Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
Global domination
-
Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.
global domination is a house rule which is playing until one side controls all territories.
i find it a much less interesting game, allies just go all out on either europe or pacific. -
I think it can be more interesting. The allies get to attack and be less reactionary. It does make the allies more fun to play. Plus even if japan has to turtle Germany can get Russia and then work his way to middle east and india. It is more of a race.
-
Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.
In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes. You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured. Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.
As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.
Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned. The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance. Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns. It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.
Suggested Topics
