World at war 1939

@ShadowHAwk not sure that I would want to play a 40+ round world domination game with stalemates in so many portions of the world. I assume that bombers would become the meta, being able to project power into so many theaters and preventing your opponent’s fleet from splitting to two forces.

OOB is just fine if you are relatively new to the game and playing face-to-face with no battle calculators. Eventually someone will make a mistake or two, and the game will be quickly over. The issue is with PBEM games where you can battle calc every possible option and figure out how many fighters will be required in Moscow to shift the odds from 50% up to 90%. That gives the Axis such a big advantage as they are the aggressor during the critical first 8 turns.

As Japan, I normally J2 DOW but take FIC J1. This generally is good enough to take down Calcutta and normally keep it down. I also mostly ignore China until I have India, except Anwhe, Kweichow, Hunan and Yunnan.

I totally agree about the mutual annihilation attack being bad for Japan. Then the ANZAC can keep a fleet alive.

Sorry for the screw-up re posted.

I’m guessing you also went into Shan State to get the UKPac income down to 9 after J1?

I don’t know what you mean about SBR on Calcutta wrecking the Japanese factories?

I’ve never noticed that the fighter on Formosa can get in to the UK BB. Good move.

FWIW, my counter to that as allies would have been something like:

Stack Yunnan with up to 14 inf China1 Attack Shan State UK1 Move India starting troops to Burma UK1 UK1 buy 1ftr 1arm (my standard) China2, 5 more inf on Yunnan, perhaps less 1-2 from attacking somewhere or buying art instead + the fighter. Possible Malaya evac turn 1 Still land on Sumatra with 2inf UK1

UK2 you can move 3-6inf 1art 3aaa 1TB 1ftr to Yunnan and likely retake Malaya
ANZAC2 1ftr to India, 2ftr to Shan State/Malaya

How would that have gone? Perhaps I’m missing something but I can’t see a J2 attack on Yunnan. J3 I don’t reckon you could win with acceptable losses.

:-P

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

I was leaning toward a J2 attack, however, once I calculated that it was impossible to claim the $5 NO for the Islands at the end of turn 2, I choose to stick with the J1 attack.

@Cmdr:

Accept, you’re down 4 defense units making the sacking of NSW easier.

The American fleet will help things out