Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Axis & Allies: 1942» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Conquering Eurasia & Africa rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
Location: At Start IPC Income

Eurasia and Africa
British Asia & Africa: 14
USSR: 24
America (China): 4
Axis in Europe: 40
Axis in Africa: 2
Japan in Asia: 9
TOTAL: 93 (51 Axis + Japan, 42 USSR+ Britain + America)

Oceania
British Empire 16
America: 38
Japan: 21
TOTAL: 75 (21 Japan, 54 America + British Empire).

TOTAL AXIS: 72. TOTAL ALLIED: 96.

It's a race to see if Axis/Japan can control enough of Eurasia/Africa to overthrow USSR before the Allies can overthrow the European Axis. The European Axis has a big numerical advantage over USSR at start in Infantry, Artillery, Tanks, Fighters. and Bombers in Eurasia.

USSR Units at Start:
Infantry 24 x 3 IPC = 72 IPC
Artillery 2 x 4 IPC = 8 IPC.
Tanks 4 x 5 IPC = 20 IPC.
Fighters 2 x 10 - 20 IPC.
TOTAL USSR = 32 Units, 120 IPC

Axis in Europe Units at Start:
Infantry 23 x 3 = 69.
Artillery 3 x 4 = 12
Tanks 9 x 5 = 45
Fighters 6 x 10 = 60
Bomber 1 x 15 = 15
TOTAL = 42 Units, 201 IPC.

USSR strikes first and builds first, but 1/4 of USSR's units and half its Infantry are in Siberia at first, equal to an entire USSR build worth of units.

The "Kill Germany First" approach looks vastly superior to "Kill Japan First." Even if Japan takes all of British Asia and Africa (15 IPC income), takes American China (4 IPC income) and all six of USSR's 1 IPC territories (6 IPC income), takes Australia and New Zealand (3 IPC income), all this amounts to only 28 IPC, compared to the 38 IPC income of European Axis income.

But America/Britain must efficiently send enough forces to USSR to prevent the Axis/Japan from quickly enjoying a net gain of 12 IPC income, which is all that separates them from parity (84 to 84 IPC) with Total Allied IPC income. Most of the vulnerable Allied IPC are in British Asia (5 IPC), Siberia (6 IPC), and China (4) IPC. Karelia (2 IPC) is also quite vulnerable, as it is only two spaces from Germany.

So it's not enough to just mass all available forces against the Euro Axis. That would give Japan a cake walk across Asia. But the Allies cannot hold everywhere, so they must yield in Siberia and Africa at first as they arr least critical.

Efficiency Ranking
Efficiency is greatest if, for a certain amount of up-front cost (15 IPC for an Industrial Complex or 14 IPC for two Transports) you can inject the greater amount of fighting power into Eurasia/Africa. Two British Transports in Archangel can inject four units per turn, so that would be the most efficient way to strengthen Allied Eurasia/Africa.

1. Two British Transports in Archangel (Sea Zone 3) picking up 2 loads in Britain, then returning to Archangel each turn. For 14 IPC you can move 4 units per turn to Archangel, making it the equivalent of an Industrial Complex in a 4 IPC territory in terms of number of units added to Eurasia per turn.
2. Industrial Complex in India.
3. Industrial Complexes in Sinkiang
4. Industrial Complex in South Africa (takes longer from here to get to major action than it takes in Sinkiang.
5. Two American Transports are needed to inject per turn a load of 1 Infantry + 1 Tank, moving Eastern USA to Algeria and back. This is half as efficient as the Archangel move, because the transports don't have enough movement allowance to go Algeria to Eastern USA then back to Algeria all in one turn. This method is roughly like building an Industrial Complex in a 2 IPC territory, but without the flexibility of an IC, which can build anything. Also, it needs fleet for air/sub cover.
6. British Fighters (10 IPC each) fly Britain to Moscow each turn. There's no cost of Transports, but two fully loaded Transport only cost 21 IPC once for the Archangel, and twice for the Algeria shuttle, whereas the Fighter will always cost 20.
7. American Fighters (10 IPC each)fly Eastern USA to Britain one turn, Britain to Moscow next turn.

Speed
1. British Fighters (10 IPC each) fly Britain to Moscow each turn.
2. American Fighters (10 IPC each)fly Eastern USA to Britain one turn, Britain to Moscow next turn.
3. Industrial Complex in India
4. Industrial Complexes Sinkiang
5. Industrial Complex in South Africa.
6. Two British Transports in Archangel (Sea Zone 3) picking up 2 loads in Britain, then returning to Archangel each turn.
7. Two American Transports per load of 1 Infantry + 1 Tank moving Eastern USA to Algeria (and back) each turn.

The Transports need expensive protection (destroyers, maybe battleship, maybe carrier) from Axis Air and Submarine attack. Once in place, the Britain-Archangel shuttle is the most efficient way to move force.

Questions are, do the Allies have the time to build a protective Fleet and 3 or 4 transports to shuttle in all of Britain's production to Archangel? Do the Americans have the time to do the same with a Transport shuttle to Algeria?

If the Allies speedily flew 6 Fighters per turn to Eurasia, what would the defensive equivalent by in terms of Infantry? They equal 12 Infantry in firepower, but only 9 Infantry if they've got to take hits. Plus, they cannot move or attack with the USSR forces, so lose effectiveness.

On the other hand, building up British and American transports plus covering forces could take four turns, which delay could be fatal to the USSR.

Industrial Complexes India, Sinkiang, South Africa are slower than transports but faster than all but British Fighters. But they are vulnerable to capture if not reinforced by USSR or other Allied forces.

Not even having played the game, I estimate the best Allied play on Turn 1 is to move Soviet Siberian Infantry west against Germany; rush help to USSR/Eurasia/Africa with build of the Industrial Complexes in India & Sinkiang, with all available aircraft moved to USSR. Move USA Navy from Pacific to Atlantic. USA build Turn 1 is Industry + 3 Destroyers = 39 IPC. On Turn 2 build 3 British & 2 USA Tanks at these, use surplus USA & British income to build 3 Transports each. These 14 units per turn should be sufficient to prevent Axis/Japan from taking IPC income of 12 or more Eurasian income from Allies. Some USSR protection for Sinkiang and India will be needed to prevent their swift fall to Japan on Turns 2, 3, & 4. Then, after many turns, begin rolling the Axis them back with movement of convoyed Infantry and Tanks.



5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you under estimate another advantage of a naval buildup by the Allies: The ability to make and threanten landings in various territories in Europe. This forces the Germans to hold back a lot of strenght.

If you go for 3 IC's, I think you will see the Germans preparing for Sea Lion in short order.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
Naval buildup means many turn delay in aid for the USSR and Asian Allies.

Axis naval buildup on round 1 or round 2 is easily countered by British Infantry builds and arriving USA air, and, takes Axis resources away from attack on USSR.

Advantage of Allied naval builds early is countered by the certainty of ferocious Axis counterattacks with overwhelming Axis Tanks, Fighters, Bombers, Infantry. By the time the Allies have a big enough force to storm ashore and withstand the Axis counterattacks, it's probably too late for USSR.

That's how I see it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Kalk
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
Personally, I like parking mid-sized UK and US fleets in threatening position off the French coast and/or Algeria...put a few juicy transports as tempting targets (and dangerous to ignore), and the German player will often decide to send a massive air strike, sacrificing the bulk of the mighty Luftwaffe to remove the threat. This eases the pressure on USSR considerably as Germany loses a lot of offensive flexibility.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Martin
United States
CAMAS
WA
flag msg tools
designer
"...but only slightly less well known is this:
badge
...never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An Allied KGF build that involves one IC is already iffy. The India IC (IIC) cannot be held against a determined Japan; and it's cost will certainly include a high level of risk to London, such that at a minimum UK planes cannot assist the ruskies.

Assuming that Germany protected it's baltic fleet (and they should have), the first thing Germany does in G2 after seeing the IIC is to drop at least 3tra in the Baltic. Combined with a nominal baltic build (say 1car 1tra), and London is looking at at least 5inf 5tnk 6ftr 1bmr on G3. If the UK and the US have built ICs and flown planes to India/Russia, the game might already be over.

With a stronger G1 baltic build (say 2tra 1car or 2tra, 1btl) and with a united German fleet move (incl Gibraltar invasion G1), on G3 London is now facing 1-2btl 7-8inf 7-8tnk 6ftr 1bmr; and that's with only 3tra built on G2. If conditions look optimal, you might see Germany drop 5tra(!?) in the baltic and combat-move 9-10tra (72-80IPC) of land gear and 75IPC of luftwaffe into London on G3.

In Asia, the situation is even worse; Japan is bringing close to 10inf 6tnk 6ftr to the IIC on J3. How are the Allies supposed to hold both places? If Japan takes the IIC, they have one-turn blitz capability into Caucasus in addition to the Calcutta VC.

Building 2 IC's is even sketchier. While a Sinkiang complex is harder for Japan to take, it will still inevitably fall; and now the US is even less capable of assisting the hopeless British homelannd.

A *3* IC build, with the UK building two of them? I hope the public schools of England have been teaching their children the right language— English isn't going to cut it for long!

Now, you object with:
Aardvark2 wrote:
Axis naval buildup on round 1 or round 2 is easily countered by British Infantry builds and arriving USA air, and, takes Axis resources away from attack on USSR.

...But these Allied IPCs and forces are in Asia and Africa, desperately trying to hold 1-3 outpost ICs in an uncontested Japan's backyard! The US cannot keep planes in London; they are desperately needed in China and India; and if not there, supporting ruskie advances (This is supposed to be KGF, remember?). The UK cannot build infantry in London if they are also building 3ftr in India (and/or S.A. !?).

If the UK builds the IIC on U1, the best-case U1 London build (5inf) results in a U2 force strength of 7inf 2tnk(ECan) 1art 2ftr 1bmr.

Now, it's very possible that the UK does not buy the 5inf, opting instead for boats (common), ftrs (less common), or a 2nd IC (!?), any of which make the coming German invasion almost a foregone conclusion.

Let's be nice and say that the UK sees the 1-3 German tra in the baltic and decide to be prudent. They buy the 5inf, and now have exactly one more turn to prep for a minimum of 5-6inf 5-6tnk 6ftr 1bmr from Germany.

The best-possible 30IPC purchase for the 8-IPC London is 6inf 2tnk. This makes the G3 battle for London something like:
13inf 4tnk 1art 2ftr 1bmr Vs
7inf 7tnk 5ftr(-1 from AAA) 1bmr.

That's a 50-50 battle for the Germans— and that's with the UK's 2ftr 1bmr remaining in London, plus perfect U1 and U2 purchases, plus absolutely NOTHING bought by the british at the IIC, leaving it defenseless against the inrushing Japanese armada.

If the Germans unite the fleets and build a strong, purposefully anti-UK baltic, the German side of the equation becomes something like
9inf 9tnk 5ftr 1bmr 1btl! That's a 50-50 battle even if the ruskies and americans bring an extra 4ftr 1bmr to London.

That it takes Axis IPC out of Russia is absolutely true; but while Germany threatens London the ruskies are still one crucial turn short of threatening Berlin. If the Germans take London on G3, they spend at least 65 IPC on G4... right as the ruskies reach their greatest extent of being over-extended deep into Europe... and right as a strong Japan starts cranking out tanks 2 territories away from the Caucasus.

Nothing like 13tnk to turn a hungry Russian mob right around quick.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Kalk
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
The key point here is Germany's Naval buildup in the Baltic. If the Allies (specifically UK) know what they're doing, warships in the Baltic are like a signal flare, and the game of necessity becomes KGF. If Germany wants to romp into Moscow, they need to let the Baltic navy die, and prepare a ground offensive while the Allies are tied up going after Japan.

I see Germany spending money in the Baltic, everything that flies or floats goes into eliminating those transports. With half the German income going into navy, USSR can handle the ground war easily enough.

Short answer...Germany builds those ships, there ARE no ICs in Asia for the Allies to defend, and the game will likely be a short one, one way or the other.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.