@Bunnies:
You didn’t read a thing I wrote. :roll:
Yeah sorry Bunny. I ran out of energy, (and time at work), to read the second post. I just read now. Good info, thank you. That sonds like the ideal Japan strat. I see too many player buyinf too many IC too fast. Thanks.
2 inf, 5 arm is a nice build from the IC’s but in order to build that and still fill 4 TP out of Japan with minimum 8 inf, Japan needs to be earning 55 IPC’s. In my opinion, many people make this very mistake, when they are calculating Japanese builds, as well as another mistake I’ll detail later.
Thanks U 505. Good points. i agree with all. I am also a big believing in inf first, followed by tanks. My reference to the 2inf 5arm build was in response to the argument that the EI IC didnt allow the felxibilty of an all tanks build.
Yeah. I am certainly on the side of not supporting an EI IC at this point. I first explored it in order to have a stronger presence in the indian ocean, and contend for africa. Africa is a money pit against a good allied opponent, better to do as you said and just annoy the USA in africa.
Well …. alright bunny. I guess I got what I asked for. Yes, your second post was a novel, and although alot of it said “it depends on what allies do”, and some of it ignored points I made in previous posts, it was much more useful than your first post. You have obviously had much more time to analyse and weigh different approaches to this game than I have, as I first discovered the revised verion in dec of last year, and only recently began to read forums on strategy.
Im sure others have thought through the entire gambit of an EI IC. This is why i posed the idea to the forum for discussion, as I AM EVALUATING the merit of it. So detailed reasons are very helpful to me, instead of “your idea stinks!!”. First off, Any AandA strat considered always “depends” on what the allies do. That is a given. Id say an US :“KJF” strat is certianly not a time to build an island IC that needs naval support. agreed. UK making a stand in India is not necessarily a deal breaker though. Ur japanese fleet should be in the Indian ocean in this case anyhow, so providing cover is natural. As far as bypassing other island targets, i never stated that this was necessary, in fact i stated i usually hit at least Australia, “dependant on allied position” OF COURSE!
And once again you compared the EI IC to two mainland IC. When I specifically stated i planned on 1 mainland IC and 1 EI IC. So as far as builds, yes, you are constrained to building at least 2 inf. But a build of 2 inf and 5 tanks doesnt seem too bad. What is funny is at the very same time you chastise me about making asumptions, you make asumptions about what i “always” do. Any Japan strat is dependent on allied position. this I consider a given.
So reasons why I gave thought to the EI IC was brought up by another poster. I want to contend early and often in africa. So given that assumption, that the allied positon makes it possible for Japan to contend in Africa, is the setup of 1 IC in FIC and 1 IC in india, better than 1 IC EI and 1 IC India? That is what I am evaulating. with the EI IC, in 1 turn i get inf to egypt which can be followed up by tanks from india. But I understand that a dedicated US will out muscle me unless i divert many troops from russia.
This begs to question, what does an axis player do about the africa problem?
Lets be careful about yelling at me for what I always do, as I attempted this idea twice in a “game”. :)
One variation on u-505 opening that i like to use. I dont think its been mentioned yet:
dd to take out the tran. Sub to take out jap sub in sz45. tran from australia to take New gunea. Tran from india to take Borneo. AC to block retake of borneo by placing in sz 49. Your are only 2 to 1 favorite to take borneo with 2 inf vs 1, but when u do, it sure slows japan down. And with this open, they have so many targets, there no way they can pearl.
What are you doing with the fighter? Leaving with CV?
Options:
Attack the sub and land on US CV
Help with one of the two land grabs, then land it on the CV
Help with Transport attack then land it in China or USSR.Other?
I usually position the uk fighter in caucus so i can retake india, when/if japan takes it light.
@Bunnies:
:) funny. scoff if u will. i think this idea has merit
It has merit like my dog has rabies.
I don’t have a dog.
burp anymore.
Come on, man, an East Indies IC? Srsly? So you have another naval point you need to protect, you have four transports shelling out of Japan, another two transports shuttling East Indies, and you already took Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Alaska plus secured Africa? If you have all that, yeah, blow a wad on an East Indies IC, there’s nothing else to use your transport for.
But if you don’t have all that, you don’t build an East Indies IC.
Well Bunny. You certainly add a tone to your posts dont you? Im not saying that the East Indies IC is in additon to anything. Im not sacrificing other goals to have this IC. I replacing basically the FIC complex with this one. I like 6 trans, but its not necessary. You know, you may actually give specific valid reasons why you think the idea has no merit, instead of spending all the effor ton colorful sarcasm.
Answer me this, what is YOUR approach to the goals you laid out. How many transports do you have, ICs, and where they are located. My typical approach is IC in FIC and IC in India. I think this is common. My alternative is IC in EI and IC in India. So the diff isnt the 15 ipc for the factory, that is the same, the diff lies in the 16 ipc for trans. The plus is an extra unit. Also 2 trans can become very useful for alot of the goals, if not all of them you listed. So if you want to tell me that you think japan having 6 transports is inefficient in getting troops to where they need to be, i will listen. But your post really contributes nothing. “If you have accomplished everything you want to as Japan, then blow a wad on it”. Useless post.
Dont reply again unless you have specific or insightful contribution to the pros and cons. I dont need to hear about the fleas on your dog that u dont have or something.
One variation on u-505 opening that i like to use. I dont think its been mentioned yet:
dd to take out the tran. Sub to take out jap sub in sz45. tran from australia to take New gunea. Tran from india to take Borneo. AC to block retake of borneo by placing in sz 49. Your are only 2 to 1 favorite to take borneo with 2 inf vs 1, but when u do, it sure slows japan down. And with this open, they have so many targets, there no way they can pearl.
yeah japan sure did mess with the results. But to be fair, Caucus didnt really fall on the 4th turn. I left it empty to kill all your german tanks. :) And retook it. However, if the japanese didnt do that ill-advised attack, was it round 7? It still would have been interesting, as berlin was close to falling as well.
A couple of things on the game.
I didn’t maximize on the opportunities I was presented. I think a better played allied game would have crushed berlin. The mistakes i made were: I bypassed africa with us, giving the germans too much income. I should have staged in algeria with the us, and killed that med fleet early.
I didnt take advantage of the weak eastern front. This has part to do with bad dice. Im actually not sure how i didnt take Ukraine in ll round 1. Thats never happened before. And frood says it shouldnt of happened. hmm actaully a few battles were different on the triple a battle calc compared to frood. Hmm. but heres frood:
Probability % # units / losses
69.98% 5: 1 Art, 2 Arm, 2 Fig. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
27.4% 4: 2 Arm, 2 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Art. : 13 IPCs
2.62% 3: 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm. : 18 IPCs
There is no result with 0 land units, which is waht happened!!! But that caused me to stack caucus rather than w russia. Which didnt allow the russians to eat up territory. The uk should have been landing in northern europe and eating up territory, another error on my part.
3) Ur post does say round 2 you would buy 2inf 2art and the rest tanks. You instead bought all inf and art waiting for the WE landing that u new was coming. if u bought the tanks, berlin would have been in trouble much faster.
So as in summary, i didnt properly bleed the Germans, and u had way too much income. Which allowed u to place way too many inf in the west. But even as it went, berlin was at risk of falling that game. So yeah we should do it again, with you in control of all of axis.
:) funny. scoff if u will. i think this idea has merit
@Mazer:
AoE, let’s play man. I got until 8pm. I’ll run either side of this strat. Get in the lobby!
I dont see you in there
Mazer, are u taking my game from me! :) I wanted to demonstrate the German bleed!! It would have been fun taking EE with a single russian soldier on Round 3!!!
There is no conceivable way you can sack Caucus on round 2. If you can, u deserve a win sir. Round 3 i find highly unlikely as well. You are right about Ukraine being a dead zone, And the russian player should treat it as such by not commiting all of its troops there. Meanwhile, you dont have enough left over to defend the western front as well. Germany is the one that spreads itself too thin in this scenario.
@Crazy:
:|
Ya, 2 IC in mainland and save the $1 million man hours of production for something else.
I’ve played you when you used this strat, and it didn’t seem to blossem into anything very positive to me, sorry.
On the positive side though, it did cause me to build up my US pacific fleet as I recall, which took some pressure off of Germany, so that is an Axis plus. :wink:
You are correct Ivan. In our game, this was my first attempt at this. I didnt have details or logistics fleshed out. That cant be taken as a true test of usefulness.
BTW, how do you know who I am?
@ncscswitch:
I personally would need to play test it a few times to see if the logistics of the extra TRN requirements, and the reduced land forces in the first 2-3 turns, are worth the 1 extra unit per turn that can be produced by EI over say FIC as an alternate IC.
I dont think the land forces will be reduced if done correctly. Say i build IC r2. then r3 i build 4 units. r4 i land those units in India. My tran shuck hasnt been disrupted until round 4 when i have to go to EI and grab the equipment. ON round 3, i simply take 1 or 2 trans from the mainland, and drop stuff into FIC. I am in position for the EI drop. I sometimes have 1 tran taking australia that i use, thats why i said 1 or 2 trans from mainland.
So lets compare to an IC in FIC. r2 purchase the IC. rd 3 build units. r4 move to India. So the IC in EI is superior as far as units in Asia. I have 4 units in India round 4, compared to 3 units with the mainland IC. This is why i started looking at this approach. I followed the typical progress of IC in FIC, then one in India. The downside as i said is u have 2 trans dedicated to this shuck. But that may also be a positive at some point in the game, as it give u felxibility and added striking power to Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt
Hey all. Great forum you have here!!
I have been playing with a japanese strat that involves my 1st IC in east indies verus mainland asia. I would eventually supplement with an ic in India, as this puts axis troops on the doorstep of caucus. Basically, I want a more liquid Japanese assault, with optimally 6+ trans with Japan.
On round 1, I buy 3 trans, and 2 inf. This give me 4, or 5 if the uk was nice enough to save me one!! I buy another tran on round 2. giving me 5-6 trans. on round 3, i buy an IC in the East Indies. and I have my transports in position to shuttle troops round 5+. So i want to hear pros and cons of this. Here are mine:
Pros:
– By round 5, i can shuttle 4 land units into India instead of the 3 a mainland IC gives me.
– I have an IC safe from bombers and safe from land attacks.
– In conjunction with my 6 trans, i have added flexiiblity. I can just use 2 transports to shuttle to india as long as i want too. However, say I want to contend in africa, i can bring two more trans over, and can have four units pumping directly into africa a turn.
Cons:
– I rely on navy to get units to russia. As japan you do anyway, with the land bridge on the mainland, but this bridge is a little more vulnerable.
– Its costs 31 ipc to deliver 4 units a turn, versus 15 ipc to deliver 3 units a turn.
So i guess the conclusion i have to make here to have this approach worthwhile is this: The 16 ipc cost, and setup is worth the extra unit per turn, and added striking power into africa.
… So is it?
I find the tone of the thread a bit amusing. Its like you are threatening any Russian player. “You irk me by killing my plane in UKR, and I shall unleash an unstoppable strategy in which you have no defense!”. What is the trigger that make this all possible? the three russian tanks exposed? In ll i bring 2 tanks for sure. Dice i may bring two or may bring three. Either way, on russia round three, i certainly have the counter attack ability to strafe and kill all inf and dig into the tank stack you may have in ukr, and hold caucus.
Round 3 can have several allied planes in caucus, i usually have a few staged there by round 3 in a normal game. But once i see the german build of all tanks round 1, I certainly buy more allied planes, uk and usa. These planes will have duel purpose, to defend russian territory, and to land on western europe that is very porrly defended at this point. It is possible you lose western europe beyond countering ability the moment you move that stack of 10 tanks on round 2. Once you lose WE, your are making a mad dash for mosocw, or you strangle to death very quickly.
@Amon:
the agressive Russian aproach against an experienced German player simply cannot pass
there is too many ˝risky battles˝ not to mention those 3 in the first round Jen
and simply Russia cant produce 30+ constantly, even if it has Germany will have 40+ and overpower them
And USSR is definitely ˝the easiest˝ nation to play with. There are not easy nations, but some are harder to play with
The Nations:
1.GERMANY
2.UK
3.JAPAN
4.USA
5.USSRGermany UK and Japan are the hardest to play with, then goes USA and then USSR
definitely huh? Well. Granted I think Russia may be the easiest, but I definitely dont agree with your list of easiest to hardest. I think UK gives Russia a run for it money on easiest country. But I really guess it depends on what you feel is optimal strategy for these countries, as well as your definition of “ease to use”. For an advanced player or beginner? I think USA is the hardest country for a brand new player. UK, is right there as easiest to use optimally. I dont think UK should have to do much contending in asia or africa (in the late game). I bet ur gonna tell me otherwise, as u said an IC in India is a good idea. I dont agree. UK otpimal play is to shuttle troops to Northern Europe, and contend in africa early, waiting for usa to take over. thats it. They might make some waves in the indian ocean early, but for them to try and contend in Indian ocean for a substained period, i think its sub-optimal.
My hardest country to use is certainly Germany. They fight all three allies at once, and they have to balance defense and aggression. USA might be next. They have alot of logistical concerns. And options. Pacific, atlantic, europe, africa. The challenge is finding the optimal system to deliver ground troops where they are needed. So third would be japan. Although, i might put uk ahead of japan. Japan is usually not contested in the games I play. Only stalled. SO the challenge is of course, getting optimal number of ground troops in position on Mocosw as early as possible.
PS - you should probably note the edits made in the original post so my reply doesnt look retarded :)
Ok, i didnt see the med tran as a bid unit. With your strat, u might as well bypass africa, as u wont hold it past round two anyhow. So u will only have 2 trans of equip on either round 1 or round 2. U can choose for effectiveness. And the norway units wont make it to the fight unscathed.
But yeah, with an extra tran in the med, i might bypass ukraine, and stack Wrussia Caucus. Never played against two trans in med. Be interesting. However, you could just place the bid units directly into europe, as if u use the med fleet to hit ukr r2, u cant contend africa much longer.
Indian IC in R1 is a very bad idea. japan can easily push everything for it. Yes, you slow japan rush toward Moscow, but u cant hold it, giving Japan a free IC 2 spaces from caucus, and three from moscow. Meanwhile, you also slowed UK in europe, making Russia that much weaker, and Germany that much stronger.
As for the japanese tran, I like using the destroyer to take it out. But if Russia has stacked Bury, the plane might be a good alternative, depending on what ur doing with the Indian fleet.
I used to think killing that tran was a must do for UK, but now im trying toher things. I let it live, combine entire UK pacific fleet in the south, with 2 inf from Australia. Leaving that plane on the ac will protect the fleet from japanese attack. You can now land 2 more inf in india or africa. Or …. attack FIC with 3 inf 1fgt r1. u r 50/50 to win. And i often take the territory doing this, whcih kills a japanese plane, and slows them down. It wouyld be unlikely Japan could take india by round 3 if played right.
Well i consider the Ukraine attack vital to a Russian opening. Im not going to say “must attack”, but its close. The reasons for this are already known by you, as it aggravates you to the point of writing this article!!! Killing that tank and plane cant be passed up. However, why must you bring 3 tanks to caucus? If ll definitely 2 tanks, in dice, it depends on how i feel. If i know I am palying an aggressive germany, i certainly bring 2. With an attack of 3inf, 1art, 2arm, 2fgt vs 3inf, 1arm, 1fgt. Russia is most likely to take ukr with two tanks remaining, 89% to take in general, and 95% to kill that nasty german plane.
But alright, lets go with your assumption i brought three tanks to ukr. most likely result is three tanks, and 1 art, as calced by the frood calculator. By your own post, and verified by starting units chart, you can only bring 7 inf to a ukraine counter. That counter is 7inf, 5arm, 1fgt. (i gave you much more than you gave yourself. your post has 8inf which isnt possible, and 4 tanks, no AF). The most likely result is 2 inf lost in retaking ukr. so u now have 5inf and 5arm stacked in ukr. Russia likely lost 2 inf in taking w. russia. they have 7inf, 1art, 1arm. Caucus has 2 inf from Kazah, and 3inf, 1 art built, leaving Causus with 5inf, 1 art. My russian round 1 build: 5inf, 1 art, 1arm. This leaves 6inf, 1 arm in moscow.
My counter can be 12inf, 2art, 2arm, 2fgt. But i prob leave the tanks home to save them from your Tigers. R2, you are left with 3inf, 2 art left in ukr. Since you moved your inf to w. europe, you now have to counter ukr with only 1inf (italy–>balkans–>ukr) and 10 tanks. Keep in mind u havent used any other units for swapping belorussia and karelia, and those territories are now red, also leaving EE open for 1 lonely inf to claim. But given this, lets assume u can bring the full af into ukr. 5fgt 1 bomber. U have claimed ukr with 9 tanks remaining. My russian round 2 build was 8inf 1 tank. I can hit ukr round 3 with. 6inf from w. russia (moved from moscow on round 2), 2 tanks (saved). 4 inf Caucus, (placed on round2). 1 tank from moscow. 2 fgts. The average result is taht i kill ur 9 tanks for my 8 inf, leaving 2inf, and 3 arm. A +21 ipc exchange for me. I can also choose to just strafe, and save my 3 arm from slaughter.
But as u can see, u arent taking caucus round 3. And I have laid waste to a total of 15 german tanks in this scenario. meanwhile, germany is now stretched too thin, and have a whopping total of 5 inf in europe!!! So lets add the allied pressure now. UK stacks in Karelia, and USA takes africa, threatening the belly of europe. Germany is the one that losses for its over aggressiveness in this scenario. Leading to a quick German demise. If you play TripleA, we can test this theory if u wish?