Posts made by Blitchga

I tend to have a very similar strategy against Japan. I use fighters and air bases to force the Japanese player to move around my fighter bases. I also try to use some transports covered by a few destroyers to put some men on those bases to help the fighters if need be in defense (obviously depending on attack otherwise I scramble) or to move later to take other islands

I usually have a decent air force in Europe as well though not nearly as strong. Would be interesting to try having a larger one for some games.

48 strict neutrals, 11 pro axis, 14 pro allied

@Clyde85:

Dose the alpha setup include the Soviets, or is it only for the stand alone pacific forces? Im thinking that if Japan gets a boost in manpower on the asian mainland, maybe the soviets should be getting some offensive units out in the far east, or maybe some more infantry?

Alpha is considered the new set up for  Pacific and since you use the Pacific set up for global it is also used for Global. I am not sure that giving the soviets more troops is the answer though, we are trying to have a balanced game where either side can win…

I like it a lot but found that it makes the Japanese invasion of the Soviet far east region inevitable… Otherwise I have loved the balance of it

@technobabble66:

I could easily be missing something here, but how does italy attack the Baltic States on turn 3? Doesn’t it take 3 turns to move any of its inf & art adjacent to Baltic (ie: Poland)? I think Bessarbia i the only russian state italy can take on I3.
Or was the Italian attack on I4?

That aside, i like the idea of using the Italians to punch the initial hole into the Eastern Front  8-)

I1 move to Germany, I2 move to Poland, I3 attack Baltic States, seems easy enough to me…

I suppose that I should clarify by saying that I usually use the alpha set up. That many Japanese land forces up north and a bold Russian almost never bodes well for them.

I think that is exactly what Calvin was getting at. I know that I look forward to a bold Russian as I have always thought that a bold Russian is a dead Russian. (at least against Japan)

wow that is terrible… remind me to never play calvin as I tend to have bad luck

@Bodeacious:

They may opt for that. But this is a J3 attack thread. If UK attacks UK2, US is not in war until US4. BY J4, the UK and ANZAC have quite a few men and planes in the DEI. Maybe a J4 attack could be good.

In my experience I have found that if the Japanese leave themselves open to a UK2 attack then the allies have already won the game…

I tend to not play an all out Sea Lion for this very reason. However, if the British player pretends that he can perform Taranto and/or not reinforce London with 9 units then I will embarrass them and spend a decent chunk of my 70IPC in turn 2 to take their capital in G3. (Using Italy’s 2 or 3 fighters to clear any blocking ships between the Baltic Sea and London. This way I am able to build a Romanian Major factory on G1 and still cruise into an unsuspecting UK if they do not take the potential threat seriously… If they are smart and defend anyway then roll out the troops from Romania. Hasn’t failed me yet and I only had to embarrass UK once in our group to “encourage” them to never carry out Taranto again.

@Chompers#2:

I think there are merits to keeping US out of the war as long as possible.  I used to think J1 was the way to go but have since revised my thinking.  Also your plan to get IC on the mainland early sounds like a good idea.  Hope everything goes well.

I never attack before J3 and our group has a current 4 game winning streak with the axis.

I am not sure if I have just stumbled upon excellent axis strategy but the allies are finding it hard pressed to win in our last few games. We had a massive winning streak for the allies but now they cannot seem to counter to axis strategies that are being put out.

One thing I can say with absolute conviction is that the USA does not make to much. They are well balanced, and while things could be changed to allow for variances in play style they should have a lower income.

I would cringe and then let them pick whoever they wanted. Depending on the type of person I would give them advice or have an ally give them advice (If I am playing the opposite side) or let them get ganked and learn what it is about.

@Plasticdeathbydice:

I have been attacking J3 unless the US is postured to attack somewhere vital…if that is the case I go on J4…

Pretty tough to get going fast enough waiting until J4 though…

I always attack on J3. If you have let the US posture for major attack on US3 then I feel I have failed as Japan or the US is inexperienced and doesn’t realize what he is about to lose…

Unless the Japanese player is brand new and doesn’t understand grand strategy Russia will be praying that Japan stays on its side of the border. A bold Russian in the Soviet Far East (area not single territory) is a dead Russian…

@dadler12:

I think Japan should wait as long as possible to bring the US into war. Also Japan starts out with enough units to crush the US fleet in the Pacific and if it positions its fleet accordingly it can force the US to build Pacific. Is should add that the Euro Axis have to have enough air/naval units well positioned to force the US to build an Atlantic navy as well (not just transports). If the Axis do this the US will have spent most it’s money on a navy and air force and won’t have 5 loaded transports in the Atlantic ready to head to Gibraltar and kill Italy. Japan should take half of China by round 2, kill Russia or let it retreat to Europe, and position itself to take DEI, Kwangtung, and maybe Malaya round 3. If you can get UK/ANZAC to attack you before turn 3, awesome! Now the US wont be moving units to Europe and making 80+ IPC until round 4. When I played as Japan I dominated the Pacific, took India, crushed China, and never attacked Russia (Russia moved his troops west). Axis ending up winning that game because I drew the majority of US IPC Pacific and the US/UK didn’t spend enough on Europe which resulted in Germany taking Moscow. The Axis will win if they are aggressive early and do not bring the US into the war until turn 3 or the end of US turn 3. When a smart axis does this, a US with 100+ IPC is not enough. Make the US react. It’s troops are so far from the front that if you force the US to react to you instead of making long term plans, you will win every time.

Perfectly said

The US makes more than enough and in most of our games in crying for more money. European troops can easily force the US to build a large escort fleet. Japan can easily feint or even attack Hawaii and US navy troops. I always make it look like I am going to hit the US hard on J3 and then have the troops positioned to instead hit half the DEI, Philippines, Kwangtung etc… A smart Japanese player will rule the Pacific and have all of the allies there running scared. Perhaps what we really need is a Japanese strategy thread so that people can see how to make Japan the USA’s direct rival. It is not hard with well positioned navy, air force and factories Japan can push back the allies on all fronts.

I agree with Clyde. It all depends on how you got there and what is built up around you…

@dadler12:

I wonder if the folks who think US should make less have played with skilled Axis players? I agree with BJ card. The US, if anything, does not make enough. I also think it depends on which setup you are playing with. OOB setup US needs ever one of those 52 IPC or it will never match the air and naval forces Japan will throw at it. Alpha setup I could see a pre war US income reduction but not much. I think someone has pointed it out before, but US has 1 battleship for 2 oceans while Russia has a battleship for the Baltic. Come on. US has one carrier Japan starts with 3. I don’t know. The US is designed to function as the “clock” in this version, because this version is designed to be as close to a historical AA as there has been. The more games I play, the more I think Japan has to wait until turn 3 to attack and has to do a Pearl Harbor type attack and wipe some US units. Maybe I’m playing with better Axis players or maybe the Ally players have been dummies, but out of 5 games 2 have been axis wins, two were Ally wins, and one was a draw leaning Allies.

I agree any money that would be taken away from them should be made up some how or else the game will be broken. I do not personally see a problem with anything but can see where some people might complain. As for the US Battleships. I think that is meant to portray Pearl harbour since in the game the US player never leaves a group of expensive ships to be sunk so easily as they were in Pearl. I could be wrong but I believe that is the thinking behind the set up.

@BJCard:

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think the Allies have that much help-  18 Russian Inf?  If they mass near Japan, they are wiped by a few Japanese troops and 10+ aircraft.  If they retreat then they are no threat to Japan.  Indian troops help in Africa?  That much easier for Japan to nab India.

Just send some air force and then also use some London forces to help in India. I will abandon Calcutta if it means that I will be able to capture it with a larger force afterwards…

@moralecheck:

How about splitting USA’s income between Pacific and Europe?  The NO money can be assigned each collect income phase however the US player wants.  That would slow their deployment a bit but still allow them to focus on whichever front the player chooses.

Biggest problem I can see with this is that it is A-historical. The US spent the majority of its money on the Pacific. It spend more manpower in Europe but men are cheap, a fleet and air force are not. For a balanced stat you will need to be allowed to spend more than 45 on Japan on some turns. As has also been said before the US can always move units across their seemingly small country (at least in the game… always been an annoyance of mine.) and put everything on one front anyway.

I have certainly not found that the allies are at a disadvantage in the game and so giving the US more money does not seem like a good idea to me in any respect.