, with the occasional loaded transport. Bombers can get from the West coast to China in two turns (via Queensland) so they are ideal for augmenting your Chinese allies. They have great versatility via airbases for threatening large tracts of sea zones, forcing the Japanese to protect all vessels or risk destruction. Coupled with subs as fodder, they are ideal for fleet engagements.
I usually build at least two bombers per turn as US, and often more.
@C_Strabala:
- Use all your aircraft against the British fleet. Try to use aircraft in concert with subs or warships to help dismantle Allied shipping.
Agreed.
2)Always build subs. The only way to keep the Allied navies in check is to maintain a large fleet of subs to quickly deal with any threats.
If you build navy at all, then yeah, build subs…I find the need for navy largely depends on how well UK did on defensive rolls in rd 1.
3)Do Not attack Russia on G1. Force them to attack you & trade land for time as you ship units into the Mid-East to flank them from the South.
While I do like the strategy of flanking via the middle east, I think that it is better to attack Russia in round one…lightly, but take some land, and force him to expose himself to counterattack if he tries to take it back.
Also, Middle east shipping requries naval investment that I am often loathe to spend IPCS on…initially you need tanks to press Russia, later you need inf for counterattacks against US/UK landings.
Usually, my opponent will begin landing in Normandy as soon as he has a) a transport and b) a land unit to put on it, and just relentlessly assaults both france and the netherlands as soon as he has both these elements. But in order to take out Britain’s entire beginning fleet off the coast, I have found that I need both all of the subs, and all of the German airforce save the fighter in Poland. However, I have also found that the planes I have in Germany need to be used against the Soviets on the first turn in order for me to have a shot at taking Moscow quickly. How should I deal with this situation?
While you will want the Air Force in the East, you NEED to kill the Royal Navy. On turn two you can think about moving your planes where they can best harrass the Soviets, but the more Allied navy you kill in Round 1, the more time you have to take Moscow. You can even take both American convoy routes, as well as kill America’s two initial ships if you are daring, but it takes 2-4 subs, and that’s less to use against UK, who IS the primary target.
Focus on taking as many convoy routes as possible while still killing as much UK navy as possible. With that accomplished, the one-turn delay getting your air-force east will be a speed bump, not a brick wall.
I’m not of the opinion that Germany is unbeatable even if it uses the tank-blitz the Russians strategy. Committing to all tanks frees up the US/UK quite early, and Germany will have to produce results in the east quickly (read: NO bad dice) because they will eventually have to commit resources to taking back vital IPCs in Western Europe.
Once the Germans are booted from Africa, things start looking grim for the Axis unless Moscow is under direct threat by superior forces.
Smited for not using your google-fu.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gnichols/glg/AAP_MAP.jpg
There you be. :-)
The problem is that all of these fights are dependent upon average-or-better dice. If things go south in one or two of those fights, it won’t look pretty. Imagine those Russian infantry in East Poland scoring four hits in their first roll (which CAN happen!). Doesn’t look to good for Germany, does it?
If you’re looking to avoid exposure to a counter-attack, it’s sound enough I suppose, but Russia might pull the same trick against you, in which case, you’ve wasted a round (giving UK and US more time to get into the fight), and a lot of offensive hardware (2 Artillery, 3 Tanks, plus whatever Inf you lose) simply taking 2 IPCs that Russia can take right back if he wants to.
Germany’s best bet is to build all Infantry in the first round, then nothing but tanks until Moscow falls. Anything else, IMO, is a waste of resources. Aggressive attacking while following this strategy WILL produce results. Sitting with tanks on defensive 2’s instead of offensive 3’s (as your post suggests) is as damaging to the German army as any Allied action…you’re far better off committing just Infantry and Airforce to fewer fights in the first round, and saving your tanks for Round 2 once you see how the Russians have distributed their initial forces.
Hmmm, I am working on a set of rules to combine Pacific and Europe to use with the high school US history classes, and also maybe my summer gaming class.
With respect to additional British troops in the Mediterranean area, since the initial forces deployed in the Mid East by the UK came from India and Australia, if you are going to give the UK additional infantry units, why not have them start out in India and Australia, and require them to be moved to Egypt? Troops from India could be moved in a single turn but require a transport to move them from the India sea zone to the Red Sea zone. Troops from Australia would need two turns to get there, again via transport.
While I like the idea, I don’t think the deployment of the troops should be able to be cut off by Japanese action, unless of course the Japanese get a fleet into the Med.
I’m also thinking that an easy way to leave the British Bonus Infantry rule alone while keeping the game balanced would be to connect Iran to India, and allow for amphib assaults of Egypt via the Red Sea. That way Japan actually has the option of entering the theatre without having to go all the way around the freaking world. :-P
You make some good points. I have no idea how rigorously these rules were playtested, or even if they were playtested at all. I myself have only played with them once.
Obviously the intent of this particular rule was to allow the Allies to reinforce the Mediterranean Theatre and promote more action there. Maybe instead allowing the UK to place a limited number of purchased infantry somewhere in the Middle East would help to do that without being overly powerful?
My friends and I are thinking that recieving the men ought to be dependent upon having ships in the same sea-zone as the island…after all, how are those men getting from Cyprus to Morroco if there’s an Axis fleet in the way?? :-P
That way Britain is still earning 1-3 Inf, but has to dedicate IPCs to navy to keep the bonus. He also can’t stack all his initial bonus IPCs in Malta, because then Germany can simply ignore Malta and do Cyprus or Gibraltar. UK has to either make do with losing one of the islands early, or spread his bonus IPCs among all three islands and hope the one Germany chooses to attack can hold.
Either way, it would likely put the UK down an island after G1, possibly two, and make him work to earn those free inf back. It would also give Germany incentive to ignore Malta (which has no ship in it’s SZ) in favor of Cyprus or Gibraltar.
That way, even if Britain starts out hot, as he did in my current game, Germany at least has a chance to reduce the bonus (eliminating ships instead of taking islands), and Britain has to somewhat match Germanys investement to keep the bonus.
That’s a good question. I’d be inclined to say that they can be placed in Middle East territories, simply because otherwise they’ll do nothing but bulk up Gibraltar, Cyprus and Malta. That doesn’t give Germany much incentive to take these territories out. In contrast, it seems that placing them in the Middle East would increase the action in that part of the board. However, I’m not 100% sure about this. What do you think?
OK, well my FTF group is still playing our first Europe/Pacific game, and I’m the Axis, so my viewpoint is neither complete, nor unbiased, but…
…the rules allow for placement in territories “under British control”, but the Middle Eastern territories are not under British control. Technically, even if Germany takes them, they are still not under German control, as the IPCs earned come from Allied pools, and not the territories in and of themselves.
The Europe rulebook lists the UK and ME territories seperately, to the point of making the territories different colors. If the only unit in Karelia is a lone British Inf, does that mean Karelia is “under British control”? Why should the ME be different?
There is no need to worry about stacks of useless men on the Med territories, because once Morroco, or Libya, or Vichy, or Italy is taken and held (which is a near certainty after a few rounds unless the Allies are complete fools) the men can be placed there.
British transports could also make use of the stacked men from early rounds for Mediterranian landings once the German threat to Allied ships has been minimized/neutralized. Also, the Fig in Malta must still be dealt with, or it will be sent to help defend African territories where subsequent bonus Inf will be placed. Germany not only has incentive to try and eliminate this bonus, it MUST, or the game is quickly lost. This of course, means that every dollar spent in the Med is a dollar less to press on Moscow or defend Berlin.
That might be a little more historically accurate ( :-P ), but it makes for a game that isn’t much fun to play.
Also…the UK gets three Inf (9 IPCs) per turn for three little territories, the SAME value as UK and Canada combined. Hardly realistic, nor historically accurate.
In my game, with their $18 IPCs, the Allies added a mere two Inf to Malta (spreading the rest of the IPCs as Inf elsewhere). Despite adding a second transport to the Med fleet with my own bonus IPCs, the attack on Malta failed, and my fleet was sunk on the subsequent UK turn by 2 DD, 1 Fig, 1 Bom, 1 Tran.
Now while the Malta battle went terribly for me in terms of dice, the Allies could have easily added more men to Malta without significantly weakening themselves anywhere else. Essentially, this UK special rule ensures Allied dominance of Africa/ME within two rounds, or perhaps three if Germany’s fleet manages to survive the inevitable UK2 attack. Regardless, it eventually leaves Germanys southern income wide open to Allied landings. It also forces Germany to use his bonus IPCs on a second Med transport, effectively ending any threat to Lenningrad on G1.
Also, these bonus Inf eliminate the need for Russia to send troops south to help secure the Middle East, which was an integral part of both stand-alone Europe games our FTF group played. Instead, the Russians get to make their own front stronger while their flank remains secure.
I can’t even get the Japs over to help now, because I have no German troops left in Africa to try and take Egypt and unblock the canal (and this is after only two rounds). I’d have to go the long way around via the Really South Atlantic and run into an Allied fleet before I finished the trip.
As the OOB rules go, Germany could afford to ignore the Med if it really wanted to. Now, with this rule, it is a requirement not only to dedicate significant resources to it, but those resources are almost certain to be a total waste in short order.
I am of the opinion that the UK Med Inf special rule is horribly broken…to the point that it nearly breaks the whole game. It certainly makes the Euopre theatre vastly different from the OOB setup, and not in a good way.
Perhaps the rule could be modified to provide fewer Inf, or eliminate the option to place in other territories, or be dependent upon the presence of UK naval vessels to recieve the bonus, but I think a different rule altogether would be less likely to throw off the game balance.
EDIT: That rant was longer than I anticipated…as you can see, I think the rule sucks. :lol:
I am under the impression that the UK Mediterranian bonus troops cannot be placed in Egypt/Palestine/Syria as these are not “British” territories, but Middle-Eastern territoies.
Is this correct?