Cruisers and Battleships are too expensive.
This and transports not being able to defend. I still feel that transports not defending is the biggest mistake in this game. Makes the Europe side impossible to play as allies.
I don’t think it makes sense though since the warships job is to protect the transports.
However I think the worst thing though is when you can lose and all of your transports no matter the quantity. That’s something that should be changed IMO
I usually do this in conjunction with Italy/Germany fleet coming from Gibraltar that feigns a sea lion. Forces the allies to just sit on their capital while denying their NO’s. Then the Axis fleet can move into the pacific to Hawaii to attack ANZAC. Such a strategy usually gears the Axis up for cheesy Pacific win unless the U.S. player completely reads the Axis intent from round one.
@Cmdr:
It would be far worse in a traditional game, however. That’s where I was going with it.
For sure.
I played it out, and you’re right. It really isn’t horribly bad. My US was only making 57 after T1 and he was at war though… 2 subs off east coast killed cruiser transport and convoyed.
Still not very good though I think. Japan still gets 1+5 IPCS while the USA loses a total of 6 for not securing its NO. Of course this would likely promt America to start dumping IPC’s to Pacific and eventaully force you out, but your still making some nice gains while making America to halt whatever it’s doing and shift attention to you. If the USA doesn’t answer this the following would probably happen:
-Japan would be in a far better position to defend territory from Hawaii
-Japan now has a much easier time completing another NO for +5 ipcs controlling the Islands behind Hawaii
-Japan can always drop down an entire force on Queensland in one move from hawaii, making ANZAC think twice before moving into position to harass Japan.
Like you said, not horribly bad, but I can really see how this can result in a headache for the Allies if Japan takes advantage of it.
The Allies still need a pretty large bid IMHO. Having to eventaully take out the USA for a mandatory victory condition would obviously stop Japan from getting a cheesy win by taking Honolulu as their 6th city… Unless the Allies are right on the verge to capturing a Axis capital (Not Rome) as the Axis capture Moscow, then I really don’t think it will effect the game other than dragging to game out longer in the case the Axis gaining the upper hand late game.
I’ve played a game where the all the players agreed that the axis would have to take all allied capitals to secure victory, but we played without bids. Long story short, the Axis really had a easy game due to some luck on the rolls, and Russia and India fell rather quickly. London was really tough to crack but eventaully was captured as the USA shifted more forces to fight the Japanese to protect their NO’s. Naturally the U.S player was the last allied player to be in the game after the beat down but it was obvious that there was no use to continue playing.
@Imperious:
Midway would not change the Pacific War. The productive capabilities of America would destroy anything Japan had.
Japan could only hope to avoid war with US. Four Carriers is not the difference between victory and defeat.
Not to mention that America almost always knew Japanese naval movements by breaking their codes, and Japan simply could not do the same thanks the the Navajo code talkers.
Even worse, the U.S. scored a number of successes right from the start against Japanese convoys with submarines, robbing them of any chance to reap the benefits of their conquests in the mineral rich DEI. So even if America lost their carriers (surely to be replaced quickly), it wouldn’t be enough time for the Japanese to fully ultilize their resources.
@wittmann:
But why does Japan have 21 Air? It is too powerful a tool. I think that ruins the game.
Yeah even after OOB Japan still has way to many damn planes. Makes it too easy for them to hold territory in this game.
@wittmann:
also why Japan can get to 70 income and earn more than the US.
I can see what your point to an extent, it would be a bit more historically accurate if America had a somewhat larger IPC income.
As for Japan, if they occupy chunks of China, French Indochina, Malaya and the DEI like they did in the real war then their income should be close to the USA’s. Remember after most of the Japanese advances in 1941-1942, the Japanese held an area of more than 3 million square miles that contained about one fifth of all the population on earth, along with an almost infinite supply of Tin, Oil and other raw materials. If the Japanese were able to thwart U.S. submarines attempting to attack their convoys, these resources might have been put to good use in industrialized Japan. And if the they were able to somehow impress the various Asian peoples into war machine of the “Co-Prosperity Sphere” they could have potentially been the worlds greatest power by far.
If this is supposed to set up for an all-in axis attack on the USA then I think it would be better to wait till J2 or J3 so you could simultaneously take Alaska and the Philippines with minimal risk to deny the U.S. both of their NOs.
I found that attacking the U.S. first as Japan is (weirdly enough) a viable strategy in Pacific 1940, but in global it just won’t work without the assistance of the euro axis.
Everything except cruisers. As for Battleships, its good to have at least one for every big fleet so you don’t have to take kill cannon fodder type ships (like DD and subs), it helps you preserve your fleet strength. It can be annoying when you pick off lone ships and they get lucky hits, but BBs sorta provide a safety net. Having the option to bombard during amphibous attacks is nice too, especially if the enemy has AA guns. Fortunately every major naval power starts with at least one so you won’t have to worry about spending 20 ipcs.
Are you allowed to move land units from Scotland to Ireland without transports?
