US 1st Turn KGF

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

I’ve also seen someone use an 8 bid to get another transport for this move.  He took UK but America took it back and since there was no pressure on Russia for a few turns the guy ended up loosing.

lol… :-D

@Jennifer:

Leaving the second BB alone is bad for two reasons:

You gave England a capital warship that can bombard you at will.  That means two bombardments for the price of 1 infantry.  (6 IPC for 3?  That’s a good trade!) England is not out 16 IPC for a carrier to defender herself.

Don’t forget that the Allies don’t have to worry about keeping 1-2 Figs on the carrier giving them even more versatility

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

@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.

Granted.  But at least it isn’t BMB, FIG, 2 SS vs SS, Trn, BB. :)

The response for that Shadow is for Japan to not sweat. Calm, rational, deliberate action.

You don’t have to counter every single move as Japan. You don’t have to, for example, worry about killing the destroyer off Kwangtung. What threat does it really pose if your navies are defendable? Zero. Kill Pearl and China, bring your E Indies fleet to clean out the carrier and transport, and an inf/ arm to F Indo- most likely the Brits lost 2 infantry taking it (at least). Bring 5 infantry and 2 fighters to China. Sure it’ll cost more than normal but you’ll win. Send an extra fighter to wherever the British fighter landed (either China or off French Indo). Allow Russia to step into Manchuria. With a 3 transport (placed in SZ 61)/ 2 infantry build you’ll crush all 6 if they brought them. If less it’ll be even easier. Hey, they’re dead Russians, which is good. Do the normal Pearl strike. Expand as usual on J2 and beyond.

Yes these moves slow down Japan, but they make Germany’s life easier. With the moves you described German armor is racing south in Africa, and once Japan has taken out the Brits in the pacific theater on J1, India is ripe for the plucking for either Japan or Germany (G3 med fleet escape). Personally I’d rather conserve the British carrier, transport, and fighter. On UK4 they lock down SZ12 while the combined fleets are hemming in Germany in the north.

The first time someone sees an aggressive Britain in the pacific it might freak them out, and they might do something silly, but if you’ve been around the block a few times…

I’m not saying by any stretch of the imagination that these are bad moves Mr. Hawk. I’m pointing out how I would counter them and the game-wide ramifications, in my opinion.