The Japanese Piracy Strategy: An insane plan that somehow worked

@FranceNeedsMorePower yes tripleA could work as well. OZTEA 1939 or the HBG map of 1939?

@crockett36 said in If the object of the game was kill all Japanese capitol ship, how would you do it?,:

46 ipcs can be convoyed from the Japanese, assuming money islands and Phil, May, and Shan State.

Any competent Japanese navy can prevent that. Each sub raids on average 2 IPCs, say you want to raid Java, it takes 2 subs. A Japanese player will send a destroyer and a bunch of planes in making a profit

Could be simplified even further by a build up for six transports hitting SFE about the time that IJN rounds the Malacca strait. And every turn after, six tanks. Of course, it looks like a KJF, but you would be committing 100 to Pac but send them or some of them through Siberia to Moscow.

Thanks Tirano. The reason that I didn’t take Southern France on the first turn is because I want to disguise my trip to the Med. I want the UK to have to bite on Sealion and they won’t know that the Italians aren’t taking S. France until after they have taken their first turn. Other than slipping a couple of units into Northern Italy (which I try to do inconspicuously)I have given no indication at all that I’m going to the Med. I don’t need to put units on the complex in S. France right away anyway so it wasn’t necessary to have it on the first turn.

@MadPup77:

You don’t have to wait a turn to hit Japan. You place them, next turn they’re in SZ 6. You place them in SZ 10, next turn Hawaii, next turn SZ 6.

-MadPup77

If you put a NB in Alaska, they can move in 1 turn into SZ 6, via SZ 8 and SZ 7.

@Bravehart:

How many hours was it when the 5th round was played? Just curious.

Too many something like 5h

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

Been checking the FAQ and it seems to say that Iceland is indeed part of Europe.