Should Japan ignore China?

@WindowWasher Good day. Japan needs the income from the DEI and need to keep India on the defensive, not expanding. I agree with Awk others here: Oz can wait. Make Japan a monster first.
I have played close to 100 1940 games and don’t think anyone has tried to take Sydney from me early on.
Try it, but I don’t think it would work against most players here.

@Amon-Sul:

@Marshmallow:

Exactly so.

It’s house rules.

what about 2nd edition? it is also an upgrade of it`s own.

yes, BM adds some more stuff, but i would say a lot more than just a house rule, since half the people play it.

If you discount the players in league (2016) standings who only played like 3-5 games, than there were about 50 players. However, there are probably around 1000 players throughout the world who play Global 40 2nd ed. (I can’t find the metric for 2017 league standings). In the Global 40 forum section, there are hundreds of threads and posts by people who haven’t played BM3 yet.

Not everyone who even comes to the site plays triplea live, let alone pbem, let alone league. Also, when league players call an Axis and Allies game that is respected and religiously played by serious regulars “vanilla,” it might come across as snobbish. Even if not intended to.

I’m trying to learn BM3. To me it’s a different game. And my jury is still out on whether or not I will like it. Played 150+ games of G40 2. A difference I’ve noticed for instance is I don’t see the majority of players do Tobruk or Taranto compared to Global 40. In G40 2, protecting Cairo is decisive. BM3 permits the UK more options. And even in this thread, right away buying a marine changes the game drastically. Now a cruiser has become a transport. Also, how many people do a J1 DOW in BM3 compared to Global 40? Not many.

I don’t see a reason to expose your fleet early as Japan.  That said, even playing games with the Americans, albeit fun; is counterproductive.

You don’t gain much as you can still bait the US into buy full Pacific early in the game against a well-versed player, so that school of thought is out.

Carolines don’t come into play until much later in the game (read securing Calcutta) and VC win is Hawaii or Sydney.  However, I’m banking that Hawaii is “easier” to take once removing the fleet than Sydney.  This is primarily due to the Minor IC being able to put out multiple units round after round until you arrive with an Amphib that requires the Carolines.

Its much easier to go after Hawaii as it is a single move from Tokyo anyways (barring any blocks).  Having to fight for the Carolines and then Sydney seems less… efficient?

Thanks JimmyHat,

Your response was appreciated.  We were having a late night game and an arguement about this.  A bet involving beer was on the line.

Yea, I suppose it’s unlikely for allied units to be trekking across Russia. Still it is a bit odd that in the same round a Russian fighter can land on a US carrier in the Atlantic but not in the Pacific.

I guess the rule is the way it is in the interest of simplicity. It did sort out the whole Russia going to war with Japan in order to take neutrals in Europe thing.

@manincellv:

Alpha +2.

If Japan takes FIC, they lose there 10 IPC bonus, Correct?

Yes.

Does that bring USA into the war?

No.

Does it bring UK/ANZAC into the war?

No.

How about instead of building a huge fleet you build a bunch of transports and infantry in W. US for the first two turns and turn hawaii into a fortress with like 10-15 infantry and station your begining fleet off of hawaii, For Japan to be able to take Hawaii with all of those infantry would require huge transport fleets that are impractical for a limited budget such as Japan, and still allow it to take Sydney and Calcutta. Also after turn 3 you can send the transports back to E. US for the european invasion fleet.

@Clyde85:

China can attack into Kwangtung and Burma, the only 2 non-Chinese tt in the game China can move units into, with the exception of the Flying Tigers, which are not allowed to land in either.

I have seen a growing number of instances where the Japanese player will send its airforce to kill off large stacks of Inf in the hinterlands of China, without land units to take the tt itself. It seems a pretty good idea, as your risk of loss is fairly low, but it seems like such an unfair move  :roll: oh well

Actually, the Tigers CAN land in Burma