Super Stack or Stupid Stack?

I think you first need to decide what the ships are for. Then you can build accordingly.

Are you planning a full scale invasion of Japan or just trying to sink ships to stop japans expansion towards australia or hawaii. Another strategy might be convoy raiding or island hopping across the pacific.

Depending on your goal you will end up with very different patterns.

In my most recent games as us i have bought almost entirely subs and destroyers and very few capital ships. The subs convoy raid while the destroyers escort my transports. I try to avoid a full scale confrontation foe as long as possible

Except early Red Navy build is a wasted buy. The only reason why I would do it is if Germany went all in on Sea Lion and it failed so your army is equal to theirs and even then the Kreigsmarine is never a serious threat so unless USSR red navy is going for Italy or he is going to send them against Japan, it was a stupid buy.

@hcp:

Zhukov, might I ask that, under such FIC/Hainan naval base case, are there conditions that you would still consider stacking Yunnan using the remaining troops (ANZAC, Russia, Chinese, … and potential the 4 UK mech)?  I wish to see if there are other ways to delay the J5 India fall (by land).

This depends on many factors, including what Japan and USA are doing (is USA going KJF?, did Japan move all their land units south or are they keeping some units up north to face Siberians?, are the Japanese stacked at Human or Kweichow?).  Generally speaking, it’s more important to defend India.  But if you can defend India and still stack Yunnan, it might be worth it.  You don’t need 50/50 odds, in many cases, especially in kjf, it’s still worth stacking Yunnan if Japan attacking Yunnan will result in a net negative tuv exchange.  But note that if you take this risk (inviting a high-risk Japanese attack) you can’t assume these fighters on Yunnan will be available to you later to defend Moscow.

It seems to me that if Japan wants India bad enough it’s usually possible for them to take it on J5, but that comes at a cost if Japan needs to spend resources on naval and air bases and neglect securing the crucial money islands to do so.

If the Germans have a fleet, they can attack up north from SZ 112 (threatening Karelia, Novo, Arch, Nemestia), there has to be a specific LZ for the fighters to cross which you can threaten or deny as long as you have attacked them on G2 or G1.    Fighters crossing the med have a slow time of it.    Maybe some help can come in the form of making it more inconvenient for the UK fighters to get into Russia in the first place?

I also dislike blowing the Russian NO by having allies hanging out in Russia before its abs necessary, but that could be pretty early in the game.

“Sea Lion”  if the USSR has a fleet and Novogrod, they can keep this threat alive for a long time.  No matter what I want to do with UK, I usually end up buying 6+1 and bringing as many Canadians across as I can.  If I lose any significant ## of fighters, UK has to continue to worry that Germany can bring wave after wave of attackers, which keeps me conservative.  This is why the Gibraltar air base or crossing to Russia early would be difficult;  I don’t have enough fighters to protect UK and project threat.  Once they cross to Russia, they cant cross back…

“Get Cairo”  That sounds awesome but with a UK bid of 10, its not going to happen.  If Germany and Italy build/rebuild navy and try to control the Med, that’s a subtle win for the Allies.  Navy is resource intensive and takes away the armor punch described by the other posters.  Without an added commit, I just don’t see how the Axis can take Egypt at all, there are just too many UK pieces around there.  Germany can fly or bring ships down there but its a 1 way trip, into a dead end trap, and its away from the critical path (Russia)

“Tan Skies”  you are on the right track;  if UK has 6+ fighters it is kicking butt, if not, it feels cornered and powerless.  The key for the axis is to do the strongest opener that doesn’t invite any scrambles, then the UK navy is dead and Germany has most of its air left.  The UK also doesn’t need to lose any (many) fighters during its opener, other stuff can take the casualties.  Its especially good if the airforce from Taranto lives to fight another day (by avoiding the Italian counterstrike, we hope 1 sb 1 French inf 1 tac 1 fighter on Syria?)

@Cow:

Tell you what if 5 inf central, 1 armor egypt, 1 sub sz 98, 1 inf new guinea, 1 bomber archangel is not to your liking…

Then you can have allies at 18 ipc 1 unit per territory.

So you can choose either one of the above two conditions  8-). By ‘central’ Cow means Central USA.

@Cow:
Looks like you’ve got enough challenges now ;-).

Super Size Me!!!

@Ruanek:

@Xandax:

@MarkHC:

Bottom line, I’ve played multiple games as the Soviet Union where I didn’t let anyone attack my units except an infantry I left as a road block.  Even when Japan invades Russia turn one/two and tries to keep pushing, it still didn’t make much difference because they can only take a territory a turn.  So when Germany finally reaches Moscow, almost every single unit I’ve built as Russia is there defending my capital.  Sure, if time weren’t a factor, it’s a bad strategy, but I know that the Allies are going to be landing in force by turn 5 or so, so the Axis is not able to deal with the Allied pressure and overcome a huge Moscow stack.

If the allies are landing in force in turn 5 Europe is lost regardless of a large stack of inf in Moscow.
Nothing is gained in the game by removing USSRs chance to defend and making a German attack on Russia go faster. On the contrary.
The huge stack isn’t an automatic win.

Well, not having the huge stack gives the Axis a bit more of a chance to blitz and take the necessary 8 victory cities quickly.

Well - of course. And removing the Russian troops entirely would equally.
You cannot remove the turtle. You shouldn’t IMO make it easier to take Russia.
We should however figure out why turteling is so strong and address that cause instead of just the symptom.

If you make it any easier to take Russia, you’ve effectively turned Germany into a one trick pony and removed most strategy from the European board.

In my experience so far a good Russian player playing conservatively can make Moscow close to impossible to take.   The way Russian territories are set up allows them to fall back and shadow any approaching German army until the Russians have reinforced their stack to the point where it can turn around and chase out or destroy the invaders.  There’s no real downside to this vs standing and fighting as you’re only giving up 1-2 ipc provinces as you fall back and you’re continuing to preserve and grow your Russian stack at a rate faster than the Germans can hope to reinforce theirs (assuming, of course, that GB and the US are putting any sort of pressure on the other side of Europe).  I’ve pretty much given up going for it and instead have resolved to find some way to take Leningrad and Stalingrad.  I’ll admit that Germany and Italy, given free reign to attack Russia can eventually bring them down if they focus all their strength on it but how are they doing this while preventing or counter-attacking allied landings?  There’s just not enough IPC’s available for them to effectively do both.