When you land troops with Ambhipious assault, they cannot retreat, but only land troops. So to maximize your support fire just attack with 1inf and fire your support fire away. You will lose 1inf, but with those support bombards you might do more damage than you lose. 3ipc inf, isn’t much.
As for slowing down japan, USA sinkiang factory isn’t bad choice if you can make Russia to boost it’s defence.
I’m pretty sure this is a bad choice. Japan should have no trouble running it over, especially if there’s no Indian complex/US naval fleet + backup Russian troops coming in. On J1 I usually have a stack of 5-6 infantry in China + planes ready to strike Sinkiang, so Russia would need to stack quite a few infantry to save it on J2. Even then, a production of 2 units isn’t going to stop Japan for any reasonable length of time, plus once he gets it, it’s a new location for him to build tanks from.
But back to talking this, I understand your point for the use of German navy. I usually have sitted and waited for allies to attack the fleet, it’s really hard for them to attack and decimate the fleet and you defend better than you attack.
It’s true that your fleet is better at defending than attacking, but if the Alllied player realizes that you never will attack, he’ll just shuck troops almost whever he wants (norway, karelia, archangel, western europe) without fear of delay. If the Allied fleet does become too ridiculously powerful in defense then of course I would suggest just sitting there, but I really like to use the fleet as a bunch of fodder while 5-6 fighters + bomber wreak havoc on the transport system. It’s difficult for the US to get transports into action once they’re so far out there.
It’s not a bad idea to just sit there with a Baltic fleet, since it does protect your capital and Eastern Europe from amphibious assaults nicely for quite a while; it does take longer if the Allies think they have to kill your fleet. I suggest that when the Allies look like they are about to crush your Baltic navy, then retreat your planes in advance so they don’t get caught out in the waters; they have already done their job by forcing the Allies to build a strong anti-navy force; you do not want to give them the bonus of killing two fighters out in the water when they could be sitting safely behind stacks of infantry. I would say just be prepared to attack if the opportunity presents itself and the math shows reasonably favorable results.
And when you are trying to take the fleet down with all planes, what about the trading that you are doing with russia? Would you use tanks to push the trade through or try going very lucky with inf only attacks?
It’s not wise to give free IPC for russia, but too much material is making it very expensive for the germans too.
And about sinkiang, russia can free 3-4 inf there + 2fighters. My first turn buy for russia is always 1fig 1arm 3inf. That extra fighter is very important in trading with germans, it doubles the success rates for trading and 3 fighters is very versatile for russia. 1st turn is the only time when Russia can boost it’s offensive a little bit, and that is the extra plane.
Sinkiang won’t fall so easily, when on turn 2 there sits 2-4 fighters, british can boost it too. My favorite for british is that they build carrier and US brings the fighters, that way the UK doesn’t have to buy everything by itself and is free to boost it’s land troops or do something else. US and UK should play hand to hand to bring their power more swiftly to play. Where UK lands, US follows…
Thamor,
The way for Japan to deal with a Sinkiang Stack is to flank it.
That multi-national force of FIGS there is great for defense, but can’t attack together. So Japan sends some forces to China (no real defense needed, just increasing from their 4-5 INF already in China in prep for later attack). But most of their forces go the northern prong (bury to Yak to Novo) or the southern prong (India to Persia to Kaz).
Upon reaching those points, the Sinkiang forces are flanked and the AF pulls out or risks loss.
THEN I take Sinkiang with the China forces.
Also, Russia FIGS in Sinkiang is a BAD idea for Russia. For those FIGS to attack and return to Sinkiang, they have to be attacking German forces in Caucuses (or Russia…). Otherwise, any use of Russian FIGS that started in Sinkiang leaves them elsewhere, and no longer an issue for Japan that round…
US FIGS have to GET there… a rather time consuming matter. UK’s have to get there also, but happens a bit quicker.
Eitherway, if Japan decides to focus on their Central Asia prong, they can hit Sinkiang with 4-5 INF plus 4-5 FIGS plus a Bomber on J2.
And when you are trying to take the fleet down with all planes, what about the trading that you are doing with russia? Would you use tanks to push the trade through or try going very lucky with inf only attacks?
Nah, I build artillery with Germany with extra cash. It helps with trading. I’m still trying to think of a good way to use the stack of tanks because usually it just ends up sitting there because I don’t want them exposed.
Actually you have the planes in caucasus, you use the planes that go to sinkiang for trading in Ukraine and from there fly to sinkiang. This buys atleast one turn free buy for USA, and I would bring more planes to soviet soil from US, having 3inf 1arm after turn 2 and 1bomb + 1 fig to strafe the china forces is really good option. Yes this drains some inf from soviets for couple of turns, but I would strafe that china inf if it only sit’s there with no fig support. As for those flanking moves, yeah they are options but this factory would still be running for as many turns as it can.
Soviets planes won’t just be left sitting there they fly back to trade for ukraine and land back to caucasus. Optimum would be swapping 1 plane so that there is always one more plane in sinkiang every turn. And if the option arise I would hit that china stack and after that I could help the soviets hold the northern approach by moving planes there. Only route that would be really open is the southern route, but that cannot be helped much…
I love planes for US even if they cost a little for them, 1 plane a turn really helps out, and when the US needs to make amphibious assault or land assaults somewhere having 4+ fighters around helps a lot.
But you are pointing the obvious moves what to do with the axis, why are you so defensive for them and trying to prove that it’s impossible to prevent them. Just say what is wrong with these moves for starters…
The sinkiang complex isn’t a good long-term strategy. Your 2 units per turn is going to get heavily outweighed quickly by Japan’s 8 units per turn, plus he has something on the order of 6 fighters + 1 bomber to start with and stack of 5-6 infantry already on the edge of China. And not only do you lose the complex, but Japan gains it! Plus he can bomb it for a couple of IPCs while he’s building up.
OK, so even with your initial R1 buy of 1 FIG, you will never have 3 Russia figs in Sinkiang. At most 2 in a given round, some rounds 1 or none as they fly out to get used and land elsewhere.
THAT is the round that Japan hits Sinkiang with 4-5 figs, 1 Bomber and 4-5 INF.
And of course, in J3, my FIC tank factory starts spitting out units that can strike Sinkiang the following round…
I know that sinkiang alone won’t hold the japans, but losing that factory really isn’t that problematic. The point is can you make it so it really slows down Japan. Atleast it ties Japan for some turns more, than freely moving through. It slows down Japan for very important turns, and sinkiang factory would have from turn 3 Antiaircraft-Gun from India :wink:
My point is that I am finding ways to slow down Japan, but not quit Germany for free reins. US would buy 2trans and troops to go against Germany. There is that really good balance that you can find with allies that will make it really hard for axis to do as they please, but it really does require very precise moving from Russia, UK and US. But if it’s done very well you can move the game towards allied victory.
There is no way I am letting a Sinking IC exist past T3. At which point, TY for making my continental tank build 5 instead of 3.
I know that sinkiang alone won’t hold the japans, but losing that factory really isn’t that problematic.
Are you sure? It cost you 15 IPCs to build that complex, then probably 10 more every turn for 2 tanks, then 2 more on top of that from strategic bombing raids. You’re not going to be sending many troops to Europe, especially if you like to build fighters. You won’t hold the Sinkiang complex past J4 at the best (J2 land mass troops, J3 move to China, J4 attack) unless you send a good deal of Russian troops.
To me, if you want to shore up Russia, do so from Europe. Use your transport system to shuck troops into Archangel and send fighters to Moscow as needed. You’re not giftwrapping a complex for the Japanese this way, and you’re not slowing down the potential pressure on Germany which is entirely the case if you devote those IPCs to building a complex and building troops there as well.
Losing a complex is a very bad proposition and the fascists will thank you for it because it’s one less complex they have to build.
OK, I know this thread has shifted with time but…
Would anyone care to read the thread in Games between me an Ezto? In G3, Germany sacrificed their AF AND Navy to take out the consolidated Allied fleet. The result is that there are NO Allied ships in the Atlantic ANYWHERE. That means no trannied forces to Archangel, no D-Day. Now it is just Russia vs. Germany (and Japan) for the next 2 rounds minimum.
Sometimes it IS worthwhile to sacrifice your Navy and your Air Force in orer to secure your homeland and beat the snot out of Russia.
The main reason you could do that is because you took London on G2, so he couldn’t possibly increase his naval force (not to mention he lost a fighter off his carrier). Plus, the US didn’t really put any effort into co-guarding the UK fleet because he is trying to go after Japan first.
You made an excellent choice in this circumstance and it is a good example of what I think the German navy was designed for, but in normal circumstances the costs would have been greater and the benefits less if the US/UK had united in SZ8 and built some navy together (and not lose the capital :lol:)
