Turn 1 Japan Attack?

@seancb we also use a giant piece of plywood because any oval table we could find won’t fit the whole board. Its much better to have something under the board (or vinyl) because prevents the board from getting knocked or moved and has at least some sideboard area for piles of chips and drinks and extras. Still, we need dice pits and another area to put most of our stuff because the game is simply that yuge.

Russia would have to put a lot in India to be able to hold it, or are you saying that the allies could hold Yunnan with Russian support?

You know I played two games that day! And it was over a week ago I suppose it was 1 sub 1 transport and 1 bomber and I pocketed the money. My mistake! Lol

Quote from: PeterPaaPan on June 13, 2012, 04:06:22 pm
And what happens if Japan attacks Amur and Mongolia in the same turn ? Or are they “speciel” neutral ?

All of the other strict neutrals will become pro-Allies, and the remaining Mongolian territories will become controlled by the USSR.

This sums it up.

@variance:

UK fighters intercept SBR

That assumes the UK doesn’t badly need them for other schemes, and if they are present and intercept, who is to say that Germany won’t provide escorts?  It’s a good way to potentially whittle away the Fighter defense of Moscow before the last battle.  I also don’t know if the 70+ units for Russia is accounting for the output of every single Russian factory, if it is, then the UK can’t possibly guard all of these places.

When I play Japan I like to play with the long-term in mind.  That is, I don’t really go for early do-or-die strategies like an India crush.  If I’m given the opportunity, I’ll go for it, but normally I’ll just try to improve Japan’s economy and keep it that way.

On the turn I attack, I grab the Phillipines and as many of the DEI as possible.  The rest will be gotten on the next turn.  Hong Kong and Malaya are also high-priority objectives.  Unless something has gone wrong, getting these will make Japan’s income in around the low-mid 60s, which is perfect.

Then I’ll put 1-2 factories in South East Asia, and just trade Burma with India.  With convoying, India can only produce around 1 Infantry a turn, so time is in my favor in that region.  I’ll strat bomb the India IC if I ever get the chance.

What determines my success at this point is how much US invested and is continuing to invest in the Pacific.  If it’s a majority or all of its resources, I know Japan’s not going to win.  I might attack Russia if I see a KJF strat, in order to help Germany win.  My fleet builds will primarily be defensive - carriers and destroyers - in order to make my fleet survive as long as possible against the growing US fleet.

If US is only spending some of its income in the Pacific, I’ll be trying to win in the Pacific if possible.  After I’ve got my income, I’ll try to place the majority of my fleet in the Carolines.  There I can threaten Hawaii and Australia.  With luck I’ll try to convoy Australia.  I’ll have taken 1 of those four Australian NO islands, so hopefully Anzac’s making less than 10 a turn.  With a good Carolines-based threat, Anzac will be building defensively - infantry - for the forseeable future.  Thus the majority of my income can go into my trade war against India and for fleet builds to compete with the US fleet.  Until India falls, I’ll go mostly for targets of opportunity at this point.  Hawaii if possible, but that’s tough.  The Pacific Island NO in A3 is impossible, don’t even bother looking at it.  The 5/7 NO in A2 was a lot better frankly.  :-P

With a long-term strategy like this, Japan’s overall victory threat is maximized.

yeah…we tried it.  I think that’s the first move everyone sees when they set up the board.  I’ve recently had to bring additional german aircraft to Tobruk or the UK players plasters that army and Italy has nothing in Africa.

The important thing to understand about mechanized infantry movement is that they move in exactly the same way that tanks do, except that they can’t blitz without a tank.  In most cases, the confusion on this issue comes from the definition of the term “blitz”.

Many people define “blitz” as any two-space movement by a tank, but that’s incorrect.  A blitz movement is a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory.  Only the first territory is “blitzed”.  The second one is not, regardless of its status.

So, mechanized infantry may only make a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory when paired with a tank.  Any other two-space movement that a tank can legally make can also be made by a mechanized infantry without an accompanying tank.  This means that mechanized infantry may always move two friendly spaces alone in noncombat movement, and they may also move two spaces alone in combat movement if the first territory is friendly.