Ask your opponent how sea zone 3 is NOT adjacent to UK.
Because it clearly is.
When you have a big adjacent border - it doesn’t need to be a straight line - two territories or sea zones are clearly adjacent. It’s when there’s a corner, or when something looks like it might be a corner, that things get questionable. But SZ3 doesn’t share just a corner with UK.
(edit) looking at the actual game board, it actually isn’t so clear . . . . :oops:
I prefer Spring 1942 to both Global and Anniversary edition.
Global takes a long time, has a lot of special rules - but has no fog of war. In my opinion, if you’re going to try to make a serious detailed war game with political rules &c &c &c, you need fog of war. Larry Harris you have failed me. :-(
Anniversary edition has some interesting options with national objectives and technology. But the increase of size of the map means gameplay boils down to very much fixed lines of play once the opening moves are done. In Spring 1942, the smaller map allows quicker changes in position, so is a more dynamic game. Which certainly isn’t to say that Anniversary edition doesn’t have some appeal to it.
Classic, Revised, and Spring 1942 have different maps. When compared to Spring 1942, Classic is very much different, and boils down to a fight over Karelia. Revised gives Japan more interesting options as transports can hit Western Canada from Japan in a single turn. But it’s best not to mix maps and rules; mixing them up will mess with your head.
As far as printing an Anniversary edition map and rules, I don’t know that anyone would openly condone that as it may not be legal under copyright laws. But since Anniversary edition is out of print, well, that’s interesting. Really, what can one do? Anyways, no comment.
Anniversary edition has Italy and China as powers. Maybe you could whip out a can of spray paint or something.
It will get interesting if Japan hits the sea zone south of Western Europe, and puts fighters on Eastern Europe.
Regardless, UK’s move is pretty clear.
You walked into the Jap-air-in-Europe trap, which allowed the Axis to lock down your fleet. Think about how you will do things differently next time.
There is no point in “softening up” Western Europe. UK screws with Western Europe, Japan wipes out the US fleet south of Western Europe, and there is zero followthrough with either UK or US as far as I can tell from the screenshots. I don’t know what you mean by “feasibility IPC wise”.
Capturing Balkans is probably correct, not because it threatens either Berlin or Southern Europe by way of US/Russian forces, but because it may pressure the Axis into possibly not using their Jap air to full nasty effect. If the Axis screw up, then good for you.
Hitting Berlin with UK right now should be no good. Say you take Balkans and hit Berlin. Now Jap has a choice. They can either sink both the UK and US transport fleets. Or they can blow up the UK fleet only and land fighters in Berlin to reinforce.
–
If you wanted to try to break Berlin -
I’d build ground offensive, even if it meant shorting on infantry, stack Karelia, hit Balkans and lose air if necessary to take it, and offload to Norway. Now suppose Jap tries to blow up fleet south of Western Europe then land at W Europe. Hopefully also, Japan does not commit at Persia, but it will move its fat stack at China. Followup is US moves fleet into Baltic, and moves fleet west of Algeria to join UK fleet, to defend it against Germany’s 2 fighter 1 bomber attack, moves all Caucasus units towards Berlin, plus US builds a bunch of transports and/or ground. (The objective will be to get loaded transports to Western Europe in two turns).
Next turn, Russia takes Southern Europe with tank, and takes Eastern Europe in force or preferably strafes it. If Japan isn’t pressuring at Persia, Russia puts four tanks at Caucasus. Germany can counter or strafe; regardless, UK takes Eastern Europe for keeps next turn. Japan can move a fat stack up into Novosibirsk or Kazakh. US reinforces Eastern Europe. US moves fleet bought last turn to East Canada. Hopefully the Axis will have been pressured enough in the east to not have been able to put a bomber on Western Europe.
Now at this point Japan will have a huge chunk of fighters on Berlin, and you will have a bunch of Japs screwing around in Caucasus and near Moscow. You won’t have lost Moscow just yet, but it’s going to be a really nasty thing. If you strafed Eastern Europe successfully with Russia, and/or got lucky, you may have the resources to set up for a successful triple attack.
–
If you wanted to try to defend Moscow -
Watch your Allied fleets. If you lose another chunk of transports, you will 100% be toast. Also you will have to watch out for the Axis sending more and more air, because it looks like that’s the sort of game it’s playing. Balance it out with carrier/fighters. You will lose control of Africa to Japan. and the game should become an awful grind. If neither side messes up badly, the game should last another 7-8 turns easily, but I would guess Axis victory in the end, due to economics and the players involved.
(I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).
Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?
Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?
Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).
Next time post your own topic. It’s better for you and better for the thread, rather than going off topic.
The answer to your question hardly has anything to do with Japan anyways. It is really a question about the Allies, and I don’t mean that just because you’re asking a question about UK.
I already actually posted on the subject of India infantry some time ago, but sadly it was not clearly stated. Not clearly stated, much like you would think there would be clearly stated signs on your Droid Razr phone. “Do not use to cut meat and vegetables”. I mean, look at those commercials, you would think those phones had gosu knife functionality. You can do so many other things with your phone - watch movies, listen to music, play video games, send threatening emails to your bookie - would some simple functionality in the kitchen be too much to ask for? I mean, look at those commercials, seriously. But anyways dinner is absolutely ruined, I tell you. Everything’s mashed all to hell, and that’s not how you make beef Wellington. Now if they would just clearly state that those phones are not to be used for meat and vegetables, things would be so simple. But they didn’t say that. Now who’s going off topic? I can threadjack anyone, even myself. :evil:
Leaving infantry on India at end of UK1 is almost always wrong. The more you leave on there, the worse it usually is. There are specific exceptions - there are almost always exceptions - but if you have any question about whether or not a specific case is an exception, then it isn’t an exception for you, because anyone asking such a question wouldn’t know how to follow through anyways.
Why is the question of UK infantry on India a question for the Allies instead of the Axis? How to put this. Let’s say you’re a captain of a team of soccer players. Now let’s say you come up with some strategy that involves leaving your goal completely undefended (say everyone on your team just lays down) when the opposing team has the ball. If the other team has any sort of skill, they’re just going to score, and not worry too much about looking a gift horse in the mouth.
So you understand, it isn’t a question of how Japan and Germany will respond to a UK1 India stack, as much of it is a question of how badly they will hurt the Allies, and why the Allies would consider a UK1 India stack in the first place. Typically, the Axis will hurt the Allies rather a lot, so the Allies had better have some good reason for laying down on the job.
Like, let’s say you’re that soccer coach, and everyone’s laying down, and your opponent’s about to try to score a goal, when suddenly one meter tall aliens in flying saucers appear and vaporize everyone taller than they are. Since your whole team is laying down, the aliens ignore them. But the opposing team is vaporized. So you win!
(Again, that explanation of exceptions - clearly this would be such an exception. But if you didn’t know of an impending alien attack, then your strategy of laying down suddenly would probably not work so well, you see?)
What I didn’t write was that I assumed in most situations that UK did not stack India. Of course it is stupid for Japan to stack lone fighters in the range of a UK infantry/air counter. If UK did stack India, then the Axis just have to change plans. Of course, there is always the possibility of putting 2 infantry from Phillipines on top of the fighter stack, and a “normal” number of fighters on French Indochina should be more like four or five than three. And Japan doesn’t HAVE to hit China with 100% of its infantry in Asia. But I digress; more on the UK India stack in a second.
The typical UK move to counter an early threatened Germany/Japan stack in Ukraine is UK attacking French Indochina (or at least, I would consider it typical, even though I hardly ever see it, and with good reason, because it forgoes Africa.) But if Germany and Japan see that UK controls French Indochina at the end of UK1, they can adjust. It’s not like Germany stacks Ukraine then UK suddenly pulls a brilliant counter that leaves Germany holding its nuts in its hand, waiting to get the hell smacked out of it by Russia. Japan sets up the reinforcement position FIRST, then Germany commits its forces. If Japan can’t set up the reinforcement, Germany doesn’t commit its forces to Ukraine, probably hitting Karelia instead. So the Allies will probably end up with fast losses in Africa and a fortified German position in Karelia, instead of a fortified German/Japanese position in Ukraine, which is also decently messy for the Allies. (Bunnies ducks and weaves, ducks and weaves)
Re: UK stacking India - stacking India with UK typically leads to loss of control of the Suez Canal on G2, with no UK counter possible, leading to possible Japanese fleet movement through the Suez to join the German Mediterranean fleet. Once that happens, Germany should dominate Africa. Oh, there are tradeoffs of course. Japan has slower development against India, Germany has slower development in Europe. But the key is that Germany can build on local superiority of force in Africa, if it keeps building up its ground there and keeps air in Europe in range. Germany seems to have its forces in Africa cut off, but they can regain life in Persia, where they are joined by the Japanese, for pressure against Caucasus.
There are a bunch of Allied counters, but all of them are at least moderately risky or resource/time consuming. Which is not to say those Allied counters are not worth considering! But it’s not like UK stacking India is clearly superior to UK not stacking India.
The key point, I’d say is ducking and weaving. If your opponent lines up a strong counter against something, that inevitably involves either risk or weaknesses elsewhere. If it’s weaknesses elsewhere, you go after those weaknesses where you can’t be powerfully countered, instead of lining yourself up where you can be powerfully countered. If it’s risk, well, hopefully your opponent won’t get lucky. You can’t protect yourself from all risks. If you play conservatively and try to deny your opponent any opportunities, that will inevitably lead to retreat, loss of territory, loss of income, your opponents’ gain of income, and a tougher long term position.
I’m guessing the key point that has remained unspoken is that in a lot of games I typically plan to send Japan’s fighters to Ukraine on J2 to set Germany up for a forward position against Russia, but that Hobbes’ anti-KJF plan calls for Japan’s fighters to remain near the Asian coast. I don’t think I’ve mentioned that part of my plan in so many words, nor do I think Hobbes has said as much for his plan in so many words. But I think that would completely explain the discrepancies in theory and thought.
My Japanese sub defense is like a moving crap game that’s trying not to get busted by the cops. Japan’s transport routes to Asia shift; its ground forces shift, its navy shifts, its air force shifts, constantly everything’s running all over the place, and I do mean constantly. Europe, Asia, all over the place. The “cops” are superior Allied forces that keep trying to run Japan’s inferior forces down. Although Japan’s forces are inferior overall, Japan compensates with mobility. Japan uses its starting battleships and carriers to defend against the Allies’ “long arm of the law” (i.e. air power), while keeping its main fleet out of the main attack power of US’s fleet. (It’s a typical Bunny thing, duck and weave, duck and weave)
A fixed sea zone 60 defense for Japan is like a craps game on an Indian reservation. The entire mentality is different; instead of Japan running all over the place, Japan stands in one place and uses a lot of armed security guards. Japan is the cops here, they are the superior force. (It’s sort of how I picture Hobbes’ typical game. He just sort of punches you in the face; you can try to duck and weave, but he just takes a step forward and keeps punching you until you cry for momma.)
If I were NOT sending fighters to Europe on J2, I can easily see how Jap fighters at sea zone 60 and even bombers would indeed work far better. (But I do usually send fighters to Europe.)
Japanese subs are not meant to defend. They are meant to attack. That doesn’t mean Japan flings them away stupidly. It means Japan holds on to the subs and moves them into position waiting for a US naval push.
If US pushes navy fast, then Japan just kills them at low expense. Subs are cheap.
If US doesn’t push navy fast, Japan continues to develop in Asia.
So that comment about Japan using subs as 5 hits with 5 defense - Japan frankly shouldn’t be leaving subs in attack range of the US in the first place, because that would be stupid. Unless of course US was underpowered for the attack anyways, in which case it would be retroactively stupid for Japan to build subs for defense, but even stupider for US to make an underpowered attack.
–
5 subs supposedly have 10 attack with sub strike, while 3 fighters have 9 attack. But the added hits typically mean Japan’s saving fighters for later rounds of fire.
Suppose 5 subs 4 fighters attack, with 22 attack on the first round; say they take 4 casualties on the first round so have 14 attack on the second round, and 3 casualties the second round so have 6 attack the third round, for combined 42 attack over 3 rounds.
Suppose 7 fighters attack, with 21 attack on first round; 4 casualties leaves 9 attack on the second round, and 3 casualties on the second round leave nothing for the third round, for combined 30 attack over 3 rounds.
That isn’t just a single point of attack difference. That’s 12 attack points; two units worth, which can be decisive in naval battles.
Re: early sub buys: Even when Japan does sub buys early, against a normal US push, Japan will have to switch to fighters starting probably J4 or J5, to help threaten US fleet away from Borneo/East Indies. (At that point sub buys won’t have an immediate effect, since newly placed subs can’t reach the sea zones around those islands. But fighters can land on carriers, so can make it.) Fighter buys also double to help protect Japan from invasion.
Re: US overpowering the Japanese fleet: In practical terms, the US chases the Japs out of the Pacific and into the Indian. From there, US controls the waters around Japan, preventing new naval purchases and preventing Japan from offloading ground units from Japan into mainland Asia. US also tries to set up ICs at Borneo and East Indies for added momentum, or tries to control and/or build ICs on the Asian mainland (although such ICs shouldn’t show up until after US establishes dominance of the sea. Ideally UK gets one of Borneo or East Indies or India for an industrial complex.
In the meantime, Japan keeps its fleet and air in reserve. Ideally Germany will capture Moscow, then reinforce Japan by recapturing coastal territories, and adding to Japan’s navy/airforce (industrial complexes at Anglo-Egypt and/or India), allowing Japan to push back in the Pacific.
This is the balance of the situation. If Japan builds early fighters (not subs), it can help Germany out a lot, but collapses a bit faster in the Pacific (not much though), and has a much nastier time trying to push the Allies out of the Pacific. If Japan builds early subs, it slows the collapse in the Pacific a bit, and can push the Allies out of the Pacific with less trouble, but cannot help Germany.
The theory supporting fighters, I think, is that regardless, Japan is counting on Germany to dominate Moscow. If that doesn’t happen, the Axis will lose anyways. Which is why fighters are theoretically superior; they can help Germany dominate Moscow, which is the crucial situation.
Submarine theoretical superiority comes from allowing Japan to control the waters around Japan longer, allowing it to offload more ground units from Japan to Asia, and preventing US from gaining a foothold in the Pacific. Theoretically the added ground pressure will also contribute to the crucial situation against Moscow.
In practical terms, I think fighters may have the edge. Subs are very inflexible use items; fighters have huge flexibility in application. But then again, I think KJF is unlikely to work very well in any event.
Japan needs to continuously assess the pace of the game. Is Germany going to press fast and hard? Or is it going to play a more defensive game? Is Germany changing the pace of the game from aggressive to defensive, or defensive to aggressive? Apart from that, what are the threats to Japan?
The Japan “basic” open is with UK having destroyed the Japanese transport at Kwangtung, and a UK submarine at New Guinea threatening the French Indochina sea zone. There may or may not be an industrial complex at India, UK may have sent its India Ocean fighter to the US fleet at Hawaii or the US forces at China or a fortified Buryatia.
Japan attacks the Hawaiian Islands fleet with sub, cruiser, fighter, and bomber (fighter can land on Wake), hits China with loads of infantry and air, and if possible uses the Japan transport to hit Buryatia, or alternatively to move units to French Indochina. When noncombat moves end, Japan should have three or four transports in the sea zone east of Japan, a battleship, a carrier, a fighter or two, and a destroyer. Japan should have a stack of fighters on French Indochina, and a stack of infantry on China.
The key points are these - first, Japan controls the sea zone east of Japan. This allows transports to pick up and drop off from Wake, Okinawa, and Phillipines, plus Japan itself, to French Indochina and/or Buryatia. In particular, Wake and Okinawa are important; taking infantry off the islands means Japan is using all its resources to full effect. Dropping to Buryatia is the fastest way for Japan to put pressure on Moscow. Dropping to French Indochina is the fastest way for Japan to put pressure towards Caucasus and Africa.
Japan controls 6 units on Japan, 1 on Okinawa, 1 on Wake, 2 on Phillipines, total 10 ground. With a transport taking 2 of those away, and building three transports, that leaves 4 transports on Japan’s second turn to transport 8 units. Japan’s third turn requires a second turn build of six ground units plus either an industrial complex, another transport or two, subs, or fighters to taste. 3 of Japan’s four transports will take the six ground units from Japan’ the 4th transport can take the Japanese infantry from East Indies (if that transport moves to French Indochina on Japan’s second turn). Even with Japan building no ground units on its first turn, it uses its transports to full capacity through at least turn three very easily.
Japan must absolutely control the sea zone east of Japan. There are various Allied threats that can make it a horrible risk for Japan, so Japan must watch out for them. For example, UK sub at Solomon Islands, UK carrier at Phillipines, UK cruiser at Kwangtung, UK fighters on Moscow (from London), UK fighter on Buryatia, UK bomber on Novosibirsk threatens a huge attack. Battleship/carrier/fighter/destroyer can neutralize a lot, but not all, so Japan must be careful!
Another key point is the destruction of the US carrier and fighter at Hawaii. The carrier and fighter can form a base of US operations in the Pacific, jumpstarting US’s development against Japan. Even though Japan has huge power to fight against US development in the Pacific, destroying US’s carrier and fighter frees Japan to move its forces towards Africa and the Mediterranean.
Another key point is a stack of Japanese infantry on China. The bigger the stack, the more potential Japan has to push to Sinkiang next turn, from where it can hit Kazakh and Novosibirsk, which are valuable territories and that pressure Moscow.
Another key point is a destroyer in the sea zone east of Japan. A destroyer can chase subs away; without Allied subs threatening Japan’s fleet, Japan is free to move its battleship and carrier elsewhere. (So long as the Allies don’t have an air threat in range of course!)
The final key point is Japanese fighters on French Indochina. From here, they can reach and land on Caucasus or Ukraine. If Germany presses into those territories, Japan can use those fighters to reinforce those positions. That doesn’t mean Japan can be stupid about reinforcement. For example, if Germany tries to hold Ukraine with an obviously inadequate force, that would still be inadequate with the addition of Japanese fighters, Japan shouldn’t throw itself under the bus. (On the other hand, even if Japanese fighters are destroyed, if it ends up being costly enough for the Russians, it can still be worth it. Understanding when Japanese fighters should be put at risk and the pacing of Germany’s attack is key!)
–
That’s the “basic” open of destroyer / three transports. There are slight variations, like when UK takes French Indochina or Borneo on UK1; Japan can use the Japanese transport to retake the territory along with appropriate other moves.
The game then changes depending on Allied moves.
If the Allies built an India industrial complex, on Japan’s second turn, they can dump a load of units to French Indochina, and retreat the units from China to French Indochina. This usually means abandoning Manchuria to Russia, but it’s worth the quick control of an industrial complex on India. Alternatively, Japan can let UK and Russia waste resources trying to protect India, while Japan trades territory with Russia at Manchuria/Buryatia.
If the Allies built a US Pacific fleet, Japan can build fighters or subs starting on its second turn, along with cheap infantry.
If the Allies are bailing out of Asia, Japan can build an industrial complex soon to add momentum to Japan’s attack.
–
The other Japan opens are industrial complex/2 transports (for a moderately heavy press, but less freedom of Japan’s fleet), and double industrial complex. If Germany’s game is superdeveloped, Japan may choose to ignore the Hawaii Islands fleet attack to use the cruiser support shot on Buryatia.
–
Comments -
1. I would only build double industrial complex, or industrial complex/2 transports in case of early extreme pressure by Germany. Typically that means something like Germany managed to capture both West Russia and Caucasus on G1, and Russia has nothing but infantry and a tank or two to fight with. Typically in such situations I’d ignore Hawaiian Islands in favor or putting maximum early pressure on Russia.
2. Against an industrial complex in India and/or Sinkiang, I tend to bulk up at French Indochina and let Russia make gains in the north. Japan can put a lot of pressure against the India industrial complex very quickly, and once the India IC falls, Japan’s progress usually cannot be stopped. This is particularly the case with German fighter reinforcement.
It is possible for India to be well protected, and Japan to be horribly pressured quite early, in which case quick capture of the India IC is perhaps no longer possible. But if Germany has been playing properly, Germany’s position in Europe should be amazingly strong. There is absolutely no way for the Allies to put extreme pressure on Japan without making sacrifices elsewhere.
3. Against a US fleet, I tend to start with submarine and infantry builds on Japan’s second turn, and get a German fighter on a Japanese carrier as soon as possible to stop US destroyer blocks. What typically happens is if US tries to press too hard too fast, I’ll smack them down with cheap subs. If US takes a little time, I’m developing in Asia with infantry and air. US will typically go to Solomons, from where it can threaten East Indies, Borneo, and Japan. If Japan takes up position at French Indochina sea zone, that helps protect East Indies and Borneo; Japan can often be protected by infantry/fighters. The game basically becomes one of Japan staying out of reach of the US fleet, but forcing US’s fleet to stay away from Japan’s fleet, grinding US’s progress in the Pacific to a halt while Japan and Germany continue to press on Russia.
Hobbes favors Japanese fighters over subs if I understand correctly, which makes a lot of sense, because Jap fighters can be used to bolster Japan itself, can be used for additional support in Asia, and have the freedom to move to Europe to bolster German positions. My counterargument is that a battle against the US navy becomes far more costly for Japan if Japan has no cheap sub fodder, and if Japan doesn’t start on subs right away, it won’t have them in position to hit US’s navy when they’re needed. On the balance, I think the theory for air support is more sound than the theory for sub support, though.
2. Pace your development appropriately.
The game goes something like this - Russia opens with certain attacks. Depending on the results of those attacks and noncombat movement, Germany has certain opportunities. Germany will try to take advantage of those opportunities, but depending on the results of attacks and noncombat movement, those opportunities may open further, or shut down. This leads into the UK turn, which likewise has opportunities, then the Japanese turn. At each turn, opportunities are created that allow an advantage to be pressed in a certain period of time. It could be that after a good German turn, opportunities are opened up for Japan, or after a bad German turn, opportunities are opened up for Russia. But at each turn, the potential pacing of the game changes. The proper development of Japan requires more understanding of the pace of the game than any other power.
(The other powers require understanding of how to effectively combine forces given unit dispositions and the map geography, and a sense of pacing. But pacing is particularly important for Japan.)
So what does it mean practically to pace development?
If Germany has a blowout victory looming, Japan should usually build double industrial complexes and smash in towards Russia as fast as it can, trading valuable tanks for cheap infantry, or even fighters for cheap infantry, industrial bombing Moscow, but at any rate smashing pressure in at Russia as the rest of Japan’s empire almost disintegrates even in the face of US aggression in the Pacific. So long as Japan doesn’t sacrifice too much of its air, and Japan takes care to preserve its fleet, Russia should be overwhelmed before the Allies can get into position to do anything.
On the other hand, if Germany has had some setbacks, Japan should play an economic game, trying to grab territory. In this case, Japan can’t afford to blow its resources, so has to play with the longer game in mind. Even with Germany ground to a halt in Europe, hopefully the Axis can control enough territory to go into a defensive game type, in which they gradually build up pressure on Moscow.
What happens if Japan doesn’t pace development?
If Germany has a blowout victory looming, and Japan screws around with an economic game, going for island and African territory, Germany’s offensive could grind to a halt in Europe, as Russia doesn’t have to worry about Japanese pressure and is free to focus on countering the German offensive. In that case, the Allies can combine pressure on Germany and crush them, and change what would otherwise be a quick Axis victory into a grinding defeat for the Axis.
If Germany had setbacks, and Japan’s trying to be stupidly aggressive, Russia will have enough forces to repel both Germany and Japan, as Japan’s attack is inefficient. With the Allies controlling more territory and income, the Allies eventually grind the Axis to nothing.
I played a multiplayer game a couple days ago that was a perfect example. Germany was 100% setting itself up for a slow grind in Europe and Africa. Japan completely ignored the pace of the game and pushed tanks towards Russia as fast as possible. Were they bad players? Germany’s game was a solid grind type game. Japan’s game was a solid aggressive type game. But with the two mixed up, the Allies first had time to reinforce Europe and Africa. Germany became contained while Russia turned around and beat Japan off. The Axis ended up being completely crushed because of Japan’s stubborn refusal to understand the proper pace and appropriate action for the game.
1. Play as aggressively as you can without risking losing the bulk of your forces to a high percentage battle.
If you play passively, trying to build just infantry for defense, you will lack the artillery and tanks you need to threaten your opponent. If you don’t have an attack threat, your opponent can press forward, and establish a strong point from which to attack multiple territories on the next round. Since you can’t defend multiple territories, and since you don’t have attack power to push your opponent out, that means your opponent can choose one or more territories that you couldn’t defend to attack next turn. Once your opponent pushes even further into your territory, if you still lack attack power to push your opponent off, you will have to retreat.
Every time you retreat or that you allow your opponent to take territory that you can’t contest, that’s income that you’re denied, which reduces the resources with which you can build your military, which further reduces your ability to resist.
–
On the other hand, if you press the attack mindlessly, you will end up throwing away lots of valuable units. It’s no use attacking a territory worth 3 IPC with 30 IPC worth of tanks, if you’re just going to lose that 30 IPCs worth of tanks in exchange for 12 IPCs worth of infantry next turn. A few such exchanges, and you’ll rip the heart out of your army.
Pace Japan’s game with the anticipation of Germany’s development.
There are some particulars, but perhaps I will write them later
send carrots
Weirdly, those fuzzy brownish red things from picture 1 appear to be fuzzy black things in picture 2. (shrug)
Efficient supply chains -
Say you have two infantry on Eastern Canada, two newly built infantry on Eastern US, one transport at Western Europe, and one transport at Eastern Canada. Take the empty transport at Western Europe, and move it to Eastern Canada. Take the transport at Eastern Canada, load the infantry, move it to Western Europe, and unload the infantry.
Now in noncombat move the two infantry from Eastern US to Eastern Canada. On unit placement, place two new infantry in Eastern US.
Another variation is -
Just like before, but now you have two infantry on London also, and your Eastern Canada transport is now northwest of London. You take the Western Europe transport, load the infantry from London, and dump it to Western Europe. You take the transport northwest of London, pick up the infantry from East Canada, and dump to London. This is less efficient in terms of movement, but is more flexible. In the previous variation, you’re dumping to Western Europe, period. In this variation, you can move the infantry on London to Karelia/Archangel/Norway/Eastern Europe/Germany/Western Europe.
–
At this point, Japan should be heading to Australia and Africa to finish choking off the Allied income, and pushing hard and fast to help Germany in Europe. The Axis basically have to control all the victory cities except London, Washington, and Western US, but once they do that after the end of a US turn, it’s over. Looks like Japan isn’t doing that. Lucky you.
Germany will be running back west from Moscow; I can’t imagine any player would be so bad as to ignore what was going on in Western Europe, so you probably can’t hope for it. You will have a little time in which to build an offense. Once German reinforcements reach Berlin, it will be so much harder to get anywhere with the game. For Axis to win, Germany will have to push you out of Western Europe, which you can make very difficult by putting loads of units there. But you can’t just load up on infantry; you need to try to build an invasion threat against Berlin, probably by UK attacking first and hopefully weakening Berlin, then US finishing Berlin off. Either way, efficient UK and US supply chains will be crucial.
If Western Europe can hold a couple turns, the game could turn into a draw-ish game, with Germany unable to invade London because of the fat Allied fleet, US building enough to hold off the Axis from capturing Western or Eastern US, and Germany unable to crack the combined UK/US defense on Western Europe. But this will fail once the Japanese get to doing something.
Your best chance to win is to crack Berlin before Germany can reinforce it enough.
If you can’t quite manage that, you could try to fortify Western Europe to prevent the Axis from winning, and hope the Axis screw up and don’t pressure you with Japan fast and hard. If the Axis screw around long enough, you might have the chance to do something.
Fixed :mrgreen:
It looks like Russia controls Russia in that picture. Those fuzzy brownish red things; sure seems to be a few of them on Moscow.
Fuzzy a** pictures will not do. What is needed is a complete and comprehensive picture; people need to be able to look at the map and tell EXACTLY what is where. Not “oh, you have mayyyyybe 3 infantry in Berlin and some air”, but "you have exactly seven infantry, two artillery, four tanks, three fighters, one bomber on Berlin, and so on and so forth for every single territory on the map. That means a LOT of high quality digital pictures, or putting the game state on TripleA or Abattlemap.
My advice - get TripleA now now now. Download and open the v4 map, edit the game file to reflect your current game, post the .tsvg (the save game file). Players that can read the .tsvg will be able to give you completely specific advice, down to the movement of your last infantry.
If I am understanding the fuzzy things correctly, you should forget about the Pacific (except for a bit of defense) and finish beating the crap out of Berlin. Exactly how this may be accomplished will have to wait for a .tsvg file.
Holy sh*t you are an a$$hole…
When I mean the Soviets are destroyed, I mean that they are all but destroyed. Archangel is the only territory I have left, Moscow has been taken.
Here are 3 pictures:
imgurDOTcom/2HaJR,HIioS,VGQvu
(wont let me post links)
You say you want help from others. They tell you what’s needed - a picture of the game state or far better description. You completely ignored what they said. Go through the thread and see how many people said the exact same thing; nobody understands what the heck is going on in your game because your description sucks.
Which is understandable if it’s the first time you’re posting, but people are TELLING you they need more description, and you’re just coming out with the same vague stuff again and again. Multiple threads. You may not like what I wrote in the last post, but being polite sure as hell wasn’t working. Obviously being rude doesn’t work either because you STILL haven’t put up any pictures.
But you ALMOST made an attempt to actually put up some pictures, for the first time ever. So maybe I should be even more rude, make a conscious effort at it.
I notice you still haven’t put up any pictures or links to pictures.
I wonder if you actually think “imgurDOTcom/2HaJR,HIioS,VGQvu (wont let me post links)” is some sort of reasonable response to requests for information. At least I had the politeness to be straightforward. Your way of being rude is to completely ignore what people are asking of you, which I think is a hell of a lot worse.
I can’t see myself wasting any more time on jmplort98 without seeing a fing picture of the fing game.
blah blah dominate blah destroyed blah blah vague blah significant blah.
Fine here’s some advice. It’s such good advice.
My current game is:
-Russia is all but destroyed, with attacks from Japan and Germany the only Russian units left are an infantry in Archangel and a submarine stationed in England. The my opponent refrains from attacking Archangel, I have a transport from England waiting to evacuate him
You don’t need to evacuate Archangel. Just use that unit to control access to Moscow. Because Russia is “all but destroyed” it is not destroyed, therefore Moscow is safe.
-France has been taken by England with a significant US and UK force there, southern Europe(Italy) has no forces but I do not own it
Well since it’s so significant on the next turn you soften up Berlin with UK. Then on US turn, capture Germany and Southern Europe. Now US can pump out sixteen ground units a turn. Obviously you will have no problems following this advice since your force is so “significant.”
-Asia is mostly owned by Axis powers, but their forces are spread thin
Well apparently Russia is also garbage, but at least Moscow is safe. Just continue to defend Moscow, which shouldn’t be hard. After US is pumping out sixteen ground a turn in Europe, you can use that to push Japan out of Asia.
-US and UK navy dominates the Atlantic, there is only a German transport left
So kill the transport. Then use your fleet to dominate the Pacific. Obviously there should be no problems with that because Germany is about to fall, and Japan is stalled against Moscow.
-The pacific is dominated by Japan, but I am building a US force to combat that
Of course, because you’re already safely about to control Berlin and Rome with US.
I fail to even understand why you would ask for advice with such an obviously great position. I guess you are trolling. troll lol lol
Axis and Allies is not chess. But there are some concepts that are common to the two, like material versus position. Some games are material and involve a lot of infantry and slow pushes. Some games are positional and involve a lot of tanks or fighters or bombers and industrial complexes going all over the place and killing stuff very quickly.
Targeting West Europe is great for the Allies at the beginning if it can be done conveniently, because it fuels UK’s fleet defense and prevents G2 fighters on Western Europe, which sets the tone for Axis control of Africa.
Major shifts to Western and/or Southern Europe are not what I prefer to do as Allies against a decent Axis player. It’s a material versus position question.
Oh yeah, you’re a newbie. So how about one of Bunnies’ homemade text walls so you get my reasoning why KGF is the way to go for newbie vs decent Axis player.
Going KJF is a huge pain in the butt. UK can’t contribute - if they try to put a factory in India, Japan can easily claim it; South Africa and Australia are too far from the action (i.e. Moscow) to be able to be used flexibly. So you have US going solo against Japan’s gigantic starting navy and air force. While US is building, though, Japan can also build - Japan just puts out a few cheap ground units to pressure territory in Asia, and builds navy and/or air to maintain superiority over US. So US screws around while Germany and Japan both pressure Moscow.
Going KGF solves a lotta problems for Allies. US can help in Africa. US can help in Atlantic. This is usually key if the Axis built German air and/or Jap air went to Europe; the combined UK and US fleets can take a lot of damage. A really decent Jap player will push Jap air in Europe, so be prepared to do some light Pacific movements while you do KGF.
Do I do KGF or KJF as a newbie going up against a decent axis player?
If Axis player is decent, KGF is the way to go.
Someone that can be “surprised” with an unfamiliar KJF isn’t a decent Axis player.