The Pacific is SUCH a waste of time for America, and the only good Japan can get out of it is trying to distract the US at key times with minimal forces.
There is a reason that thousands of A&A players have spent untold hours trying to figure out how to ‘balance’ this game - it’s because the Allies can win 90% of the time by crushing Germany ASAP and ignoring Japan. The reason so many people like to play Japan is because good Allied players will let them run wild for the most part.
There is only one way for the Axis to win against GOOD Allied players, and it is still extremely difficult to do:
Germany must SURVIVE until Japan has taken Russia. And as some others have mentioned, the Allies can still win if they can take Germany within the next turn or two.
Here are some popular misconceptions among intermediate players:
1.) GERMANY CAN TAKE OUT RUSSIA - will NEVER happen if England and US are doing their jobs and bringing troops over.
2.) US SHOULD GO AFTER JAPAN - the US should spend all of it’s effort shipping troops to the Western Theatre. As someone else said, all Japan can do is take Russia - Germany can win the game(i.e. the Allies can still win if Russia falls).
3.)JAPAN SHOULD BUILD AN EARLY FACTORY - When I see the Japanese player build a 1st turn factory I know I just won the game as Allies. Japan has one job - take Russia before Germany falls. A Factory provides Japan with more punch on the mainland, but it also slows them down - by two turns minimum. If the US has 4 transports and the UK has 3, that means an extra 28 Allied infanty on the continent. Japan should be getting as much infantry onto the mainland as soon as possible. Factories for tank production should be built later when Japan has more money then they know what to do with. I know this is a big arguing point for many people so let me keep going: factories on the mainland are a good idea - you need them to buy tanks to take out Moscow, right? But you won’t be hitting moscow in the first several turns so you don’t really need the factories yet. You need to get as much infantry onto the mainland as you can to support the tanks you are going to attack with. You can still gobble up russia easily with infantry and planes. Sorry, I’ll digress…
4.) FACTORY IN INDIA - this is not a terrible move if pulled off correctly, but it’s not that great. One thing to realise is that the sole purpose of a factory in India is to delay the Japanese attack on Moscow. You WILL lose the factory to a good Japan player, and it WILL be used to build tanks that will hit Russia. So the only way it helps at all is if the extra turn or two that it buys you is the window you need to take out Germany, which means you must be going after Germany full force - the paradox is that if the brits are messing around with a factory in India they aren’t going after Germany full force - which is why a factory in India is generally concidered a poor strategy.
Anyway, I’ll climb down from my soapbox. There is no way to ‘prove’ credentials in a message board - you will just have to trust me: I have been playing this game for 15 years - I know what I’m talking about! I know that many veteran players will agree with me (although they might argue on minor points). There will also be many intermediate players who think they are veterans that will disagree. :smile:
I don’t mean to sound egotistical in any way - I love this game and this information is to help new and intermediate players improve their play!
Flame on!
Ansbach
Most of your misconceptions are true when it comes down to traditional A&A strategies. However, it is fun to change the game up by for example having the US intervene in the Pacific aspect of the war early.
I agree with you entirely.
Being the newbish person I am, I haven’t realized how expanding into the pacific couldn’t be benifitial. It seems that if either the US or Japan (especially Japan) neglects their navy in the pacific they are asking the other to assemble a strike force to kill them. I don’t like the idea of Japan having free reign of asia and the pacific and forcing them to fight a war with the US there seems like a viable option to the problem of pressure on Russia.
I once was in the situation that I was unable to do “pearl harbour” in J1 (Rus had taken MAN, and UK KWA), so the US fleet slipped away. I captured Hawaii with my fleet in J2 to occupy the pacific, but the US engaged the fleet (and with some rather lucky rolling) waxed 2BB, 1 AC, and 1 TRN without loss. This left my entire fleet of transports unprotected (and unprotectable), with a large US fleet stationed mid pacific. By US3 I think I was down to 1 TRN, and that really hurt.
Although the allies lost out in asia with their early attacks, the gamble paid off in the Pacific, and it was only because the US was very poorly played with regard to purchasing that I managed to win.
Has anyone had any similar experiences? - given the situation above, I’m sure a US IC in SIN would have been sustainable, and given that my transport fleet was decimated Japan was looking shaky in Asia.
Presumably this could form part of a KJF strategy - does anyone play this, and if so how?
Cheers
The problem with either side expanding into the pacific is this.
US expands, Germany is able to break through to Russia and/or Africa.
Japan Expands, Russia is able to hold back Germany.
Well sure there are trade offs. I don’t think a Japanese Pacific strategy is viable, except to snatch up a few islands, because they simply cannot take out the US unless they have a lot of money, which comes from Asian land that they need to concentrate on. By that time it’s much more feasable for the Japanese to crush Russia anyway.
But this KJF strat seems like it could work. I know that Germany will grow, which everyone instantly dismisses as awful and unacceptable, but the alternative is to let Japan grow unchecked, like most players do. Then you have to fight a land war and a sea war to get onto Japan. What if, instead, the Allies used a very aggressive Asia/Pacific combo to cripple Japan early, giving Russia only one front to deal with? Germany would have Africa, yes, but Japan would not have Asia or a 40+ income pressuring Russia’s back door. And, if need be, resources could be diverted from the Asian theatre to Russia’s front lines or to Africa. The US would have a large income from taking islands and such, which it will need to break the giant German monster at this point. A KJF strat seems desirable because it takes Russia out of a two front war, makes the threat of M84 almost nil, and uses the expensive land and sea units early to get into Japan, so later a cheap land buildup will be quicker and simpler to stomp Germany. However, the big drawbacks to a KJF are that keeping Germany in check with little European commitment is very hard, Germany will expand and be able to use it’s entire military might against Russia earlier, Japan is BFE for everyone except weak ol’ Russia, and Japan starts off with a large naval advantage in the Pacific. Hmm…I think I just talked myself out of a KJF. Actually, IF Germany can somehow be contained then KJF sounds like a good way to go, but it sounds like the best way to contain Germany is for the Doughboys and Ruskies to shake hands in Berlin.
Yanny has correctly advised us against expanding, ie throwing more money into the Pacific, but Japan has a very significant Navy there already which is to all intents and purposes free - what do you suggest we do with it?
Whipping it through the Suez canal doesn’t work, and it is a bit lame to use the capital ships as transport protection when they have more interesting uses. By about J2/J3 the pacific is secure, and I need something for my Navy to do.
Invading the US is too slow and obvious, running around to Brazil has been discussed elsewhere, so what do you suggest - lurk threatening to invade and worry the US, and use the battle ships to support invasion in Asia/Africa? Invade Australia?
When I am Japan, I generally do follow the conventional progression of killing US pacific fleet, getting as many men onto mainland via transports as possible, going after Russia in the east, etc., as described in the initial post. But as the game progresses and Japan enjoys the mid-game high income, I sometimes like to create a diversion for my German allies by taking Alaska. Last time, my enemy did not see what was coming, even after I had taken Alaska, and left the US west coast wide open. This will probably not happen for anyone else, but the diversion is the point. Right when the US and UK are getting their invasion in gear, they have to turn around and at least buy a bunch of men to garrison the west coast. Since so much of the Japanese navy generally survives the first turns anyway, this diversion is usually much cheaper for the Japs than for the allies. Just a thought on how the Japanese can use their total dominance of the pacific for some benefit to their axis allies.
Use the Japaneese navy to capture South Africa, build an IC there, and procede to kick ass.
Bossk - the quandry you have is because everything you said is true! The US making a push towards Japan IS beneficial and it DOES provide relief to Russia. It’s not that going after Japan is a bad strategy - it’s just not nearly as good of a strategy as quickly crushing Germany. The US can split it’s forces in half and significantly harass both Germany and Japan, OR it can provide OVERWHELMING forces in Europe that Germany just can’t handle no matter what they try.
It’s the difference between the Allies winning 50% of the time and 95% of the time, which is why Candyman mentioned that it is actually more fun to send the US into the Pacific, as long as you don’t have to win the game to have fun.
A Kill Japan First (KJF) strategy is simply not viable, and it becomes obvious if you zoom out and look at the big picture somewhat abstractly:
The reason Kill Germany First (KGF) works is because all 3 Allied countries can devote 90% or more of their overall capability towards Germany. Ask any German player in a crush Germany game and he’ll be glad to tell you - he’s fighting a 3 on 1 battle and it ain’t fair!
This is simply not possible against Japan. The US can devote 90%, but if Russia devoted even 50% it would fall to Germany in a second, and the UK is too far away for 50% to even be an option - they would have to fight out of factories in India or Australia, severly limiting their capabilities.
A good way to visualize this is to think of a slider that you could adjust to represent your Allied strategy: all the way left is 100% vs. Germany, all the way right is 100% vs. Japan, and the middle is 50/50. The slider moves all the way to the left, but when you push it right you PHYSICALLY can’t move past the 50/50 mark!!
Ansbach
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-14 12:08 ]
In short, Japan has the advantage of isolation, Germany has the exact opposite, Germany is surrounded.
If USA and UK can skillfully split up their resources between the two fronts, I can definitely see the strategy of going after Japan in the Pacific.
“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”
[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-11 21:11 ]
Yes, you could do it, but you won’t be as successful as a Germany first option.
I admit that the Germany first strategy is very sound and holds bearing to it. However, the main fault I see in it is that it requires a lot of wasted time. There is a turn between loading and unload, not to mention extra turns in order to build up. I feel that these forces would be better off spent actively doing something (ATB) – conquering territory, combat movement, ect.
This is where I see the viability of a Germany and Japan strategy that fluctuates depending where money is needed most. It offers the highest degree of versatility while pressuring both countries. If I can harass Japan’s southern flank enough by island hoping, I can entice them to counter attack. This effectively forces Japan to try and outspend the USA, something they can dearly afford near the beginning of the game. However, if the Japanese player ignores me, I can successfully prevent Japanese troop movements penetrating far in the Middle East or Africa. Another added benefit is that it leaves the Japanese merchant marine highly vulnerable; I can reach the Sea of Japan within two turns from Western USA.
Germany? The only real viable option for US and UK against Germany is Africa and less importantly, Western Europe. I base this on the fact that Germany in no ways can acquire Russia quickly. It takes at least three turns for Germany to reach Russia from Germany, and that is through Karelia. These supply lines will destroy Germany much like it did historically. Russia then is in an advantageous position by holding Karelia. If Germany tries to reach Russia through Ukraine and Caucasus, I can just as easily close this salient through Karelia and counterattack.
“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”
[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 17:38 ]
[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 17:44 ]
Uh… you’re whole problem is that you’re attacking with the US poorly!!! Here is how you do it; buy troops in Eastern US, move them to Eastern Canada. The fleet stays in the North Sea and pops over to Eastern Canada, picks them up, and lands them in Norway or Western Europe - every turn.
Actually I think my USA playing skills are adequate. You brought up Eastern Canada as a staging point, which is a great idea considering I use it myself. However, you forget that the pause I’m referring to is after the transports unload, effectively ending their turn. Now a quick review of the game board also shows that the only avenue EC would work in is Algeria.
Algeria is vital to Allied victory in Africa and in the game. It follows the concepts of ATB, meaning that infantry and tanks will be actively battling and liberating territories within the next few turns. This is fundamental since the German player no longer has the advantage of reinforcing Africa a turn earlier. However, Norway offers none of the advantages of ATB. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely done to reinforce Russian positions. In no way can such a small American or British force defeat the single German force, as I rather spend my money on bombers.
By landing at Western Europe I can expect a German counterattack the following turn. Usually I will not commit to a Western Europe assault, as Germany will have large concentrations of troops and planes ready to defend and tanks with more infantry conveniently situated in Germany itself. Factor this in with the limitations of transports in battle (only 2 inf. or 1 arm to a land battle), and the battle becomes particular sided toward the defenders. In order for the Allies to have any hope of reclaiming Western Europe, a large transport fleet must be built with naval escorts, which will in turn cost even more money and turns loss during buildup.
There is another weakness toward the Eastern Canada strategy. That is the fact that it requires US troops to be stationed in Eastern Canada for at least on turn. This takes away from the early game where some players will want to get as many units into Africa or Norway as quickly as possible.
A look at the Pacific presents us with a different opportunity. All of the Japanese islands are weakly defended and hardly reinforced. This fact also takes away somewhat from supply line difficulties. If I can build one transport per turn with supporting infantry (14 IPCs) for the first few turns, then twice each turn, if I am lucky, I can conquer up to two islands before returning to Hawaii to refill. This also means I can use the Eastern Canada transports mode in Hawaii without suffering from lack of ATB.
Sorry, didn’t mean to attack your playing skills - I meant that you are not transporting your troops efficiently. I’ll explain:
Turn A - Buy 10 I
Turn B - Move first 10 to Eastern Canada, buy 10 more
Turn C - Move first 10 to Norway (or Western Europe, once you can take it), move second 10 to EC, buy 10 more.
Your 5 transports are in the North Sea. On Turn C, you move them to the Labrador Sea, pick up the 10 infantry, move back to the North Sea, and drop them off.
Repeat Turn C each turn, landing 10 I in Norway or WE each turn. The I in EC aren’t wasting time - they are moving towards the front each turn. The front is basically two spaces from Eastern US.
Turn A can usually be Turn 2 of the game, and from turn 4 onwards the US is dumping 10 infantry into the European Theatre every turn (until Japan tries to distract them for a turn).
I will take this time to test out the your strategy. Since I have seen this tactic used many times, I have come up with the appropriate answer. The problems with these strategies are that they require pinpoint accuracy and investment. You strategy calls for an initial investment of 100 IPCs (3 turns based on average US capita) with an upkeep of 30 IPCs per turn. 40 for the 5 transports, 10 for the first set of infantry, and 10 for the additional set. What else will you be doing the first three turns?
You mentioned Norway as the first landing point. In my previous topic I stated that Norway offers none of the advantages of ATB. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely to reinforce Russian positions. By the numbers a defending force of 7 infantry has a 50% of defeating 10 infantry - a net loss of 9 IPCs if both are destroyed. However, since the Eastern Front often amounts to stacks of 30 German infantry of more, this would require 43 infantry at 55% chance of victory. To pull off this maneuver would require 5 turns of IPC investment along with an additional 3 turns for movement purposes. Think of where Japan will be after eight turns.
Second is the invasion of Western Europe. Lets say you commit 1 bomber, 2 planes, and 10 infantry (the most you existing transports can handle) to the European invasion. Anticipating your attack, all the German player has to do to stop this is place a stack of 10 infantry, 2 planes with one preexisting AA gun to claim victory 80% of the time assuming you let your aircraft to fend for themselves.
Additional problems loom large. How will you manage to defend your 5 transports? As the German player I can launch a devastating assault of 4 fighters and 1 bomber to claim victory 98% of the time – 60% of the time I will lose only 1 fighter.
Another problem also arises: What about Hawaii? Will you counterattack at Hawaii or let the Japanese task force run rampant? By counterattacking at Hawaii, you seriously jeopardize losing 2 ftrs and 1 bomber. The loss of one or more such craft will be a huge blow to your infantry rush due to the lack of high supporting units. On the other hand, not invading Hawaii could end up just as worse. By doing so, you have allowed the Japanese player free access to ATB at Alaska, Hawaii, Australia, Western USA, Western Canada, and New Zealand. Most harmful of all is Alaska and Western USA. These two place an incredible burden on your timetable as it forces you to funnel units in order to stem with the Japanese tide.
The third issue with Japan is how to stop them before the reach critical mass. With all forces going to Germany, Japan can freely devote all its resources to Asia. Though Japan also suffers from supply line difficulties, it enjoys the benefit of having a huge air fleet at the beginning of the game.
