USA Dow

@Ichabod:

@PainState:

A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.

Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.

There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.

Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.

Hi PainState,

From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.

There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â

Thanks for answering my questions.  Cant wait for the game this weekend.

@SubmersedElk:

To clarify, I was discussing the merits of buying a stack of 4 bombers and sending them to the Pacific.

Sure one bomber might get some targets to snipe at - but a full round buy doesn’t add much to what you already got with the starting bomber. Anything can be effective against an opponent making serious mistakes like leaving a transport stack naked and open to attack, and in a case like that, one bomber is as effective as four.

The issue is with the mechanics of movement over the oceans. A Japanese transport at a harbor can be in range to attack a bomber while the bomber is not in range to attack the transport, despite the vast difference in base movement - an airfield for the bomber makes no difference. Land units can effectively move 5 spaces to attack when using a transport at a harbor (one load, three move, one drop). The bomber would need 8 move total to attack that transport and return to base, and of course it only gets 7 with the airport and 6 without.

It’s totally counterintuitive when you look at base move 2 for ships and base move 6 for bombers, but in practice, that transport can attack from one space further away than the bomber can.

In order for this to work you obviously cannot takeoff and land at the same territory. The Pacific allows for many landing areas so this is not necessarily a problem. Some good bomber moves in the north are to bring bombers from Hawaii to attack SZ 6 and land in Midway, and to take bombers in Midway and attack Japan and land in Amur. That extra move is what really makes the difference.

@Whackamatt:

I don’t know that Germany would be in much of a position to push you back with too much beyond planes.

As an Allied player, I would be happy to get pushed off again in the first or second attempt if it meant the German air force was being reduced.

The Mexican Naval Base still has some value no matter what Japan does.  Because if they see it and decide not to attack in order to screw your plan, this only helps India and ANZAC prepare.

@Vance:

or take carolines.

Right, that’s the best place to stage the USN . . . but there’s already a naval base there silly.  :wink:

As Japan I like to stage the IJN off of phil, put a blocker to prevent Korea/Japan invasion, and stack the carolines with as many ftr/tac as I need or can spare. Usually US doesn’t have more then 1-2 transports, so it should be safe from an amphib assault with 3-4+ air there.  Keep the mainland air on kwansi/FIC to land on carriers and you’re set up for a very heavy counter to any US moves in that direction.

I don’t like to trade ships with US when I can help it and if I have to fight a naval battle I’d rather be set up to hit him as hard as I can with the strength of my powerful airforce. Most of the times the threat is enough and the USN stays away.

@Spendo02:

Good question then:

When they say adjacent to a japanese controlled territory, they mean actually in the SZ, correct?

Meaning US ships can stop in SZ’s 16, 18, 24, 23 before it is at war?

“Adjacent” means touching, so yes, that means in the seazone that touches a japanese controlled territory.  It does not mean seazone adjacent to the seazone that surrounds or touches a japanese territory.

So yes, 16, 18, 24, 23 are all ok for the US to hang out in.

den krieg eeft gelijk
vanwaar zijde misschien?
Belg of niet-Belg? ^^

Perhaps those that disagree with my position that the U.S. pre-war income is too high should check my proposed schedule under house rules. We played six rounds of Alpha+1 today using that schedule. The U.S. still gets the same amount of income just not as quick. I will post the results of the game so far as soon as I can take some photos. Probably tomorrow. The income schedule we used slowed down the U.S. a little but they are still putting a lot of pressure on the Japanese. Well more on that tomorrow.