I have played as the US every time i play and i win. I do this by massing a large navy with transports of the coast of japan. then they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany. Do you think this is a good strategy
I like it! Take care of those god-forsaken Japanese first. Then come back to deal with the Nazis. Although sometimes they’ve taken Moscow by then.
How exactly does RUSSIA take Japan’s Capital?
Invade Korea? And build a complex there?
And whilst you are busy building boats to fight the Japanese with the Russians and Americans.
How is the U.k. holding out ALONE against Nazi Germany and Italy? A force that can combine at times to triple the U.K.s income.
How exactly does RUSSIA take Japan’s Capital?
Invade Korea? And build a complex there?
And whilst you are busy building boats to fight the Japanese with the Russians and Americans.
How is the U.k. holding out ALONE against Nazi Germany and Italy? A force that can combine at times to triple the U.K.s income.
I think the implied strategy is using US transports to bridge (hopefully correctly, over two turns) with russian troops. So, I don’t think he built any russian naval units (and probably only used the starting 18 infantry and maybe some tanks?).
Points for gumption, and an amusing way to win, but by the time that’s a plausibly effective invasion force and Germany isn’t going to steamroll you… well, sounds like you already won, and kinda hard to comment on the strategy, as all you’ve revealed is a KJF, but not really how it’s done beyond US naval superiority. And naval superiority is required in any win against Japan. So, if you actually want to know if it’s a good strategy, how did the US get naval superiority, how did Russia hold out in Europe, and are you playing Alpha2?
I have played as the US every time i play and i win. I do this by massing a large navy with transports of the coast of japan. then they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany. Do you think this is a good strategy
Weren’t you the kid who just started playing 5 minutes ago?
@Idi:
I have played as the US every time i play and i win. I do this by massing a large navy with transports of the coast of japan. then they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany. Do you think this is a good strategy
Weren’t you the kid who just started playing 5 minutes ago?
be nice idi us navy is pretty bad ass:)
I think he ment that russia and Uk handle germ while US handles Japan
I don’t think you could build that much as the US as you can only build 9 units until you are war. Unless you build up your factory but then that money is gone too. Are you guys playing OOB rules or something?
US1 the U.S. is capable of fielding a navy that is almost the same as the Japanese.
It requires pulling everything from the atlantic and a 2 acc 1 bat build… But you are set to fight Japan for the rest of the game.
How exactly does RUSSIA take Japan’s Capital?
Invade Korea? And build a complex there?
And whilst you are busy building boats to fight the Japanese with the Russians and Americans.
How is the U.k. holding out ALONE against Nazi Germany and Italy? A force that can combine at times to triple the U.K.s income.
He pretty clearly said the US takes Japan while Russia and the UK take on Berlin … nothing about Russia fighting Japan there.
This strategy MAY work … sometimes. I guess it depends on who you’re playing against and how flexible they are with their strategies.
Something got lost in translation here…
then they (Japan) are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia
I see your interpretation of it now though Rorschasch.
then they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany.
Its like
“Iraqi head seeks arms”
Without punctuation. It’s ambiguous - and thus pointless to post.
One has to contemplate the utility of an American Naval Base in Alaska. (SZ 2) This would allow the Americans to hit SZ 6 immediately and be out of range of any shipping in SZ 33 (The Caroline Islands).
Of course, it would also remove pressure from Japan down there, but it may tie up Japanese forces up near SZ 6 letting England and Australia liberate some territories, strangling Japan financially.
With the penalty to Russia, I wouldn’t even bother going into Japan with them. Let them, with help from England, attempt to stall the Germanic/Italian units from crushing them until Japan is neutralized. (Generally KJF games are more neutralize Japan and kill Germany anyway, IMHO).
I usually try to be polite on these forums, but seriously Gargantua, you need to be able to understand when you’re wrong and give it a rest.
There is no ambiguity in the clause “they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany” because of the word “take”. Because the verb lacks an ‘s’ it’s clear that the subject of the verb must be plural. ‘UK’ by itself couldn’t possibly be the subject because “uk take germany” doesn’t make sense. The only possible interpretation is “russia and uk take germany” because then the subject is plural.
I don’t care if you admit you’re wrong or not, just please stop insisting that your erroneous reading of the original post holds any merit.
Maybe if you read the ENTIRE thread Larry, you’d realize that I’d already admitted that I misinterepreted the original post. Not a hard thing to do when faced with less than elementary level english.
Posted by me: Something got lost in translation here…
Quote
then they (Japan) are surrounded and i take their capitol as RussiaI see your interpretation of it now though Rorschasch
Time to take your own advice Larry - for either not fulling reading, or not understanding my posts.
you need to be able to understand when you’re wrong and give it a rest.
I admitted the mistake a century before you decided to make a rebuttle to a later comment.
Let me know how that pill is for your own inflated ego to swallow. You made the same mistake I did.
if you don’t like my style…
You can go marx your Larry somewhere else.
At the risk of becoming embroiled in a flame war, let me say that my post was actually a result of reading the entire thread. Yes, I saw that you admitted that another interpretation of the sentence was possible, however by calling it another interpretation you implied that your interpretation could also be correct, which it can’t. But, by itself, that would have been ok. The breaking point was when you wrote
Its like
“Iraqi head seeks arms”
Without punctuation. It’s ambiguous - and thus pointless to post.
openly declaring that the statement was ambiguous, which in spite of its lack of proper punctuation it is not. If you had read my ENTIRE post, perhaps you would have recognized that it was a direct response to the above. I was clarifying that there is no ambiguity.
So as not to disuade this conversation from the topuc.
All and all Littlebird.
This isn’t really a strategy, you have provided no purchases, movements, timelines, assumptions, considerations, or decent punctuation.
It just sounds like something that vaguely happend for you, in one game, at one time. And no, I don’t think the USA going 100% full pacific is a good strategy, but I’m assuming that that is what you are implying.
Agreed
Can America virtually ignore the Pacific without letting Japan win with Victory Cities?
