1. Japan still has large chance of winning the game even after Germany has fallen. However, this all has to do with proper timing. Usually the ideal situation that Japan should position itself in is this:
a. Let Germany fall to the Russians (now in really life Patton and his 3rd should’ve taken Berlin… but that is a different story).
b. If you really want to damage the Allies in the long run, also let the Russians take Eastern Europe, Norway, and Ukraine on the previous turns, and on the same turn Berlin falls, let the Russians take Southern Europe.
c. On Japan’s turn, use your massive ARM, ftr, and inf force to storm Moscow! (again, not in real life… but it’s just a game)
d. Now by Japan taking Moscow, what have I done? Not only is Russia knocked out of the game, but most of Eastern Europe along with it. The former territories I told you about: Ukraine, EE, SE, Norway, and Germany have all effectively become worthless territories (not to mention Karelia and Caucasus until Japan can take them). Effectively I have robbed USA and UK of (3+3+2+6+10) 24 potential German IPCs!
e. Now this is the real killing joke. When I take a Capital that means I collect all the IPCs that the former owner of the captured capital has. Not only am stripping the Russian economy but the Germans IPCs too, which were previously under Russian control.
f. Spend all my money on tanks and infantry from which I can overrun the Allies.
If by ‘large chance’ you mean Japan has say, a 20% chance of winning I might buy it, but otherwise we’ll just have to agree to disagree. What you have described sounds more like the optimal situation for Japan that presents the only way they would have a chance of winning – I certainly wouldn’t consider it the norm. I know what you mean about the former Russian territories being worthless, but it usually only applies to Karelia, Caucasus, and Ukraine. Maybe I’m the only one, but I seem to always wind up taking EE and Germany with the UK or more often the US – it’s rarely with Russia. If the game is that close, most of my Russian troops are in Russia. Usually the Japan player just throws in the towel, so I don’t think that too many are played out to begin with.
2. I don’t think the majority of Axis and Allies players use 2-hit battleships, as they are not currently sanctioned under Official Axis and Allies Tournaments – or last time I checked.
You may be right, but in my A&A world (which is mostly online play, Spring1942, the zone, and my circle of friends) they do. I know that the IAAPA still uses 2nd Edition rules…
3. Sorry, don’t know what you mean when you say I have effectively eliminated the Japanese fleet as an early useful force in the game. Usually on the opening turns with Japan, I only consider one thing, getting as many troops as I can into Asia. On a closer examination there is not many Asian coastal territories within the striking distance of the Japanese fleet even if it still was at Hawaii. I can only rule the Soviet Far East and India as the only real available Asian coastal territories and both can be taken within the first three turns, the Far East especially. It is not until at least turn 3 do I make any actual attempts as island conquering (ie Australia, Hawaii). On the contrary, if I do not take out the American battleship, it gives the Allies the huge benefit on not building any Naval units to protect transports against Luftwaffe attacks.
Don’s quote, not mine. I think he’s talking about the fighters being out of position, i.e. they would be better used pushing the assault in the mainland. Not to mention the fact that you will probably lose both planes – even with 1-hit battleships it’s an attack with bad odds. If the US brings a transport from the East Coast then Japan has about a 60% chance of losing both fighters. I’ve seen people do it anyway to force the US to build another capital ship and you can always get lucky, but I personally think the 2 Fighters are more valuable to Japan then the Battleship is to the US. It’s just a bad move anyway you look at it. He could also be talking about swinging the fleet around South America.
4. I have read some of Don’s essays, and I can tell you that they are extremely influential. In fact, all of my A&A: Allies strategies take something from them. However, I can say Don’s essays are perfect. There are people at these forums, including myself, that have beaten other players that stick to Don’s essays to the letter. Besides, there is nothing very appealing to the standard buy all infantry each turn.
I’m sure you meant not perfect, and I agree with you 100% - they are somewhat antiquated, a little overzealous – especially about “use these opening moves or you will lose”, and the infantry buildup game is certainly the most boring strategy in A&A – but it does still give the Allies the best chance of winning, and the basic concepts are extremely valuable to beginning and intermediate players.
“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truly counts” –
I like the quote! I’m a big fan of WWII and WWI air combat. I am lucky enough to have one of the largest private libraries on WWI aviation about 5 minutes from my house, at the University of Texas at Dallas.
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 12:20 ]
