Why would they declare war? What would be the basis of their claim?
A wizard did it! :lol: After all, we have invisible walls all the globe that prevent neutral armies (and certain non-neutral) counter attack if attacked :roll:
Why would they declare war? What would be the basis of their claim?
Historic Japanese aggression so very close to Australia.
Saving your money with ANZAC is a great idea……What 3 things are you gonna build?
On top of the production problems ANZAC has, if ANZAC took any money Islands Japan would then be free to capture them without starting war with USA and India! I would love to be Japan if I were playing with this rule!!!
@Idi:
Saving your money with ANZAC is a great idea……What 3 things are you gonna build?
How about upgrading to a Major IC
I think with ANZAC it’s better to stick with the minor IC, considering the cost of upgrading it to a major exceeds their normal income per turn.
@Idi:
Why would they declare war? What would be the basis of their claim?
Japanese aggression so very close to Australia.
What aggression? If Japan does not break any of the Neutrality rules ie aggression, than there can be no basis for declaring war. If the Japanese take any islands even NEAR Australia, then all three Allied powers including the US can already declare war.
Historically it would not happen, and in game play I don’t see why you would even want to do it? Have an Allied minor of 10+ IPCs go to war alone against a Major Axis Power alone?
@Idi:
Saving your money with ANZAC is a great idea……What 3 things are you gonna build?
How about upgrading to a Major IC
Can’t do that. New South Wales is only worth 2 IPCs. To upgrade to a major IC, territory has to be worth 3 IPCs or more. You could build a second minor on Queensland.
@Idi:
Saving your money with ANZAC is a great idea……What 3 things are you gonna build?
How about upgrading to a Major IC
Can’t do that. New South Wales is only worth 2 IPCs. To upgrade to a major IC, territory has to be worth 3 IPCs or more. You could build a second minor on Queensland.
Does that also apply to ORIGINAL ICs? I thought that was only for New ones… ???
Have an Allied minor of 10+ IPCs go to war alone against a Major Axis Power alone?
France?
And yea, it applies to ALL IC’s, including your starting ones.
Have an Allied minor of 10+ IPCs go to war alone against a Major Axis Power alone?
France?
And yea, it applies to ALL IC’s, including your starting ones.
France is a) Not alone, UK and ANZAC are also at War with the European Axis b) A MAJOR power, collecting over 20 IPC and with massive armies on the board.
It is just that France has already “lost” the war at the start-up of this game.
France doesn’t even make 20.
You said 10+ :P
And what about China?
They stand alone too, at 12 IPC’s + possibly the Burma Road each turn.
France doesn’t even make 20.
You said 10+ :P
And what about China?
They stand alone too, at 12 IPC’s + possibly the Burma Road each turn.
Ok, you got me there. But honestly??? ANZAC would never declare ware alone. And if they did… what could they possibly gain?
Honestly, I see absolutely no harm in allowing ANZAC to declare war on Japan prematurely.
Why? Well, there are many points to why it may not be an entirely great idea for ANZAC to do this since Japan does massively out-weigh them in military might and, even if they are distracted with Chinese Territories, there is very little for the Japanese fleet (surface warships primarily) to do. Doubly true in Alpha +2 due to the severe restrictions on Russia initiating an attack on Japan, the loss of a reason for Russia to initiate an attack (to collect Neutrals in the Middle East for cash) and the reinforcements to what we used to call Manchuria (now Manchuria and Korea.)
However, let’s pretend that Japan declared war on USA before Round 4. (for instance, Round 2 maybe.) Maybe England does not want to be at war with Japan yet but ANZAC could really use some action?
Now, I know that Japan declaring war on England/ANZAC brings America into the war, but I do not believe that declaring war on America brings UK/ANZAC into war. (And I am thinking of strategy that makes more sense in attacking America early and ignoring China.)
Since we’re really only talking about ANZAC declaring unilaterally, and not giving Japan the option to only declare against ANZAC, I do not see a downside here.
LoL, I think I’ve been here like 36 years…wink so really it’s only 1k posts a year…
In actuality, a lot of it is tactics discussion (Mostly AAR/2nd I admit, I am quite rusty at more advanced games like AAReHistorical, Anniversary and of course 1940) and then there are all those 2 infantry vs 1 infantry battles that take 40 rounds to come to conclusion. :-D
Anzac would recieve their NO’s right away. If Japan went after them it would put Japan so far out of position to do anything constructive….Who ever heard of a KAF strat?
No one heard of the Kill America First strategy in AAR and 2nd Ed. until I did it to people on a regular basis…who’s to say a strike on ANZAC to neutralize them early would not pay off? At the very least, it’s worth the surprise factor! (Which is how I invented my flavor of Kill America First…)
@Cmdr:
No one heard of the Kill America First strategy in AAR and 2nd Ed. until I did it to people on a regular basis…who’s to say a strike on ANZAC to neutralize them early would not pay off? At the very least, it’s worth the surprise factor! (Which is how I invented my flavor of Kill America First…)
What is your version of the KAF jen? Mine is posted in the article submissions forum under: Revised Japan KAF (or Kill America First)
For which game? AAR or 2nd?
I mean for specifics, the “general” idea is a surprise strike. In both games you sort of set up like you normal would for the Indian Ocean with some extra transports then hit W. USA/Alaska at the same time with units from Japan/Solomons. (Units your opponent thought were going into Russia/Australia-New Zealand.)
In either event, you’re only creating the option for KAF by slowing down just a little in KRF. If America plays along, you can go crush them, if they see the trap and defend, well you always did want to go to Maui and Sydney, right?
KAF sounds like a very intriguing idea. In just about every game that I have played where the Axis win, USA is the last Ally standing. Except for one game I’ll never forget. The US player made a huge blunder in leaving their capital very lightly defended. Italy had conquered the Med and had moved some warships and a couple of transports with troops out into SZ 91 with the original intention of going after either South America or maybe the Panama Canal. Then they saw Eastern US laying open and simply took advantage. By the time US could get some troops over from Western US, Germany landed some fighters there to help the Italians defend and it was a lost cause for America. After that round, all the Axis just sort of converged on North America taking it piece by piece. Once USA was out, there was no help for Russia.
Normally, in previous games, I would say it is nearly impossible for the Axis to go after USA first. However, with the new political rules of 1940, it might be more possible.
The idea of Kill America First, in my opinion and experience as a veteran of many games, only works if you surprise America. America generally only sees the danger if you position your forces so that the attack is broadcast before actually launching the attack. This is why I generally have my attack preformed in the Solomon Islands, Manchuria and Japan. These are normal positions to stack anyway. You’ll need the Solomons (realistically) to attack New Zealand, Australia and Hawaii. (you CAN do it from other zones, but you cannot hit America from those other zones!)
With luck, America assumes you have 3 transports to hit Hawaii, New Zealand and Australia, perhaps 4 transports. 5 Transports is really pushing it. With 10 ground units, America’s going to notice you and do the math. Not to mention, really? I mean who puts 5 transports in the Solomons when the “goal” is Moscow by way of India? No, 4 you can explain easily over the table. “Yea, I need 2 to hit Australia, see, because you have 2 guys there so I need at least 3 ground units, New Zealand and Hawaii both need to be attacked, so there ya go, I have 4 transports and personell.”
Anyway, with 3 or 4 transports in Solomons (plus ground units) and 3 or 4 transports off the coast of Japan (with ground units) its a matter of hitting Alaska AND W. USA. Many a KAF has failed with just the assault on W. USA. Hitting BOTH territories gives you the ability to start landing aircraft in one or the other territory if America cannot liberate both zones. (Otherwise, you can always tie up your carriers…I dont like it, but you can.)
Of course, even a failed KAF has its benefits to the axis. For one, America’s pushing out men, tanks and planes left and right (mostly men and tanks) and not warships to protect the British fleet, transports to reclaim Africa and planes to defend Moscow.
