Posts made by Nippon-koku

Alaska would be the tricky one.  I can’t figure out how to effectively hold that while doing everything else that needs to be done.

Definitely cannot just ignore the DEI, but they’d take a little longer to get to.  However, if the US isn’t floating around down there you don’t need as much sea and air power down there, as Anzac and India by themselves can only do so much.

I believe you’re right about misdirection: go to Caroline and present it as an assault on Sydney.  Not only that, but the US would have to have 3 DD’s to block Japan from getting men to Hawaii (assuming Japan has ships back in SZ6 as well)

Half the fun of A&A is coming up with different ideas/strategies.  Something I’ve been thinking about with Japan seems intriguing and I wanted to get opinions.  In fact, I’m sure some variation of this already exists, so maybe somebody can report on how it goes.

With Japan, the DEI is always an early goal because of the 20 IPC’s.  But I got thinking, Hawaii and Alaska represent a 19 point swing between territory value and bonuses.  I’m in the early stages but I was thinking of something along the lines of this:

J1: 2 factories, place them in Shangtung and Shanghai.  Doing the usual China attacks, then I’m moving the whole fleet to SZ6 (with each CV staying loaded, rest of airforce in Kwangsi.

J2: I think I’m waiting for J3 to declare war in this scenario, but I’d have to see what US did.  I’m thinking something like 4 inf, 2 art for the factories, 3 transports.  If America has a DD blocking the path to Hawaii, or can easily do so on their turn, maybe move a large chunk of the fleet to Caroline, or any spot where you feel you’d have access to Hawaii on J3.

J3: Take Hawaii, Alaska, Philippines, Kwangtung, Indo-China.  Keep just enough ships/planes down by Philippines and DEI to keep Anzac and India fleets at bay, but focus on reinforcing Hawaii with a few ships a turn, making it impossible for the US to get past it.

From here on out just keep buying out of those factories on the land, maybe build another in Kwangtung and use those to take out China and eventually India.  It’d be a longer play for Japan, but if they can hold America back they’d surely overwhlem AZ, India and China eventually.

Needs work, no doubt, but I like the idea of something different.  How can we touch this up?

I’d gladly sacrifice a large UK navy and some planes if it means the Luftwaffe taking heavy losses.  As far as I can see, mutual annihilation usually benefits the Allies

In general, I believe the best way to keep Italy grounded is a strong US Atlantic presence.  If the US has 6-8 transports at Gibraltar by turn 3 (not difficult to do) then Italy can’t get too cute.

There are certainly more tips on this and GH’s video covers them well.  FWIW, I don’t think you have to Taranto to keep Italy at bay

Keep us updated on the game!

@SubmersedElk:

I’d argue that the Atlantic is better for catch-up. The trade-off is you enter one round later than you would otherwise, so you need to find a way to stall Germany for one round more than otherwise.

The reasoning is that if the US builds enough of a fleet in Hawaii to tie down half the Japanese air force in defense and force the fleet to at least stay within 1 move of Japan - which it can achieve in round 1 - and combine that with aggressive play by Russia/UKPac/ANZAC/China, Japan’s “monster” phase can be delayed significantly. That represents 50+ IPC a turn swing in resources (mostly from Allies holding DEI/UK-Pac territories longer) which can then be committed by the US and UK to the European theater, since now the four other powers can keep Japan contained. ANZAC and UK-Pac making 35ish combined per turn plus the Chinese contribution is an even match against a 45 income Japan with half an airforce to use (and 18 inf 2aa in Korea is extremely inconvenient as well), Japan can be entirely consumed on land and unable to afford any additional ships at all, their transports dropping units on the mainland and not Java, Sumatra, Celebes.

Someone showed me a trick the other night where you can construct a defensive web of allied destroyers in the DEI to further frustrate and divert Japanese resources and delay the monster phase. He did everything else on the stop-Japan list as well, except he didn’t build US fleet in Pac. However, with the fleet free to do something other than defend Japan, it was able to do the job of cleaning up that nest and assaulting the islands on its own. If it were tied down in defense, then air would be diverted to both defending the fleet and also to capturing the islands, and even with everything they start with that’s not enough to also get good combats in China as well.

So that first US spend in the Pacific really does come back in a big way in making the other allies sustainable, freeing UK-Eur resources to spend immediately against Germany, and allowing the US to focus on the Atlantic as long as it needs to to get the job done.

The Atlantic “hammer” takes a few turns of builds to set up, so if you focus on it first, it’s now round 5 or 6 before the first real Pacific spend, and Japan is at 70+ IPCs with China and UK-Pac no longer able to resist. This is true even if Japan needs to clean up Russian inf in Korea as well. At that point Japan can match the US IPC for IPC and has defeated the enemy on the Asian front, while floating a nice navy into the Indian Ocean for further gains. Japan can now force the US to spend all its IPC in the Pacific and not in Europe in order to hold the line.

So the build-Pac-late scenario basically gives the US one good shot at scoring a winning blow in Europe, and that offers Germany a great strategic option, of bleeding off the US units trading territories (inf/ftr builds) and lessening the hammer’s strength with every kill. Even if you take Italy, Germany can take it back.

The Axis don’t really need Russia to fall on a schedule other than “eventually”. They just need to push it back to its capital so it’s not building, and have enough of a stack next to it not to kill it but to keep it contained. Actually capturing the capital itself is not terribly meaningful at that point. And the Germans can do that easily while dropping large amounts of inf/ftr and the occasional sub back home to repel landings - they are reinforcing every turn at 50 IPC (figure 10inf/1art/1sub/1ftr every turn) while the US is now committed to 100% Pacific builds for as long as Japan likes.

So a strategic scenario of Japan vs. US full build in the Pacific with Japan advancing on Mideast/Africa, and Germany in highly-efficient compact-defense mode pulling in 50+, China and UKPac out of the game, Russia just an idle holdout stack destined to die… that’s a pretty good Axis scenario. Allies’ whole game chances rest on that one initial US strike on Europe being effective, essentially - UK Europe won’t be able to fight off Japan and contribute against Germany at the same time.

I would rather be fighting a smaller Japan and have that hammer fall one round later, in such a manner that reinforcements could be continuously on the way, at which point extra IPC can go into Pac builds against a weaker version of Japan that can’t afford to dedicate its full IPC to a naval race and has a healthy ANZAC to contend with as well.

The more practice I get on the Axis side the more I am realizing that you can overload Japan and short-circuit the process of becoming a monster, but you need all 5 pieces (and maybe even that French destroyer) to actually achieve the effect. Japan can do three things and hold off one more threat. It cannot do three things and hold off TWO more threats. US full build Pac1 is the tipping point where Japanese resources are no longer adequate to do all the things it needs to do. You can get it at the cost of arriving in Europe one round later.

Reading this over and giving it some thought, I’m wondering if you’re right.  I usually do a massive US1 Atlantic buy, but still don’t end up in Gibraltar until US3, meaning it may make more sense to save that large buy for US2.  I will try it and report back!

Keep in mind the Paris factory will be reduced to a minor once you take it.

The transports ShadowHawk is speaking of are US only and don’t include any UK help.  Earlier in the thread I posted an example of what US and UK could land in Norway: 18 inf, 1 tank, 3 AA, 3 ftrs.  In reply you said the Axis could delay the US from getting to Norway until turn 5 (which is true) and that Germany could have 30 units (20 ground 10 air) ready to go.  Let’s go off of that for a second.

First thing to remember: the extra turn delay also allows the Allies to get more units up there.  But more important than that is how much Germany has sacrificed in the push for Russia in order to counter attack Norway in this scenario.  Your planes are out of position; if you have 2 on that carrier and 2-3 ready to scramble, that’s 4 or 5 that are not engaged in Russia.

Let’s look at a few numbers: Germany starts with 57 ground units (I know they get 8 from Finland and Bulgaria, but they’re going to lose units in Paris and any other territories they attack, so let’s call that a wash).  By the end of G4 they should’ve spent roughly 200 IPC.  Take off 24 for the CV and DD you’ve purchased and that leaves 176. However, you also said you’d buy 2-3 transports, so let’s go with 2, taking it down to 162.  A ten tank buy G2 seems to be standard (please correct me if I’m wrong), leaving 102, which is roughly 22 units if you buy a mix of tanks, mechs, art, inf.  So let’s call this an additional 32 units, giving you 89 (assuming you’ve lost none since G1).

So, you have 20 ground units in Finland ready to counter-attack Norway and, based on your other posts, I imagine you’ve got roughly the same in Paris ready to counter attack Normandy (btw, any ftr or tacs in Poland cannot reach the battle in Normandy).  That’s 35-40 ground units in Finland and Paris, plus maybe 8-10 you had to place in Berlin, bringing us somewhere between 43-50, out of about 90, ground units, and 4-5 planes nowhere near Moscow by the end of G4.  In this given scenario you are absolutely not taking Moscow.  It’s not happening.  The Atlantic Allies have defended Moscow without even landing in Europe.

@Gamerman01:

I don’t think he’s saying he made the scramble decision after 111.  I think he’s saying they rolled 111, and it didn’t go well, and then rolled 110 which killed Germany and they started over.

Yes all scramble decisions are made before any dice

This is correct.  As I read what I wrote I can see that I wasn’t clear on it.  The initial scramble decision was made because Ike came in light, figuring I wouldn’t scramble because I never do.

Hmm, I never like to be on the side of popular opinion.

Therefore I will add this: what you CAN’T do as the UK is put the blinders on and say “Under no circumstances am I going to scramble.”  You have to play it by situation.

A recent example:

Was playing Ike and he went for SZ 110 & 111.  Knowing I never scramble, he came light to 110 (I think it was something like 2 subs, 3 fighters, 3 tacs).  He had a terrible roll in 111 (had to back out and I actually kept a tipped BB), followed by a very rare scramble from me (which made sense based on the previous battle).  He only hit 3, I got lucky and hit 5.  All said and done, Germany had lost 6 planes, while the UK had lost none and had 2 BB’s remaining.  We decided to restart.  Allied victory!  8-)

Good post Elk.  I agree strongly with everything you said, with one exception:

The US is better off using US1 to stack the Atlantic and then play catchup in the Pacific.  My reasoning behind this:

It seems to be universally agreed upon that the US cannot just split its money the whole way, but rather must spend heavy in one Theater, at least early on.  That being the case, the US will have to play catch up in the the other Theater, meaning that, in the long run, the US will actually spend more on whichever side they ignored in round 1.  So the question is which side is better suited for playing catch up?  Since the Japanese have to eventually get Sydney or Hawaii, the answer is the Pacific.

If China focuses on Yunan and Russia goes Buryatia, Amur, attack, Japan should be slowed down a little.

Interesting note on the SZ110 scramble Gamerman.  I’ve never liked a scramble there as the UK (unless Germany comes in too thin for whatever reason).  As valuable as German planes are, the UK needs to hang onto those planes to help defend the area as the US makes its way over.

Tolstoj

This weekend doesn’t work for a game but we can figure something out.  I won’t lie: I rarely play online.  I like to be able to see the whole board in front of me, get up and move around, etc.  Plus, my group plays almost every weekend so I’m never really wanting for a game.

Seeing as how we live far apart though, we can make it happen sometime  8-)

@ShadowHAwk:

@Tolstoj:

Whoops, just thought of more setbacks for the allies in the Atlantic…

When the US builds in turn 1 in the Atlantic. Japan will not enter the war until J3. So you cannot be in SZ 91 in turn 3, you cannot even be in SZ 123. So the US cannot attack until turn 5!!!

By then Germany can have at least 30 units ready…

Good luck Allies! :-(

Any thoughts?

Sure, UK-pac and anzac will be making 30ish. China will be doing not so bad.

US can put a few more turns of pressure on germany.
Germany cannot have 30 units ready, because if they do those 30 are not going to moscow so moscow is saved.

My thoughts exactly.

If the US1 build in the Atlantic means that Japan has to change their plan and Germany is keeping 30 units back, I consider that a success

@ChocolatePancake:

Nippon-koku, remember that you can’t land AAA in an amphibious assault. So in your scenario, when the USA takes Norway, those 2 AAA would have to stay on the boats until next turn.
The UK could add its AAA during its non-combat move though.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the AA guns can move into the space during non-combat, no? So the ground troops land, taking the space, then the transports with the AA guns can non-combat onto Norway?

If not, US can simply take two extra ground units and the UK can supply the extra AA guns

Hey Tolstoj

Again, with all due respect, this is another example of how it feels like every Axis counter point you present is “Well I’d just have every unit everywhere at the same time.”

In our private messages back and forth I mention how, as the US, I can have 7 or 8 (let’s call it 7 for this example) loaded transports in SZ91 by turn 3.  So let’s say G4 they buy that DD in SZ110 to block: depending how the board looks the US can either take that guy out and hang in the Channel (they should have a loaded CV, a DD and a C) and rely on extra defense from UK, or kill him anyway and go to 109 and group with the UK fleet and planes, which can scramble from two bases in 109.

That same US4, any loaded transports (let’s even say they have 1) that may be ready to go from EUS can make their way up to Iceland* to join in the attack on Norway next round (obviously we’d have to see the board, but I’m assuming your subs are gone.  If Germany bombers can reach Iceland, and UK can spare the units, you send a couple up there to defend).  Based on what you’ve said, I don’t believe Germany’s planes will be a threat to either fleet.

*(As an aside: this is something the US can do on turn three to prevent a DD block to begin with.  If Germany doesn’t have any real naval presence to speak of, head to Iceland instead of Gibraltar.  The bulk of Germany’s air force cannot make it up there and they cannot simply buy a DD on G4 to block).

Next turn you can’t block Norway.  So US lands 16 units in there, something like 13 inf/mech, 1 tank, 2 AA.  On UK’s turn they can put a few planes in, plus land ground troops as well (I’m guessing they’d have at least 3 transports).  So let’s say UK helps to the tune of 3 fighters, 6 ground units (5 inf and another AA): we’re talking 18 inf, a tank, 3 AA and 3 fighters.  You said you’d have 13 ground units and 11 planes.  Based on what you’ve said, I’m assuming most of the 13 are inf, but I’ll even give you 9 inf 4 art:

Using David Skelly’s battle calc, with low luck, I have the Allies winning 61.6% percent of the time.  If I change that 9 inf & 4 art to 11 inf & 2 art the Allied odds go up to 76.5%. Germany cannot commit to that battle.

There are certainly variables here and, as with all arguments, unless we’re looking at the board on that specific turn, this is just theory.  But the Allies can absolutely land in Norway and Europe in general.  Is it always quick enough?  Strong enough?  No.  But they can absolutely make it there.

Heavy Atlantic spending by the US in the first couple of rounds will at least help.  If the US has 7, 8 loaded transports, along with a loaded carrier, a couple of warships and some UK help behind it, sitting at 91 on turn 3, then Germany has to use resources to defend it’s backside.

Also, the more I play the more I’m liking the US taking Spain on turn 3.

Agreed that the US has to focus on one side early on.  I feel it’s easier to play catch-up in the Pacific, so I usually go heavy in the Atlantic first.

Trying to evenly split your money from turn 1 on is a recipe for failure.

My philosophy on Pacific naval battles from the Allied perspective has always been this:

If Japan can win the battle, but it will cost them a good chunk of units, even if they’ll completely destroy what you have, it’s usually worth it for the Allies.

Even if you prefer to buy heavy early on in the Atlantic like I do, US should still have a steady stream of ships heading down to Queensland as the game progresses.  From turn 3 on I’m usually doing an alternate turn buy of 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 sub, 1 loaded transport, and then 2 ftr’s, 1 DD, 1 sub, 1 loaded transport. As other posters have mentioned already, in the Pacific you only really need to stop Japan from getting Sydney or Hawaii (for the record, this is why I’m such a big fan of the Russians in Amur move.  Anything that delays Japan from taking India is a massive advantage for the Allies, as it gives them extra time to make trouble in the water).  These steady buys from America, plus whatever Anzac can do to help, will go a long way in combating Japan.

Tolstoj

At this point I think we just respectfully agree to disagree.  Japan is a beast and they can certainly wreck havoc, but I stand by my contention that they cannot be everywhere at once and, with proper coordination from all five Allies in the pacific, they can be kept at bay.

Perhaps one day we’ll get to play a game and put this to the test   8-)

Let me preface by saying I’m enjoying this back and forth.  Tone is never present in online discussions and therefore words can come off the wrong way.  Just know I’m loving the discussion  :-D

Said respectfully, I feel like your Japanese plans never include the fact that the Allies get to buy units and move as well.

The US and Anzac will be steadily buying ships, planes and units as well.  To maintain, and constantly retake, the DEI is worthwhile for Japan, but it’s certainly not easy or without cost.  You will lose transports, men, and if you spread your force too thin trying to protect too much you’ll eventually get picked off.  Again, Japan is strong and can certainly win the game.  But it’s not as simple as saying “Japan will just take the DEI and hold them the whole time!”  I’ve never played a single game of Global where Japan took the DEI J3 or J4 and held them virtually uncontested the rest of the way.

Let’s get back to China and Russia

In an earlier post you said you like to have the main Japanese fleet situated at the Caroline islands, plus a transport in 36/37 with some protection.  You later mentioned you keep planes in Jehol.  So let’s look at the setup going into round 2:

Russia moves 18 men and 2 AA into Amur; you want to counter with 15 ground units and some planes.  Ok, no problem.

First things first, you’d have to anticipate Russia moving into Amur R2, meaning you’d have to leave back the Manchuria troops.  So right off the bat Russia is, as the very least, dictating where your units have to go.  Not a game breaker, but a nice ancillary benefit for the Allies.  Moreover, you’d have to commit a couple of transports.  Again, nice play for the Allies.  Finally, since you’re doing the attack, you’ve now activated Mongolia and given Russia 6 extra troops.  Once again, not a game changer, but still nice.  Finally, let’s say you do have all your Manchurian troops still there, and your Korean troops, and transports ready to go, and half your air force in Jehol: Russia sees that and decides to sit in Buryatia on R2.  So now what as Japan?  You aren’t going to keep that entire air force in Jehol, right?  You’re going to move those transports down toward the DEI, right?  So Russia made you keep your men out of place for J2, then just moves into Amur on R3.  What’s the next step?  I’m guessing you’re not going to redirect your entire air force to Northern China on J3?

As far as planes go, I’m guessing on J1 you hit Yunan with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr & 1 tac from Shanghai, 2 str from Japan.  Let me know if I’m wrong, but this seems to be the standard as far as I can tell, since taking Yunan is important for J1.  Those planes would have to land in Kwangsi, and I’m guessing you have at least a couple of your carriers loaded up in the water?  And you at least brought a couple to Hunan?  It’s very unlikely that you have your entire air force in Jehol.

As far as the Japanese homeland goes, I rarely find that it’s prudent for the US to spend heavy time and resources threatening SZ6.  Ultimate, it just puts them out of position and let’s Japan do exactly what you said: control the DEI.  Trust me, as the Allies I will have plenty of loaded carrier power down in Queensland around turn 4, 5.

Lastly, you mentioned that if China retakes Yunan and has to sit in Szechwan, they are susceptible to Japanese air strikes.  I mentioned earlier in the thread that China can have about 12 inf, a ftr and 4 Russian units in Szechwan by the time J2 rolls around.  Now, certainly you agree: the Japanese air force cannot be a threat to that stack, AND a threat to Amur, AND sitting on your carriers at the beginning of J2?

I believe China will always be better off trying to get Yunan back early on.  We may just agree to disagree on that one.  No worries there  :-)

As for the 18 in Amur

Your Amur plan goes back to the question we’ve been going back and forth on: how much is too much to do for Japan?  If you’re committing 23 ground units, and accompanying transports, to Amur on J2 you simply don’t have enough units in position to push back China + UK in Southern China and aggressively threaten the DEI.  If, as China and India, I see Japan commit that much to the North then I’m thinking move everything China has into Yunan, then back it up with India.  Now Yunan is protected and Japan has no serious DEI threat J3.