Teslas, I get what you’re saying in regard to the 11 IPC, but I feel it’s specious reasoning. By turn 3 Japan normally has another 8 IPC between Chinese territories and Kwangtung (which you mentioned along with Burma); now we’re talking 19 IPC, which you could call 22 (Kwangtung being a 3 ipc swing). Add to that the two victory cities that China can help control and Japan probably isn’t winning the game.
That’s very significant
@Shin:
The threat of reinforcing a US landing in Korea is only part of the story. The other part is that you pin a dozen Japanese land units in defense, and those are units that are not advancing on China and the UK and not being shipped around the South Pacific to take over islands.
Now, that is what I hope for as a Russian player using this strat. But when I’m the Japanese, I don’t defend Manchuria or Korea. I might leave a few inf in Korea if I’ve got transports in SZ 6 with nothing better to do for some reason, but otherwise, I just leave it alone.
So they take Manchuria? No worries. I deal with them later.
I’ve gotta say, if I’m the Allies and I see that Japan left Manchuria undefended and I can walk in with the 18 troops + 2 AA’s, I’m stoked. Let’s say J2 Japan says “Screw it, take Manchuria on R3.” As China, I’m saving my end of turn 1 money (which should be 15), combining it with my end of turn 2 money (should be 11 or 12, let’s say 11), which gives me 26 to spend on 8 inf in Manchuria turn 3.
That sounds like a massive headache for Japan
Think the best I read was YG’s opener…sorry its rough memory but its quite sound…
SZ 111 2 subs 1 air pair 1 strat? 1 BB (one round of combat then retreat to SZ 112 and build carrier+tran with cruiser and 3+2 fighters etc.) 6 attackers
SZ 110 2 subs 2 air pairs 1 strat? 7 attackers
SZ 106 1/2 subs (and hope for luck)sorry idrc where the strats are supposed to go. But you should be able to defeat 3 of the 5 places Britain has ships, if not 4 of 5. Leaving the 109 destroyer and 91 cruiser seem to be the lowest value consensus units…choose 91 or 106.
I used to think that extreme odds/ overkill were required to beat both SZ 111 and SZ 110 but its simply not true. If UK scrambles and loses even 1 fighter its a big Sea Lion opening, which means you only need to kill 3 ships in each zone.
Most of the time, Germany doesn’t even lose 1 plane here.
Adding a SBR on turn 1 or DoW G1 is what will stretch you too thin.
Your layout is overkill. No air is needed to defeat Paris if you bring all the tanks and mechs.
If you attack SZ 110 with only 2 subs 2 air pair and 1 strategic bomber that means 4 hits (if your lucky)… When UK scrambles they can have 4 hits as well. You lose 2 planes already! Why shouldn’t the UK-player scramble?
Sea Lion can be prevented by the UK player by going to Gibraltar with the 98-fleet and buying 1 destroyer (they already have 2, so it is not even necessary) at 106…
Agreed 100%
After one round the likely scenario is Germany down to 1 ftr, 1 tac, 1 str; UK with 3 ftrs (or what I’d probably do in this case: lose the French ftr and keep the damaged BB). I can’t think Germany would press on with that fight, no?
Moreover, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but any hits from the ftr’s would have to be taken on the German planes since there is no DD present. Therefore, if all 3 ftr’s hit Germany is looking at a disastrous first round.
@Don:
I have never land the fighter in Tobruk, only in Rome. I will land the Fighter in Tobruk next game and the TB in Rome, see if it pays off…
Also: i allways try to take out the UK Cruiser in sz 91 using just one sub. I know the odd’s are against me, but if i hit 1st round, the payoff is huge (and te sub survives :-D). In most cases it prevent the UK player from taking Tobruk 1st round.
I’m with you on that. I know it’s a risky move, but if you hit that C it’s huge.
I’ve never been a big fan of getting the German air force involved down in Africa.
Well as long as the dice are playing nice it isnt that bad.
But once you got all your planes shot down by AA gun fire, or having 10 tanks hit once where his 5 inf all scored hits and it becomes painfull.
With dice some battles really can deside the game by a simple throw. If your attack with the pacific fleet goes the wrong way or russia defends against abnormal odds then the game is desided right there and then. Does not mather if your opponent made all sorts of mistakes hell you can even lose to the AI opponent that way.
But it is a slightly different game with low luck, it benefits the attacker in every situation, but then again so do dice as the attacker can retreat. You just get rid of the extremes of dice that especialy if you are playing it online are frequent to happen as the dice roller isnt really random at all.
I find that a lot of those bad rolls can have interesting strategic effects on the game in the form of withdraws. In LL you’d never have reason to retreat from a battle, barring a strafe attack. In a normal dice game you have to decide whether or not to carry out fights.
Going back to poker as an analogy: the best poker players in the world would all tell you that a key part of winning is knowing when to fold, even if that means folding the best hand. If you’re playing hold’em and you’re holding two aces, one spade one club, you bet big. If the flop comes down and it’s all hearts, well you need to proceed with caution. If the next card is also a heart you may have to accept that, even though you had the best hand to start and placed a big bet, you need to back out and live to fight another day. In my mind, that’s true strategy (then again, there’s a lot to be said about what’s going on in my mind…)
I’ll just add that I am a dice man and agree with those who have said that LL is actually less strategic. It conjures up the image of a poker table where everybody plays with their cards face up on the table.
I’m with you 100% and often argue that very point on the board. I like Buryatia R1, Amur R2, and if the opportunity is there I like to attack Manchuria or Korea R3. I believe the upside to this is greater than walking back to Moscow
I’ve actually not been attacking with them until and unless Japan is committed too deeply in the south to respond. Just leaving them sitting there keeps pressure on Japan and keeps a good chunk of its land units out of the fight. Factoring in expected J1 losses, the units that have to hang out in Manchuria can be half of all Japanese land units on the board that are just stuck defending. And if he thinks 10 units plus an AA are good enough, he’s in for a surprise when you attack with 66% odds. It’s a 12-unit commitment for Japan to keep those Russian inf idle and out of its northern territories.
Exactly. I’d never go in there with a mutual annihilation attack, but I’m quite surprised at how often Japan is willing to leave Korea and/or Manchuria light (perhaps they just don’t think anyone would attack?) I’ve also run into some opponents who seem to think a few planes can make up for a lack of ground unit protection.
I distinctly remember one game a long while back where the Japanese player left 4 inf, an AA, 2 fighters and 2 tacs in Manchuria. I had a great first roll (five hits) and the battle ended with Japan wiped out and 11 Russian inf + 2 AA in Manchuria. Even without a great first roll Russia would usually win that battle with 7 or 8 inf left.
You always have to play the board of course, but for the most part I’m all about this move
Are all those subs really necessary? Isn’t Germany in pretty good position to deny the Allies an Atlantic fleet just from air and the leftover subs it already has after G1? Even if you wanted more, is a full buy really warranted? Wouldn’t two bombers and one sub give you more flexibility and achieve the same fleet-denial effect?
Necessary? Not really. But it’s a fun alternative 8-)
I’m with you 100% and often argue that very point on the board. I like Buryatia R1, Amur R2, and if the opportunity is there I like to attack Manchuria or Korea R3. I believe the upside to this is greater than walking back to Moscow
I’ve always been in favor of a “maneuvers” roll for transports: each transport gets to roll for a 1. If they get it, they survive.
GH: agree that the victory conditions for the Allies make no sense. I remember a lost game for the Allies where Berlin and Rome had fallen, but on the next turn Japan won by having 6 VC’s (a series of DD blockers made it impossible for the Allies to get it back on their turn). Makes absolutely no sense. I’d like something like this: Allies win if they capture Berlin OR Tokyo OR Rome + they control Norway, Normandy and Germany does not control Leningrad, Stalingrad or Moscow.
As for a rule I don’t like, bombers can travel too far. So Japan takes the Philippines then plants a few bombers there. Those bombers can reach India, Sydney, any DEI other than Sumatra, anywhere in Mainland China, etc. Even reducing their movement by just 1 space would balance them out.
It is possible for the Russians to attack Estern Poland, but you have to buy mech units and tanks, and perhaps a TB. Very curious to know how such a game would end, but I don’t think it would be favorable for the Russians to trade their army for a German army. Because unlike WW2, the Germans can make new ones…
ShadowHawk showed me many new (to me) and good tactical moves, so it was an interesting game to me.
Unfortunately I made too many mistakes with Japan on J3 to have a realistic game (lost many infantry because I forgot to use my figthers). Also I am not used to playing online, so it takes an hour to do one turn with Japan.
But I am practicing now… :D
Playing online is tough for me as well. I need to see the whole board or I’m lost.
I only see a mutual annihilation as good for Russia if the US and UK are in Western Europe
Nippon - So you don’t bother with the UK Cruiser in 91?
With this specific opener I prefer to make sure all the DD’s are gone. The cool part about going into 109 with 3 subs is you’ll rarely get a scramble from UK, meaning you’re likely ending the round with 4, maybe 5, subs left in addition to the 5 you just bought. 10 subs in the water is a lot of fun 8-)
If they attack 109, you should scramble out over that battle. The subs can’t hit the planes, and unless he hits with everything, you get to keep the transport. He can’t kill all the destroyers without going long odds or eating a counterscramble.
The best way to help Italy in all this is to allow them to take France and all its money, and to give them 2-3 german planes to potentially scramble in place of losing their airforce, if applicable. Not to put german ships in the med or take a few side territories.
Subs seem kinda fun, but its a dilution of your power to do anything that doesn’t directly conquer USSR or UK. I completely swarmed down UK last game with some subs I kept and bought over turns in G42 and it hardly did anything to his income and your Axis sea dominance ends no matter what after T4-5. The most fun I’ve ever seen with an Axis sub army is when you destroy America and its income but its a losing strategy.
Happy Holidays to my crew AxA!
Gonna disagree with this post (well, except for the holiday wishes)
If Germany goes to 109 with what I suggested (3 subs, 5 total planes) then I welcome a 4 plane scramble. After a round of combat the averages say Germany loses 3 subs, UK loses a DD and 3 fighters.
Great points all around. I’m starting to think Japan would have to attack turn 1 for this to work, like Wild Bill suggested. Get it right off the bat.
Maybe a better first round buy would be 1 factory and 2 transports? I agree you still have to get men down to the DEI. The good news: if you can keep America from heading down that way for a while you can take the islands with minimal sea power.
Tavernier - the attacks beyond 91 are to rid the Atlantic of British Destroyers that can attack the surviving subs and the 5 new ones regardless of what other German units survive. The thought is that as the UK, we are used to losing our entire Navy before our turn. This leaves you with a potential for 2 battleships and then maybe air if u don’t scramble and Taranto. I hope they take the bait and try to waist time and ipcs trying to save it.
YG - so it’s the 91 cruiser that decides the do or do not Taranto if you are the UK?
Nippon - I believe you have your SZ’S mixed up. Isn’t 96 in the Med? Do you attack 109 or 110? Cool that your a drummer too. Band is called My God the Heat.
I meant 109, yes. Again, trying to focus while at work lol. I agree about scrambling: I love to bait the UK into scrambling if it can be done.
Anything online? I’ll check you guys out. I have a 90s rock cover band and an original 2-piece folk rock band Sara and Brian
It seems like an interesting idea! The only flaw I see is in the IPC argument (20 for the DEI or 19 represented in stealing from America). The 20 a turn from the DEI is sustainable longer than the 19 lost from USA. The Alaska loss will be good for 1 turn of lost income. I think the true bonus from this strategy will be relief for the Europe Axis to get the V!
This is what’s stumping me the most so far. The upside is that it forces America to keep diverting forces up there. Tough part is I can’t see anyplace where Japan could easily keep countering with planes other than Soviet Far East.
The only problem I usually have by using that TT for taking a DEI Island is that in round two that TT is lost and the two inf you stationed there are but a marginal headache for Japan.
It’s a fair point Drummer but I agree with the above poster. The transport can be of use the London in the Africa campaign. I used to take an island with India but the gain of 4 for a loss of 10 or 13? Doesn’t make sense.
Now, if for whatever reason you’re confident Japan is waiting for J3 to attack? That’d be worth it.
@Young:
Regarding this move: 1 Sub/1 Bomber/2 Fighters/2 Tacs Sz109
It’s very interesting because as Germany I would roll this battle before the 2 subs on the Brit cruiser off Gibraltar. Reason being Taranto is on or off the table based on if the cruiser survives or not, if it is removed… I scramble 4 fighters into 109 knowing that I’m not gonna do a Taranto raid. So I would leave the 91 battle last to keep them guessing about wether or not they should scramble into 109.
Interesting point YG. I’ve rarely considered the strategy of which battles you should roll first.
When I do this German opening I like to bring 3 subs to SZ 96. I find this, along with enough air power, keeps UK from scrambling, thus ensuring a nice convoy roll. I generally do 2 subs to 106, 3 subs 2 fighters 2 tacs to 96, and the BB, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 2 str to 111.
My thinking for each:
106 is obvious. 2 subs should beat 1 DD
96 is a tempting scramble for UK at first glance, but it doesn’t really make sense for them. Scrambling all 4 should net them 3 hits, German subs gone. On the other hand, Germany should also get 3 hits, wiping out the DD and two fighters. At this point Germany can retreat having lost subs as opposed to UK losing fighters, or just press on and finish off the entire RAF at the loss of what should be 1 German plane.
111 is riskier. If the ftr in Scotland scrambles you can count on losing at least one plane. That being said, a scramble should mean 2 hits for UK (BB gone) whereas Germany should hit 3-4. If they hit 3, count on losing at least one plane.
Drummer, what do you think of this?
Btw, I’ve been a drummer for years as well. Play in two bands 8-) have any projects currently?
Agreed that I like to use some India troops to help out with Africa. It makes a huge difference over there. The one or two units you bring over aren’t going to have a significant impact in the Pacific (the Allies aren’t winning or losing the game over it).
I’ve used this in the past and it happens to be my girl’s favorite opener as Germany. I’ll say this: it really throws the UK off on their first turn. Obvious downside is allowing UK to keep a BB and C, but if you pull this out on an unsuspecting UK opponent it can really shake them