Posts made by ItIsILeClerc

Not that I ever bid before but if we would I think your restrictions sound very good.
If I ever bid I think I bid Germany for +8 (destroyer in 113 or 114 and then go SL ;-)) or UK +7 (TRS in SA with the DD).

ah nvm, I guess Im on the wording a bit too much ;-)

I take it we agree that not sending units from Cairo -> Calcutta makes it harder for UK to defend India and easier for Japan to get it.

@variance:

(…) I would bet that in this scheme India becomes a lot harder to get than it typically is now because everyone focuses on defending Cairo instead (e.g. Tobruk or Taranto raids instead of sending everything Eastward).  If that’s true then USA would have to do something about the Atlantic, maybe get a second front going to relieve Russia.Â

From my own experience I’d say you bet right: at least the threat of a second front is needed to keep Germany in check, else the allies risk loosing both Moscow and Cairo.

To be honest I don’t see how not sending everything eastwards makes life easier for India? I’d rather say it 'll make life in Calcutta harder because Japan doesnt have to face a bigger UK-fleet and airforce. I suspect I am missing something ;-).

At least 2 in the list are more or less easily obtained by Japan (no. 3 and 4), at the cost of letting the USA fleet get ahead.
This leaves 1 harder task, which I like. It replaces the importance of Hawai with Sydney which is harder to take (except when early focused on) but not impossible. Maybe those 20 islands need to be a few more or less, but I like the basic idea, especially the islands!

I think the usual game-mechanics stay unchanged by these conditions. However, this does make it easier for the allies. Now they don’t need to defend both Hawai and Sydney but only Sydney. Assuming that if the USA + ANZAC are strong enough to defend Sydney, Japan also cannot hope to take 20 islands instead.

Defending Sydney and preventing Japan from Getting 20 islands sounds easier than defending Hawai + Sydney but even if that is not, it shouldn’t be harder and the historic feel seems much stronger in your proposal!

This might even tip the balance for allied wins in the league closer to 50% from its 44%. But I still feel, given normal luck, the allies should win much closer to 50% anyway ;-).
At equal experience levels, Allied losses seem always to be due to a judgemental error to me (or very bad dicing) and lucky enough for the axis, those are quite easily made because the Axis flexibility!

@wittmann:

I agree about Anzac. The only reasoning to keep those two for them, is because UK get none most of the time.
It is messed up.
I have always thought the US should get more than its paltry 20. The reason Japan does so well is they start very strong and can stay ahead of the US if played aggressively.
I believe the US should always have the economic edge and 20 in NOs is not enough, if the conquest of  Asia can almost triple Japan’s starting income.

I am sure it has been said, but a victory turn limit in Global may have worked more sensibly.

I like this line of thinking.
And it is not only the USA that has a paltry bonus, Russia also has too little economic power. Or perhaps in this case it has to be called manpower…

This is of course again due to game-balances but I’d be very pleased if the same balance could be reached with a more historic feel.
For example Germany could have a greater punch, destroying the entire Red Army at least once on their way towards Moscow. Russia on the other hand must then be much more able to rebuild.
I also ‘have problems’ with the Royal Navy being such a complete and utter walk-over on the European map. I understand game-balance but the UK receiving nothing in return for this, is bad. Or have they received something in return that I may have missed?

A victory turn limit seems sensible indeed but not an arbitrary one. I’d like the allied economic power to grow more over time, making it an urgent matter for the Axis to win before the allied economies have come to full power. More urgent than it is now at least.

Still, the game balance must ofc remain at around 50-50 for each side to win, otherwise it makes no sense to play. It is still a game and we like to win ;-).

I find this exactly the strategic dilemma for Japan!
Japan strengthens its position when DOW J2 but that may weaken the German/Italian positions. Some US players are even ready to go for Gibraltar and start projecting a threat into Europe in US 2 .

If UK DOWs UK2 as general play, it may just end up strengthening both axis nations. But I can see it working in some cases, especially if the German threat levels are low in Europe and Japan is out of position with its fleet.

@MrRoboto:

You are actually stating the arguments for KJF, without realizing it :-)

Hehheh, hi again Mr.Roboto ^^.
Yes I did have in mind your praise/hymn for the KJF when I wrote that, so actually I did realize it right then and there ;-).

@MrRoboto:

You said “If you can manage to have Japan survive till then you might have a shot.” Actually that’s not exactly true. Japan is very rarely truly conquered. Their Income is reduced to <20, and most often than not they won’t even be able to send the planes from Tokyo anywhere. Mere survival is just not sufficient for Japan.

True, I need to explain this better:
What I meant with ‘survival’ ofc, is if Japan can achieve rough parity at sea with all its enemies there.
That would mean it can keep its income ‘high’ (in this scenario I fear Japan cannot get much higher than 65), requires a very large fleet so the USA doesnt dare to attack it and as a consequence, Japan will be much weaker on Mainland Asia so it can forget about taking/holding Calcutta. But Containing the beast is hopefully still an option.

Since I have no real experience with KJF its all a big IF to me. But I will analyse Japan’s options with this when I have time and when I feel Japan should be able to do just this I might challenge you for a game of KJF mayhem.

Keep in mind though, I have little to no hope for Axis victories anyway but that is my personal experience and may well be even my own shortcoming in Axis Strategies (or strength in allied ones or a bit of both ;-))!

I also have the feeling you fell into the trap of the two-front war.

As Germany you need to try to prevent this for as long as possible and focus down 1 target: either Russia or London. Attack the areas ghr2 suggested. Tech rolls only dilute your strength. It is more of a toy for late in the game or the USA but even they are better off buying units to thwart the Axis threat, but thats another thing and more of a personal feeling perhaps…

Well, if USA is KJF then you have at least Europe for yourself and your buddy Italy and have a serious chance to get rid of either Moscow or London, whichever you desire. Once you have done that, the USA cannot continue to focus on Japan only because you are then well on your way towards winning on the European map so they better have Japan Isolated by that time. If you can manage to have Japan survive till then you might have a shot. At least you can make it a very long game before you go down ;-).

I think some1 has just died a horrible death at the hands of the allied armada ;-)?

Moving 3 spaces during combat from naval base is a joke.

Moving 2 or even 3 spaces in half a year is always a joke. Ships can move farther than that.
But… with everything normally happening simultanuously, there has to be a line drawn to ranges somewhere I guess.

American Bombers bombing Sea of Japan from west coast USA and having a place to land in Russia is a horrible broken mechanic of the map.

It is an impossibility yes. You can take the landing zones away as Japan and there is not much the Russians can do about that. Yes, I’d rather see aircraft not being able to conduct combat if flying over half their range, but again, half a year is a long time. Aircraft can rebase and take off again in such a long period. Ofc given that there is a base available as ‘pitstop’. There are some spots on the map where aircraft ranges can be abused…

If Usa stays neutral till turn 4, why do they get to declare war turn 3?

So they can gear up production. Makes sense: not being able to make CMs turns 1-2-3 but the production can go up turn 3.

Japans hands are tied unless they want the whole world at war.

I’d also rather see a DOW by Japan not automatically meaning the USA can DOW GE and IT in the same round…

The Mongolian/russian treaty is a joke,

If Japan enters Russian territories Kazachstan or Novosibirsk, the Mongolians do not care. Strange. I don’t have a problem with this treaty rule otherwise.

If Japan decides to go land war, they are up a creek.

Japan can perfectly do just that if the USA goes KGF. Although it doesn’t win them the game it might tip the scales in favor of Germany… I think Japan better abuse the 6 VC rule in that case and engage only in a ‘minor war’ with China and India, loosing land territories over time except Shanghai and Hong Kong, which should be defended.

USA Economy is way to large for any 1 axis nation to overcome.

KGF see above. If the USA goes KJF… see below. All in all I think the USA is best served to wage a two front war being patient and slowly gaining critical mass on 1 map while being strong enough to defend on the other.

There is no need for a KGF stray, cause u can easily strangle and enclose Japan to a worthless fortified island in no time.

I never faced a serious KJF before but I imagine in such a case Japan can take the DEIs and isolate India with the headstart it is given and then with its large income engage into an ‘arms race’ with the USA enforcing a rough parity at sea for quite some turns. I DO think rushing India or engage in a serious war with Russia is not recommended during a KJF. In the meantime Germany and Italy are laughing. Quite an interesting situation which I’d hope to see sometimes in my games (hopefully NOT when I am Japan ;-)).

What Chocolate and ghr2 said.

I could elaborate on this but let’s just give the example of one of the games I played:
UK marched towards India with around 60 units@120 combat factors. Not 100% sure about the number of units but the combat factors I remember… The UK pulled out before Japan could attack India (round 6) and merged that army with the incoming troops from the Middle East. Then liberated Calcutta round 9.

Chasing the retreating troops can be difficult if the RAF is in Range of west-India…

Couldn’t agree more, Spendo!

I must admit I have never included the Japanese submarines into the process of starving India.
Not because I didnt think of it. I saw the possibility but I needed those submarines against the USA and ANZAC as cheap losses and I thought India producing 5 IPCs per turn couldnt hurt for a while… I guess building a few subs during the first 4 turns won’t hurt since it is only equivalent to 3 mech. Hardly a miss if you already have around 40 land units in Mainland Asia

@Whackamatt:

“What can Japan do, to best aid a progress towards Axis victory?!”

Threaten their own Pacific victory.  End of story.  I’ve won many times with Japan, as they’re too often overlooked by Allied players.  The US is the only power able to stop them.  If you rely solely on India/ANZAC, even with a no-waring J4 move, the Pacific will go to Japan.

I agree they are often overlooked. That is however not the case with good USA play. In our group Japan is only ‘ignored’ to aid the Germany first strategy but is NOT allowed to take Sydney/Honolulu. IF the USA allowes Japan to take one of those latter, it is ALWAYS ‘under pain of’…

If Japan takes, for example, Sydney as its 6th VC, the UK recaptures Calcutta, or the USA takes back the Philipines or moves in to liberate Sydney and kill the IJN… you name the price. ‘Germany First’ doesnt mean the USA spends nothing in the pacific and if Japan has a big enough fleet budget to really hurt the US’ expenditures for Germany, Calcutta will be retaken by the UK with ease later in the game. Japan can NOT buy enough warships to contest the USA AND expect to be able to defend it’s territories on land.

To explain my question:
If Japan just plays its own game, without a greater perspective, it will become very, very rich, but that will not give Japan a victory (and thus the Axis, for that matter).

Initiative and tempo (yes, like in chess) are still essential for Japan because after turn 6, no matter how rich Japan has become, the chance for victory has gone if all Japan did was taking India + the Money Islands + China and a chunk of Russia. If there is not also a SERIOUS threat towards Sydney/Honolulu AND Japan can defend Calcutta from the returning UK, Japan will die just rich.

Sydney can have a serious defense at turn 7ish (around 40 units@100 defense factors is not impossible if necessary). Japan cannot take this without hurting its warship builds. It can also not take Honolulu because a good USA player will always have the defensive edge there. That is priority 1 for the USA.

Anyway, that is my own experience, from play in my own group.

And the UK shouldnt really need to build naval defenses ;-)
Because in the real war, the UK had (around, I am not 100% sure of the numbers) 10+ Carriers (CV), around 100 Battleships, Battlecruisers, Heavy Cruisers (CA) and Light Cruisers (CL) combined. This doesn’t even include destroyers, Light Carriers (CVL) and a lot of other ships that are I won’t mention because they have no equivalent in the game.

The kriegsmarine had not even 20 of those shiptypes, so in game terms if the German BB and CA represent the surface warships of the kriegsmarine, the RN misses out at least 3BB/CA at set up.
But ofc A&A is more a game than a simulation, so it has to be tweaked and balanced.

As long as the current balance is not disturbed I wouldn’t care whatever the cost for ships is.
But I really think that if the cost is altered, in any way, the entire combat system has to be revamped, as ships in the current combat system DO affect land combat more than normal and more German transports DO influence greatly how the battle for London is played out, making it questionable if the UK would, even under lower costs, could afford to buy more warships. To mention just a few examples.

I find the most cheesy thing are the dice. Too much depends on the outcome/luck in a few battles. I’d like to see a more subtle combat system, where luck on the dice is allowed to average out. Rolling bad/good is too unforgiving as there is no such thing as averaging out in the current system.

Thanks guys, this means German aircraft can stay in the med 1 more turn ;-)

Can aircraft units of any side pass through the Bosporus (Turkish Straits) to move from ZS 99 to SZ 100 and vice versa?

I find the rules a bit confusing.
It is clear that no ships of either side may pass unless Turkey has been aligned, but the rules state that “the movement of aircraft units is completely unaffected by canals and straits, whether they are moving over land or sea. They can pass [over a canal] regardless of which side controls it”.

But I wonder if this rule applies to the Bosporus, since Turkey is neutral and thus not on any side. I can see why some1 would argue that flying through the bosporus is the same as flying over neutral Turkey, whis is NOT allowed.

Thanks guys, appreciate it.

I’ve got some interesting new ideas thanks to your tips. Not that I think I can now win it in the Pacific (unless my opponent will execute his favorite plan with the USA again: all in Europe US2 if I DOW J1 or J2).
But I can certainly make it a bit harder than last time I played against him ;-).

That time he went all in Europe with USA r2, putting a very serious threat in my nose so I had to interrupt the mighty flow of German armies into Russia and start defending G3! Italy had to turtle that same round so effectively the offensives bled to death.
  At the same time in the pacific I made a mistake: I went all-in for Mainland Asia. Didn’t need to build more navy, as the US was building none, I thought. Every turn I built anonther IC in Asia and built mech and arm. By J6, the ‘east coast industries’ cranked out 15 fast per turn after already rolling out 45 fast in the previous turns. Still no big navy needed, tho Hawai and Sydney were well defended, each by some 9 FTR and a shitload of infantry -particularly Sydney, but Hawai also had a nice infantry army of some 20 units.

The goal was to maximize pressure and to actually take Moscow, India, Middle East, Cairo. But time was running out fast. Germany and Italy were under such high pressure that no more troops could be send to the eastfront. USA had been running amok in Afrika, the Atlantic, the Med and Scandinavia, removing all axis presence there; UK building a LOT of RAF units and Airfields (Gibraltar, Malta) and USA also built an AB at Sicily. Man, THAT AB is a pain in the –-! Their aircraft were all over the map and could hit almost each and every spot… All German/Italian factories were maxed out.
  Because our time limit was near, I told him I was going to do something I would normally NOT do in this situation: attack Moscow. Moscow fell, but at the end of round 9 the allies had taken it back, took Rome and removed India from my grasp, also aided by 2 factories in the Middle East. Japan had taken Hawai (at a price…) and dominated the Pacific waters and was still able to crank out 15 fast per turn from the east coast industries. Sydney was no viable option for at least another 3 turns. Maybe 4.

As there was no more time we had to stop but it looked pretty grim for the Axis in Europe. Germany could maybe hold out another 3 to 4 turns and Japan had 2 options, and ofc (as always) was only able to pursue 1 of them: retake India with the aid of the east coast industries, or take Sydney with the risk of India capturing the east coast industries…
Maybe a 50/50 approach would have been an option: 40 IPCs per turn for the defense of the east coast industries, 40 IPCs for the attempt to take Sydney.
It must be said: Sydney was heavily defended and no easy nut to crack, considering I lost half my aircraft and about all but 4 land units who were now in Hawai! So I think my best bet would have been to (try to) swarm India again and hold Hawai.

Yes, he is!
Checked the rules again and, darn I missed that paragraph (I think I thought it was entirely dedicated to ‘bridging’).
But below bridging it says “(…) once it offloads, it can’t move, load, or offload again that turn”.

Just checked the rules and by logic it seems the answer to the question is: yes.

I interpret the rules so that a TRS containing cargo that was loaded a previous turn can move during the CM as part of an invasion force but does not HAVE to unload its cargo (wouldnt even be allowed if the cargo was a AAA). If loaded in a previous turn, the TRS can unload any or all its cargo during the invasion, and any remaining cargo during the NCM or not at all.

Reading the rules I Imagine a slightly different example:
You canNOT load flak into a TRS during the CM, because those units can by the rules not unload during CM, they may only move during NCM, “except when moving with a TRS if loaded in a previous turn”.
So, the flak, if loaded in a previous turn, may move with its TRS and another INF loaded during the CM this turn, may stay on the TRS while the INF must unload. Then, if the territory is taken, the flak may also unload during the NCM.
If the flak were an ART, the same above story goes for this ART instead of the flak, except that the ART has a choice. It may unload during CM or it may unload during NCM. Thus, if both the inf and art were loaded in a previous turn they would both have that choice.

What can Japan do, to best aid a progress towards Axis victory?!
Hoping for some ideas from the community, because I am loosing hope for Japan (see below).

I have been thinking about this for quite some time now. But I am stuck. For my next game against one of my friends I want to find a better Japanese strategy. He will be playing Allies and he is not to be trifled with ;-).
 I will be playing Axis and I will plan to (again) go full onto Moscow with Germany + at least try to capture Cairo early with Italy and a little German aid early on. What I lack is a strong Japanese complementary strategy  :oops:…
Below a summary of what I have been thinking and testing. So far the ‘tests’ underscore my thinking. I have been testing against myself as allies and always with the LL-system to see the results of the strategies with average dicing.

1. Crushing India J3 sounds cool but to me it seems this serves only one purpose: to show your friends you can do such cool stuff with the Japanese and hopefully intimidate them into mentally giving up.
 Because if the allies play well against a J3 India, Japan is forced to either loose a minimum of 18 units (a minimum of 13 will be aircraft) OR loose its initiative/momentum fighting the UK there for too long to be good for a Japanese victory in the Pacific, or an overall axis victory for that matter.
Losing the said number of units is assuming one of the ‘Shan State’ Japanese approaches and the needed counters for an allied ‘Burma stack’ + removal of UK blockers in SZ 37 and 38. Other Japanese approaches are also viable (for example kill the Chinese in Chzechwan and land Japanese aircraft in Yunnan) but result in other loss-patterns: 20 to 23 total losses with a minimum of 9 to 12 aircraft losses respectively (1 more aircraft for every land unit Japan wants to keep alive on top of just 1 land unit).

The loosing of units may seem the lesser of the two evils, but I consider loosing this amount of units (especially aircraft) this early in the game also a loosing proposition for Japan.
Rationale: USA+ANZAC will have a much easier time in the pacific in this case since Japan has lost so much of its aircraft that it can never effectively threaten Sydney and/or Hawai anymore. Most likely Japan needs to kill off even more of its aircraft to save some more of its land units (more often than not the weakest link in any Japanese invasion force). MrRoboto’s argument about a 100% Pacific spending for the USA may not even be necessary anymore. It can be done to achieve a Japanese defeat faster, but it may not be a necessity.

The alternative is abandoning the ‘rape of Calcutta’ alltogether, just isolating/starving the UK there, which also seems not to lead to axis victory.
Japan can go for the ‘money-islands’ and will become very rich but due to the sacrifice of momentum, in the end, it will just go down Rich.

2. Other strategies include totally different approaches such as chasing the Russians from the beginning (hoping to destroy the retreating Siberians or tempt them into attacking you), Pearl Harbor, Crush Sydney, you name it.
As far as I have seen it, all those alternatives leave the ‘unopposed’ ally much stronger. Most notoriously India, which can then help out its besieged ‘friends’ with extra RAF units (Russia/other allies) or otherwise (other allies).

The best strategy seems to be chasing the Russians AND destroying the Chinese AND Isolating India (or even crush it) all at the same time… But I fear this is overstretching at a premium and therefore I have not even tried to put this to the test. At the same time, this relieves the USA of its need to spend on both maps and it can go 100% in either Europe or Pacific.

I can’t seem to get into the winning mood for the Japanese anymore :oops:…

Lol Variance, just lol.

You really have a funny way to express some of the points. “The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union accept defeat after losing their favourite vacation spot.”. I had to laugh heartily  :-D.

Cheezers for me (also in no particular order):

1). German Ju-88 flying all the way to Gibraltar from West Germany to attack the allied fleet there (I guess the Germans also had mid-air refuelling in WW2 like the Japanese ;-)).
2). The ease with which Japan can conquer (and cross) China. And conquest is but one thing. Administering and garrisoning conquered areas with millions of angry Chinese is another.
3). USA able to Ignore 1 map completely.
4). The very small Royal Navy.

Some Cheezers in the game can ofc be ‘explained’ by game balance otherwise it would be too easy for one side or the other. It is a game after all and not a simulation. I still hope for some official ruling to adress some of the excesses while at the same time not disturbing the game balance.