A few more ?s

Death Head, I think you are discussing Revised, not the original version of Axis and Allies.

I tend to plan with a bit more involvement than simply “see IPCs, must take”. :) The chief consideration for me is not the weight of one particular territory or its nationality, but the strategic situation taking it will create.

For instance, you mentioned the choice between taking Sinkiang and India. Sure, one is 2 American IPCs and the other 3 British and based on that consideration alone I should strike India, but look at where it will put my forces if I take Sink. Right smack under Russia. Sudenly the Russians will have a few more threatened territories and since I know they don’t usually have infantry to spare, if I have at least one armor in my force, I can blitz some of those IPCs. Even without armor, I can draw some of their forces out. If I have another force working up to Russia’s capital, that’ll be a nice help for them. If I don’t, presumably Germany does.

India, on the other hand is a nice choice because it will open the way to mideast territories that are usually ill-protected. It may make strategic sense to take if it is not too heavily defended. If it is, an attack there will be diverting a large force into a very bad position where it will have nothing to do for the next 1-3 turns.

In Africa, I don’t see how it matters that much if you hit UK or US territories. Both of them are overseas, so those IPCs would arrive on transports exactly one turn after being built anyway. So, when I do look at nationality, I mostly differentiate between Soviet and non-Soviet.

@Linkon:

There are fools and greater fools.

You should look for some of the threads that actually garner discussion.  The threads that are immediately disputed indicate strategic errors by the original poster.

Strategic errors, or game rule errors, Such as…

@googie7745:

You will probably wipe both forces out, but if you have a fighter left, land it in Karelia to better defend it against the Russians.

You cannot land airplanes in newly taken over territory.

I have to concur with the others who have posted.  A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go.  If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia.  While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units.  Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia).  Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too).  That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia.  So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it.  If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about.  YAKUT is the key for Japan.  Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces.  The drain on Russia:  defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support.  And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)

At the same time, consider that the first-turn fighter gives you an “early” defensive bonus.

But the Allies do not need an early defensive purchase. If played right the Germans should not be able to take Karelia until turn 5 or 6 at the earliest, and this is without fighter purchases. So considering this longterm reality the shorterm is of no consequence. In my experience the Allies win by limiting/reducing Germany’s ipc level and then reducing their income. With this in mind I’d say a bomber or a carrier is always a better purchase because of their obvious uses.

But I’ll tell you what, it’s nice to see some alternative views about how to take a new angle on the game.~kyrial

Thanks :D .

USA should help but it is not a priority usa does this by sendig its eastern fighter to the most western part of africa it can also send its bomber but that would be unwise (you can probrbly geuse why) :lol:

I just want to point out, that this even aplies if the transport doesn’t have to move. If the British want to use the Russian transport to ship toops to Norway, they have to wait on the boat for one round.