Few quick questions:
Sub against sub. If the defender decides to submerge, does the attacker still get one first strike attack?
Amphibious assault from a sea zone that also contains an enemy transport. Can I use a sub/destroyer to kill the transport but have my battleship bombard from the same zone, even though there is technically combat in that zone?
Defending carrier in an open sea zone (no land nearby) takes one hit but survives. It’s planes auto-die even though they won the fight?
ANZAC is a good choice for your first VC (not counting HK and Philippines). You can use Western Australia as a place to fly your planes out of, and by doing so you largely avoid having to commit large amount of navy to the cause. I see this as the steps:
Turn 1: Move fleet south, build 3 transports
Turn 2: Move fleet south
Turn 3: Capture Western Australia
Turn 4: NCM air force to Western Australia
Turn 5: Take Sydney
Eliminating ANZAC forces USA to deal with a large boost in income, and it’s difficult to liberate without a strong investment in Transports.
I chose the Soviet Union because I truly enjoy facing the crushing threat of Nazi Germany head on, and defeating them using inventive movements and defensive strategies. I love the scorched earth manner of playing them.
Out of curiousity, why didn’t you scramble three fighters from Western Germany to defend the transports in 113?
The best strategy is when the other side knows what’s going to happen but cannot stop it, and doesn’t rely on trickery or luck.
But yeah, this topic is too ague and holds little value since you dont have a narrower focus.
Yes, correct. Being at war with Japan doesn’t allow Russia to interact with neutrals on the Europe maps.
@Cmdr:
The problem with Barbarossa, in my mind, is that you now have to defend the areas of Western Europe.
The British cant handle landings on Europe, keeping Africa, hunting down German subs, and the Italian fleet simultaneously, and their NOs are tied to their starting territories, not Normady. They ignore the German subs at Africa, and they lose 8 IPCs a round. Germany can easily handle any British landings through turn 6. Starting on turn 6, Germany may need to cope with some american landings, but since America goes hard against Japan (as your KJF strat usually gets employed), it’s actually pretty easy for Germany to handle the defense of Western Europe. The big fights in Russia are occuring around this time anyway, so a successful Germany in Moscow can easily retool and handle possible British landings.
Before this degenerates into yet another Sea Lion thread, I’ll comment on the original post.
I love that strategy. Too many people on here are concerned far too much with the British and their fleet, and often spend tons of G1 and G2 money on fleet buys. I’d rather buy mechanized infantry and air craft on G1 and G2. Russia cannot repel 15+ German air craft coupled with huge infantry stacks in rounds 2, 3, and 4. G5 is Moscow, and assuming you still have your aircraft, it’s a good chance to win.
For German fleet, ignore the British fleet around UK but kill the double Crusiers, and move your subs into the south Atlantic towards the African British colonies. Make the British chase you - spread out and don’t ever stack your subs. If you get the British to chase your subs alll the way to South Africa, you’ve succeeded.
I have among my strategy repetoire what I call the bowling ball attack. Amass a huge stack of infantry for a round two attack on Eastern Poland (Germany 11, Southern 6 retreating from Yugoslavia, Poland 3, Slovakia 2, Romania 2) and build Mechanized each round to catch up to the stack while the zones add up correctly, and air craft after that, and move one zone each round like a bowling bowl rolling over zone after zone. Russia is hard pressed to stop you. America cannot land on Europe until round 6, so it can be over by then in USSR.
Italy finishes off Yugoslavia, takes Greece, Bulgaria, Syria, Transjordan, Tunisia, and Southern France, bringing Italy up to decent money (21) added to NO money (Med Ships)(26) puts you almost at parity with UK-London. Italy wants to draw UK into a stalemate instead of allowing UK to make landings on Europe or Norway.
Too many people let themselves fall into the cookie-cutter one size fits all opening gambits, and forget that the established gambits have established counters. The best way to win the game is developing a series of imaginative strategies and cycling through them. You cannot do the same thing over and over.
Too much NO bloat already. They should drop the NO list to 2 per power.
I really dislike NOs that give more IPCs than the territory is worth. Phillipines should not be worth 5 IPCs when the IPC value is only 2. That zone is not worth 7 IPCs, it just isn’t. The middle east again, why is NW Persia worth anything to anyone? If it was worth something then it should have an IPC value. I wish they’d bake the values into the map and leave the NO business alone.
The NOs just force players into set gameplans and takes away the variety that the game map allows.
I think the Axis goals are fun to achieve, but the allied goals are rather boring. Taking three capitals is nice, but at some point you know it’s just inevitable. Inevitability makes for a dull game. It seems that most people enjoy the challenge and fun of playing the Axis more than the Allies.
first you should build a minor industrial complex in SFE
You can only build minor complexes in zones worth at least 2 IPCs. Russia needs to conquer Korea if they want to build an IC (Manchuria is Chinese Territory so Russia only liberates it).
We’ve rarely had the allies consent to defeat, but the Axis has somewhat frequently admitted eventual defeat and we begin a new game and switch sides. We would never allow a “draw” unless we simply ran out of time to play. Man up and lose with honor.
kinda funny shadowguidex my dad pointed out the same things :-D
Well, he and I have played about 10 games, I have won all that we have finished, but he’s on the verge of beating me, since he gets to see my strategies with both sides each time. Just learn and get better each game, remember what went well and what didn’t, and develop and hone your skills over time. Eventually you’ll beat him, but be patient and don’t ever give up. Good luck.
Simulator Question:
What does the first “winning percentage” number represent? I set a sub attacking against a transport and get 67/32/0. What on earth, this should be 100% win. Someone explain this thing to me.
I play a lot against my nephew who has much less experience than I do with A&A games. I have noticed a few tendencies he has that hurt him:
Wishful thinking - He will see only the positive outcomes when deciding to attack, and forgets that balanced fights will go against him half the time.
Too aggressive - He will attack too early when not ready, and sometimes with too few units.
Focuses too much on one thing - He will see only one part of the map, and wants to accomplish one thing, and forgets that the game is fought everywhere - you must watch tne entire map at all times.
Hope this helps.
My advice is - don’t skip France’s turn. You messed up by not treating them like you would any other nation. Germany’s round doesnt start until France has finished, so obviously Germany’s initial combat moves are nullified and must be redone - and Germany may begin their turn how they see fit.
Take Dutch East Indies (Java, Celebes, Sumatra) with your original transport, and build subs, lots of subs - You can build three each round once you have Sumatra and Java. Do not stack the subs, spread them all out everywhere one per zone and convoy raid. Make Japan have to build DD to hunt them all down.
I stopped a poorly planned Sea Lion with a sub purchase. Works great against a Germany that only has a CV and planes in the North Sea.
I find that subs stationed around Africa in sea zones 70, 71, 72, 82 works wonders to neuter UK-London, coupled with capturing Egypt and menacing the Brits in the North Atlantic too. It’s effective to reduce British power in the face of KJF.