Posts made by calvinhobbesliker

If Japan takes all of Asia, the Phil, and the DEI, they get 78. US gets 55 and ANZAC gets 15 w/NO. They can match all allied builds and add a destroyer each turn.

Doesn’t this addition help the allies more than Japan, since Japan can’t empty Korea or Mancuria and invading Russia will only give Japan 1 IPC territories?

@BasileII:

From what I’ve read on Larry’s site and on the Europe Fact Sheet, the usual and powerful J1 attack will probably be a ‘think about twice’ in Global.

For now, if you attack on J1, it’s all good for you (even if I do not think that ‘the game in broken’ or that the Allies cannot do anything to win). But in a global game in which your german allies have many other problems than being at war with the USA, Japan may have to reconsider it’s usual strategy and attack later. But I still think that they will have to go for the money islands to hope fighting the Allies in the long run.

And maybe will there be less of you to say that the game is awful.

Since you think the game isn’t broken, how do you think the allies should respond to a typical J1 attack? Typical means killing Singapore fleet, taking Philippines, FIC, Yunan, and one of the DEI?

@Frontovik:

okay, i don’t get it
so, US only gets +30 for being at war?
they get 17 starting income from pacific
so US gets in the europe game 33?
cause everybody mentions 80 IPC?

Maybe it’s 30 for each side?

Go to “Talk to Larry” on HGD and look under VC’
s. Krieghund said it.

@idk_iam_swiss:

Axis only need 14/19 to win? some are going to be SUPER easy. Like the one in Poland, France, phillipeens, some are going to be TOUGH like Calcutta, and Ottawa.

How is Calcutta tough if Japan can apparently capture it on the 3rd turn.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

@WILD:

Enough with the Canada haters, now you want to strip away its VC. The only thing Canada did was help us (allies) win the war. Larry already alluded to the fact that Canada will keep its VC (which it should), and there will be others added like Cairo. I’m thinking besides the usual suspects, Cape Town and Kiev may be added as well.

I know the Canadian VC would be tough for the axis to get, but not impossible. Taking it away would be limiting the possibilities for an axis win. If they choose to take on N America they should be rewarded for it.

Exactly.  I agree with you entirely, I just don’t think the number of VCs the Axis should have to capture to win should be so high that they have to either take an Allied capital or invade North America.

There are 19 VC’s. Axis can just win by capturing all but West/East US, Ottawa, London, or Moscow

Actually, they forgot to list Manilla. There are 19 Victory cities.

@Krieghund:

Reinforcements enter the game on the base island, but they don’t “come from” it.  They come from another base further up the chain.  Think of them as having approached from the other side of the island.

Okay, but if the reinforcements enter on the base islands, where would they enter if the base island were captured?

@Krieghund:

Wrong.  They can still reinforce.

How? Don’t all reinforcements come from the base island?

Yes, it’s inaccurate, but so is Japan having that many planes. They make the allies weaker and the axis stronger so both sides have a chance, unlike in reality.

@Krieghund:

Yes.

And if it’s successful, then they can’t reinforce, right?

Is the US allowed to invade Rabaul? Is Japan allowed to invade New Caledonia?

@allweneedislove:

neutral africa.

south africa and egypt would be british empire, north africa would be axis, sahara impassable, but the rest of africa neutral.

so if one side wants to spend the resources to grab the cash they can. but if you want to ignore it you can, without the penalty of the other side making a fortune.

in the early designs of revised they toyed with the idea of a neutral africa. i remember seeing a picture with africa a different colour from everything else. i thought it was a good idea then, but now that there will be more neutrals it just makes sense to have africa neutral aswell

Most of Africa was colonized by beligerents in the war: Italy, Britain, France, and Belgium all had colonies which made up most of Africa

@WILD:

On the subject of India, I saw a doc on one of the history channels that said one of Hitlers many axis plans was to take India via N Africa (Egypt-Suez) push into The Middle East then into the jewel of the UK. Not sure how true it was, but it went on to say that some of the Indian troops (POW) joined the axis (switched sides) in N Africa. The thought was that India was in turmoil over its independence. It went on to say that their was even a planed coup with Indian Nationalist to take over the government. It also said Hitler wanted this to be a Joint German/Japanese attempt. That Japan actually sent an amphb/naval force, but recalled it (in-fighting between army/navy). It was also thought by Japan that the Indian Nationalist would join them after they conquered Burma.

Does anyone (calvinhobbesliker) no more about this? I also read some stuff on Wikipedia that supports parts of this under India WWII.

Yeah, I’ve heard of such attempts. For example, there’s Bose, who escaped from India to Germany via Afghanistan and the Soviet Union in 1940. He wanted to lead an army of Indian POW’s to “liberate” India from Britain. Hitler was actually reluctant to do this as he admired the British Raj. Anyway, after setbacks in the invasion of Russia, this became impossible. Thus, Bose was transfered via subs off Madagascar to Japan, who helped him lead an army of Indians captured at Singapore to invade India. The sad thing is, that those Indians who joined Japan and invaded India are regarded as “freedom-fighters” in India and are given large pensions. Indians who fought on the British side against the Japanese invasion of it are not.

@cminke:

rour such an a** i rock :wink: :-D
and canada did not concript we voluntered. :x
i dis like your assumption but i forgive u  :-( :-)

Sorry, you’re right. Conscription only happened in 1944.

The point still stands that India mobilized more soldiers than Canada

@i:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

@i:

ahh razor in ww1 we had 8 million people so i think in ww11 we would have  more.

The difference of 1 million more in Canada to 400 million in India is only 0.5%.  He’s saying that Canada had 5% of India’s population.  Whether that equates to more impact on the war is debatable, but saying that Canada had slightly more doesn’t affect his argument the way it is stated.

okay razor said there were 7 million people in canada during 1940 well i my website like it says there was 11,382,000
big difference and like cminke said around 80% of canada went to fight in ww11 and fought all over the wester front like at dieppe, d-day, opperation torch, sisily, italy, market garden, holland, and germany the fought in the atlantic and in hong kong, also they fought in belgium.
were did india fight?

Dunkirk, East Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Greece India, Burma, Malaya, Hong Kong

By the way, Canada’s army was mostly conscripts. India had the largest volunteer army in history: 2.5 million. Canada’s army, navy, and air force: 1.1 million.

@Razor:

@calvinhobbesliker:

First of all, what should the US build if using this strategy?
Second, can’t Japan leave ~5 fighters or tacs to scramble from Japan?

As I said, US need to build one Airbase on Iwo and one on Okinava, and a Naval Base on Iwo, and of course they need to build lots of fighters that can scramble from this airbases, and they also need to build one tranny each turn, if they want to bring the war to the enemy.

Oh, the Tricky Nipper cant leave 5 fighters in Japan if they want to kill India before J3. I assume evarybodu know this.

What if they do a more moderate crush that takes more than 3 turns and thus allows for Japan to build tanks at a MiIC ?

@Brain:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Russia gains 5 IPC’s if:
1. It’s at war w/Germany
2. It holds archangel
3. The archangel convoy is not disrupted
4. There are no other allied units on original soviet territory

So there is no NO for a Russian/Japan non agression?

That wasn’t a list of 4 NO’s. It’s one NO which is gained when all 4 conditions are met

@Razor:

US have one job in this game, and that is to take Iwo and Okinava as soon the war is rolling, and this is rewarded with 7 extra IPC because it is what actually happened in the real war. So basically the game mechanic favours this kind of play. So if you wanna win, forget Tommy and go to kill the Tricky Nippon.

Step by step:
Lets assume if Japan move all navy and airforce against India to do a crushing J1 attack, and only defend Japan with the new purchases, then you must:

T1: Move all navy to Hawaii
T2: Move all navy to Iwo Jima and occupie it.
T3: Move tranny with inf/tank to attack Okinava, build an Airbase on Iwo and land a lot of fighters there.
T4: Build Airbase on Okinava and Naval Base on Iwo.
T5: Take Korea.
T6: Build factory in Korea, and by now you propably get my drift, man.

First of all, what should the US build if using this strategy?
Second, can’t Japan leave ~5 fighters or tacs to scramble from Japan?