I began a test game with this Strat and have some photos.

Can’t post them yet, but this is how its been working out.

I took the approach that this would be executed in a worst case scenario where the opposing Allied players were famialr and would adjust accordingly to abate the move and counter it.  (I found countering it extemely difficult)

J1, J2, and J3 were all spent on buying transpo and minor support craft.  Russia quickly took Manchuria and Korea.  The China was slower to advance.  I was able to withdraw all Units save for 2Art 6Inf.

J2 I circled the Philipines and Borneo.  J3 I took all of Borneo/Java etc and the Philipines Dow on US and UK/ANZAC.

I’m on Round J9 with 60 IPC in the bank for Japan.  I managed to make landfall on south Africa with Japanese forces.  The US have been backed into the Alaskan Corner, and the Russians are duking it out in Russia.  UK has been reduced but still formidable in India but lacking in Atlantic due to US slow spending in Atlantic to fend off Japanses in Pacific.  I’d say its working but its not refined yet.  I have been logging each purchase and move for a formal review later of the entire offensive manuever.

I’m fairly new so If what I’m about to go into is “old hat” then politely ignore me and I’ll figure it out.

I was attempting to teach a friend how to play.  I was explaing the roles and basic “general purpose” of each nation.  When I was done with my explaination he turned to me and said,

“Well if the Chinese are restricted as to how far they can move from China, then why not just go around em?”

This got me thinking, especially after reading this opening turn for Russia.  WHAT IF, the Japansese just plain retreated from mainland Asia.
A measured and controlled withdrawl from Asia.  Leave it to the Chinese and Russians.  The amount of IPC can be made up by focusing on obtaining all of Borneo/Celebes/Java etc.  When I looked at the board it looked like I was leaving behind a total of 18 IPC’s and gaining 24 (including bonus from NO).  Pplus your not loosing all those IPC at once, I said measured and controlled withdraw.
This would save any income invested in cutting down those Chinese Inf that seem to sprout up forever.  That would also free money which could all be diverted into the Japanese Navy (which begins at an impressive size to start). 
Then begin the slow and methodical expanition into the Pacific. This would allow for two things to happen.  The US would have to over invest in the pacific, leaving them to neglect by choice the atlantic and European Campaing.  O maintain a balanced spending approach and face an imenant threat to an Fran and a potential Japanse victory.

Thoughts or am I insane

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Bombadill10:

I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away.�  I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.

I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war.�  From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power.�  They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.

SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action?�  Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?�  I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war.�  Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.�Â

I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.

I think it has a chance at being pretty cool. It can also be quite historical if the German player is VERY conservative with how he or she uses his or her submarines. Would it be a little hard to balance and require a lot of other changes? Sure. But one factor that helps the balance is that if Germany does not provoke the US, they are also most likely not strangling Britain. So a US-less war would have a stronger UK.

It would be a cool balance challenge to make a more historical game.

Yea I thought so too.  Intresting game with a stronger UK and no US.  Thanks for the input.

I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away.  I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.

I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war.  From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power.  They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.

SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action?  Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?  I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war.  Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.

I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.

Its a gutsy play!  I can see the logic in the plan.  But heres my concern:

You would need to keep German aircraft availible to strafe the Atlantic.  I know they are primarily used for this type of action already, but I like to shift aricraft to the East after the fourth round and have them assist with the Russian front (or the Med if needed)

There is also something unsettling about having the Allies establish a beach head in Europe.  This is a more psycological advatage to allied players that might see a crack in the Atlantic wall and become more determined to invest troops there, rather then look to the long loop through Africa.  You can run strafe missions on those allied ships, but like we say at our games “the best way to protect a Battleship, is with another Battleship”.  Its just a matter of time before those transports are protected by numerous and superior US surface ships.

By allowing it to remain under French control, you open your line and need to place troops in defense along three territories, rather then two.  By creating a wall along Normandy, with stacks of Infantry and AA guns, it reads like a “CLOSED” sign to the Allied forces.  Any attempt to break that line will need to be mounted with a large number of troops from the Allies.  Bare in mind that the US has had three turns to invest in this plan and will have plenty of assests lined up to carry it out.

Overall its not that crazy.  I would consider trying it, and might even give it a shot myself.

I think it may also put an additional strain on Italian resources earlier on the game.  Working with the Italian player, we usually work it out so that he can focus on the North African Campain while I hold Europe.  Just until the Italians get established and begin to puch East into the Middle East.

Great game, thanks for giving me another build project.  My wife hate me right now.

@Gargantua:

Spring 1942 is pretty good…

For $150, buy Europe 1940 2nd edition,  and if you get it at a deal, also buy Pacific 1940 2nd edition.

That’s 2 more games, + the Global 1940 if you put them together, and you can probably swing it for $150.  So that’s 3 more games total.  Worth it.

Between those 3, 1941, and 1942, you have the entire range that you need.

Rgr that…Can’t go wrong that way.

Ahh, I just want to share a photo or three of the board I built and run it by the community for some pointers.  I think this is a really great site and certainly don’t want to rock the water.  I just want to say that its great what they have done and as soon as my broke a*! gets paid I plan on donating.

Golf Tango Golf baby!

Yes, Global (Pacific/Europe) 1940 rock, someone should get another poll rolling.

Sweet, I like what you did.