US / UK Strategy

I agree with the shield and sword statement. It is my experience that Germany on its first turn should buy a transport for Italy and all men. Regroup your tanks and all your infantry into Eastern Europe and plan to take Karelia on turn 3 if possible. Turn 2 can work but can be costly. Germany should buy mostly all men on turn two and three as well and move them into Eastern Europr so as to overwhelm Russia and get ahead of their infantry total. Once Germany has more infantry than Russia attack Karelia with men and tanks only, save your planes. From Italy send two full transports every turn into Egypt and Trans Jordan until you secure the Suez and subsiquently Africa.  Meanwhile Japan hits China, and India and then all out Russia, while still maintaining suppremacy in the Pacific by staying one step ahead of the US and as someone else mentioned take out as many US and UK ships as possible while not over commiting your fleet and only losing the cheap expendable replaceable pieces. An IC is a good idea if you are sure you can hold it: Manchuria is good to go after Russia, but can be reinforced by Japan transports anyway, FIC is safer but India is the best of both if you can capture and hold it, because it is two squares “a tank blitz” away from Caucauscus and Trans-Jordan and you can move fleet through the Suez if needed and assist Germany in conquering Africa as required. Not to mention taking precious money away from the UK. Japan would then purchase three tanks every round for India (or FIC) and keep that up until Russia falls. From India or FIC you can also launch a strike on Australia and New Zealand to further hurt UK. If UK buys an IC on India, Japan MUST capture it at all costs or UK will get the upper hand and its game over. If Germany and Japan hit fast and hard as a unit first at UK to bankrupt and “stall” them and get the valuable money they need and at US to “stall” them, then maintain that stall on both of them and go all out Russia so as to hit Moscow on the 5th or 6th turn from both sides, the Axis will have an IPC victory easily or if using victory cities (AA50 and new) or complete victory rules they will be on their way to world domination. :-)

i guess it’s also acceptable to have one of the players conceed and let their team mate roll for them (i have some lazy, lazy friends)  :wink:

Honestly, I like unification of the British Fleet in SZ 30 with 1 Infantry from India.  This makes it financially worse for Japan to attack than for England to be wiped out, strategically worse for Japan to attack (since they’ll lose their air force and have to leave Pearl unattacked maybe even not take China’s fighter out) than for England to be wiped out (all those ships are generally dead by UK 2 anyway, so what have you lost?)  BUT

it really tempts Japan to try!  Furthermore, form here, you can hit E. Indies with 4 Infantry, Fighter if Japan leaves you alone, or you can hit Egypt or you can just dump the infantry in S. Africa to bolster the defenses there.

Furthermore, if you build an IC in S. Africa (which negates the risk of losing Africa and thus your paycheck and allows you to stay in the upper twenties, lower 30s) you can be a relatively annoying pain in the butt. (Once Africa is secure, you can always dump a submarine or two in S. Africa making SZ 34 a threatened zone if you want too.  Or at least pose the risk of doing so if you don’t want too.)

That said:

if I had to attack the japanese iwth England, I’d go Destroyer/Carrier to SZ 59; Fighter, Submarine to SZ 45 and land the fighter in SZ 52.  I’ve seen quite a number of Japanese attacks on SZ 52 go south because of that extra fighter.

I have always used the Ho Chi Min trail stragety as the US also.  It takes a little longer to get things going but having a solid wall of troops cycling through the continent is a deterent.  And even if Japan still decides to attack and takes that territory, the US will have a force to be delt with in adjacent territories.

As Japan I think you would have better luck focusing mostly on mainland Asia and as a secondary objective running scrimishes on places like Alaska, Hawaii, New Zeland, Aus., and Brazil.

Taking these places under a scrimish mindset means you are trying to defelect US troops from going to Europe.  They will take back those territories and some times very quickly.  Don’t take them with the intention of holding them because you have far more to loose in this situation because you have to import the fight.

I usually start shipping troops and a small fleet to africa to threaten the underbelly of Europe, building up enough forces over several turns to eventually launch a strike or reinforce WEU.  At the same time I am slowly building a navy in the Pacific to make sure Japan doesnt go unchecked, and maybe if japan has their navy out of the way I will build a transport and take borneo, just to be an annoyance.

@newpaintbrush:

@ncscswitch:

There are so many problems with OOB rules that basically no one uses them anymore.

He’s callin me basically no one.

Wah.

my second ˝karmation˝ goes to you

If you really wanted to “debate”, I would be happy to do so, squirecam.  But your accusations, misquotes, and insinuations are hardly a “debate”.

@Thorak:

Assume I have loaded 2 UK inf on a US transport and then in the US turn I moved the transport to the seazone next to Ukraine. Can the inf on the transport participate on an attack on Ukraine in the following UK turn together with other UK units? Does it make any difference if Ukraine is empty and the units can take it alone?

The infantry can participate in an attack on Ukraine.

You do not have to unload both infantry during combat, although you may if you wish.

It makes no difference as to whether or not you unload infantry if Ukraine is empty or not.