A strong Japan can beat all 3 allies on its own, with Ger down, so Id say Japan is the strongest.
Tisk, Tisk Alex you really think a strong Japan can take down all three Allies when Berlin has fallen. I’ve found this not to be true unless the Japs can take Moscow very soon after the fall of Berlin. Remember what the emperor Nuno said about the weakest countries, and how America was actually the weakest.
Between you and me, the US ist they key most of the time when its Jap vs the rest, so I hear ya when you say US is weakest. I have taken advantage more often than not (I had expected these opponents to see the problems coming). I think you have to very very carefull to say the least when you are fighting a strong Japan, even when Germany is down.
I think when determing the strongest country you might need to define what you are looking for. Strong in attack, strong in defense, strong in the beginning, strong in the end, flexibility etc.
A.
See I’ve found a way lately in which the Allies can surrender Moscow and still win. It’s very hard to set up, and I wouldn’t advise it for anyone that isn’t very experienced in the game but I do think you can lose it and still win.
I’ll vote for Japan for slightly different reasons… They are not sandwiched like Germany between Russia and UK (and feeling US heat by Rd2). The Japanese start with the best fleet and the most opportunity to grab land in Asia. They may not capture many capitols, but they cause the fall of a couple. They make it easier for Germany to take Moscow and/or London. And if things get out of control fo the Allies, they can threaten the US significantly later in the game.
I enjoy playing Japan when I can for that reason. They have the most potential to dominate the outcome of the game.
Between you and me, the US ist they key most of the time when its Jap vs the rest, so I hear ya when you say US is weakest. I have taken advantage more often than not (I had expected these opponents to see the problems coming). I think you have to very very carefull to say the least when you are fighting a strong Japan, even when Germany is down.
Would you clarify this please? What do you think needs to occur for Japan to be strong enough to hold out once Berlin has fallen and its 3 on 1? I have my own ideas but I’d like to hear what you have to say.
I must decline respectfully. There are a few pearls I dont want to share and this is one of them. What I can share is that part of it is the surprise effect, part of it is a strong (inf) presence in Asia and an important part among others is flexibilty….
I must decline respectfully. There are a few pearls I dont want to share and this is one of them.
You know this sounds like something Nuno would say, and you may be quite good, but you are not Nuno good.
Well would you at least agree that if Japan can’t take Moscow very soon after the fall of Berlin that their cause is hopeless.
True, this sounds a bit like Nuno, with one difference. This must be about the first time I have made a reserved response, where Nuno does this all the time. :)
As far as your comment: I dont agree
btw, did you base your player strength judgement on analysing our dicelogs?…. ;)
btw, did you base your player strength judgement on analysing our dicelogs?….
Not entirely of course. Nuno has shown an ability to defeat quality players during the CLIT, and has always maintained an impressive win loss percentage.
As far as your comment: I dont agree
Well that’s great you talk about how you want to have a good discussion, but then purposely stop short. Why did you bring it up to begin with. Surely you had to know I would ask questions about that.
If you would read this thread a bit mor closely you would see that a lot of it is already out there. I am not going to spell it out more.
Japan and US are the most powerful countries in the game since neither needs much support to get going and their capitals are isolated and safe from any invasion. They can solely focus on offense and a single front.
Plus Japan’s income always hits 40+ and stays there, while the US’s stays in the 30’s.
Russia and Germany are weak in the sense that they must fight on multiple sides and often All Infantry buys are required just to maintain their borders. They also need help from their Allies. Russia needs UK and US support to hold Kar or even Moscow, while Germany needs Japan to hopefully pressure Russia from the East. While Germany’s income may stay in the 30’s even approach 40, they just have too much to defend to maintain a very high IPC count for very long without Japan. And Russia rarely hits 30 in IPC, and if it does, chances are the Allies are already winning big.
UK is also weak beacause it too relays heavily on its Allies, esp the US, to maintain its world wide empire and keep its income in the high 20’s. UK has the potential to be poweful (as do Ger and Rus) but Africa needs to be secured and you still need US ships and ftrs to keep your fleet afloat.
UK’s income may also appraoch 30, but they require US support in Afr to get there.
But again, the US and Japan need no help to get rolling. Also, both Japan and the US have the power to dictate what type of game you are going to play independently of their other Allies, based on which front they are going to concentrate on.
A strong Japan can beat all 3 allies on its own, with Ger down, so Id say Japan is the strongest.
Without tech ie HBs I don’t think so. Is this your secret? You’re not the first to play a tech strategy. This statement is the most revealing in of itself because it indicates you believe the Japs can actually capture 2 capitals and win w/o M84. At first I thought perphaps you were advocating a M84 push with Japan which I think given the right circumstances would work. However, unless Russia sacks its army to destroy the Wehrmacht and America screws up I don’t see this as happening. IMO the way to play against an isolated Japan is to push for tech because you can afford it and they can’t. Further, if Moscow holds it is going to be very hard for Japan to SBR the Uk unless the Brits take Berlin or SEuro, so I prefer to take these for the US especially because when the US has them it pushes their income over 50 making it that much harder to Nuke them. So in my opinion the way to play America is to swing the fleet to the Med(if possible) build some guys, but concentrate on getting major techs, and leaving the stacking to Russia/Uk. However, I would add that often I don’t stack with the Uk either. The most important thing is to reduce Japans options ie their versatility as you call it. When I think of versatile units only two types come to mind, navy and air. So I consider it paramount for the Allies to target the Jap navy early and often once Berlin goes down. Even if I can’t kill them I want to make them retreat back to the FIC/JapSz corridor. Once this happens Africa and Asia become much easier to deal with.
If you would read this thread a bit mor closely you would see that a lot of it is already out there. I am not going to spell it out more.
And as I said before this is weak, especially when no other AAMCers or other club participants come here. I already have my own ideas I just wanted to compare them to yours. In the case of Nuno et al they have a very strong win % as both the Allies and the Axis. IMO this is the most key stat as it shows an ability to win regardless of dice, a point Nuno made often. I used to believe a bid of 23 was unbeatable, however recently I’ve played games where I lost 4/9 of the Allied airforce on turn 1 yet still won decisively by turn 6. While you are a good player I am unconvinced you have as much insight as you claim because of your win/loss %. If you could/have tried some of these ideas against the likes of Aramesh/JFink and had success then my scepticism would be reduced, but until then.
Japan and US are the most powerful countries in the game since neither needs much support to get going and their capitals are isolated and safe from any invasion. They can solely focus on offense and a single front.
Plus Japan’s income always hits 40+ and stays there, while the US’s stays in the 30’s.
No they aren’t the strongest because they are so far from any other capitals, and this is why they can so readily concentrate on offense. The nearest capital to the US is the UK which is 2 turns away, Berlin is 3, and Russia is 4. This reflects how long it takes newly created troops to go from being produced to reaching these vital fronts. The US like Japan is a big island, and because of this it is very easy to defend, but it is also very hard to mount an ongoing offensive, especially if you don’t get sufficent help from an Ally. IMO production is not as important as many make it out to be. For example, which is better off Germany with 40 or Japan with 40. I’d take Germany every time. In fact how much production must Japan have to equal Germany with 40, my guess would be close to 60.
Huh??? About the turns. It takes Germany 3 turns to get to Kar, 4 to get to Mos and vice versa for Russia. And with the UK navy in the UK sz it takes them 3 to get to Kar as well. Turn length has nothing to do with strength of country.
Japan and the US are strong precisely because they are isolated and their Capitals are never in threat of being taken. After Turn 2 Japan has minimum 34 IPC and one focus - get to Moscow! While the US will have 32 IPC and its 6 trannies and one focus - get Germany!
It is very easy to mount an offensive with both Japan and the US. One focus, get infantry to your front.
Japan - turn 1 buy trns, inf. Turn 2 buy trans, inf. Turn 3 buy trans and inf. Turn 4 buy inf. Turn 5 etc…
You have a massive economic machine flowing.
US - turn 1 buy trns, inf. Turn 2 buy trans inf while setting up the train from US to Canada. Turn 3 buy trans and inf. Turn 4 buy inf. Turn 5 etc…
The train is set up and now every turn you have 10-12 inf going to Europe.
Again, you have the economic machine of the US flowing.
The question was which is the strongest country, not which country starts out the strongest.
I think you have your numbers backward for Germany and Japan. Say 42 IPC - 14 inf. Germany must divide the 14 between Afr, WE, EE Whereas Japan can throw 14 inf right at Russia. Japan is stronger that way. Germany is the one that needs the 60.
Japan can get away with far less IPCs than Germany. Germany just has too many fronts to cover to be the game dominator. As does Russia, and the UK needs too much help to be considered a singular powerhouse.
It takes Germany 3 turns to get to Kar, 4 to get to Mos and vice versa for Russia.
And how long does it take for the Americans to get to Karelia? I count 2 turns for the Germans to get to Karelia, but more importantly only 1 turn to actually threaten Karelia, perphaps less if we are talking about tanks
Turn length has nothing to do with strength of country.
I disagree.
Japan and the US are strong precisely because they are isolated and their Capitals are never in threat of being taken. After Turn 2 Japan has minimum 34 IPC and one focus - get to Moscow! While the US will have 32 IPC and its 6 trannies and one focus - get Germany!
No they are the safest. The flip side of this isolation means it takes them longer to get in the fight than it does other powers. Any unit purchased by Germany has an immediate affect defensively, and perphaps offensively if they are tanks. Besides Japan with 34ipcs on turn 2 is no big deal.
It is very easy to mount an offensive with both Japan and the US. One focus, get infantry to your front.
Which takes time. German and Russian units are immediately effective.
You have a massive economic machine flowing.
US - turn 1 buy trns, inf. Turn 2 buy trans inf while setting up the train from US to Canada. Turn 3 buy trans and inf. Turn 4 buy inf. Turn 5 etc…
The train is set up and now every turn you have 10-12 inf going to Europe.
Again, you have the economic machine of the US flowing.
But this machine will still be very innefficient since as much as 60ipcs of troops will not be at your fronts.
I think you have your numbers backward for Germany and Japan. Say 42 IPC - 14 inf. Germany must divide the 14 between Afr, WE, EE Whereas Japan can throw 14 inf right at Russia.
But the Allies, especially Russia can bleed this advantage away by successful strafes and making Japan invest in land grab trades accross the board. If Japan loses 6inf a turn to trading then they are really only adding 8inf a turn which is not as significant as 14.
I think you have your numbers backward for Germany and Japan. Say 42 IPC - 14 inf. Germany must divide the 14 between Afr, WE, EE Whereas Japan can throw 14 inf right at Russia. Japan is stronger that way. Germany is the one that needs the 60.
Japan can get away with far less IPCs than Germany. Germany just has too many fronts to cover to be the game dominator. As does Russia, and the UK needs too much help to be considered a singular powerhouse.The Uk I might agree with, but at the same time they really don’t have any territory they have to hold, as for Africa America is better suited for that anyway. Because of this the UK can make the biggest difference of them all. It is because Germany and Russia occupy the center of the board that makes them powerful. Germany doesn’t NEED 60ipcs, although I’m sure there are those that could find a way not to win with it. The problem I see is that most players play Germany incredibly defensively assuming this is the only way they can win. At the same time they play Japan very defensively too by merely stacking troops. This infantry stacking game is not one that is wise for the Axis to play as they should almost always lose it. The Axis must reduce the strategic positioning of the Allies. This doesn’t mean they need Africa, unless its for some easy cash, it means they must press Russia via Karelia and Novo if the Axis is to win. Africa may be a means unto an end, but not an end itself.
I agree with you there on what the Axis should do and their objectives, i.e. press Russia.
I’m not debating the ability of Rus to stop/slow down Japan or Ger stopping the US and the Allies. I’m not debating strategy, or I don’t mean to.
But the Allies, especially Russia can bleed this advantage away by successful strafes and making Japan invest in land grab trades accross the board. If Japan loses 6inf a turn to trading then they are really only adding 8inf a turn which is not as significant as 14.
True but Japan should have 12 inf right behind it, so now they have 18 inf. I’ll invite strafes by Russia, infantry are much better on defense, then on offense. Now is Russia going to strafe 18 inf? I don’t think so, but even if they do, fine I’m down to 12, but I have 12 more so I’m up to 24. It is very quickly going to become clear to Russia that strafe is no longer possible. Plus Japan has ftrs that can defend as well.
It is not the singular effect of 12 inf a turn that makes Japan so strong, it is the cumulative effect of having 12 inf at your disposal each turn from rd 4 on. That means if Russia has 24 IPC, they must take off 4 inf from Jap each turn just to stay even and that is neglecting the German front and the losses Russia will take in their battle with Japan.
But this machine will still be very innefficient since as much as 60ipcs of troops will not be at your fronts.
True, but Ger has to deal with the combined effort of R, UK, US. Once you have your troops in E Can it is one turn to Fin, 1 turn to Kar. That equals the 1 turn placement by Ger and the 1 turn move to EE. Each side at 2 turns. Now it is a race for the offensive adv.
IMO after about rd 3, it is insignificant that it takes longer for troops to reach their respective fronts because once the pipeline is set up it is as if you have immediate reinforcements. Plus it is always going to take longer for reinforcements to reach the front for which ever side is on the offensive. As Ger takes Kar it takes an extra turn for German troops to get there, likewise if Russia takes EE it will take them an extra turn to get from Kar to EE. But this is true for all countries so I don’t consider it when I’m looking at the overall strength of a country.
Perhaps were looking at strength of a country differently. I’m looking at it as countries that need as little help as possible from their Allies to get going or survive. I’m also considering which Capitals generally fall. In my opinion if Rus or Ger were the strongest then their capitals would never fall because there would be “easier/weaker” countries to take out first. But that is not the case, in almost every game it is a race for Moscow and Berlin (KJF strats aside).
The only thing that keeps me from ranking the UK as high as the US or Japan, is because they really do need the US to clean up Afr, and once India, Persia, Aus and NZ are taken they are lost for good. That is minus 7 IPC. So even with WE, that only puts them at 29 IPC, still not as strong as the 30-32 the US will have.
Now is Russia going to strafe 18 inf? I don’t think so, but even if they do, fine I’m down to 12, but I have 12 more so I’m up to 24.
Yes I will. If I have 9inf 11arm 2ftrs you’d better believe I’ll hit 18inf. Round 1 I get 8 hits, Japan 6 hits. Round 2 I should hit 7times, and Japan 3-4. The end result Russia strafes Japan for 15inf, and loses only 9. Since I have shorter supply lines I should be able to repeat the feat on the next turn if the Japs aren’t careful, but at the very least it prevents them from stacking Novo/Yakut for a couple of turns.
That means if Russia has 24 IPC, they must take off 4 inf from Jap each turn just to stay even and that is neglecting the German front and the losses Russia will take in their battle with Japan
But you yourself have said this can be dealt with by shucking Allied troops into Karelia to replace the Russians that have to go against Japan.
True, but Ger has to deal with the combined effort of R, UK, US. Once you have your troops in E Can it is one turn to Fin, 1 turn to Kar. That equals the 1 turn placement by Ger and the 1 turn move to EE. Each side at 2 turns. Now it is a race for the offensive adv.
Exactly my point, shucking guys is only a defensive move, but it is not going to supply much offensive pressure on the enemy. So how do you do that? I have some very distinct means which achieve this.
Plus it is always going to take longer for reinforcements to reach the front for which ever side is on the offensive.
Yes very true which is why the paradox of buy defense when on the offense, and buy offense ie tanks when on defense holds true. Maintaining deadzones and keeping a large enemy army a space or two away is a great and cheap form of defense.
I’m looking at it as countries that need as little help as possible from their Allies to get going or survive.
And this statement is indicative of what I see wrong here. You seem to think the game is merely a defensive struggle, whereas I want to exploit the other sides defensive weaknesses.
I’m also considering which Capitals generally fall. In my opinion if Rus or Ger were the strongest then their capitals would never fall because there would be “easier/weaker” countries to take out first.
Well suppose that I was clever enough to devise a strat which enabled the Axis to sneak in and capture either Washington or London, would that necessarily force capitulation for the Allies. I think not because as you’ve mentioned longterm pressure is not possible, but as such both are easy recapturable. In fact I’ve played games where I lost London early due to a clever sea lion maneuver and still won the game. The big thing is to not lose air defending these capitals.
The only thing that keeps me from ranking the UK as high as the US or Japan, is because they really do need the US to clean up Afr, and once India, Persia, Aus and NZ are taken they are lost for good. That is minus 7 IPC. So even with WE, that only puts them at 29 IPC, still not as strong as the 30-32 the US will have.
Again you focus to much on mere production. Yes the US will outproduce, but then again I mentioned how much of their Ipcs will be lost to transportation so they will never be 100% mobilized which the UK is. Also, I think the UK can clean up Africa all by themselves, but since they lose Aust and India they will never have much more than 24-27ipcs.
By the way NZ and Persia are not lost causes for the Brits.
Yes I will. If I have 9inf 11arm 2ftrs you’d better believe I’ll hit 18inf. Round 1 I get 8 hits, Japan 6 hits. Round 2 I should hit 7times, and Japan 3-4. The end result Russia strafes Japan for 15inf, and loses only 9. Since I have shorter supply lines I should be able to repeat the feat on the next turn if the Japs aren’t careful, but at the very least it prevents them from stacking Novo/Yakut for a couple of turns.
Your assuming Japan is going to walk into that. Which is false.
I was merely commenting on how Japan can reinforce, I had no specific scenerio in mind. If we go back to my initial comment – Japan having 12 inf and you made a comment about strafing and just threw out the number 6 for losses, and I said I’d reinforce with my 12 new inf. That is a lot different then 15 hits!!! I’m not going to walk into that!
For your initial comment of 6 losses to be true Russia would have (roughly) 6 inf (1 hit) 8 arm (4 hits) 2 ftrs (1 hit) vs. 12 inf. You do 6, I do 4. Your successful. Now how do you go from now having 2 inf, 8 arm, 2 ftrs to 9 inf and 11 arm? It can’t be done in one turn. Even if you buy 3 arm, 3 inf, that only puts you at 5 inf, 11 arm, 2 ftrs. Now you only having 1 strafing run before you start losing tanks and I’ll trade Japanese inf for tanks all day long. You are also neglecting Kar, but we can assume the US and UK are defending that, with minimal Russia support.
But I think as Germany I can win that.
Again, I’m not trying to discount Russia’s ability to hold off Japan. But we can both throw around numbers all day long to support our point because we have game experience and our ‘perfect scenerios’ (or our objective) in our head but without seeing the actual game board and how the earlier turns went down, we can each throw out numbers to support our side all day long.
It’s like the quote “everybody has a plan, until they get hit”. I can have a plan as Japan, but I also have to have the abilty to adjust to how Russia is playing.
Exactly my point, shucking guys is only a defensive move, but it is not going to supply much offensive pressure on the enemy. So how do you do that? I have some very distinct means which achieve this.
True, true, true. Depends on which side I am. If I’m the Allies and maintain the IPC adv I’ll play build up all day long. The pressure is all on the Axis to make something happen, and if they did then I’ll have to counter depending on what the board shows.
If I’m the Axis, I try to do as much damage as possible early to try and avoid the large build ups by the Allies. Germany has much of the offensive power it needs when they start and shouldn’t need large tank builds in masse to pressure the Allies. So does Japan, they have 5 ftrs, and 1 bom to start and 1 tank. They need inf for their Asian Empire.
And this statement is indicative of what I see wrong here. You seem to think the game is merely a defensive struggle, whereas I want to exploit the other sides defensive weaknesses.
Again depends on which side I am.
And no, I just think that Infantry are the best unit in the game by far.
They are quite valuable as an offensive weapon, esp if you have large stacks or just a few tanks for support. The overall value of the Infantry is unmatched in the game.
Well suppose that I was clever enough to devise a strat which enabled the Axis to sneak in and capture either Washington or London, would that necessarily force capitulation for the Allies. I think not because as you’ve mentioned longterm pressure is not possible, but as such both are easy recapturable. In fact I’ve played games where I lost London early due to a clever sea lion maneuver and still won the game. The big thing is to not lose air defending these capitals.
Things like that are anomalies and not indicative of the vast majority of games. That is why I left open the cavet of KJF strats. And I’m sorry there is no good reason anybody should ever lose London or Washington prior to the fall of Moscow. That is just poor play.
Again you focus to much on mere production. Yes the US will outproduce, but then again I mentioned how much of their Ipcs will be lost to transportation so they will never be 100% mobilized which the UK is. Also, I think the UK can clean up Africa all by themselves, but since they lose Aust and India they will never have much more than 24-27ipcs.
By the way NZ and Persia are not lost causes for the Brits.
Production is the key. It is all about the numbers. That is why the Allies are so hard to beat, bid or no bid. It is hard for the Axis to get a total IPC lead and hold it. And as long as the Allies hold say a 77-70 advantage and neither side can make signifanct gains to change this then all the Allies have to do is buy inf and wait out the Axis. Eventually after a long long game the 2 inf advantage will build up and after 10 more rounds the Allies will have 20 more inf on the board and after 15 they’d have 30 more inf and so on. Eventually this destroys the Axis.
That is why, IMO, the Axis must do something early and try to put pressure on the Allies. Whether it’s hold lots of Afr, try for Cauc-Kar, or something else.
Personally, I like to try and get the Axis to 70 by rd 3, and have the IPC lead by rd 4, and hold it. Just things I shoot for, and by no means does this mean the game is won or lost if this is or isn’t achieved, just some things I like to try and shoot for.
UK is most powerful then japan then us , gemany and russia is weakest. Gemany or russia always fall first thats why there weakest. It unlikely the others will fall first. Usually it’s a race to see who falls first and most likely the team who loses the first capitol loses.If UK and US team up on Germany while Germany and Japan team up on Russia the allies can usually win if enough fighters go to moskow,but timing UK to take Germany the move after russia falls nets most ipc’s thats why UK is strongest.
“We shall never surrender!” :P
