Posts made by ghr2

@Zhukov44:

Nice write-up Putzky.

3. with the European Axis in an immediate defensive position (or alternatively, a futile aggressive position moving East to Moscow), Japan will not have the space it needs to be able to stay in control of the Pacific to get the 6 victory cities for the win

sounds good in theory, but actually the hardest Axis strategy to beat is when they go for the Eurasia win and don’t worry about VCs.  Even if Italy is throttled in the Med by UK/USA it’s very difficult for Allies to save Moscow and simultaneously prevent Japan from securing the Pacific win.  Even if the Allies can save Moscow, the Axis can besiege Moscow and be in a good position to win the economic war.

I favor J1 and usually play it, though I admit J2 certainly gives J1 a run for its money.  It’s true a J1 involves some moderate risk at Yunnan (as well as sz 37, Hunan, and Philippines) in a dice game.

If I recall, YG was once a J1 skeptic (like you) but changed his view when he tried it out a few times.

When considering the matter from an IPC perspective (and that is not the only perspective, but a useful one), make sure you are taking into account all of the Allied units that are destroyed Turn 1.  British BB, Ami dd/ss, 2 inf fig in Phi.  The naval units get away if you don’t attack J1.  Also take into account the +7 from Borneo and Kwangtung and the corresponding -7 on the UK turn.  Think of the advantage of securing Phi, Bor, Fic, and Kwa (the last 2 being good IC spots) on J1.  Now your transports are freed up to secure more strategic targets on the next turn.  If UK or Anzac want islands, then they’ll have to sacrifice transports.

I did all the math one time and I found J1 and J2 very close to even from an IPC perspective.

So the decision comes down to the strategic advantages of J1 compared to the strategic disadvantages of USA entry into the Battle of the Atlantic.  If the J1 is executed correctly, then Japan is on their way to a quick Pacific victory, and USA will have no choice but to go 80%+ Pacific to turn the tide.  Which means the USA does not have the resources to threaten Germany/Italy.

Well said sir.

@Putzky:

@ghr2:

In all honesty, Sealion depends more on G1 and UK1 than whether Japan declares or not…  London can still fall if he goes too aggressive.

As for the pac, make sure u count the allied ipc loss for not being able to claim any of the islands cost-effectively and the big advantage in position Japan will have.  If a J1 DoW is executed right, there should be no lone Japanese transports.

The US would be in a tricky spot since it has to deal with a potential Sealion, and an explosive Japan.  There is no reason why Japan should not be in the mid to upper 60s by turn 2.  With the 6 transports and a factory in FIC, India would be in trouble.  If it moved out passed burma, it can be flanked and India will likely fall.

Italy will be able to maintain some position in africa if Torburk survived, otherwise, it can work on cleaning up russians as they run in to europe.

All in all, Grasshoppers J1 may have flaws, but it does not mean that the concept of a J1 declaration is fundamentally flawed.

The whole point I made about Sea Lion is that, no matter what the J1 DoW looks like, all Britain has to do is make sure that Sea Lion doesn’t happen on G2 and the European Axis is doomed. Why would any British player allow London to be in a position to be taken on G2?

Really, the biggest hole in any J1 DoW is that, no matter what the immediate tactical gains are for Japan in the Pacific (and I would personally argue that they can’t be that huge with only 3 Japanese transports to start and no big navies worth big $ to assault), there are 3 negative strategic consequences that make it wildly favor the Allies:

1. bringing the US into the war on their first turn is just gifting the Allies immediate control of the Mediterranean and Africa, thereby ensuring Britain - UK’s full IPC income for the next 5-6 turns at least as Africa cannot be touched by the European Axis, and preventing Italy from getting any of their NOs. The European win will no longer be a strategic option for the Axis.

2. it more or less guarantees that the Allies will have superior income from start to finish of the game

3. with the European Axis in an immediate defensive position (or alternatively, a futile aggressive position moving East to Moscow), Japan will not have the space it needs to be able to stay in control of the Pacific to get the 6 victory cities for the win

I was referring to a G3 Sea lion.  If America dumps heavy into the Atlantic, then sure, Sea lion is off the table and Italy will lose the med in a few turns.  But this does not prevent Germany from exploding into Russia like it would usually do since it takes a rather large amount of US investment to get an army in position to really hurt Germany economically.  Germany only needs to worry about counter-attacking a couple key territories and to keep Italy from falling.  Everything else can go through southern Russia and push him into the 60s and 70s by turn 5 or 6.

Japan should have control of Malaya and all of the islands by turn 3, if he does it right.  While the transports he made will be in position to smack India if the Brits get too greedy.  I honestly don’t see how India lives past turn 4 if Japan positions right, unless it gets massive aid from everyone.  Once it falls, Japan can focus almost completely on ship building and finishing off china.

In all honesty, Sealion depends more on G1 and UK1 than whether Japan declares or not…  London can still fall if he goes too aggressive.

As for the pac, make sure u count the allied ipc loss for not being able to claim any of the islands cost-effectively and the big advantage in position Japan will have.  If a J1 DoW is executed right, there should be no lone Japanese transports.

The US would be in a tricky spot since it has to deal with a potential Sealion, and an explosive Japan.  There is no reason why Japan should not be in the mid to upper 60s by turn 2.  With the 6 transports and a factory in FIC, India would be in trouble.  If it moved out passed burma, it can be flanked and India will likely fall.

Italy will be able to maintain some position in africa if Torburk survived, otherwise, it can work on cleaning up russians as they run in to europe.

All in all, Grasshoppers J1 may have flaws, but it does not mean that the concept of a J1 declaration is fundamentally flawed.

Ya, only IPCs on the pacific board go to India and the europe board goes to london.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33119.0

@Gargantua:

GHR2 To answer your question #1:

And please… do not be offended by the lunacy of what I’m about to say, but according to the written rules this is how it would work…

• British units can activate Dutch territories until Paris falls/or is attacked, or the Dutch are attacked . (Because DEI starts as pro-allied)

• That means that Britain could activate ALL of the Dutch if they landed in Holland the capital.

• Once Paris falls or the Dutch are attacked, the Dutch become their own power.  That would mean any activated territories, including the Dutch capital, would then be instantly liberated and it would be it’s own power.  Of course… watch out for the fact that if England activates the Dutch capital, there are no longer ‘dutch’ territories to attack, so only Paris would count for this.

• Interestingly enough, should England activate Holland, prior to an axis attack on Paris, I don’t think the Dutch would get their “units”  back based on the game mechanics, but it doesn’t matter because the dutch move at the same time as England, and no one is likely to switch out all the orange pieces on the board for tan ones!

Let me restate my question since you guys have a hard time understanding it.

Can the UK/ANZAC player, after Paris falls but before the Dutch capital falls, move units into dutch territories, then, after the Dutch capital falls, the UK/ANZAC units in those territories automatically activate that territory for the UK by virtue of being within it at the start of the turn, and/or move out of that territory on the same turn as the activation?

If america can get a lot of bombers on EUS and a loaded carrier or 2 in sz102, then it is possible.  All he will need is a landing spot for the bombers.  This would mean that Ireland or scotland would need to be allied controlled.

@Ben_D:

ghr2, here’s what I would gather from what I know by doing some reading in the rules in .pdf format (version 7.2):

1. Page 28, section 10, B: The Dutch are pro-allied at the very start.  You can move into the territory at any time.  That means you can do this.

2. Page 29, section 11: No, they move 2 to do this.  How could the unit be at 2 places at once?

3. Page 24, section 1, B: No.

4. Reference Map: Belgium is absorbed into the Netherlands in this version.  Same rules apply for that territory as the rest of the Dutch territories.

5. Page 9, Section 5 - Strategic Bombing Runs: Yes.

6. Page 33, Section 4, A: Yes.

Side note: Over 80% of the questions I see posted in this part of the forum are answerable by just reading all of the rules.

1.  You did not answer my question.

2.  I see it, thanks.

3.  Thanks, that was my original thought.

4.  Thanks, that was never quite specified in the rules.

5.  Ok, but the reference is not clear enough.

6.  Ok, it was not clear in the rules

Reading the rules only does so much.  Most of the time, they either contradict each other, or are very vague in the subject in question.

@SS:

ghr2 no. 2 question is saying can you activate more than 1 axis minor in a turn. Answer is yes. Movement meant for 1 turn or impulse. I believe thats what he meant.

Basically, my question was: Can a single German mech move into hungary and then romania on the same impulse and activate them both?  Essentially, 1 unit, 1 non-com phase, 2 territories.

@Gargantua:

lol…  Ok so let me get this straight.

A sub attacks a lone transport off of malta.  Malta has a fighter on it.

If the sub does a regular attack, the malta fighter can’t see it? transport is destroyed.  But if the sub does a ‘sneak’ attack the fighter can see it, and defend?

And where in the rules does it say the sneaks are optional? I looked… also… why would you ever choose not to sneak attack?

The language describing sneak attacks implied that they were optional.  It was not 100% clear.

@oysteilo:

@ItIsILeClerc:

Me personally, I wouldn’t attack 1 Italian INF with 2ANZAC dudes when the UK can hit them so much harder and with much less risk, if there was no other reason than just plain and simple to remove the Italian INF from Anglo. I think that’s why oysteilo is asking.
I think the situations I described all qualify as harassing the Italians, with more purpose than just to remove that INF.

This is exactely my point. I also see few situations where sudan is required as a landing spot for UK planes on turn 2. Still this move is done frequently.

It just makes things so much easier for the UK if that is taken out.  They can wipe out all of Italy from sub-saharan africa turn 2 with ease if they skip Ethiopia round 1.  Essentially, opens more options for the UK and frees up units for elsewhere.

Most of these I just want to be absolutely clear on.

1.  Can british units sit in a dutch island before dutch capital falls, then when dutch capital falls, the british unit automatically claims the dutch island and can move out?
2.  Can mechs activate more than 1 minor axis power in 1 movement?
3.  Can germany attack through hungary into yugo after hungary is activated?
4.  Does belgium congo count as a strict neutral and therefore cannot be claimed by the UK?(considering belgium falls when the dutch falls)
5.  I hear that you can strategically bomb aa guns right before a conventional battle for the territory where the aa gun would of been relevant, is that true?
6.  Can u scramble carrier based aircraft to defend from an SBR?

The idea is to deter bombing runs, not to fight them off unless u have great odds or u can more easily replace.

@Dafyd:

Hello Robson.
The Caroline Islands naval base would do the same thing for the Japanese as building one on Palau.  If the allies capture the Carolines, you now have a series of naval bases (harbours) that will quikly move you across the pacific.  The Hawaian naval base gives you three sea zones to the Caroline naval base.  The Caroline naval base gives you three sea zones to Japan (sz 6), three to the Philipines, or three to Australia.  Very handy naval base which ever side has it. 
The naval base in Bazil would be very handy in shuffling resources to South Africa.  It would also help to get a shuttle of transports going back and forth to the sea zone just inside the Mediteranean.   
I have not used a Panama naval base in Global 40 yet but in Global 39 it needs to be an early purchase for the US if you want to land in Gibraltar in one turn.

The Brazil Naval Base does not help much at all for South Africa.  Maybe if you are coming from EUS and u want to stay far from Gib.

In the G42 tournaments I have seen, Germany rarely cares about killing the 119 fleet round 1.  They tend to focus more on dealing with Russia.

Harbour @Brasil shortcut from NewZealand to Gibraltar in two turns

Panama gives you that as well.

I know CanadianRebel aka Cameron lives in southern Alberta.  He is an experienced player on Triple A.  I can try to get a hold of him to see if he is interested.

2 Londons?

1. Japan
2. Germany
3. UK
4. Italy
5. Russia
6. USA
7. China
8. ANZAC
9. France

I live in Oconomowoc too…