Topics created by Furher of the Third Riech

@InViriconium:

My standard buy on J1 (assuming all transports are alive) is 1 Transport coupled with some air, usually a fighter or two and remaining IPC on ground units to make sure transports are filled. Fighters just seems like the most flexible unit since it can both work in an all out Asian invasion but also help protect your navy if need be. Having 3 transports in total just seems like the maximum to me. Even with 3 I struggle to maintain all transports fully loaded each turn and also building enough navy to keep a US player who invests heavily into a pacific fleet. Buying more transports and sending them on far away missions like Australia or Africa on early rounds doesn’t seem to be worth it in my opinion. But somehow with this build I struggle to keep enough pressure on north eastern Russia and India if US pressures my navy. Anyone has any bright ideas?

this is precisely why i like the complex on first turn in manchuria.  you no longer need a navy to produce 3 tanks a turn to start harrassing russia and uk (preferably you’d be attacking India first turn and taking it, otherwise ASAP)

you need your navy playing chess in the pacific with the US.  meanwhile any transports would be easy targets for stray allied fighters, so why not remove the risk or need for more navy just to defend them.

japan’s navy WILL die at some point, you can’t afford to replace it, so you have to put pressure on Russia.

Thx for the replies  :-D

Sincerely, Hitler

Sure, as a matter of combat value, the planes are better. The issue is that America tends to literally run out of combat units in China by round 2 or 3 – all their infantry are dead, so they have nothing to take or trade territories with. Since the point of even a successful Chinese campaign is to delay Japan’s progress west rather than to actually defeat the Japanese army, not being able to capture territories is a huge problem – you can bomb a stack of Japanese tanks to hell, but the tanks will still move an average of 2 spaces per turn. If you can capture a territory, sometimes you can reduce the movement rate back down to 1 space per turn or even 1 space every other turn.

1. im sorta ok with transports not defending themselves. Gone are the days of stacks of transports defeating battleships and destroyers. Transports do have light armament, but not enough to sink a battleship. I do have a house rule that you can only destroy the amount of transports as the number of attacking units, to avoid the unrealistic destroying of infinite trasnports.

2. The reason for this is to prevent germany from collapsing too quickly. Think about it, at most germany is going to have to survive a 123 punch by the allies. Of course, thats in theory, as allied help only really takes place turn 4. If you can keep russia alive until then, the allies have a good chane of winning.

3. And thats exactly the reason it was reduced to 3. 6 tanks a turn? theres no chane for germany to win under those circumstances.

4. I partially agree. It takes too much pressure of of germany to go KJF, and its pretty much up to russia to hold out bar a little fighter support and withstand the onslaught of germany. So basically its easier for russia to fall, but if it can hold, or they can take tokyo fast enough, the allies can win (Russia seams like the only country that has to hold in this game  :|)

5. its not that UK is poor, it actually has a pretty average income. Its just they have a million things to do like take the money islands, make sure germany doesnt get africa, help russia, prop up india, etc. They can drop a navy, you just can’t let africa go until something like G3.

I was looking at 1914 and it is certainly different as a departure (though on a good note) of the old A&A formula. The only prob i have is austria hungary being absurdley more powerful than russia. But other than that, i seem to like it (1942.2 is better simply due to the fact that the map is big enough, and russia actually has units.)

Sincerely, Hitler