Zhukov's trap reenacted!

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)

True giving the Allies even more time to build up their forces.

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.

The basic stratagy is to get your men of the island and counter an allied factory in India. So you need more transports to get everything done…

what are AA Active & Axis Advantage?

yeah i try not to concentrate on russia to much, becuase it dont really matter if russia falls if uk and usa are powerfull enuogh then you cant do much anyway when i take russia i got to much to defend, about that time he has about 30 men both america and uk and about 20 tanks with UK and USA and he also has a big fleet enuogh to wipe japan out instantly but he dont really see them as a fret and he will try alot of tactics am in kerilia after defeating russia , i cant really move from there or he will drop forces on norway and procede to go to russia and take the money from it,if that dont work then he will normally go round to japans water and drop all his men on the other side of the board cant remember the country i dont have the game my uncle does and he attacks japan fleet and takes japan,or sometimes he will come to africa and move up from there or he will come down to southern europe wiith english trnasporters and english fleet and men and drop them there in southern europe but if i split my forces from western europe (france) then he will land there i have to quickly move my forces down there to try and stop him then he drops the americans on kerilia and go’s to russia and moves the rest of the russians that are in asia what are killing japanese men that drop over. he also…… most of the time manages to get a factory with the uk in indua and fly all his planes there to defend it so then i have the ,americas taking russia joining up with the english build up in asia aswell with the remaining russians and then english fleet atackking my men on gibralter and landing and attacking soutern europe only if i havent got my men there in time if i only have tanks defending it he attacks, but he then changes and then drops men on syria iraq and joins the english with the americans and the russia remainders so then he has russia defending moscow with americcans english he is getting alot of money pumping more men out reading 4 the next landing and am still badly damaged with germany to really attack him, or sometimes he just lingers around german waters and waits 4 me to open up then lands in sothern or attacks it, its really hard playing with him, he originally found the game in america some military people was playing the game apparently,said there commander made them play it makes then strategic thinking a guess?

Like japan against russia in normal A&A.
Or Germany against anyone but russia.
:smile:

I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.

I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.

Ozone27