Defeating ANZAC with 1 bomber and 3 subs

Not really. Hope Autumn 2nd Ed will point the right way.
As Russia and the 18 Eastern Inf are not on the map makes it easier for Japan as they can empty Manchuria and Korea and send them against the Chinese.
We need a Manchuria garrison ruling(eg:  keep 6-8 units in Manc).
Alpha 3 helps as it reduces Japan’ s air power.
US’s starting income is weak(17), perhaps that will be enhanced to include Central US. War income adequate, not brilliant. Play the 5 NO for owning Philippines when at war  of course and no Tech.

@Gargantua:

The submarine had to (survive) a combat before submerging.

In Classic 3rd edition (defending only, no subs can submerge in Classic 1st and 2nd editions) and Revised, yes.  In original Europe and Pacific, attacking subs can submerge immediately, while defending subs must survive attacking fire first.

@Gargantua:

Sub Stalls are more of a relic from classic than any of the other versions.

I think you mean Revised, as subs had no effect on transports’ loading in Classic.  Also, because attacking subs can submerge before any dice are rolled in original Europe and Pacific, substalling is much more effective there, especially in Pacific.

Tried Alpha +1 for pacific only.  Still very very hard on the Allies.  I played Japan.  we’re both pretty good axis players…  Is there an Alpha 2 setup for Pacific?  We may play it stand alone a few more times,  but ultimately it appears broken and we probably will use it as an accessory for Global.

My friend JJ has a few Allies Ideas to try and I wanted to try the build a Major IC in Manchuria by US strategy and roll out some AA guns.  But seriously… it still greatly favors the Axis/Japan.  OOB Anzac gets a Major and in the Alpha 1  Anzac gets a minor.  Seriously?  Its like kicking the allies in the face when they’re already face down in the mud.    also the elmination of US bombers is a kicker .

Japan didn’t loose much  a few aircraft, and face a tougher China,  but it made little to no difference.  I built 2 minor IC’s by the 2nd turn and kicked the crap of of india.

Granted the US player didn’t threaten Japan very much by turn 5,  but still its a huge huge uphill battle for the Allies and it really shouldn’t have been since Japan realistically never got close to India

bumped for mrblack trying to do kuf

sorry i bumped the wrong thread. will bump correct thread

Yes, though such a movement would generally be made during noncombat movement.

@Uncle_Joe:

Yep, harassing the DEI us the Anzac’s primary mission IMO. Your secondary goal would be to provide ‘kill zones’ around Australia where it would be costly for the Japanese to place their fleet. Subs and land-based air work well for that. This gives the US some safe havens near critical areas from which to attack.

Remember that you dont have to do everything alone with each country. If the Japanese move down towards Australia it might be time for the US to pounce. And often they’ll lose their whole fleet. But if they weaken the Japanese to the point where the Anzac’s can mop-up, it’s worth it. And the sooner the better. Japan has a lot of areas to protect and to do that, she needs a fleet. If you can trade out your own fleets and air for the Japanese ships at even a slightly disadvantageous rate it’s well worth it.

I think it was the biggest leap for us when we came to grips with the fact that in order for the Allies as a whole to win, each individual nation had to make what appeared to be bad moves. The thing here is that Japan can kill anything she wants, but she cant kill everything she wants. So if you put enough out there to pee in Japan’s pool, some of it will go unanswered (or else Japan will stretch quite a bit and risk heavier losses).

I agree with Uncle_Joe’s post above.

We had one game where the Japanese had split up their fleet in the DEI. The US kamikazied their at start fleet into one of them, and then the British did same to the other (4 ftrs, 1 TAC, 1 BB, 1 CA & 1DD - loosing the ships, but not all the planes).

Next game, the Japanese did the same kind of move, but kept their fleet all together. This time the US kamikazied it’s at start fleet + bombers in on it’s turn, loosing everything, but chopping the Japanese down. Then the British attacked with the same force above, and cleaned up the left overs. Potentially, the ANZAC player could have continued attacking on it’s turn had there been the need.

I’m used to the double whammy, but in this game, you can actually get a tripple whammy if you’re smart about it.

@Krieghund:

Yes, you must do it at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.

So my understanding is “Declaring War” is a separate step in the turn sequence done before Combat Move, since it is not necessarily done in combination with any combat move but applies to all combat moves.  If the is true, this distinction would also keep a player from being able to decide whether or not to declare war (for the sake of convoy raids) after he/she sees the outcome of his combats with other powers (e.g. having retreated into convoy zone of a power with which one is not yet at war).  I’m guessing this is all true?  Thanks for your answers Krieg!

PS- speaking of declaring war as it’s own step in the turn sequence reminds me of an episode of The Office (American) when Michael steps out into the office and shouts “I declare… BANKRUPTCY!”  :-D

The final installment for this series of photos are here.

The (unpainted) dark green US infantry come from the original A&A Pacific set and the red infantry are the Chinese soldiers from that game.  The yellow fellow is from my son’s toy soldiers I intend to use to replace the red Chinese.  and the running soldier is from my son’s toys and I was going to make a complete set to replace the US Marines from the original Pacific game.

It really improves the game playing experience and my son loves his custom set.  Give it a try.