Need help

Thanks for the help guys

What you’re saying is all correct. Typically, people do choose KGF or KJF, unless Japan has awful first turn rolls or leaves another opening and the US changes plans.

My Japanese play puts the emphasis on Russia but I also take advantage of my battleships in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean to trade land in Africa and take potshots at Allied soldiers. The UK’s farflung territories like Australia, New Zealand, and Madagascar should be taken quickly. Rarely can Japan not afford these small, early diversions from the Soviets.

If you’re looking for Axis team tactics, I believe the most important is positioning Japan’s fighters well. Early on, I keep my fighters around Frindo to support a German stack in Ukraine or Egypt depending on Allied moves. Later, I like my fighters in z34. From here, they can reach Novo, Kazakh, Russia, Caucuses, West Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe, Germany, and Karelia. They can reach most everywhere that Japan will want to attack or help defend. This tactic also breaks the the UK-US double because if the UK suicides into, say Germany, the Japanese fighters swoop in and turn the odds against a US followup.

thank you, he is close to capturing a capital and trying to capture a second one.

Maybe I can help.

Let’s start with Russia. The two most popular opens and the moves that I alternate between are attacking West Russia and Ukraine, and West Russia only. 3 infantry, 3 tanks is what I buy regardless of which open I use. I would not recommend attacking 3 territories, there’s way too much volatility in the dice to be a consistent first turn move.

Russia 1
Buy with 24 - 3 inf, 3 tanks

Combat
3 inf, 1 fig Kar to wr
3 inf, 1 tank Arch to wr
3 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 1 fig rus to wr
1 inf, 1 art Cauc to wr
10 inf, 2 art, 3 tanks, 2 fig vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank

Average result, Russia takes it losing two infantry.

Noncombat
All Eastern inf move west(just my preference)
both fighters land on Caucuses
aa gun to West Russia

Build 3 inf, 1 tank on Caucuses, 2 tanks on Moscow.

End result is
~8 inf, 2 art, 3 tanks on West Russia
7 inf, 2 tanks, 2 fighters on Caucuses
4 inf, 2 tanks on Russia
4 inf on Yakut

It’s important to note that West Russia has a huge strategic value, all of Russia’s units can meet here on the first turn and it commands the 3 prongs of German advance. Russia has deadzoned Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine because without horrible rolls, their units on West Russia and the tanks they built are enough to kill a German stack moved into any of these territories. In the early stages of the game, I view Russia’s primary job to contain Germany by preventing them from advancing past Eastern Europe so stacking West Russia is a must.

Now your problem was a counterattack of West Russia on the first turn. If Germany was sending all or most of their planes to West Russia, what were they sending to Anglo-Egypt and what did they send to attack the med Battleship? The Allies will be able to exploit Germany skipping either move. If you’d like to avoid the possible German counterattack altogether, try this.

Russia 1

Buy with 24 - 3 inf, 3 tanks

Combat

West Russia
3 inf Kar to wr
3 inf, 1 tank Arch to wr
3 inf, 1 art rus to wr
9 inf, 1 art, 1 tank vs 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank

Ukraine
3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank Caucuses to Ukr
2 tanks, fig rus to ukr
1 fig kar to ukr
3 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, 2 fig vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig

Average Results West Russia taken losing 3 inf, Ukraine taken losing 3 inf, 1 art

Same noncombat, same placement.

End result:
~6 inf, 1 art, 1 tank Wr
~3 tanks Ukr
5 inf, 1 tank, 2 fig Cauc
4 inf, 2 tanks Rus

Now the typical result is that Russia has taken West Russia solidly and has ~3 tanks sitting in Ukraine. This move takes out more German offensive units, destroys a German fighter, creates a buffer around Caucuses, and forces a counterattack - Germany cannot pass up such an opportunity to destroy Russian tanks. Actually taking Ukraine may depend on the dice, if Russia rolls really well, and Germany whiffs on defense, it might be better to just retreat and save the tanks. If Russia takes Ukraine, Germany’s got to either commit tanks or divert planes from other attacks - both are uncomfortable decisions for the Axis player. As with the other move, without awful rolls, Russia should still deadzone Ukraine, Karelia, and Belorussia. This is a solid opening that among other things, prevents the counterattack on West Russia.

What has Germany been attacking first turn apart from West Russia? I think I understand what your opponent has been doing with Japan but I would advocate building transports before buying mainland factories for them. Don’t be alarmed if Japan just rolls through Asia, just try to prevent them from taking territories in force. Specifically, try to deadzone Yakut, Sinkiang, and Persia as long as it doesn’t mean giving Germany some ground. What have the British and Americans been doing in your games?

I would happily play allies against axis without bid, I’m pretty much done with AAR, as AA50 is much better, but if someone thinks axis have advantage in AAR then I will prove you otherwise.

TripleA, LL, no tech, real time.

Just enter the lobby and say you want to play axis without bid, you will get seriously pwned  :evil:  :lol: :evil: :-D

I think we are in agreement, I’ll only buy the 2nd one when I do anticipate 14 units being placed.  I ment the 10-11 unit thing in addition to the IC so I need to be earning about 45 so I can buy 1 IC+10 inf and then place 10 inf (say 3 fic, 7 jap) and then place my IC on either Sin/Ind.  Since I’m already at 44-45, I know next turn I’ll have no trouble spending 45 on 13-14 units.

My typical turns/income will be

Rd 1 - 30 (3 trns, 1 arm, save 1)  - collect 33 (chi + bury) + 1 save
Rd 2 - 34 (1 trn, 6 inf, 1 arm save 3) - collect 37 (chi, sin, bury, sfe, yak) + 3 save (you may be able to take ind but I didn’t count it)
Rd 3 - 40 (1 IC, 8 ground units) - collect 43 (above + ind, aus, hi)
Rd 4 - Here I’d probably pass on a 2nd (purchased) IC until Rd 5 but if I was able to take Novo (or Kaz) in J3 or took Ind in J2 I’d probably be over 45.  So in that case I’d buy the 2nd IC and still place 10 units.  I also have no problem waiting another rd.  Spend my 43 on 8 inf 3 arm save 4 and then in Rd 5 buy the IC and perhaps place on Sin or Ind in this case.

Also the turn that I am short 1 unit is the turn I’ll move the AA to the mainland to cover my IC.

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?

Heh I really can’t understand why both you and donmoody keep using the word “arbitrary” like it has any meaning. Arbitrary means without reason, and I’m sure that the designer had some sort of reason to change the rules. Larry doesn’t like changing them very much, and for him to have done so in the first place means that he was receiving some sort of complaint or player feedback, which is more than a valid reason to tweak the game to be more understandable/accessible. Doing something for a reason, even if some people consider it “dumbing it down”, is not arbitrary. You can use the words “superfluous” or “irrelevant” or “unnecessary”, etc, but using “arbitrary” is just a wrong use of the English language. You can say the change did not improve the game or is not needed, but to say that there is no reason behind the change (arbitrary) is entirely a subjective and uninformed view of the matter. I would really like to know why both of you like to incorrectly use this term, it really bothers me. I can respect that you think the change wasn’t needed or that you liked the previous ruling, but to say something else entirely different, that it had no reason behind it, just makes no sense to me.

I can just as easily say that I think it’s more intuitive for fighters to land in seazones for carriers than it is for them to land in territories with complexes. To me, hey that’s where the carrier is going to be, so why not just have the fighter there already so you don’t forget to redeploy onto it? Why move units during the mobilization phase? It could very well be that you’re smarter and both are equally intuitive to you, but again, this does not make the change arbitrary (only to you perhaps). I’m sure Larry changed it based on player feedback, and since it is a game after all that requires changes and tweaks, that is hardly a reason to call it arbitrary.

Actually, it gives 5 spaces of movement either way because suddenly you can ‘land’ in an illegal spot.  Your range has still been extended by one.

By the way, more flawed reasoning. Extending a fighter’s range by one by allowing it to land in an illegal spot does not increase its range to 5. Prior to “illegal” landing, you could theoretically only move 3 spaces, since the 4th would be illegal. Thus, with “illegal” landing, you have increased the range to the full 4, not 5. You can never make it look like a fighter is moving 5 spaces under LHTR, while you can do so under box rules (deploying on a territory with a complex). And the space is nt really seem illegal because a carrier is going to be there, which is consistent with the other rules about fighter/carrier landing.