Topics created by KGrimB

I started to buy a BB paired with a CV and if sz 106 was taken, two DD’s on round 1.
Why?
This simply allows me to keep up with IJN in the Naval deployment race for the first few turns.

You might be able to fly some US fighters to India via sub-Sahara Africa to India. If Japan cannot get India until J5, they may get there in time to save India.

Also, on turn 2 maybe the French fighter can start flying to Moscow from Scotland, than maybe get to India in time to help defend it. Or have it fly on turn 1 to sub-Sahara Africa route.

This is not a winning solution but it might buy some time.

Very interesting. I’d agree that Japan usually wants at least one factory in China no later than turn 3, even if you’re primarily playing a naval game. It’s rare to see a board where you’d want zero factories, although I believe it is a possibility. You can use up your limited 10 production slots pretty easily when you’re building serious naval units. Even if you’re pulling in 80 IPCs a turn, that can usefully go to something like 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 SS, 2 trans, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk.

The USA sub build is a special case, because subs are optimized for killing your navy, but subs are bad at protecting American transports. If the USA builds more than 3 subs in the first 2 turns, then you do want to build Japanese factories, because, as you say, the subs make it too difficult for Japan to protect its fleet, and the subs also make it easier for Japan to nuke any transports that the USA tries to bring west to take over your factories. The USA is rich, but it can’t afford to build a huge sub stack and a huge carrier stack and a huge stack of loaded transports all in the first few turns, even if it ignores Europe altogether.

That is more viable anyway- let ANZAC have a UK transport to activate Persia.

Subs are great. I just hit up Safeway for their $5 Friday and I copped a sub.

So all the votes are currently for Egypt. Given recent topics posted and posts made in this thread attacking Eygpt after securing the Middle Easr and moscow just makes sense. It’s where your units are and building a sea lion fleet late game is off the table. Landing in London against a skilled opponent at any point in the game seems to actively harm efforts in the East and makes your units more vulnerable to US counterattack.

Therefore I would say that sea lion is a purely opportunistic move.

Yea my bad, makes sense that the attacking sub would have the choice to submerge in the sz that the battle took place (no enemy dd present), or retreat 1 adjacent sz from where it came.

I’ve only played one game where Italy raged, it was glorious.  No Taranto I believe.  Axis win in Europe

@Zhukov44:

I don’t do this move as the Soviets because Japan starts with too many units in Korea/Manchuria and too much aircraft in range of Amur.

I think it’s a mistake for Japan to use its fleet/transports to attack Amur J1–they can still attack without any transports and divert a strategic bomber to Yunnan and still have 100% odds with an average +25 tuv swing.  If they send their fleet and transports south they’ll be in good position for a J2 or J3 declaration, but if Japans’ transports/fleet are stuck in sz6, Japan will have to put off its declaration till J3.

But I’m uncertain about it because however good this attack looks for Japan on paper, it will divert alot of troops from China.  The extra 6 inf in Mongolia help make up for the Allied tuv loss.  But the Soviets will also lose out financially because Japan will conquer Siberia quickly.

Massing Amur on R2 seems like the better move because the bulk of Japan’s airforce is usually out of range of Amur on J2.

Agree

I’m posting videos of the G40 Invitational:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9ooowEKQ0&lc=z22pw54h2sr4wbu1yacdp434fwhc4ndionykygiwloxw03c010c

Thank you for the clarification

Better to prepare for a counter attack where you won’t have to deal with fighters in the battle and coastal bombardments. So no defending the atlantic wall in this version of the game.

I think this take is mostly accurate but sometimes Allies have so many transports and (UK) fighters that they might be able to hold Normandy (especially in cases when the bulk of the Luftwaffe is far away).  In cases like that, it might behoove Germany/Italy (let’s say they are defending Germany, West Germany, and France from a big Allied fleet) to move the France stack to Normandy.  If the USA force is relatively small and the UK force is not enough to take Normandy, a 1-2 attack would be costly and risky.  Landing in Holland instead is not always an option, since it’s adjacent to Normandy and W Germany and within tank/mech range of Germany).

In circumstances like that I’ve had success stacking Normandy with a combined German/Italian stack.

In addition to Young Grasshopper’s point, you seem to be sending up outnumbered interceptors. Don’t do this. Leave them on the ground until you have probably more defenders than attackers. Defenders can be worthwhile on the ground in the sense of tying down the Luftwaffe though. If the odds are even, trading fighters for fighters is a negative for the defender in the event of a sea lion.

@larrymarx:

What about building an airbase in Soviet Far East and having the Americans send stacks of fighters through Asia, first threatening Japan and then moving onward to reinforce your troops in or near your capital?

Not sure if that is a good idea, I think it would be best off just having US sent air power anyways and then have the eastern Red Army capture boarder Chinese territories for US to attack from.