@DarthMaximus:

But I don’t know if that battle is all that relevant.  The bom placement may be overrated.  So what if you slow down Japan.  Sub bid of six kills 1 J trn and there is no risk of not hitting and you could still place 2 inf elsewhere.
Germany is the main early threat.  Assuming no Russian ground units bid.  Ger takes the 3 Russian territories on G1.  G2 have a shot at holding Kar.  Even if they only trade, they can still stack Bel on G3.  Russia now has to defend Mos.  G4 you move to Euk.  Now Cauc and Mos have to be defended.  G5 you take cauc.
Obviously this is a bit simplistic but I don’t think the loss of 2 trns and a J dd is that big of a deal if the Russian front is collapsing.

I don’t know Darth. Slowing Japan’s expansion to a crawl and allowing Russia to focus entirely on Germany for the first 5 rounds or so goes a long way.

I’m assuming an aggressive G1.  Taking out Sz 2 and Sz 9.  If we are playing the odds game, the odds for these G1 attacks will go further in deciding the game then the 56% odds the Russian bom has.

I don’t know about that either. taking out 2 TP’s and a DD before Japan even gets a chance to use them is pretty crippling. Even sinking just the sz62 TP limits japan a bit.

I’d much rather have 4 units on the Russian front, then the bom.

That’s a matter of personal preference, though. The bomber bid gives Russia multiple options while the infantry bid only has 1 option(defending against Germany). The bomber is essentially an opportunistic unit. It can provide support for Allied interdiction of Japan’s navy as well as supporting it’s ground troops in the area if you see an opening to be aggressive on the ground. And the bomber will start saving Russia units in trades against Germany once it returns from the Pacific.

@CdnRanger:

Russia would have to send a couple of Inf (needed desperately at the front without a Russian ground unit bid) by Rus2 to India to protect it, and perhaps Uk lands the Egypt Fighter there (if it has survived the attack from Germany)

The US can also provide air support to India on US2 if they landed aircraft in Australia on US1.

The India crush by Japan is nasty but it gives China an extra round or two of survival, as Japan needs to go light on Phi, and the 3 Inf in Fic that took Burma are needed to attack and hold India turn 2.

The India crush also draws away a lot of Japan’s navy which the US and Russia can sometimes exploit in the North(threatening sz62 with air and navy, Russian ground attacks into China from Bury, etc)

Agains a KGF the key to win is to be aggressive with Japan. UK should not have more then 25 IPC in round 3.

For Japan to go via China is not a good idea. A threat against Caucasus is the counterattack.

Factory in French Indochina, Burma, India. Take Australia with a small fleet and deny US NO in Pacific. Factory on East Indies or Borneo is to far away. With 60 ICP+ Japan should have 5 factories on main land. Ftr to Europe and SBR Russia.

KGF is normally not a good move for allied. Axis has ha 60-65% chance to win. Japan can easily get 80 IPC and quickly take Russia. Logistics with inf from Japan is a bad strategy in almost any situation. You need factories on main land.

French Indochina is the best one to build turn 1. Burma and Manchuria turn 2 and India turn 3 if Japan doesn’t have any resistance from US.

What do do with G and I. Mix of troops (more then 8 ftr/brb is not good. Inf-tanks is important and always produce maximum HP in G) is important with G. Fleet (will normally not be possible) and HP is important with I. If UK is poor due to Japan SBR UK is good. If possible both with G and J ( yes you read right, J and not I).

Huarong spend Fox Trader Trader log gold blog blog
( the microblogging log in to your home you can open your account in gold micro- Bo )
profile
Loading …
Notice
loading …
article classification
loading …
recommended articles
loading …
access statistics
Loading …
links
loading …
list of articles
loading …
into the more micro- Bo > > ; I also go shopping in the online microblogging gold

If US goes full against Germany, Japan can threaten USA from the pacific coast or Japan can aid Europe with it’s large fighter corp.

I like the fighters in europe, easier to achieve as the ftrs have the range, japan can afford to give them away and buy additional ones.

Not sure what Germany is doing in your game as you really don’t speculate.  Tanks?  buying ftrs is a good move to help the defense of fortress europe and keep the allied fleet honest.

Oh the game problems I wish I still had…

Going pacific with US is better, slow the giant before picking strategy for germany. This must be combined with a IC in india (support it with 2 russian inf).
The key is to overload Japan with the stack of russians, the combined migth of all the allied resources in pacific is enough to slow Japan and then help russia. But beware this is a very though strategy to pull off since you have to think two rounds ahead with what US buys.

@Zhukov44:

I’m not convinced the factories would necessarily help Allies.  If Allies can’t afford to protect them, they become liabilities.

A huge difference in AA50 versus previous editions is how seperated/well-defined the two theatres of war are for USA.  Once in one of the theatres, it is very hard if almost impossible to move into the other theatre while still being useful.  An example of what I mean may help.  If USA can establish a presence in the south pacific, either via a navy (hard to do early) or via Australia, she can land fighters into India for support.  Put an IC in Australia to cover these fighters, providing defense on their way to India, where they would again provide defense to yet another IC, and then onto their way to even threaten the middle east with units that have began to filter in from combined UK/US Algeria landings

@Zhukov44:

If UK is pumping ipcs into South Asia it may provide Germany/Italy opportunities in Africa and Europe.

Yes, it would be somewhat of a fine Allied balance, but the US can help Africa landings easier than building a naval force strong enough the threaten the IJN.  Supporting Australia/India with fighters (see above), keeps $5 more in UK coffers (Australia/India) and the third NO out of japans hands.  That’s a $15 IPC swing that more than makes up for less pressence in Africa/Europe.

Pacific warfare is primarily about controlling space.  So imho acs and figs are the best choice…since they are versatile and give you spatial dominance.  For offense, bombers aren’t bad either.

Naturally you will need transports and destroyers too.

You do definitely want to take islands–especially those for the USA and UK NO.  And of course it’s worth it to take Philippines whenever possible.

Does the 1941 scenario even work without the NOs? I solitaired it for a bit once and the board seemed almost empty of units after about three turns. Germany collapsed because its lost income from the rather easy NOs really makes a difference. Japan seemed rather irrelevant since it takes longer to gain momentum without the NOs, and Germany falls sooner to a KGF.
The 1942 scenario seems better suited for a non-NO game because it´s got more starting units and the theaters are better balanced. Germany is stronger so a KGF will take longer and Asia has got more options since India won´t fall as easily, China is tougher and the US Pacific fleet is stronger.

players have experienced with a allied inf bid in asia

Bid is +9 IPC of which it is exactly 3 infantry units which may be placed on any one territory or any combination of territories east of the Arc, Mos, Kaz, Per line which already has at least 1 land unit on it, or any Chinese territory including Chinese territories which are empty (of course Russian units on Russian territories, Chinese units on Chinese territories, and so on)  So you could place 3 UK infantry in India if you wish, 3 Chinese infantry in Yunnan, or even 3 infantry in Hawaii or something like that.

This makes for a fun game

All things considered, weighing the options, if I have ANY chance of holding the Island for at least one round OR diverting enemy forces from another objective to take the island back, I’ll take the island.  Especially if it’s an NO and hurts the enemy that much further.

Otherwise, I’ll aid my allies instead, as risking X value in units for less than X in one round of income is not worth it.

I play without national objectives regularly.  IMHO, the key for the Axis is killing Russia. I have found that the best way to kill Russia is to do a combined Germany/Japan land assault.  However, this cannot be done if USA and GB are offloading on France/NWE-  Germany cannot guard the Atlantic borders and keep pressure on Russia.  My solution was simple.  Establish a chain supply of Japanese fighters to France for defense (2 per turn as of turn 3)  This accomplishes two things: one, defends France effectively and,two, forces the Allies to build navy to avoid losing their transports.  This allows Germany to send roughly half of their land forces to the Russia front. ( build only infantry and artillery since IPC’s are scarce from turn 3 forward)  This slows Japan down but is well worth it to keep pressure on Russia from Germany.  Also,  move the Japanese fleet to protect Italy from invasion.  Allies can’t amphibious assault Italy with a massive combined Italian/Japanese fleet in sea zone 14.

I build a German bomber on turns 1 & 2 to keep Britain off shores till turn 3, then the bombers become useful in swapping territories with Russia.

it’s 2 moves from EUS to sz 9, thats how everyone i’ve ever seen play it including myself.

Please stay on topic or don’t post in this thread.  Thanks.

The rules as you state them are correct.  The only way you wouldn’t be able to load and then unload a transport on the same turn is when you load your units on to one of your allies transports then you must wait until the next turn to unload them.  I think if transports worked the way you wanted them to industrial complexes would become very popular in this game.

The FIC IC is OK if the US goes 100% Pacific. As a matter of fact I think it is one of the best IC positions in this case. It is harder to lose than any of the island positions. Both of the seazones it serves may also give a safe build spot close to the action. Think putting planes on carriers to maximize those two slots. Also as axis_roll pointed to the FIC IC does not require any naval servicing. If it is not needed for ships it can be producing ground units for South West Asia. The Allies are thin here even with the cluster they start with in India, it will not take many troops to decide this area. This opens up the possibility of an IC in India and these can support themselves.

I do think that akreider2 is correct in that if the US does go 100% Pacific (keep in mind this is how I play Allies) that Japan does need to limit its IC building. I know as the US I love to see a Japanese IC go down in E. Indies on round 2. This is a fixed point that the Japanese navy will have to defend. While FIC is also a fixed point, it can be relived by land, and is more interior, so this reduces its drawbacks in a US PTO game. I think the Key to surviving these as Japan is to avoid having to defend multiple areas that one can not afford to lose. While the islands do matter for IPCs and NOs they can be left for a turn or two in enemy possession if the situation requires it. With an IC at that location it becomes a different consideration an MUST be defended and this is what allows the US to kill Japan.

After playing as the Allies for the first time, I see the wisdom of no ftrs for Russia.  Sure, you end up spending your tanks in little packets along the Eastern front, but Germany cannot keep up the unit trade if they are also forced into protecting france.  By trading spots with a few inf and a tank you are increasing the chances of defensive hits and Germany having to spread their few infantry around further.

One purchase that I am really happy with is a Russian and a Italian bomber.  For Russia, I have stationed him in Novo and he can reach the front against germany or fight for Yakut.  Plus he can be used in China in conjunction with infantry to make Japans job of pacifying China much harder.

The Italian bmb is even better than a trn build.  with this build you can send him to africa to help in attacks and still bring him back to Italy.  He can also strike with the ftr in France if there is a small US fleet, not to mention be used in Russia to help can open a square for an attack on Moscow.

Amen Brother…  Axis need to be offensive, axis have shorter supply lines and can take losses a little bit better then the allies.

@Violent.copper:

To add on to Cmdr Jennifer, You are also leaving the Brittish Navy to Invade the Norway Round 1 or then Sz 5 R2 or R3 overall doing more harm than good to Germany I never want the Allies in SZ5 Personally.

You know, hitting Norway may not be the worst thing to happen to Germany…if you go Fleet Heavy like Functionetta and Emperor Mollari (and many others I am sure) on Germany 1.  Now their ships are in range of yours (you have to hit it from SZ 3).  Realistically speaking, you may have 2 destroyers, cruiser, submarine, carrier, 4 or 5 fighters and a bomber in range of SZ 3 at this time…depending what you did, what happened to you and how you are positioned at the end of G1.