Japan invading Brazil - An option?

Well, for our current game Jen Japan’s success J1 (no losses in China, which is American ineptness not Russian) made the Armor unnecessary, so my Complex did nothing for me. Using transports and adding the complex later would have no difference in result. As I recall J2 Russians shot average in Sink, and wiped me in Yakut: The success had nothing to do with poor shooting by Russians, and everything to do with so few Russians being there; The rest ran away to the Germans. Even when I moved past where the trenches should have been drawn, the Russians still refused to turn around and fight. An extra 2 Inf in China is all the +luck I’ve had for Japan, Russia needs to defend her own borders!

I always have the cg in India, put about 3 inf every turn just to hold off the Japanese from back dooring and gettin an VC

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

I move the TRN in SZ 40 with the two troops to India where if the timing is right I build an IC.

As far a s Russian troops I mass all the troops from SFE (2 INF) and Buryat (2 INF) in Yakut (2 INF for a total of 6 INF. Maybe move a tank from Moscow. It works but be advised it’s a temporary solution. It will only work a an effective barrier until Japan has a bigger force next to it.

It’s important to hold China as long as you can. The reason for this is you want Japan to have a multi front with your territories. If you hold China they will have to defend and hold French Indo-China, Kwengt…, and Manchuria, as apposed to you holding up in Sinkiang and Japan only having to defend China.

That’s what I do as far as Japan goes. Axis countries have a lot of assets and a smaller economy base. For them to have any hope of wining is to match or exceed the income of their allied rivals. In order for you to prevent that you need to contain them in a timely manner.

-LT04

good way to delay japan is to play tradeoff with them in Ind (Uk), Yak (Rus), Sin (Us) with whatever inf is available. In the end he will beat you at tradeoffs, but its better than going to an arms race between Russia (getting somewhat pressure by Ger) and Japan. That will definately delay him/her.

Super! Thank you very much for your answers!

…and yes, of course I meant UKR, and not BLK…sorry, my mistake.

@ShadowHAwk:

Australia and NZ can be good locations if you can get there without expending to much troops.
It is easy IPCs and they wont take it back. Also it cuts away 1 of the allied powers concentrated.

If you focus on 1 power it helps more efficient then on all powers.

Especialy the turn you build an Ic you might not be able to build enough troops to use all 4 trannies if you move 2 south then ( to enforce FIC ) you can take Australia next turn without losing much transport power but cutting in 3 more ipcs from the UK who at that point has verry little IPCs and is losing afrika making it completely dependant on the US to do anything at all.

Sure they’ll take it back . . . but only if it’s a KJF.  I assume this whole thread is pretty much based off a KGF assumption, because otherwise Japan should go inf/fighter turtle.

My typical Aus/NZ/Hawaii plan uses ONE transport, BB support shot(s) and a carrier.  I use the infantry from the southeastern islands to replenish.

Sometimes I can’t afford to go Aus/NZ/Hawaii depending on the India/Ssinkiang situation.

GG are you there, so please answer my question. :-?