@Ghostglider note that I made an edit of the bid inf in Burma from UK pacific to British.
trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5
-
From the Axis perspective, taking the Solomons early was certainly a mistake. USA just smashed your forces and they achieved nothing. Also, not enough forces were within range of Sumatra to take it J3. That should have been something which was intended to be done and stacking it should have been anticipated. As previously mentioned, the Germans over invested in navy IMHO even though they won. The heavy investment in Japanese transports was a bit unexpected but it seems to have enabled a lot of Japanese early action at sea.
On land, Japan was a bit weaker than I would have expected but it was probably a price worth paying. Good move there, I think.
One thing I didn’t love was the investment in ICs for both Shantung and Kiangsu. I think Shantung would be better omitted, otherwise much money gets absorbed and in a way which doesn’t help any major cause for Japan. Pushing China back is not that high a priority but Japan has little else to do for the first couple of turns in a J3 DOW scenario.
Perhaps you should consider taking FIC J2. It only costs you 8IPC and you can land a tank there which can take Malaya J3 if the Allies don’t block it and blocking costs another infantry.
I guess moving the US sub to the Indian Ocean was a waste of time. It might as well have been killed.
Perhaps that’s enough post game analysis.
-
I will add another thing. I strongly agree with your J1 buy. Regardless of DOW, the 1IC 2TT buy is the strongest possible IMO. Without the IC, China gets too strong. The third TT makes little difference. While a single TT doesn’t allow enough expansion of Japan.
Paragraph breaks in the last post weren’t quite right.
-
Grabbing the Solomons J3 was a consequence of something I’ll likely never try again - or atleast do differently - namely grabbing the New Hebrides J2 for an outpost towards the aussies were I’d be able to land air J3. Probably not very necessary, actually more stupid, but I guess I found the idea to be cool at the time. If I remember correctly, I simply had a choice J3 to abstain from DOW and save the tr or DOW and either crush ANZAC or grab a lot of income increase while pushing UK-Pac down into a hole. By J3 the choice was obvious. Wonder why it wasn’t so J2? Guess I wanted to put some unconventional pressure on the Allies. Actually, it made the USN displaced for one round, which made Japans life a bit easier. So it wasn’t too bad result with sacrificing that tr, I think. You are right about Sumatra and such though.
I will definitely change my standard G1 buy for BM3.
I think you’re right about not needing a full russian contingent to stop my meager tank. 2-3 inf would’ve been sufficient, and the rest could support a US landing in Korea. Ofc, I would likely have played Japan differently and perhaps lose my transports in order to stack up in the Carolines for strong naval pressure against the USN. Then there’d be no landing or if there’d be one anyway, Korea would fall easily soon enough anyway.
Can’t be certain, but I believe Taranto is the best option for UK1. It cripples Italy, which is worth a lot.
I like the J1 buy a lot. I also like the second mIC in Kiangsu. Especially in BM3 Japan must have an abundance of land units in Asia. Of course it’s possible to achieve the same with a transport line, but being more flexible, it’s also a costlier (must include a naval base) and more sensitive for disruption. If Russia enters Manchuria, one mIC will easily be overwhelmed, while the two quickly can support a serious defense.
To support Asia with 6 land units every round, 2 mICs cost 24 while 6 tr + nb cost 59. Of course the equation is not that simple, since trannies used for taking over islands can be used for the purpose. That will tie them up though and my experience tells me that Japan needs transports elsewhere almost all the time.
Without a second early mIC Japan risk running thin on land units in Asia which is critical. Japan must be able to counter an UK offensive while at the same time keeping China at bay. The latter is definitely not as important, yet a nuiscance. If I can’t take the Chinese out without too much cost, I try to. Relieves the rest of the board for Japan, which is the big advantage.
Like you say a fig in Scotland might be too much. Sure stirs things up in G1. I was lucky this time, but with less luck Germany might well be screwed trying the same stunt. Can’t lose too much air, since that’ll stunt further defense and attack and Germany will eventually suffocate. I’m not completely sure though, since the main point of the sz111 attack is to strafe it, saving Bismarck. Hey, even wrote a few posts about it in the strategy book, although then focusing on vanilla since it was pre-BM3 for me.
I usually try to take out the Ethiopian force with the Brits, but it rarely goes well. Probably because the attack gets a little thin since I really like to grab Persia UK1. Maybe a stack is a good alternative? Waiting to take them out one round after consolidation. Then actually both Persia and Sumatra may be incorporated into the British Empire. I’ll contemplate that.
Being able to hold Egypt was a great advantage for Italy, which became rather strong. Think the Allies can’t allow it or atleast get some serious compensation. Like you say, UK should probably take Iraq and put up a mIC there for support while utilizing the S African mIC as well.
Maybe harrassing the MEI is more rational than going for Tokyo early? I’ve tried the latter, even getting a sweet US-outpost in Korea together with the ruskies, but still never with good results. At the same time Axis-Dominion wiped my butt doing the same stunt. It’s sad. ;)
In US5 you were all set for harrassment, but backed out shifting focus. I think that was a mistake. You should’ve continued building up pressure. As you said, you might have put too much effort in the Atlantic, becoming too thin in the Pacific. Japan can’t be allowed to get a free hand. They easily run out of control. And then it’s game over even if Germany is under heavy pressure.
-
@trulpen said in trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5:
In US5 you were all set for harrassment, but backed out shifting focus. I think that was a mistake. You should’ve continued building up pressure. As you said, you might have put too much effort in the Atlantic, becoming too thin in the Pacific. Japan can’t be allowed to get a free hand. They easily run out of control. And then it’s game over even if Germany is under heavy pressure.
I calculate that I didn’t have enough to remain in SZ54. Are you suggesting moving to New Zealand so I’m at least still within range of Java? Not sure I follow.
-
I guess the basic problem was that you had to back out since US lacked following up forces. Like you said.
-
Yeah, I think with your G1 buy I should really have gone after Japan a lot more. Although I find it a real challenge to weaken Japan early. Unless there’s a miscue by Japan, they seem to get really strong, really quickly in spite of allied actions.
-
@trulpen said in trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5:
I like the J1 buy a lot. I also like the second mIC in Kiangsu. Especially in BM3 Japan must have an abundance of land units in Asia. Of course it’s possible to achieve the same with a transport line, but being more flexible, it’s also a costlier (must include a naval base) and more sensitive for disruption. If Russia enters Manchuria, one mIC will easily be overwhelmed, while the two quickly can support a serious defense.
Ok, I see what you’re getting at here. Just having one in Shantung only has 2 turns of buys to prepare for a defence if 20 units come down through Manchuria. This is why I stopped putting it in Shantung. In Kiangsu it has an extra turn of buys. That represents only minor adjustments needed to defend the IC. If you only have one in Shantung, it’s a much more major scramble to defend it when/if USSR comes after it.
I didn’t follow your argument about needing a naval base though. The naval base on FIC is more to threaten India. Does also provide a few situational possibilities though.
-
I think I also stuffed up in not aiming to buy a UK IC for Iraq and never doing it. Would have really helped in pushing Italy off Egypt.
-
@simon33 said in trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+10) BM3 #5:
I didn’t follow your argument about needing a naval base though.
Well, the naval base is not a necessity, but if I’d get into a transport line from Tokyo, that’s were I’d want my tr’s to land and unload in preferably FIC. From there the tr’s threaten India, like you said, and also has a wider reaction range if need be.
I’d say that carrying the transport line with the Kwangtung naval base is very suboptimal, so building one in Hainan is worth every penny if going for it. Usually though Japan manages well without one.
I’ve had guys going after my factories on the Asian east coast, but they can never really touch them. For me, having two mICs there is awesome. I can even abstain from a mIC in FIC if that area is under potential pressure, and just pump out enough guys to support the land war from Shantung and Kiangsu.
-
Have to re-word. I meant the naval base is not a true must, but rather a practical necessity.
Suggested Topics
