Assuming that Japan and the US are not at war at that point in time, Japan can indeed do that.

Are you sure , that you do not have a tweeny-weeny doubt nibbling in the back of your mind … maybe he has it?!

I was reluctant at first, because  thought it’ll affect my move… but on reflection… there is another smaller, better and niftier way to deal with that.  Hence wrote what i did.

Did take into account “Cow”'s fantastic  - J1 offense.  In fact, to be honest it was my biggest challenge to overcome. OK.

Happy thinking  :evil:

Agree with Ike here: it really depends on what the rest of the board looks like.

Some options from my own experience:
1. If Moscow falls G9 this means Germany has channeled a lot of resources east.
Strong counter for the allies is to land 40+ units in western Europe. Most likely even Western Germany and then push back west (liberating France) and south (taking out Italy). In the meantime Berlin should be maxed out every turn. Of course Japan must also be prevented a win in the Pacific first priority (defensive spending).
If the allies went ‘Japan First’, this option may not be available to you since it requires minimal spending in the Pacific (i.e. a defensive budget rather than an offensive one).

2. If Moscow falls G9 after the allies went ‘Japan First’ (assuming Caïro is still allied controlled), the allies must of course start channeling more untis into Caïro/Middle East than the axis can. And/or into London, depending on what the axis targets are. Hopefully they are able to do so and start pushing the axis back. Alternatively you can try to liberate another VC. If the allies can build up a huge invasion force/shuck from Gibraltar, they have the flexibility to try to liberate Paris or aid the defense of Caïro.
Defeating Germany after Moscow fell with no meaningful allied threat in the west already in place is no small thing to do…

As the Axis I have noticed that hunting down VC’s too aggressively really means putting their heads on the block (like in option 1 above). IMHO for the axis it is best to be patient. Aim to stabilize economic balance and then jump in the gap the allies have left you. A few examples:

3. If the allies go Europe First (while still preventing Japan a 6VC win), Germany best prevent the allied landings at all costs. This takes away a LOT of resources from the eastern front so Moscow should be safe (except when Russia built too much ‘wrong’ units). In Russia, Germany + Italy need to aim for a defensive perimeter as far eastwards as possible in order to be able to contest or defend rich Russian territories.
Japan should secure India if it doesn’t already have it under control and then make a deep strategic calculation (4/5 turns ahead); will it be possible to grab Hawaii/Sydney if the USA defends it with all its resources while Japan goes all-in to take it and hold it? Will Japan also be able to hold all other VC’s? Could Japan ‘trick’ the USA and then suddenly swing east when it is too late or is the USA-player a bit Pacific-ignorant and do you think he/she will continue that?
If Yes, go grab this last VC. Otherwise, just match the allied (USA) forces and offensive spendings in the Pacific and send the rest to contest the Middle East/Africa. From India (Naval Base), Japan can invade Africa in 1 turn. If Japan cannot take it, can Japan convoy it? I once lost too many indian ships too soon and as a result, got convoyed all the way from the Persian Gulf to the Brazilian coast by Japanese submarines…

I could go on and on with options, particularly about allied strategies for late game ‘JF’ course of events and the axis responses but I think other players have more experience with this and I already wrote quite enough for now ;-).

Agreed.  Since it was the attackers mistake, the defender should get to choose if they want to re-roll the battle or just remove the bomber mid-combat and keep going.

I’d probly let them bring the bomber somewhere else if there were other attacks not yet rolled though.  I wouldn’t allow them to go back and re-roll another battle with the bomber included though, that ship sailed.

With that in mind sz109 might be the best staging point for Royal Navy if the RAF is strong, they can scramble up to 6 fighters there.  Never considered that before.

Yep, it’s fine.

I know Krieghund has addressed this topic, but IIRC he was silent on whether it was intended or not.  Which leads me to believe it was not.  :-)

Not that it matters.  The rule is what it is.

I see what you guys are saying and I agree. I’ve been kicking around the idea to replace the $5 NO for Japanese control of Borneo, Celebes, Java and Sumatra with the following:

$5 for Japanese control of Okinawa, Formosa, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Palau, Caroline Islands and Marshall Islands. This occurs when Japan is at war with the Western Allies. So if UK and/or ANZAC declare war on Japan, with USA still neutral, then Japan will collect this NO.
I’ve also modified the $5 NO for Japanese control of Midway, Wake, Guam, Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands. I changed it to $1 for control of each island.

I also removed the US NO of $10 for US control of Eastern US, Central US and Western US because I think that falls in the same category as the DEI NO. The continental US is worth $42 to the US all together, has all their main manufacturing plants and includes two Victory Cities, one of which is their capital. That’s more than enough incentive to not lose any of those three territories. However, I didn’t want to just take away US NO money, so I replaced it with the following:

$1 each for Allied control of the following: Midway, Wake Island, Guam, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa. This occurs when US is at war with Japan.

So you see, there is still the possibility for the US to make the full $10 in NO money, plus 3 of the Japanese Islands are worth $1 which will be an extra bonus. Also, since 3 of the islands are already US owned, the US can still collect $3 when at war with Japan but before their offensive gets moving.
I thought that might do something to get a little more action in these valueless islands. I wonder if I ought to change Japan’s because once the US is in the war, Japan’s NO is really easy to disrupt because the Marshall Islands are close to the US and they are unguarded. Do you think that I should remove the Marshalls from Japan’s NO?

The pleasure was on my part, Black_Elk.
I like to find ideas and optimized them inside specific guidelines.
These last one was invented while writing on it, never know that something that I found also interesting could come out of it!

However, it needs someone like you to come with the big picture and completely outside the box ideas.

I will be watching for feedback from your game-plays.

See you around.
Baron

@Baron:

@Young:

I like your idea of reducing the UK NOs to just Malta for UKE, and just Malaya for UKP, however… just like Japan needs to side step their own NOs to take away UKP’s NO (Malaya), Italy should do the same around Malta, or get help from Germany.

Sorry, I miswrote my intent. I really like your two NOs as they were.
I was just emphasized the main interesting target from historical POV.

Cheers.

Probably can add this Houserule:

Our fastest game ever
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34868.msg1350898#msg1350898

I voted no because I don’t think a carrier is a must buy.  All depends on how you like to play.  I prefer 2 bombers and a sub.  Sometimes I buy 1 AC 1 Bomber.  Having a carrier with the German navy keeps it alive longer and keeps UK always worrying about it.  Also depends on my UK opponent and how well I know their play style.

The transport shuck is good for flexibility, by like was said earlier, it has risk with air attacks.  If I was investing a lot into the med, I would have an airbase in egypt with planes to help protect.  Maybe a destroyer in the Red Sea to assist as well.  Mechs and Tanks tend to be less costly to set up and will be very useful, especially if you are building constantly out of SA.

I personally like at least 3 subs for G round 1 so that I can strafe 111 and keep my bb while taking out UK’s turn 2.

I agree Elk, the only time I would try south france is in LL format.

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

@Herr:

Thanks for the debate and the clarification, gentlemen - Krieghund especially. No intentional overbuying, then. Vanished are my hopes to have a somewhat evil rule exploit named after me….

Keep trying, you may get there someday!

@WILD:

IDK, I kinda like to preserve the few ships the UK has in the Pac (if still afloat after J1) instead of making them easy targets for Japan to hit (unless I can somehow counter attack and bring some pain which is kinda unlikely in the early going). Many games see the UK Med/Italian fleets go bottoms-up. That Brit BB comes in handy in later rounds back boning the allies fleet in the Med (or Pac). A carrier built off S Africa merged w/India fleet and presto Euro axis have something to worry about, and it takes some pressure of the USA.

I have heard of some wild allied strats to make the DEI (Java) a fortress early though, using all available units, building AB etc. Anyone have success with that? Might depend on when Japan attacks, or if they are slow-boating it giving the UK/Anz the time to set it up?

This is what I like about this game, I have never considered building a carrier off south africa after the med brit/italien clash. paired with the pacific boats and a transport or two,might be interesting

@Herr:

Politicians need more time than soldiers. The friendly neutral is expecting a formal delegation to pay a visit, not someone in a tank dashing by and waving “Hi! You’re with us now!”

But I agree that in the game, it’s a bit odd.

Yeah that’s basically it!
Allies stop and wave and Axis, well they…march.  :-)

Fun aside, I agree with you, it is a bit odd.

@Cow:

Optimal sea lion / feign.

Been debating if normandy or southern france or neither is better for round 1.

Purchase Units - Germans
           Germans buy 1 carrier and 2 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

Combat Move - Germans
           1 submarine moved from 117 Sea Zone to 106 Sea Zone
           1 submarine moved from 103 Sea Zone to 106 Sea Zone
           1 submarine moved from 108 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone
           1 submarine moved from 118 Sea Zone to 111 Sea Zone
           1 submarine moved from 124 Sea Zone to 111 Sea Zone
           1 battleship moved from 113 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone
           1 fighter moved from Holland Belgium to 110 Sea Zone
           1 fighter moved from Norway to 111 Sea Zone
           1 tactical_bomber moved from Germany to 110 Sea Zone
           2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Western Germany to 110 Sea Zone
           1 tactical_bomber moved from Western Germany to 111 Sea Zone
           2 bombers moved from Germany to 111 Sea Zone
           2 artilleries and 6 infantry moved from Greater Southern Germany to Yugoslavia
           3 armour moved from Greater Southern Germany to France
           3 armour, 2 artilleries and 4 infantry moved from Holland Belgium to France
           1 artillery, 3 infantry and 1 mech_infantrys moved from Western Germany to France
            3 mech west moved from West Germany to Southern France.
           1 tactical_bomber moved from Poland to Yugoslavia
            1 fighter moved from Hungary to Southern France

ncm

tactical fighter yugoslavia-> Southern Italy.
fighter southern france -> northern italy.
Rest of the air lands west germany, except the one tactical fighter to sz 112 (it has one movement left only).
cruiser transport-> sz 112
shuffle 2 inf from denmark->norway.
1 inf norway->finland.
2 arty germany->west germany
Rest of germany-> poland.
1 inf romania-> bulgaria
2 inf hungary->poland
~

This is like the basic sea lion but with some minor adjustments. You are doing Southern france. You power slam Yugoslavia.

You can make 71 income potential (if convoys from the french miss) 9 transports and a dd purchase… potential… you can drop 6 units on to scotland in round 2 then pick up 6 more units and drop. Bringing the total drop count to 6+6+18… 30 units. Plus your air. Italy can bomb an airbase if necessary. Italy can land a fighter onto scotland to scramble to defend transports if necessary as well (against the 1 french fighter).

Even if you make 68 only… that is still 28 units + air drop potential. Southern France is nice because if Naval goes to gibraltar you can blast it.

This is an excellent write-up by a seemingly controversial character on these forums. The strategy is sound though.

@AxisMan:

@Anzac:

You can buy the historical board gaming 1939 global map, from what ive heard/seen its huge!! Its 4 x 8!.

Is it the exact same as the 1940 map?

No, and it’s a more complexed variant.