Heng’s Gaming Blog

Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition 1941 Solo Opening Thoughts

Ξ November 17th, 2010 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Boardgames |

As hinted earlier, I found some free time to set up the Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition 1941 scenario for a bit of analyzing and comparison to the Global 1940 edition.

First thing that went through my mind was ‘gawd, there’s less pieces to setup!’. I really missed the extra game pieces and board spaces that makes 1940 the more complete, detailed game. UK pacific army suddenly went back to its pathetic size with no minor factories around to reinforce it.

UK europe however went back to its beefy ways and try as I could, just couldn’t find an opening to start operation sealion (invasion of Britain). The split force of Italian and Germans in North Africa also signaled a weaker Italy and slower conquest of Africa. The Algeria front was wide open to a US attack. Russian troops look to be equal to the German warmachine and as in the 1940 edition, it is still a long hard fight on the eastern front.

The opening IPCs of the various nations. UK is WAY in front and the Axis as a whole are on the losing side of the economic war. Much of the game’s development will hinge on Japan’s conquest of British Far East’s IPC holdings.

The national objectives that I printed out from Boardgamegeek. The Axis have their work cut out for them to meet their objectives. US start with most of their objectives and are quite tough to dislodge.

A simulation of the possible opening by a Germany player. Since UK is impregnable and their fleet is almighty, the Germans threw all available men and machine against the Russian juggernaut. Progress is made against 3 provinces, ensuring a national objective is achieve and also to threaten Karelia and Caucasus for the next objective. German troops was also evacuated from North Africa and joined in the attack in southern Russia.

All subs went and sink some shipping off Denmark but it is projected that they won’t last a turn.

France cannot be left undefended and some troops were diverted there from Germany. A same turn D-day can be expected from the British player. Sometimes I think that the control of the seas can be quite advantageous despite the lack of IPCs gain. Valuable pieces can be directed against the Russian bear if France can be left lightly defended as a result of sea mastery.

As it is, the German player do not have any economic advantage over the Russian player and any diversion of resources to the UK front will jeopardize the success of Operation Barbarossa.

It is a simple matter for Russia to consolidate her forces and reinforce Karelia and Caucasus. There is no need to attack as she had only infantries. However without cannon fodder, the German war machine is similiarly stymied and any further attacks only brings damage to its valuable tanks.

Far East is also a simple matter of consolidating forces and intimidating Japanese forces into a stalemate.

My last simulation was on the Japanese side and it took awhile to execute. Here was the key to the Axis strategy as Japan need to bring UK down as much as possible and to prop up its IPCs to prepare for the US onslaught.

I forgo the Russian front and hit China minimally, concentrating instead on the rich national objectives of Philipines, Borneo, Sumatera and Kwangtung. An invasion into Burma was done with force so that India could be threatened the next turn. Without a factory to reinforce it, India can be fell easily unlike in the 1940 edition. With the final board placings however, I feel that the Russian border was a weak point and a suboptimal move. Perhaps a push into China can be delayed to discourage Russian forays into Asia, and for the South East Asian campaign to progress successfully first.

Another ill conceived strike was against the US Battleship in Hawaii as I realized later that the US player can easily commit all his planes to take down the valuable Carriers and replace his losses easily.

All in all it was a good simulation exercise and although I missed the added complexity and more historically detailed 1940 edition, I can see how this version can be played faster. It felt like the Germans have the tougher task in this particular version and scenario than the Japanese, whereas in the 1940 edition, it felt like the Germans had it easier than the Japanese.

After all this, I have a hankering to go back to play the 1940 edition, although perhaps on the Europe map only first. The possibility of a successful Sealion positively intrigues me!

 

Axis & Allies: Global 1940 Thoughts

Ξ November 11th, 2010 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Boardgames |

Just want to record some of my thought processes as the European Axis side (Germany + Italy) in the A&A:G1940 game.

First off - the big blight of blue in the western front where french forces are standing in this game. The usual A&A starts with Germany already in possession of France so this version gives Germany a bit of an exercise before the soviet crunch.

The French are last to go in turn order, so Germany AND Italy can wipe them out before they have time to respond. In addition, the french have about 19 IPCs, so this makes it an even bigger priority to take down Paris for their cash.

The question of course, is how much troops to commit given that:

1) I would not want too many troops dying before the soviet assault

2) I would not want too many troops out of position for the soviet assault

3) I would want to defend myself from possible British sea landings.

There is the question also of who gets southern France and the IPCs there. Germany of course needs every dollar against Russia but Italy is in a more immediate position. In the end I went with the historical route and let Mussolini take Southern France.

I also threw every available men within range to take out Paris, as well as Normandy. I practically emptied belgium and western Germany on the assault. The result in the end was minimal casualties and the conclusion is that I might have overcommitted.

Although UK had only one infantry, I still took care of the possibility of seaborne invasion by sending three of my U-boats against the lone transport and destroyer off UK’s west coast. But the subs were taken out later by UK’s ships.

I also sent a lone sub to try and disrupt convoys on Nova Scotia, but again was taken out easily later on US’s turn.

A likewise opportunist strike by Bismarck and the Admiral Graff Spee on Allied shipping off the coast of Denmark saw both ships being successful only to be sunk to the depths of the ocean later on Allied’s turn. However, it was also a lure to draw both UK’s Battleships to respond, which they did. On the second turn I duly sent the whole of the Luffwaffe to take out both ships. It was a tradeoff that can be argued in its effectiveness as the bulk of the Luffwaffe air supremacy was traded for the Roval Navy’s naval superiority.

Italy had an easy time in Africa. No Germans were needed although Germany had an NO which requires Rommel in Egypt. Italy tamed Crete easily and it even ran out of tokens for Africa. Then again UK forgot(?) that it had a minor factory in South Africa so it could have pumped out troops to halt the Italian advance.

Also, it took both Italian’s dominance in the Africa and Germany’s constant threat of Operation Sealion to bring US back into the European theater. US had been too concentrated in the Pacific in the first few turns.

Italy also should have been given direction to help attack UK or Russia in addition to it’s sortie in Africa. As it is, Italy’s might was wasted in its positioning as a US welcoming party.

Operation Barbarossa started in turn 3, which in hindsight might have been a little later than I liked as Russia was quite a pushover when it had even less troops to contend with. UK was more resilient than I initially thought and Italy had to whittle down UK’s IPCs to make an amphibious invasion even remotely successful. Suffice to say the invasion of UK is incredibly difficult and it had delayed my invasion of Russia as per historical events. Then again the western front troops also needed time to be brought up to the eastern front. If Germany can commit less troops to take down France next time, it can divert a significant amount of troops for a head start in Barbarossa.

The end result in europe: UK had no navy and Germany is preparing to launch amphibious attacks every turn. UK still had money in Canada so it’s IPCs could reinforce a good amount of infantries. The invasion of Russia was off to a great start but Germany’s infantries still had a few turns to catch up with its frontline tanks. Italy had just beaten back a US attack but it would feel further pressure every turn from thence on.

original post here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=131356670252869