Posts made by Charles de Gaulle

@AAGamer:

@PainState:

@simon33:

I think the real problem with the floating bridge is that it doesn’t really contain Japan.

Well that is true because the Pacific war is at first a naval war. Europe is not like that and Navy does not play a big role besides protecting TRS to shuck troops onto the mainland.

Over in the Pacific you have to get rid of the IJN first and foremost. The land units are just there to take advantage of openings to take Islands and move closer to the main land. Considering how most players play Japan by never reinforcing any of the islands with any size of force. The USA can have 3TRS with 6 guys and do some serious IPC harm on Japan and their islands. It does not require a huge TRS fleet in the Pacific until late game.

Now lets look at the 18 TRS shuck to the Philippines. So you are sending 12 troops a turn to Manila. So, you wait one turn, now you have 12 TRS sitting in Manila with 24 Units, and you can threaten the entire mainland of China, from Singapore to Tokyo. Since you broke the shuck you then have 2 turns later another 12 units come from Hawaii to reinforce.

IMO the fastest way to neutralize Japan is to kill their IPC economy and that is found in the South Pacific and the coast of China. I understand the idea of going north but I do not think that is the best way to take down Japan. Taking Korea and all that stuff is end game moves for the USA to finally knock out Japan on their main island.

My question for you is at what turn do you think you will have enough of a US Navy to be able to build 18 transports and the support ships to protect the trns and to wipe out the Japan Navy?

By that time, Japan will be deep into China and maybe Russia.  They will probably have India too.  If such is the case, they can relax and start building naval units to counter yours.  Unless you are severely ignoring Europe, it is very possible to never be able to get that deep into Japanese waters safely with so many IPCs being spent on Transports.

“If you are hurting your enemy, good; if you are killing him, great.”

Americans anywhere in the Pacific hurt Japan, but the question is what kills Japan?

Sacking their reserves?
Or
Threatening their homeland?

Just my opinion, but I like a minor force down south helping Australia (fighters, bombers, destroyers, submarines) and a major force up north.  Splitting up your navy is fine as long as you won’t be attacked by Japan.  This splitting is not really a severe disadvantage because Japan has to split up in the same ratio or let you have your way.  Don’t be Afraid to split up your forces in the Pacific, just be cautious of counterattack and regrouping range.  The same applies to playing as Japan.  Of course, places like Western Europe require a different approach.

We regularly host games at East Brunswick, Milltown, and random places in Middlesex county.  Mostly Global 1940 and its variants as well as the occasional 1914, 1942, and Anniversary (original). 1941 for beginners.

We are mostly a bunch of teens, but we entertain some random kids, young women, and old men.  Despite our large numbers, friendship, sportsmanship, and ethusiasm is strong.  Most games are 5-8 people.  One vs one is extremely rare.

We have our requisites but would be happy to get the chance to play with you.

Aren’t you glad your love of this game and interest in World War II have taught you so much about the world?
Unlike some others…
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=XoF_cRSBSs4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=waGRVYBHxXo

I can’t tell you how many times a friend has told me he aced his geography test because he got free study time when we had a game the weekend before.

…even if he did label Tanzania the Tanganyika Territory and Myanmar the Shank(k) State…

@Imperious:

So what we have now is an airship that doubles as an aircraft carrier, Flying battleship, triple duty as a submarine, and lastly makes the worlds largest German cigar.

Basically a Churchill tank.

When I am not using this game to introduce new players, we always use low luck dice mod and/or the units from 1940.  Not just artillery, but everything, cruisers, AA, etc.

This game is meant to be quick.  Usually when we are short on game time we play this one with low luck because low luck eleiminates a lot of time-consumming dice rolling.

The whole style of this version is not for hardcore strategists.  There is only so much to do and too many cases of “optimal” moves that everybody more or less should make.  Sometimes just playing this one casually as a social game can be a lot of fun when crazy luck results in weird games.  An example:

I remember one game in which Russia totally killed Germany, while Japan had managed to get all the way to the US.  Berlin and Washington fell.  The UK was left in a dismal situation with Australia and India captured and a Japanese fleet in the Atlantic itching for a London victory.  I never though the Axis could win with London and Washington and NOT Moscow, but if it were not for smart UK play, this might have happened.  Alternatively, Japan liberated Berlin, but it could not hold.  Meanwhile, in China and the Middle East Russia and Japan were fighting it out hard.  With its mainland factories, Russia eventually pushed the Japenese back and got India and Africa for the UK.  Japan surrendered holding the Pacific islands and North America.

Games like that were fun, only spurred on by poor play (by new players) and crazy luck that made their poor play actually come through for victory.

If you really want to play 1941 as a strategist, you need to make big changes or use a luck-reducing way of play.

You are correct.  All territories withstand the Chinese roundel are originally Chinese and off-limits to major factories.  But the Chinese coast is great for building factories.  For Japan, transports are indispensable, but they must be protected.  Often you cacti get away with shucking troops from Japan to Jehol/Shantung/Kiangsu with transports, but a problem arises when enemy ships or bombers are in range.  Factories solve this problem.

With Japan, I always recommend transports and at least one Chinese factory (I also prefer one or two more in Southeast Asia).  Japan’s use of transports for reinforcing the mainland mostly relies on whether or not you can escort those transports at the sacrifice of the main fleet.

Here is a generic way to play it:
But transport
When given an opening take some of mainland Europe.
If there isn’t a factory, build one if you can defend it.
Meanwhile, your transports are heading back for more troops.
More recent transport are arriving on the beaches to bolster the troops being deployed by the factory.

As the US I am almost always buying transports, but given the chance to buy a factory, I certainly will.  Be sure to reuse your old transports if you have offloaded.

Of course, this is all assuming that you successfully reached mainland Europe and believe you can really hurt the Axis by holding that land or attacking from it.

I crackeded a joke and now you have flying aircraft carriers going underwater.  I guess I had better keep my mouth shut.  :?

The Global and Pacific setups have been given the final sign off by my team and are available for play!

What next guys, a German sub that can carry airplanes when it surfaces?

I would not suggest going 100% Pacific with US for more than a turn at once.  Russia will fall easily if UK is held up with Italy.

Sounds to me like the Allies won that game due to poor Axis play.  I will have to give this no-Taranto strategy a go again next time I am UK to see for myself.

The important thing to remember is although it is very useful having the UK in the Indian Ocean, you cannot sacrifice Asia or Russia.  The place to lighten up is and should only be the Mediterranean.  This means that the US still needs to make a good contribution to Atlantic and UK has to keep Italy in check.

Place for the bulk of the American fleet?
How about dead center in the heat of battle?  :-D

On a serious note, I do prefer keeping most of the US Navy up north, but I almost always have American ships and planes down south helping ANZAC and reinforcements going to Hawaii for deployment.  The trouble for the US in the Pacific is mobility. Either you stay back in Hawaii where you can quickly move anywhere or you move in further to safe zones like Alaska and Australia and sacrifice your range.

Anyway, to justify my first comment made in jest, the US really needs to get in the middle of the Pacific as soon as Japan gives them the chance.  The Caroline Islands is the obvious route, but there are other places that can be used such as Iwo Jima, eastern Russia, New Guinea, the DEI and even places like the Marshall Isalnds with an added sea base.  Once you force put the Japanese into a situation where they simply cannot be in two places at once, Yamamota is going to start sweating.

@simon33:

@Charles:

The idea is to force Japanese ships to come down to you.  Once they are in range, then you strike.  Don’t send yourself in first.

I agree with this. What do you do if the IJN camps out in SZ42 (Java) with a superior fleet? Just sit in Qld and build up?

If you are diverting so mNy Japanese ships as ANZAC, great!  I usually find that if Japan is putting a big enough fleet outside Java to halt ANZAC, there are other openings in the Pacific that can be hit.  The US could move to Japan or the Caroline Island or help Far East Russia.  Alternatively, you could ask the US to come down and scare the Japanese fleet back to air cover.  Also, don’t be afraid of fighting a more or less even naval battle with Japan as ANZAC.  If the smaller Allies can get Japan into fifty-fifty fights, the US can probably overwhelm them.  Of course, there is always that one Japanese player who buys a yon of ships and just settles with a smaller portion of mainland conquest.  In such case, be happy that Japan is focusing on you and not the Allies that count (China, Russia, UK).
@Caesar:

Very rarely do I have ANZAC go for the Dutch Territories outside their own NO. Usually with the starting transport, I take the New Zealand infantry and have them capture Brazil and leave the Dutch Islands for UK. Mostly because I have to deal with a Japan that likes to keep the peace but keep a fleet too far south to allow a loose transport to convert these islands and I have not going to risk 8 dollars of worth against earning 5 if Japan is within striking distance of Queensland.

I often see Japanese assaults on Australia to be a worthwhile trap to set.  As long as you hold Sydney, you are fine.  Besides, the US can hit the fleet (of even be outside Queensland from the start) and ANZAC should always be buying land units to fight with and send on transports.

I agree with HandGrenade.  The UK Pacific needs a land war.  If you want to fight as sea as the UK, you need to take from Europe.  It is ANZAC’s job to contest the South Pacific, possibly with US help.

Capitals do not surrender simply means that there is no surrendering of IPCs and that a power does not need a capital to build.

Collecting income at the beginning was interesting, but had some enormous changes to strategy.  For instance, Germany won’t bother capturing Caucasus if they know that holding it until next turn is impossible.  It facilitates an interest in keeping ground, not just capturing and recapturing.  It also makes getting NOs much harder.

Tech in 1940 is just way too dicey.
You can blast 100 IPCs for nothing.
You can get something that is worthless to you.
You can get insane luck and bulldozer with huge advantages.

In a game that people tend to want to reduce the luck factor, something as dicey as tech is not accepable.  Gloabl 1940 is too deep of an investment to lose due to bad tech roles.  Perhaps on a shorter game, but not here.

It’s all good stuff.  Many people just don’t realize how easily ANZAC can force Japan to spend more than them in order to maintain the DEI.

With ANZAC, you should try for any island whenever the odds are in your favor or will likley cause mutual annihilation.  UK often does not have the transports to keep doing this (when possible, I send a transport plus land units from South Africa).  I like keeping US transports up north, but when the opportunity is there, send US fleet to be in range of the DEI and hop on all four and maybe Malaya in one boot.  Though you will lose heavily, Japan cannot recover for a while.

It basically becomes ANZAC’s job to keep Japanese troops held up in the DEI.  To better you odds of capture, consider buying a strategic bomber that can hit Java, or maybe even cruisers.  I know cruiser cost too much for their bang, but for some reason I just like using cruisers for ANZAC to get an extra shot on islands.  I must admit, this is not a cost-effective way to wage war.

The ideal is to keep hitting the islands until you win with two units left.  Mathematically, Japan simply cannot just use one transport to fight 2 vs 2 so you force them to invest more: a cruiser, carrier, another transport, or strategic bombers in range.  Once Japan is forces to use more than a transport to reclaim an island, you pull out your small navy and smash them.

As mentioned earlier by others, subs can be great for forcing Japan to invest more.  For this job, I call on the US, but ANZAC can help.  The whole theater of war in the South Pacific is as Larry described it: "…can Japan hold them (DEI) long enough…?  Every Japanese ship you send down, every infantry on a island, is delaying their advances.  The idea is to force Japanese ships to come down to you.  Once they are in range, then you strike.  Don’t send yourself in first.

Another simple strategy that is worth noting is “master prevention.”  This requires US help.  Simply stated, grab an island, send every commonwealth ship you have, and call the US to back you up.  If you can manage to have such a large navy sitting outside Java that Japan cannot take it out….well Japan cannot take it out.  Even if Japanese call in air and sea to force you out, you can still try to keep Java (or any other island) by using overwhelming multinational odds.  Try to hold for a round, dump a ton of land units and fly off some fighters, and then leave.  Japan cannot take back an island if you have 8 land units and 3 fighters on it because the force necessary will requite them to move a large portion of their fleet.  If they dare come out, your combined Allied fleets can hit them while they are out of air cover.  It takes considerable effort and requires that some of the Japanese forces do not have fhe DEI in their crosshairs.

Just food for thought.  In my opinion, the Allies should not move any major protions of their fleet when taking islands.  Just put enough to take the island and/or force Japan to use many ships to take you out.

For me, I only do this if Germany does not buy units offensive to London turn one.  Sacrificing the Mediterranean for the Dutch East Indies is good in theory but hard to pull of successfully.  Of course, letting Italy get off easy might be a bad idea.  I would suggest hitting Tobruk or Ethiopia or both.  From there, a dentermined attack on Japananese naval assest with UK, ANZAC, US, and  France (bring the Madagascar destroyer  :-D ) can be deadly.

The problem is significant help needs to be given to Russia to prevent Axis from winning with Moscow and Cairo, assuming the Brits cannot hold Egypt.

I will say this: it works but is not a strategy to live by.  I personally like being naval with UK Pacific.  It is a lot more effective that helping China, fighting for Southeast Asia, or defending India from the inevitable; but the loss in the Mediterranean can hurt.

Savage,
The idea of forcing the Axis to hold their objectives for a few turns sounds perfect in respect to gameplay, history, and balance.  The question is how many turns?

Wow Gargantua, I got to convince the guys to try this.  I am a big fan of the tiniest changes that make big differences.

Some others I have tried:
Every “worthless” territory is worth 1 IPC to everybody at all times.
Collect income at beginning of turn.
Capitals do not surrender.