Playing a game on saturday and need help with German Strategy.

@MarineIguana:

First of all, I want to say that USA committing any purchases to the pacific is a mistake. For the same amount of resources, the USA can always pressure Germany more than Japan. This is from my experience playing hundreds of revised games, many at a high level.

That said, assuming the US commits to the Pacific…

1. Japan should always sink the US fleet at pearl harbor. If this is done, Japan generally starts with a 1 battleship, 2 carrier, 3 fighter advantage compared to the USA that will take 5+ turns of buildup for the US to overcome.
2. The US can’t make significant advances unless the Japan fleet is destroyed. The best way to stall the USA is to place your fleet in the sea zone off the phillipines or china and deadzone all sea zone within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. Have the carriers filled with fighters AND try to have an equal number of fighters in a land territory that can reach all the sz within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. For example, 2 carriers can support 8 fighters attacking a sea zone.
3. Japan can continue pushing land units into asia, even with all US purchases going to the pacific. My typical purchases are like 6 inf and 2 fighters. With the Japan fleet off of China

From what I have seen when the allies does a KJF is that, PH really isn’t that easy. If UK commits and is lucky, PH can be very difficult. Complete UK commitment would be  UK india ftr attacking the J sub in 45 with the australia sub, and then landing on PH. The Australia TT taking 2 infs to papua, the indian TT taking 2 infs to borneo, The UK CR attacking the japanese TT in 59 and the India CW either standing in 36 or 49.  At this point, taking PH might be difficult for japan. If they do it with air only (5 ftrs + bomber) they will lose about 3 ftrs for 2 ftrs, 1 cw, and 1 sub. The good news is that they will not lose boats to a counterattack, and can use their boats to deal with the british fleet, the bad news is that they are spread out, will be in trouble on land and will take 3 ftrs in losses for only 36 US ipcs (+ 10 UK).  If they try to do a heavy PH, alot of the uk fleet survives and UK will keep borneo until J3.

I still feel it is a bad move, since you are handing africa to the axis, but japan will be in trouble.

A large part of the game depends on who the Allies decide to attack. They can decide between KGF (kill Germany first) or KJF (kill Japan first).

For people who are new to the game, I think a KGF would be easier to pull off. All the Allied capitals are near(er) to Berlin, so the logistics are easier. Also, Germany can threaten Moscow quicker than Japan if not threatened.

However, a KJF can work against players who are used to playing against KGF. It is usually best to go this route if Japan has a bad first turn, although I have won games where I had a KJF in mind before the game started. In this strat, your goal is to reduce Japan down to Tokyo and maybe a couple other territories, and to wipe out their navy. In this way, only a minimal Allied force is needed to contain them, and all attention can shift to Germany.

Note that I don’t mean to ignore the other axis power that you aren’t focused on. This is usually only a problem in KGF, and Japan can reach Moscow quickly if left unchecked. Usually the U.S. will deal with Japan a bit in KGF, and Russia will hold off Germany with a little U.K. support in a KJF.

As the Axis, you must identify if your oppenent is playing a KGF or KJF. The nation that is the focus of the Allied attacks must play defensively while the other nation kills Russia.

Roger, thanks Perry!

Correct.  However there is a good debate on whether or not England should leave 1 infantry as a picket in India.  If you leave 1 guy, then Japan has to dedicate 2 infantry and maybe some air power to take India, which means less forces in China.  If you pull the guy Japan can just walk in.

On the other hand, a full retreat might entice Japan to go hard into China leaving only one guy in India and thus allowing England to have two rounds of owning India (one round reclaiming it, one round before Japan can attack it again.)

I never said it was realistic.  But it would be nice if Germany does Sea Lion and wins and America liberates, since all battles are technically going on simultaniously anyway, it could be fun.  Besides, just how long does it take to move the treasury from a nation to another nation without the internet?

@rjclayton:

I think he was talking about trading 2 IPC territories with Japan (Novisibirsk and Kazakh)

Yeah, come to think of it, those are 2 IPC territories.  I wasn’t paying attention.

However, I do not think that Russia TRADES Novo or Kazakh for long.  Japanese forces build up pretty fast; once Novosibirsk falls, I don’t see Russia reclaiming it more than once or perhaps twice.  (My guess is that by the time Novosibirsk falls, one of two will be true; either Russia will still be holding Germany at West Russia, so won’t have enough to counterattack a moderately held Novosibirsk (note that if Russia DID have a lot in Russia instead of West Russia, I don’t think Japan would commit to Novosibirsk).  OR, Russia will be holed up in Moscow, while Japan builds up.

Also, most of what I’ve been writing recently in this thread has been OT.

tee heez.

No bid, with equally skilled players and no major mistakes, and no bid…

Axis win from 30% to 40% of games.

An IC in Anglo Egypt is the only one that makes sense, in my opinion. Africa is worth 12 IPCs per turn. If Germany, by buying an IPC in Africa, can hold Africa for an additional two turns, the benefits outweigh the cost, so it’s a good choice.