Yanny - re-read my previous post. I understand that the Japanese Phillipine transport can’t make it to India on turn 1 if the UK moves their transport to French Indo-China. In this case, I said I’d attack China instead.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the first turn IC in French Indo-China, the last game I played saw the Allies lose India in turn 1 and China AND Sinkiang in turn 2. Turn 1 - 4 infantry and 2 aircraft takes India. 1 fighter destroys UK transport in India (your suggestion). USA retreats all 4 infantry and fighter to Sinkiang to protect their new IC. Japan takes Sinkiang AND China in turn 2. No Allied armor to worry about. Japan is now ahead of schedule thanks to Allied gifts. Japan doesn’t need to buy further IC’s. Germany also holds Africa 3 times as long due to the lose of UK IPC’s needlessly in Asia. Japan re-enforces African defense with minimal forces. Russia falls. Its’s over for the Allies…
US needs Russia to support an IC in Sinkiang, i nevertheless never build an IC in Asia when playing Allies. Id rather save the IPC’s to take Germany down as quick as possible. And losing an IC close to Russia is very dangerous.
Agreed. It makes more sense to have Britian take back Africa ASAP, defend as best as possible in India, and later have units moving from Africa to Asia to deal with the Japanese…
“Slow and Steady wins the race”
you may have tanks getting to Moscow in 2 turns, but every turn I have 12 infantry on the way. 12 Infantry a turn X 4 turns - 48 Infantry. THATS how I beat russia.
I know a lot of players who use the No Asian IC playout, and I find it makes for Japan to get too much too fast. Japan can get 16 infantry a turn (8 transports + 48 economy) easily. 16 Infantry a turn can put up one hell of a fight for moscow.
And 48 economy isnt really that hard without Asian IC (3 for Australia + New Zealand, 2 For Persia and Syria, 4 for China and Sinkang, 3 for India, 10 for Russian Provinces (Yakut, Far easy, Provinces connecting to Russia) can bring you to 45 alone. 3 more is easy to pick up in Africa)
Thats more than russia and Britain combined are gonna be making, and they still need to deal with Germany.
Also, what would you do with Japan’s fleet in the Atlantic or Med. Sea by turn 4 or 5? I can see Germany taking back Africa if Japan can get it’s fleet there.
I posted this before, this site explains the basic strategies I use.
http://donsessays.freeservers.com/
Great site. And although I don’t completely agree with him on some points, he has good explanations for all of his strategies.
Read some of Don’s site. I noticed you’ve quoted a good part of it. The infantry guidelines work great for Russia, Germany, and for the most part the US. Britian needs fast strike units to cause damage to the Axis. This generates itself in 2 areas. 1. Assisting US fleet offense/defense in Europe. 2. Retaking and fortifying Africa to assault Asia ASAP. A first turn IC in India has a limited lifespan for a Japanese player looking to take it for their own needs early. The UK withdrawaling too many units to India from Africa to protect the IC will find a longer war against the Germans in Africa. The Allies don’t have the time for the British to eventually get infantry somewhere. As for Japan, an infantry push against Allied Asian IC’s, later British armor from Africa, and freed up Russian infantry (turn 4 for the US to land significant forces in Europe) will end Japanese offensive capabilities. Japan, by the end of turn 2, needs to hit Russian Asia AND have 1 or both Allied IC’s. Japan needs the NP ASAP, this is the way with that French Indo-Chinese IC.
Don’s Japan strategy seems to downsize the UK’s potential. After securing Africa ASAP they are a serious offensive force to reckon with. The initial Allied forces in Asia stall Japan enough for the US to get things moving in Europe so the Russians can deal with Japan along with the British offensive from Africa…
Read some of Don’s site. I noticed you’ve quoted a good part of it. The infantry guidelines work great for Russia, Germany, and for the most part the US. Britian needs fast strike units to cause damage to the Axis. This generates itself in 2 areas. 1. Assisting US fleet offense/defense in Europe. 2. Retaking and fortifying Africa to assault Asia ASAP. A first turn IC in India has a limited lifespan for a Japanese player looking to take it for their own needs early. The UK withdrawaling too many units to India from Africa to protect the IC will find a longer war against the Germans in Africa. The Allies don’t have the time for the British to eventually get infantry somewhere. As for Japan, an infantry push against Allied Asian IC’s, later British armor from Africa, and freed up Russian infantry (turn 4 for the US to land significant forces in Europe) will end Japanese offensive capabilities. Japan, by the end of turn 2, needs to hit Russian Asia AND have 1 or both Allied IC’s. Japan needs the NP ASAP, this is the way with that French Indo-Chinese IC.
Don’s Japan strategy seems to downsize the UK’s potential. After securing Africa ASAP they are a serious offensive force to reckon with. The initial Allied forces in Asia stall Japan enough for the US to get things moving in Europe so the Russians can deal with Japan along with the British offensive from Africa…
Sorry, messed up and posted twice…
I hate doing that :smile:
May I ask how, in two turns, you plan to take BOTH Allied ICs. Assuming you block india, attack China first turn. and have 6 inf 1 tank in Yakut, 1 inf in Soviet Far East. (My standart Playout) with either a build of transports or ICs.
Reread the above post. If China is Japan’s turn 1 target, turn 2 should see Japan take Sinkiang with the combined forces from China/French Indo-China. This takes the US out of the picture. Britian has the choice of attacking with 6 units trying to regain ground and thinning themselves out, or hold back with 9 units after purchasing. India is nearly encircled (Germany still holding North Africa at this point). Unless there’s a British IC in South Africa, there’s no help there. Transported troops from Europe or America will take some time to get close enough to help; by then the damage is done. India will last maybe 2 or 3 turns with this scenario. The Japanese IC in FIB applies the pressure to make this work. By this time (turns 4 or 5) the northern Japanese force (transported infantry and fighters then armor after NP is high enough) is already taking most of Russian Asia…
Your betting no Russian Support, and I still don’t see how you could do that in so many turns, seeing as you ANY infantry beyond what you started with on the southern front. This will result in not many hits to take, and a Suicidlal British tank attack could hurt you very much.
Taking Sinkiang in turn 2 takes the Russians out of the equation. In the first 2 turns, Russia is too pre-occupied with Germany to move any units into Asia beyond the original 8 (7 infantry/1 armor). Turn 3 sees the first purchased Russian infantry moving into the area. Russia doesn’t have the resources for even a limited offense against Japanese held Sinkiang at this point. At best, they can only hold their own territories. Yakut, if not in Japanese hands in turn 2, will be in turn 3. This is a greater concern to the Russian player. India, even with 9 units in turn 3, is surrounded and seriously threatened. To attack means thinning out units, if this is the delay tactic, but quicker death also. Japanese held French Indo-China should have at least 6 to 8 units including 3 fighters (with IC). Britian can take it with high casualties. In the Japanese turn they could take India AND FIB due to the lack of available British units. This is Allied Asian IC death by turns 4 or 5. Again, is it worth the Allied IPC’s for 1 or 2 turns delay?
But my point is, assuming an attack on Sinkang turn two, you only have whats Left from the China attack and fighters to perform it. By the time you can attack with those tanks from your IC, Britain will of gotten the first move. Which, more than likely, will be toward your IC. You won’t let that happen of course, but when you see it coming you will be forced to shift infantry down to Indochina, thereby keeping pressure off the Russians.
Actually, I do have more units. In turn 1, I attack China with 4 infantry (2 from FIB and 2 from Kwangtung). I move in all 4 available aircraft (3 fighters and the bomber). This leaves with usually 2 infantry left. I have Japan transport the 4 infantry to protect the new IC in FIB. I land 2 fighters there. 2 or 3 fighters go to Manchuria (depending on Russian moves). In turn 2 I have 6 infantry (2 in China,4 in FIB), and 3 or 4 aircraft to attack the US in Sinkiang’s 2 infantry. At the same time, Japan attacks the Soviet Far East with available Manchurian forces and the bomber. Most players leave the Soviet Far East more weakly defended than Yakut for strategic reasons. It’s an easy capture and it sets you up for the real attack in Yakut with remaining forces in the Soviet Far East and newly transported infantry in Manchuria from returning transports. Back down south at the end of turn 2, Sinkiang will have 4 or 5 Japanese infantry. FIB has 3 armor and 3 fighters. Britian’s turn 3 faces this with 2 infantry, 3 armor, and a fighter in India. What will the UK do? Attack Sinkiang is easier, but then face powerful forces from FIB. Attacking FIB is extremely risky, if it works. Good chance it won’t. You can also not attack and try to hold off a powerful Japanese counter-attack with 9 UK units. Not very good choices all around. Usually India is taken by Japan in turn 3 or 4. Is the British IC in India worth this defeat?
Yes, yes it is. You just showed me what you would do in this case. what you did is the goal of the Indian IC. Thats 4 turns for Russia to prepare.
And btw I would attack Sinkang. Take out max amount of Tanks I could.
Either way Japan is played, Russia prepares. This puts maximum pressure on both fronts. At the end of turn 4/5, Allied Asia is nearly all in Japanese hands. How can you do better? An infantry push into Russian Asia leaves US/UK IC’s intact to harrass your infantry columns. Plus you don’t have the NP from the US/UK Asian territories to expand past purchasing 8 infantry a turn. You don’t have an IC in place operating to fend off British forces from Africa. An infantry push further south will be horribly harrassed by all Allies, encircled, and stopped. Limited NP and transports alone won’t allow an effective north and south fronts to work at the same time. It will be too weak splitting half the infantry in 2 areas.
Anyway you play it’s 4 minimum turns to Moscow. I’d rather have the Allies out of the picture in Asia when I get there. I like the NP and the ability to deal with Africa if and when needed. You can also spare your fleet with a transport to go take those nice weakly defended Allied Pacific posessions when possible.
Maybe Major-Damage is right. We can agree to disagree. But I think IT IS fun to post about it. What is this forum for? What else can we do here? We can learn from each other, what’s the harm in that? We give our strategies away on the battlefield anyway, why all the secrecy here? I’ll apologize to all if our debates are endless and tedious. But I’ll still do them. Yanny - it’s been great posting with you. To all - what good is no communication???
Btw, do you attack the East Med. Sub on turn 1? Attacking it has its advantages and disadvantages, but I would jus bring the sub to the Indian Ocean, keep my transport there. I dont think 1 fight 1 transport could get through to india (pretty even battle).
Yes, I have Germany destroy it to give the German Med fleet a turn or 2 longer life to transport to Africa. I know it may seem like a waste of an aircraft or 2 in turn 1, but if it survives the UK bomber and this sub can attack the German Southern Europe Fleet in turn 1. The UK player may lose both units, but further German transporting to Africa will at least be ended. I agree that it would be bad for Japan if that sub escaped to the Indian Ocean…
yeah, but your problem is what if the sub hits? Also, do you attack Egypt on Turn 1?
Sorry, should have clarified. I attack the sub with aircraft only. It’s so frustrating to miss, although that doesn’t happen too often.
As for the Egypt attack, I used to do it all the time to knock down UK forces. As you know this battle can go bad for the Germans at least half the time. Even if you win, your forces are weaker and spread thinner. This gives the UK a better chance of a successful counter-attack in turn 1.
I’ve found the initial German forces in Libya can move to down to Central Africa and then transport 2 infantry to Libya from SE. This gives the Germans a larger force in Africa to take Egypt (and the fleet the chance to take Syria) in turn 2 and gives the UK player in turn 1 some hard choices. A good UK move is to move Egyptian forces (at least one) to Syria. This secures the territory and allows landing their aircraft after attacking the German fleet in turn 2. Without Syria, the German fleet lasts at least 2 more turns. Bad for the British. I try to scare the UK player to make a stand in Egypt in turn 2 and leave Syria weak or undefended. Germany keeping the Med with their fleet helps this scare (although Germany knows this is vital for a stronger attack in Africa/Syria in turn 2).
Anyway this usually gives Germany a fair stand at least in Egypt for a few turns. It could also take and hold the continent for a short time. Either way it delays the Allies and lowers UK NP possibly long enough to win…
Ok, sounds like what I do too. In this case as UK, seeing a smart German player, I would pull out of Africa. 3 Extra infantry and 1 tank arent going to do much in the long run.
