Japan's National Objectives

@Fatespinner:

I find it quite difficult to keep China from being killed. How would you suggest doing it?

It’s pretty much impossible to keep China alive if Japan focuses on them.  It’s more about prolonging death and being annoying than not dying.

It depends on what side you are playing.  If your son is going to be Japan, tell him to follow the previous advice.  If you are playing Japan, follow the USA-killing strategy in the Pointlessly Broken thread and effectively win the game in turn 5.  Sadly something like 75% of the content in that thread is a needless flame war (as these boards are un-moderated for all practical purposes) but there is plenty of insightful commentary in there if you can suffer through it.

EDIT: I should point out that the war plans in that thread don’t translate that well into the Global game.  If the USA can afford to ignore Europe for the first several turns of the game, then it has enough to place into the Pacific that Japan won’t take it down.  Japan also has the issue of a possibility of expanding too quickly- since there are so many places it needs to reach, its forces will start to thin out all along the front.  At that point the Allies can start to pick off Japanese forces piecemeal and slowly turn them around.  I liken it to blowing up a balloon- if it gets too big, you can pop it.  The Japanese are protected from this effect on the Pacific stand-alone map since they will run into the edges of the map which provides cover for their flanks.

actually the us can enter war if any territory in n. america is captured.

There are tons of people for the J1 attack.  However we have played our last 6 games with Japan attacking on the 4th round.  Even though the UK gets extra money from the islands it doesn’t compare to the USA’s bonus money.  last 6 games Japan has taken India in round 5 every time.
  Now we have played multiple games with the J1 attack and are about 50/50 on who wins.

If you’re being SBR’d in AA40P you’ve probably lost already.  Europe will be the place to really evaluate the new rules on it.

@Krieghund:

Again, both kamikaze attacks and scrambling are defensive reactions.  If there’s no attack, there’s no defense.  Combat moves done only to avoid combat do not trigger kamikaze attacks or scrambling.

A good definition of “attack” would be “combat movement into a hostile space or declaration of intent for combat in any space”.

With Kamikazes having the added requirement of : “If the allied player has moved ships into one of the above sea zones, …” ?

Which to me implies during this combat movement. Seems pointless to have this line otherwise, since you obviously couldn’t attack a ship that has never moved there.

i prefer taking over as much as possible…gonna need it in order to hold out as japan

@Llordbone:

this topic has been brought up earlier. ANZAC does not have to “control” the territory, they just have to “occupy” it. So if the UK or US control an area, and the ANZAC later land on the territory, than they will get their 1 time bonus :wink:

Thanks.  I figured it must have been addressed already, but I couldn’t find it.