Posts made by SgtBlitz

I like the game balance in this version in that it actually plays differently.  Each theater acts individually yet still blends into the world game map as a whole.  US and UK cannot effectively ship 20 FIG to Russia like they have in previous games unless they have already dealt with Italy and Japan and have them successfully contained (i.e., Russia is its own separate theater for the majority of the game).  In the Pacific, however, playing as a team for the Allies is required.  More territories and more money on the game board means that traditional infantry-push strategies will be ineffective; it will be up to the tactics and strategies of the players to see their conquests through to capture the capitals.

J2 attack is considered the “best” since you prevent the UK Pacific and ANZAC from grabbing the ENTIRE DEI FIRST from the get-go.  If you let these powers take the DEI first, there’s now defensive infantry there you need to shoot through, necessary amphibious assaults and more infantry/art needed for transports, carriers needed for air support; it becomes a huge mess very quickly.  While you do have the big fleet units and are better equipped to fight for the islands, if you can take the DEI first without needing their extra support the ships and air can used offensively elsewhere and not necessarily relegated to guard duty for your transports.  The UK and ANZAC also start with pathetic navy units in the area and generally can’t get to most of your transports or put up much of a fight in the first place (they’re really only there as blockers and to help drop off land units); another reason to beat them to the DEI first so you don’t have to fight landed troops already there.

However, if Germany is attempting Sealion, it might be a good idea to wait it out for another turn.  Just that you know you’ll be headed into the long slog for the Pacific theater with UK Pac at 30 and ANZAC at 20 with their NOs…  So possibly take it a bit slower.  (Though, with the new rule for the US being able to declare war on the Axis if London falls, there’s really not that much point of waiting till J3, the US will be coming after you anyway.)

You might consider buying a transport on Turn 1 of UK Pacific, to help take the DEI islands later on, but that’s about it in terms of building ships.  India’s income falls so fast from the Japs by Turn 3-4 that trying to maintain a navy is suicidal.  ART and INF buys are generally the way to go.  You can throw back the Japs in Burma for quite awhile with consistent land unit buys.  Just don’t leave your land stack in Burma and have Jap transports from Malaya in range of an undefended India.

Think of the Pacific UK in gameplay terms like Russia, where you just have to hold out until the cavalry arrives.  Usually this is the US, though the UK can sometimes send a fleet in from the Med after they’ve taken out the Italians there.

Now we’re talking about either attacking with the Russians OR attacking the Russians as Japan on game start?

OK.

I disagree here.  If Japan wastes a lot of resources killing the Amur stack, that’s just it, a waste.  You’re just building up a future unit deficit against China and India by not consolidating your forces in the right places.  It’s also worse to piddle around against the Chinese and the UK at game start since both powers can make MORE money as the game progresses compared to Russia which will always stay close to a static 37 IPCs (at least for the first 3-4 turns).

True, you could argue that those troops aren’t doing anything anyways, but what would you rather have on J5:  20+ land units you carefully marched across China to Burma with loaded transports in range of India; or 5-10 land units possibly without support isolated in Russia somewhere?

Same could be said of Russia with its 18 INF in Amur, if Germany goes hard for Barbarossa with a G2 build and attacks, you’ll be glad you were cautious with them at game start around R6-7.

Even though these land units aren’t effectively “used” every turn, they still have “threaten potential” to influence future events and builds across the board.

@Cmdr:

Does better, but still loses.

I would even suggest that a J2 attack would still work even in the face of a Sealion since the US would need to commit everything to the Atlantic for several turns for the UK retake and Japan would get even more gains than it would have otherwise in the Pacific.  It’s only (+20-30, depending on how many territories Japan takes on J2 attack) extra US IPCs for one turn since the US always declares war on US 3 collect income anyway.  Hell, with a good push on Hawaii on J2 you could force the US to split those extra IPCs into the two theaters right off the bat.  Early Japanese attacks still seem to work best.  Even if you wait and don’t provoke the US’s war NO till Round 3, the UK and ANZAC are making almost that much off the DEI already, AND fortifying it with infantry to boot!  (It’s also kind of dumb waiting around to declare war since the US can declare war if the Germans take London on Round 3 anyway…)

Also, define “loses” if the Euro Axis win by going for Barbarossa instead.  Faking Sealion has never been easier for the G2 build.  And all Japan needs to do is really buy time and force the US to spend in the Pacific.  Even historically the Japanese willingly entered a war with the US that they knew they couldn’t win; they were simply hoping to wear the Americans down enough to where the Pacific would become a stalemate.  Same thing in this game.  The way this game is set up in separate theaters with little overlap makes it even more so.

Bah.  Change the rules so that submarines can retreat if they survive a round of combat, offensive battles OR defensive.  It’s stupid that a single destroyer with backup planes can destroy an entire sub stack with the current rules.  Maybe have destroyers’ effects on subs only work on a 1:1 basis.

Gah, if you build 3 minor complexes in Asia you almost have equivalent output to a major IC (Malaya, Ksi, FIC, 36 IPCs vs. 30 IPCs).  If you did your job correctly in the DEI in the opening turns as Japan, the UK Pacific major IC ISN’T going to be producing 10 units a turn to counter that (likely it’ll be reduced to 6 IPCs in short order).  You also have the advantage of transports that can reinforce at will along the coast.  Japan can easily crush India over time as the UK’s unit deficit adds up, especially if Japan moves their starting units in China over to Yunnan in a hurry.

Get over it.  Japan is not underpowered, I would say its overpowered compared to the US with the ability to kill 10+ IPCs each turn of the US’s NOs during the entire game and the monstrous advantage in starting aircraft.  Even if you play to the point where Japan is finally losing against the US, if its J8 or J9, you’ve done your job in distracting the US away from the European theater and the Axis should be victorious on that side of the board.

NAs?

NAs were older Axis and Allied canon, they were power-specific “techs” each side started the game with.  Like mech infantry for the Germans and destroyer infantry carrying capacity for the Japanese.  Not sure on the specifics for the older games, however.  Someone’d have to look them up.

@warwinner:

I agree. I don’t think defending subs should be allowed to retreat, but they should be able to submerge. If you think about it, that’s the tactic they employed when they encountered a destroyer. I like the 1-1 match up. Should (defending subs) not matched up be allowed to submerge before first round of combat? I think so.

Someone bring it up on Larry’s site.  I think its a great idea.  Subs are damn near worthless except as fodder hits in major battles as is.

What are you talking about?  Convoy damage is so pro-Allies it practically breaks the game.  Italy is a dead duck if the Allies get significant forces into SZ 97 (up to -12 in convoy damage per turn with Yugo and Greece), and Japan’s SZ 6 can wipe out up to 1/2 of Japan’s starting income.  The Allies’ corresponding UK convoy damage SZ 109, however, is a damn death trap for the Axis for most of the game as both the US and the UK can reach it easily with destroyers and subs.

We need to add either more convoy zones to the map (I’d like to see more for Russia in SZ 126 and 127, also Vladiostock in SZ 5 possibly as an NO block), perhaps the ability to BLOCK resources entirely if you have enough naval units in a convoy zone from far-off territories.  It’d also be nice to see if subs could retreat if they survive an initial attack by a destroyer, their 1 defense is pitiful and they need some method of escape.

@Fighter212:

could some one please explain to me what U-boat Peril is ?
Greatly appriciated

I think they mean when you’re denying the UK one of its NOs…  cause that’s all the use you’ll get out of subs besides fodder hits for your naval stacks.  Convoy damage just doesn’t really work in this game when you can use 1 destroyer and planes to kill a stack of subs who can’t escape.

Take over S. France as Germany, probably on G2.  Use the minor IC to pump subs into the Med to bolster Italy’s crappy starting navy.  If you can seize Gibraltar and stack all your airforce in it you can keep the Allies out of the Med for several turns.  Otherwise keep your airforce in S. Italy to prevent an Allied landing and to help scramble to defend the Italian fleet.

It’s easier to attack the Allies from the Med with subs since they really can’t block from SZ 91.  SZ 112 is nice but you usually get DD blocked in SZ 110 or SZ 104.

Why would you build a Romanian complex as Germany?  The ONLY time where it would be beneficial to build one would be on G1, and you need to build a CV and naval units on that turn anyway to threaten England.

Scenario One

G1

Buy major IC

R1

Russia builds at least 10 land units

G2

Buy 10 INF/ART for Romania

R2

Russia builds at least 10 land units

G3

Buy more land units, usually blitzing units, Barbarossa

R3

Russia builds at least 10 land units

Scenario Two

G1

Germany builds 1 CV 1 SS 1 DD

R1

Russia builds land…

G2

Germany builds major IC in Romania, land units

R2

Russia builds land…

G3

Germany builds INF/ART in Romania, Barbarossa

R3

Russia builds…

OR

Scenario Three

G1, naval, G2, ART, G3 ART/INF or MECH/ARM - should be able to build at least 30 land units between G2’s $70 and G3’s $50.  Germany still has unit advantage against the Soviets, also is able to threaten Sealion with G1 buy and force UK to spend on INF for several turns.  Massive stack of INF and ART from G2 buy should be ready to go for G4 Barbarossa, much the same as if you’d built the IC on G2.  G1 major IC build is slightly faster, but also has less options at beginning of game and UK won’t play so defensively.

Effectively you’re losing an entire turns worth of build by purchasing the major IC in the first place, either on the first turn or the second turn.  If you build it on the second turn you have even MORE of a future land unit deficit in comparison to Russia’s builds (-20 potential land units to their +20).  I could possibly see the need for the major IC with the OOB or Alpha +.1 setup with the starting minor IC in Berlin, but with 20 total production in Alpha +.2 its unnecessary.

Best bang for your buck is all ART on G2.  Follow that up with stacks of MECH/ARM to keep the initial wave’s momentum going all the way through Moscow on G8.

Jenn,

Not that AAG40 actually IS balanced or anything, but I think Japan is fine where it stands at game start.  They are not in position, unit-wise or IPC-wise, at the start of the game to go after the US directly in Global, but by the third turn they should very much be a contender in the Pacific.  My real issues with the game are on the European side of the board.

I would actually advocate that the next alpha should tone DOWN both Germany’s and the UK’s starting forces, as their airforces/navies are WAY overpowered compared to the rest of the board.  Both sides have been buffed to the point of insanity over the Sealion/Taranto options and there are many overpowering situations that can occur later on with such a disparity of starting units if their owners are careful to keep them alive.  For example, the UK can manage to keep ALL of its starting airforce alive to land on England to protect against Sealion.  However, Germany actually gains the edge in the Alpha +.2 version in that they usually manage to kill most of UK’s fleet with very few air casaulties on G1, plus they start with more fodder than they used to in the East.

So, Russia is a prime example of this disparity; the Russians usually are permanently on the defensive for the first 5-6 rounds of the game, if not completely on the defensive until Moscow falls.  The Germans’ starting forces have been buffed, and buffed, AND BUFFED, to hell and gone over Sealion complaints since the launch of AAG40, while Russia has remained with basically the same units as OOB.  Usually an early G2 Barbarossa can keep the Russians on the defensive until they fall, as the Germans’ ten planes and blitzing units make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Russians to hold the line until their ART/ARM buys can come into the fray.  The Russians’ crappy starting units are supposed to signify Stalin’s military purges and the “historical accuracy” of the game, but since the Russian player can also retreat at will from the game’s start, I would assume the Russians in this timeline could also afford to keep some of their bourgeois military units around.  As it is, there’s hardly any “surprise” or anything to Barbarossa in AAG40 as Russia has no chance in hell of holding the border if the Germans are serious about the initial attack.  Russia really needs some kind of a buff.

I believe Larry was attempting to address this issue awhile back by reintroducing 3/2/2 armor into the game, so that Germany wouldn’t be quite so overpowering in Russia, but most people didn’t like that idea, as armor units were already increased to 6 IPCs in the first place.  Now, Larry is even advocating increasing Germany’s power even MORE by making mech inf now attack with a 2 when paired with armor.  I like the unit changes in that it makes combined tactics and units more fun for the game (and especially Germany), but Russia really really REALLY needs a buff somewhere to counter those starting units.

Giving Russia some more mech and arm units at the beginning of the game, with some possibly starting in Siberia that can arrive on the Eastern Front by turn 3 or 4, would really balance things against Germany and force Hitler to decide on either Sealion or Barbarossa.  Historically, Russia had just finished a successful minor border war with the Japanese in 1939 and was in the process of shipping its armor units back to Moscow, its also why Japan/Russia have a peace treaty at game start (battle of Khalkhin Gol, really it was a Japanese rout before WWII officially began).  So there would be an easy precedent to introduce those units into the game.  Really good article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Good points overall, but IMHO I think Alpha +.2 1940 is probably the most balanced AA game we’ve seen so far.  The earlier versions of AA were so heavily slanted towards the Allies that it took a miracle, at least even odds most battles, and several builds of infantry push to get an Axis victory.  Even the recent AA50 Anniversary edition had the game set up where the Allies could completely ignore one the of the main theaters (usually the Pacific) and crush the Axis (usually in Europe) before they could even get started, then turn right back around to the other front on a dime.

Now, with a larger Global map, more NOs, more IPCs, and generally more territories and SZs in the first place, the game finally has some epic feel to it. Repositioning forces actually matters and such things like working with what you’ve got in a specific theater takes precedence.  If the Allies try to concentrate on one theater exclusively the other sides can really contend with the major powers in the others:  i.e., Japan can get into the 70s-80s if left alone and can actively match US buys (even with the US’s NOs), and Germany and Italy can both get into the 70s and 40s, respectively, if ignored on their side of the board (easily matching the Allied powers’ strength entirely).  The addition of the “No ignoring one theater now” rule in Global 40 also adds some much needed realism in that the Allies NEED to focus on both theaters at the same time to contain the Axis at first and then gradually push them back.

If you’re complaining about the US just being too large and powerful in AAG40, I believe that was part of the game design, the US’s war NOs are the time bomb ticking behind the entire economic system that tip the balance over to the Allies as soon as the US enters the war.  If the Axis aren’t making enough money to effectively keep their forces competitive (or are playing too conservatively or not taking advantage of early IPC gains cough DEI), their initial starting unit advantage gradually whittles away until they are permanently on the defensive (and losing the war).  The US’s war NOs are also probably there so the game doesn’t take 20 rounds to play like it used to and can come to an earlier conclusion.

@Frontovik:

attack australia round 3 together with german sealion

Yup, really depends on where the US fleet is then, if SZ 54, kill, if SZ 26, kill.

@Idi:

Hey SgtSlitz, don’t you think that a J3 attack might be even better than a J2….Do the math for that one will ya

HELL NO.  Nidi awin, do you have any idea of the number of variables in a J3 attack???  Mainly, I did this to see if the IPC gain from killing the various starting Allied fleets at J1 was worth the loss/slowdown of income from the DEI later on.  On paper, it looks like attacking on J1 gives the Allies too many options with the extra NOs and DEI money while straitjacketing Japan’s fleet and resources into Hawaii.  I don’t recommend J3 unless Germany is all-out Sealion and the US is in a poor position to counterattack in the Atlantic (and you only want them spending 52 IPCs as a response in SZ 101 on US3).  There’s too much money out there in the DEI for India and ANZAC to pick up during Round 2 if you don’t attack anyway.  The longer you wait the worse off you’ll be, with UK/ANZAC troops and ships blocking everywhere.

However, if you can couple the Sealion invasion to a devestating all-out Hawaii strike on J3, that’s totally worth it (you’ll probably also have a few spare boats by then to kill the DEI at your leisure).  Watch those foreign-devil Yankees run!

Don’t attack Russia from the east.  You’ll dilute your forces out and the territories aren’t worth it.  “That’s Stalin’s territory!  You want your armies over HERE.”  Use your time in the game keeping the US bogged down the Pacific, so they can’t send forces into Europe.

Concentrate on taking the DEI first before any of the other Allies in the Pacific get a chance, preferably on J2.  Build transports on J1 so you’ll have greater spread throughout the Pacific in taking the DEI oil islands.  On J2 launch a monster attack with most of your fleet to capture them all.  Leave enough boats to protect your transports so you can use them later to reinforce everywhere.  After that, try to match the US boat for boat, bring back your airplanes from the mainland gradually to land on carriers, and generally maintain a stalemate with the US while sending enough troops into Asia to knockout India.  Attack the US fleets once you have numerical superiority if they start ignoring you and sending more stuff into Europe.

Make sure you take as much of the DEI as you can on J2, and don’t let the Allies get a foothold on them or both India and Australia will be impossible.  Try to keep China mowed down every turn if you can, but you can afford to lose territory in China compared to the amount of money available in the Pacific.  Minor ICs in FIC and Malaya work wonders in keeping the troops coming for the final push too.

I hope the following evidence will prove, once and for all, that a J2 attack is superior to a J1 attack in Axis and Allies Global 1940.  Please feel free to leave any comments you’d like to add or detract from this study.  This post was created from intensive research on the various IPCs values of theoretical targets for both J1 and J2 attacks, while I was sitting bored waiting for a plasmid chemical transformation to occur in the lab, so if I have missed anything, please let me know.  (This guide assumes that Japan does NOT play conservatively and goes all out in China and in the Pacific, also shows when and where it should attack.  Losses from land units taking territories are not factored in as it is assumed that many of the starter territories should put up little resistance at the beginning of the game, nothing that overwhelming force won’t fix.)

J1 ATTACK

Borneo  (+4)  1 TRN
Hong Kong  (+3) Land forces
Phillipines  (+2)  1 TRN (also might be somewhat risky with only 1 TRN)
FIC  (+2)  Land forces

+11 IPC gain

Battles

UK BB SZ 37  (+20)
-attacked with 1 FIG 2 SBmr, lose FIG (-10)

US 1 DD 1 SS  SZ 35 (+14)
-attacked with many units, possibly lose 1 SS (-6)

US 1 TRN 1 SS 1 DD 1 CA  SZ 26 (+33)
-attacked with many units, possibly lose 1 SS and 1 DD (-14)

NOs

No peace NO at game start  (-10)

US AT WAR ROUND 1  (-40)
-Normally US could be at peace for Rounds 1 and 2 and not get this NO

TOTAL

+78 - ~15-20 IPCs loss of starting units = +60ish

-50 just in NOs = - 50

You might squeak out some IPCs (~10) from this strat with a very minor edge at game start, but its akin to kicking a hornet’s nest (the US) without making sure you have bug spray beforehand (the DEI).

PROS

Japan has the initative at game start against the US.  Can dictate future US buys into the Pacific to avoid a rout, or forfeiture of the entire Pacific theater.

CONS

Everything must be pushed towards Hawaii to maintain unit advantage for the first few turns, meaning:

The DEI theater is going to be rather light and might be difficult to prevent counterattacks from India and especially ANZAC.  China will definitely be more difficult without the starting planes.  Could be used by the UK to pull in forces from India to Africa to take advantage of the vacuum, making Italy weaker in Africa and the Middle East.  Russia might also be tempted to turn back in Siberia.

J2 ATTACK

The J2 attack assumes that you are still pushing forward in China where you can J1-J2 and landed your planes in Kwa for maximum impact.  Also, you ought to have bought some combination of 2 or 3 TRN on J1 for future mobility in the DEI.

Borneo  (+4)  1 TRN
Hong Kong  (+3) Land forces
Phillipines  (+2)  2-3 TRN
FIC  (+2)  Land forces

PICK TWO:
Sumatra  (+4)  1 TRN (might be somewhat risky if UK took on UK1) OR
Java  (+4)  1 TRN  (might be somewhat risky if ANZAC took on ANZAC 1) OR
Celebes  (+3)  1 TRN OR
Malaya  (+3) 1 TRN  (I would highly advise taking out Malaya early so ANZAC misses an NO, plus its a good location for minor IC) OR
Dutch New Guinea  (+0)  1 TRN  (You could prevent ANZAC from getting BOTH NOs, but this island is more likely to be counterattacked by the US)

+18-20 IPC gain

Battles

It’s likely the Allies pulled everything in range back, but you might have some minor fights with DDs and SSs.  Maybe lose 2 subs, max?  Probably will be offset or even ahead when factoring in opponents’ TRNs and starting unit losses.  Going to assume Japan is sinking UK and ANZAC’s starting TRNs (+ 14)

NOs

Peace NO with the US on Round 1   (+10)

US war dec on Round 2  (-20)

TOTAL

• ~44 IPCs in terms of territories, killing TRNs and NOs, maybe losing a few due to combat losses but doubtful, with all the starter planes in range.  Possibly even up to +49 or + 54 if you sack Malaya and Dgu, you prevent 2 ANZAC NOs right there.

• 20 US Round 2 NO

= +20ish and change IPCs for the Japs.  The Japanese should be around 50 IPC income by now with all the fighting in China, and should be in excellent position to seize the +5 NO for the DEI the next round, bringing them in close to 60.

PROS

This strategy usually pulls the US into the Pacific by moving their Hawaii fleet to SZ 54 to help protect ANZAC and the remaining DEI, so you only need to deal with one Allied fleet group at a time.  Also UK India and ANZAC are neutered in the Pacific early on, so they’ll be on the defensive as long as you can hold onto your lead against the US.

CONS

Japan and especially the Carolines are vulnerable to US attack by moving everything into the DEI.  This can be offset somewhat by moving many forces to the Carolines J2 to provide some deterrent, but it might leave many of your tranports in the DEI ripe for the picking.  Try to preserve your starting tranports as much as possible, and play defensively where you can against the US.

Anything else you all might see?  Or how this strategy would relate to other, more Global strategies?  I can see how both J1 and J2 attacks might either help or hinder a Sealion strategy by the Germans, but I was also wondering if anyone has tried using a strong DEI navy to go after the Middle East or even Africa to help Italy out?  Does that dilute your forces overmuch or could you still get away with at least a carrier group this early in the game?

@Trisdin:

That’s great advice Dark one. What round do you suggest attacking the soviet union?

This is the wrong question.  Wait for the Soviets to attack you first, you got enough on your plate at game start as it is to start worrying about Siberia.  Take the +12 IPCs and use it to take the DEI, you get more for those territories anyway.

Now, if the Russian player stacks in Amur on R1, go right ahead and pwn his stack.  Totally worth it then when you’re at max strength and can concentrate your attack.