I have to concur with the others who have posted. A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go. If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia. While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units. Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia). Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too). That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia. So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it. If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about. YAKUT is the key for Japan. Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces. The drain on Russia: defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support. And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)
What is so bad about taking Karelia in the first turn(s)?
-
Take Karelia (maybe with forces from Norway). This prevents Russians from building there next turn.
-
works out great for russia if germany actually tries to keep it, but a reasonably smart germany wont actually plan on holding it. a smart germany will take it, and non combat his tanks from norway. this is really a trap manuver to try and sucker germany into committing a large concentration of troops into a killing ground. heh, have suckered lots of newbies, and a few arrogant experienced players with this one.
-
Yeah, don’t get greedy with Germany. Attack Karelia with 3 inf from Norway and non-combat that ARM out of there. By forcing Russia to retake Karelia, you delay them enough to ready defenses across Eastern Europe and maybe hold Ukraine for an extra turn.
-
usually when i do the russian pull back, i have all russia’s tanks in novabrisk. if germany puts a large force in kar, i take it out, if they dont, i take the tanks to japan.
the pull back allows you to keep nearly all your units, and forces the germans to really think about what they wanna do. by pulling back, it allows you to gain a position where you have 4 tanks and 2 planes that can reach nearly any potential targets of opertunity. like the time i did this and the japs had left just 2 troops to guard 3 planes and a factory in manchuria. hit em with 4 tanks 2 fighters, and 5 troops, eliminating them pesky fighters, and delaying them using the factory.
the real reason it worked long term was because i had a friendly britain sending me fighters for defence, while amerca was doing the flotilla thing. doesnt work quite so well when your allies are uncoordinated.overall, not the most effective tactic, but fun and works under certain cuircumstances. i even won a turnament with it once. the german guy was normally pretty good, but he was “convinced” that i was a noob, and fell for it hook, line and sinker. psychology in a game can be fun :)
-
Yes, almost every competitive game I played has a deeper metagame.
-
I’m not neccessarily saying that Germany should take Karelia, but they should threaten it at least, for two reasons, 1 to drain IPCs via hit and runs, 2 to pin down IPCs defending Karelia (and not attacking Japan or the Ukraine)
If Russia well stocks Karelia (Russia restricted) and Germany only takes it with like two tanks, than it doesn’t matter because the british can’t counter attack for 2-4 turnsand the Russians are exhausted. In a turn or two, when the Japanese knock on Moscow, the Russians have almost nothing left.
-
I don’t mind letting USSR keep Karelia, because after Japan is done, that’s all their gonna have. 8)
-
One thing not considered so far is what Germany is really to do in the east. I feel they have to engage the russians at some point or else the soviets will simply stack infantry. After three turns of eight infantry per turn that’s around 30. This will impossible for Germany to overcome also US and UK will be entering the fray at this point.
Japan should be close to Moscow by now but will still have a hard time taking it.
Unless you’re aiming for an IPC victory i really think that Germany has to hit Russia but also not overextend their all too crucial armor, it’s delicate balance -
I dont know about what you said as Japan. As Japan, I like to have at leas 2, if not 3, factories on mainland Asia. One on Yakut, one on India, and one on Indo-China. This lets Japan move 8 infantry a turn to threaten Moscow. That forces Russia to remove a lot of forces to the east. I only do this once I have Novosibirsk and usually Evenki or Kazakh. Russia is barely holding onto the skin of its teeth by then and has to funnel forces ot the east to counter the Japanese stack. This eventually weaken Karelia enough to even the odds for a German invasion of Karelia.
-
I would probably suggest going against building an IC in Yakrut for Japan. It’s much more economical to just buy two transports instead. Usually when I set up an IC (India or Burma, maybe for both), it’s to produce ARM and not inf. I think that 6 ARM should be more than enough (if you factor in supporting inf) per Japan once it hits critical mass.
Suggested Topics
