I can definitely see the logic in that argument Grasshopper. America using its advantage in income to fight a war of attrition with Japan over naval production (the most expensive units in the game) will always cripple Japan as obviously America can always make good any loss.
Now, my question is this, with America following this plan and spending large sums of money in the pacific, what is the impact going to be on the Euro-Axis? Will the focus on Japan delay American involvment in Europe give them(axis) time to finish off the Soviets before the full weight of America can be brought to bare? Or, is the thinking that with the US concentrating on Japan, the UK India will focus more of its forces against the Euro-Axis to pick up some of the slack?
You are correct, My plan with America is to obviously wipe out the Japanese navy, but after that is done, the US will not shift toward a European campaign entirely. Instead, they will continue to produce ships in the Pacific, however, the strategy will shift from combat to convoys. In the blue print above, you will see a small force of American units that will enter the Mediterranean to offer support in late rounds (1 aircraft carrier with 1 fighter, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers and 3 full transports). Also, if you look at the blue print for the UK, you will see a very aggressive campaign against Italy in early rounds, this includes all warships from the Indian Ocean and aircraft. With the immediate support in the south Pacific from the US, the IC in Calcutta can be largely used in the fight against Italy, and the support of Russia.
What you aren’t seeing grasshopper is that while america would have surpassed Japans original fleet I will be building 6-8 ships a turn. How now do you think you are going to compete when youare buying transports and bombers? I would just station Japans fleet in a place where I could counter attack anywhere you went since you don’t have any staying power. Right now in my current game I have 13 subs 3 destroyers and 1 carrier more than my starting fleet on J5. What now?
I think you’re missing his point. He dosnt care if you attack his fleets, all he is trying to do is inflict casualties on the Japanese naval (and some limited air) forces. As long as he sinks 1 surface ship then he has reduced the overall number of Japanese surface ships, which will coast Japan more to replace as they dont (nor would they have at any time) the 80IPC income that the US does. Its a simple battle of attrition strategy that also seeks to hamper Japans economic growth at the same time.
What you aren’t seeing grasshopper is that while america would have surpassed Japans original fleet I will be building 6-8 ships a turn. How now do you think you are going to compete when youare buying transports and bombers? I would just station Japans fleet in a place where I could counter attack anywhere you went since you don’t have any staying power. Right now in my current game I have 13 subs 3 destroyers and 1 carrier more than my starting fleet on J5. What now?
As america, I would more than welcome a naval war of attrition with Japan. The transports I am deploying in the Pacific, I didn’t buy…. I started the game with them, besides, they are needed to regain the Philippines or retake other Islands in the south. The bombers attack at 4 (great for mopping up after big battles), and with 8 friendly air bases I wouldn’t call them a poor purchase. Also, if your buying so many ships as Japan, that will definitely take the pressure off the mainland China and Calcutta, if that happens… American has accomplished its goal IMO.
As for putting boats in the water, look at my US turns #5 & #6, and imagine that happening for the rest of the game. I’m not saying there is no answer for it, I’m saying that its pretty scary for Japan.
Im wondering if when ROCmonster says ships he means subs? because I dont see what other kinds of ships Japan will be buying in such large numbers.
Im wondering if when ROCmonster says ships he means subs? because I dont see what other kinds of ships Japan will be buying in such large numbers.
If Japan buys 10 subs per turn…. Great! That means no mainland factories or tanks and infantry to place on them. America can counter with 5 destroyers and 5 subs of their own.
I have yet to loose a game as axis and my japan has yet to meet much ressistance. I will never give america the oppertunity to kill my ships unless I am extremely favored to win the battle. Say I loose 80 worth of IPC value and he looses 140. Japan can take these losses all day. My japan has me building a factory turn 1 and 3 ground units a turn after that. This has been enough in each of my games to easily over run china and UK india. Since US has to build in Western US your fleet will always be smaller than mine until turn 9 at earliest since I won’t cound fleet built off western US until it gets to pearl and can be a threat. Also Japan buys first so you have to take that into account also. My japan every game has made in the 70’s from turn 4-6 onward. 12 of those are destined for ground units in my factory, but I will build 60 dollars worth of ships after these. That is 10 subs. With Japans starting air force it will take forever for US to start Island hopping and taking away Japans money. Also you are building transports as US. This doesn’t constitute as a naval ship that is even less navy that you are buying. I agree that 5 subs and 5 destroyers is tough for japan to deal with and eventually you will outproduce japan in navy, but by then UK india will be gone for sure and russia would have lost a ton of land in its underbelly and soviet far east area. Japan would be making 80 dollars or even more. UK india is not hard to kill. Around turn 4 on India will be making 4-6 dollars a turn at most. while japan is still pumping out 3 ground units a turn as well as having completely killed off china and the 21 planes japan starts with India is toast. I don’t see a way to stop it.
I have yet to loose a game as axis and my japan has yet to meet much ressistance. I will never give america the oppertunity to kill my ships unless I am extremely favored to win the battle. Say I loose 80 worth of IPC value and he looses 140. Japan can take these losses all day. My japan has me building a factory turn 1 and 3 ground units a turn after that. This has been enough in each of my games to easily over run china and UK india. Since US has to build in Western US your fleet will always be smaller than mine until turn 9 at earliest since I won’t cound fleet built off western US until it gets to pearl and can be a threat. Also Japan buys first so you have to take that into account also. My japan every game has made in the 70’s from turn 4-6 onward. 12 of those are destined for ground units in my factory, but I will build 60 dollars worth of ships after these. That is 10 subs. With Japans starting air force it will take forever for US to start Island hopping and taking away Japans money. Also you are building transports as US. This doesn’t constitute as a naval ship that is even less navy that you are buying. I agree that 5 subs and 5 destroyers is tough for japan to deal with and eventually you will outproduce japan in navy, but by then UK india will be gone for sure and russia would have lost a ton of land in its underbelly and soviet far east area. Japan would be making 80 dollars or even more. UK india is not hard to kill. Around turn 4 on India will be making 4-6 dollars a turn at most. while japan is still pumping out 3 ground units a turn as well as having completely killed off china and the 21 planes japan starts with India is toast. I don’t see a way to stop it.
You obviously didn’t read the blue print in which I started this thread. If you are buying factories and ground units to get the income you claim you will have, than my plan has our fleets at equal strength as early as round 3. You are confusing my strategy with your opponents who allows you the freedom to build, without matching you boat for boat, and spends at least half of his income in Europe, thats not my blueprint. My strategy has America spending at least 90% of their money in the Pacific, in later rounds its 100%. I don’t see how Japan’s income can compete with that seeing as the positioning of my fleet will make it near impossible for Japan to land on dutch islands, and the parade of destroyers and cruisers on their way to disrupt convoys will shot down aircraft later in the game, but if you think your taking Calcutta without loosing planes or sinking my navy without losing yours, than you’ve lost me. The scenario you present has Japan running over China, capturing Calcutta, hoping on Islands, and out producing the US navy…… IN WHAT GAME, AND WITH WHICH OPPONENT???. I’m not saying my plan is full proof or without risk, but the victory condition in the Pacific states that you must have 6 victory cities at the end of a round, my strategy makes that end impossible, I don’t care how much you’re making. If you setup you’re board and make the US purchases and movements stated my blue print, you will see that you will never do everything you claim your Japan can do. No offense.
I have yet to loose a game as axis…
Just come and play online in here, and that will happen in no time… :wink:
Yes is US builds 90% fleet japan has no chance to match. I just saw you were building transports which don’t count as fleet units. I bet I would loose with axis vs a good opponet. The allies have an advantage though I see it as very slight. The allies are just a much tougher country to play. Will take a little while to find out a good strategy to play as them.
Yes is US builds 90% fleet japan has no chance to match. I just saw you were building transports which don’t count as fleet units. I bet I would loose with axis vs a good opponet. The allies have an advantage though I see it as very slight. The allies are just a much tougher country to play. Will take a little while to find out a good strategy to play as them.
I agree, also once the rules stop changing, it will be easier to construct consistent and proven strategies for both sides.
Grasshopper, I was wondering if you’ve ever heard of/tried the “fortress DIE” strat? In short it has the ANZAC grabbing one of the DEI islands, usually Java (I think), on their first turn and then building an airbase on it on their second turn. The idea, as near as I can tell, is to then have the UK Indian forces land more troops and the US fly airforces there to try and keep the Japanese tied up in the DEI longer and keep them from geting the NO associated with it. Do you think an idea like this would work well with your over all blue print put forward here?
Grasshopper, I was wondering if you’ve ever heard of/tried the “fortress DIE” strat? In short it has the ANZAC grabbing one of the DEI islands, usually Java (I think), on their first turn and then building an airbase on it on their second turn. The idea, as near as I can tell, is to then have the UK Indian forces land more troops and the US fly airforces there to try and keep the Japanese tied up in the DEI longer and keep them from geting the NO associated with it. Do you think an idea like this would work well with your over all blue print put forward here?
I understand where your going with that. But I personally don’t worry about Japan getting their island NO with the American fleet off the coast of Queensland. I am, however, considering an ANZAC airbase purchase for either an island or western Australia for the purpose of using their initial fighters in a mop up role after big naval attrition battles between Japan and the States.
Won’t work. Japan is a superpower, and until US comes into play anzac, india, and china can’t hold on their own. If I see anzac doing this and building an airbase I am licking my chops as japan. That is a waste of 15 dollars. Japan will have 3-5 transports in range including 3 carriers and 4 bombarding units. NO way allies can hold it. Yes it will keep the NO out of japan’s hand for a turn, but why waste 15 on airbase and your planes. That is 31 dollars on planes. Japan can easily take it for loss of none of it’s airforce. Just play defensive as allies in pacific until america can come and rescue you. Play to the end game not for turns 1-4. This is how allies are forced to play just because america’s income and units are not into the war until later in the game.
I am very confused on how you are thinkkng japan is letting you do attrition battles. How deos the japan you play let you attack his fleet when he is weak? I Like building carriers as Anzac later in the game. Right now in the game I am playing I have 6 planes as anzac and 2 carriers on turn 6.
I am very confused on how you are thinkkng japan is letting you do attrition battles. How deos the japan you play let you attack his fleet when he is weak? I Like building carriers as Anzac later in the game. Right now in the game I am playing I have 6 planes as anzac and 2 carriers on turn 6.
Attrition is not about who is attacking who, as America, I am happy if Japan is attacking my fleet, because I can sink ships in a Defence role as well. I have noticed in your comments that you believe Japan has units and money to burn as it is all regenative, and you feel that it is America that must guard their pieces as irriplacible assets. This is a very backwards point of view and I find it difficult rationalizing with you on that basis alone.
I believe it is this way for america until around turn 6-7. Japan’s navy will be large enough to attack US anywhere near queensland or the DEI. While your navy overall might be larger. The problem is that it takes 2 turns for your fleet built in western US to reach queensland. Like I posted previously Japan will be making int he 70’s so he has nearly as much as US. 12 of that is destined for ground units. So around 60 for ships. 10 subs. That is a lot of punch in attack power. Later in the game America will have fleet superiority if America continues to build at least 90% in pacific for 8-10 turns. Then japan will have to bow down to america and anzacs might. their combined fleets will just be too much too attack. Once America takes and holds phillipines that is game over for japan in the pacific, but if america is spending so much in pacific then I might just make russia’s life a living hell with japan and take russia out with germany. Making the atlantic side a very likely win. Since Japan herself has to be captured for allies to win I think russia would have fallen a long time before this. Would you like to see an outline of my axis strategy? Yet to loose with it :). While I’ve only played 6 games Vs. opponets and 2 Vs. myself I’ve played well over 1200 games of axis and allies. I’d love to have someone play with me that is an expert as well and we can go over certain strats and ideas while in game not caring who wins or looses. This is what I did with Zukov a couple years ago when 42 version came out. Got a lot of great idea’s. Anyone wish to do this with me?
Im sorry but this makes no sense to me. How is Japan getting to 70IPCs BEFORE America enters into the game? I mean it is possible, but not with out taking down the Uk in India and the Chinese and grabbing chunks of Russia AND taking the DEI. This is stretching Japans resources in several very different directions, meaning their overall strenght would be weakened by being spread out. This is no way you can achieve a 70IPC by spreading Japan out. You will need to focus japan at ONE objective first (like the DEI) and take that out right before you could move on to another (like taking Calcutta). Now I could see you being able to take the DEI and then be in a good position to push for Calcutta, you’d be in a prime position, and the DEI will double Japans economy but that still only makes it about 45-50IPC, while the US will be at 80IPC. Meanwhile you’ll still have to hack your way into India which means you WILL need to buy reinforcments for this front. So your fleet is being concentrated in the south and west of the pacific, this gives the US free regin, along with the ANZAC, to do what ever they want in the south east and central pacific(land on lightly defended islands, convoy raid, pick off lone ships) with Japan unable to do much to stop them, for atleast several turns unil they resolve whatever they are doing in the South and against India. Whatever you after you size the DEI, America would be able to match WITHOUT needing to spend the 90% income Grasshopper is suggesting.
In evergame I’ve played japan has taken out china +12. 2 russian territories +2. DEI and phillipines +17. Kwangtung and malaya +6. French indo china +2. Plus NO +5= 44 + 26 starting territories =70. Not to hard to do this. Should be accomplished by turn 5 as japan. If china is playing well your income will be around 68. This might lend itself to more russian territories though. Your fleet doesn’t neccessarily need to be in malaya as you suggest. Malaya though is a great place to counter any US and anzac movements. 3 ground units built a turn is enough to take out UK india with starting off units as well. The reason is because UK india is making 4-6 at max from turns 4 till end of game if they last that long. Take a look at the game between gaaza and me on the play by email games. Look at how I’ve played japan. This might give you an idea of what I’m talking about.
I have to agree with Clyde, The only way to make that kind of money that early would surly mean attacking the Pacific Allies and therefore bringing America in the war, which makes my strategy easier to acomplish. Attacking the Pacific allies means no $10 peace time NO for Japan and gives America a sure $20 bonus. I don’t think you and your friend are playing the rules right, but I would very much like to see your detailed Japan strategy for the first 3 rounds the way I did to begin this thread. That way we can identify where this $70 income in coming from.
I actually don’t attack the allies until turn 3 or 4 depending on what anzac and UK do. I like your strategy grasshopper I just think capital ships should be bought few and far between. I like 2-3 carriers with US and 2 BB’s at most. All my other buys with US being subs and a couple destroyers and planes. Fodder units are hugely important. This is why a tank rush doesn’t work. You need cheap units to take the hits so your expensive units can keep attacking at later levels.
