Well, it seems to me the only reason to worry about a J3/J4 Calcutta crush scenario is if you are playing in a TT tournament which rewards a VP for Japan to perform the crush move.
IF you are playing a standard game on table top or Triple AAA the Crush is a no bueno move for Japan if the USA player has any skill level what so ever.
I agree that at some point the Russian troops would have to make a last stand against the Germans. Regardless of how you redeployed the troops.
My POV is that if the remaining Russians can delay Germany from winning the game by consuming 2-4 extra turns, how ever the Russians manage to pull that off. Then that is a Allied gain in the big picture of the war. Allies want to gain time (turns).
Iam a big believer in making my foe have to make choices. Choices lead to mistakes which you can exploit.
If you just stack in Moscow you are presenting Germany with no choices. The choice is obvious and straight forward for Germany.
Ok, so let me get this straight.
Russia has 3 options on death. Death = losing Moscow.
#1 Russia can counter attack before the gates of Moscow…which will result in death.
#2 Russia can mass as much force as possible in Moscow, including UK/USA FTR…which will result in death.
#3 Russia can exit Moscow in force with everything intact and concede Moscow…which will result in death.
Well, if given 3 choices of death would not the logical choice of death be #3?
If Russia has a stack of 25 INF, 8 ART 8 MINF, 8Tanks, 3AAA. Not including any planes flying around like chickens with their heads cut off. Does that stack not represent an obstacle for Germany? Can Germany let that stack live and just move on with their lives to crush Cairo or London and repulse any USA/UK invasions on the West and ignore it?
What if that stack moved North East of Moscow? Will the Germans follow it? At what point would Germany realize they are chasing ghosts and turn their Mech and ARM to another front? Would they even be able to?
Here is the point.
IF you choose option #1 or #2 that results not just in the destruction of Moscow but of 95+% of all the Russian units on the Board. Thus Germany no longer has to worry about having a large % of its TUV sitting on the Russian front and can redeploy them elsewhere.
Does it not make sense to preserve as much Russian TUV and keep it on the board even after the fall of Moscow? Keep Germany focused on Russia?
There are too many scenarios the Russian player could do to keep Germany/Japan occupied with this large stack after the fall of Moscow to list out.
Listen up and listen up good! Russia needs a new Commissar on how to deal with this German threat.
So, here is the chart you must memorize.
G1 DOW and they are at the gates of Moscow on R4 for a G5 assault
G2…R5…so a G6 Assault
G3…R6…so a G7 assault
Ok, I need a Commissar to stand up and tell me why we should not just turtle and hope RNG Jesus saves us.
Surely there is a plan of ATTACK to beat back the German horde invading us?
Iam going to just spit ball some ideas to spurn some conversation. See if your skulls of mush can come up with a good plan.
Iam going to make 2 assumptions on the German POV. Yeah, I know what an assumption is and can lead to.
#1 Germany does not want to assault Moscow with out cannon fodder INF/Mech INF. Germany hates taking Tank losses and do not get them started on losing planes.
#2 Germany does not want to take Moscow and then just lose it to a counter attack and not have a follow up force.
SO
Top level idea, something to work on.
How about attacking them in force before Moscow, take out their INF/Mech Inf and make them pause at losing tanks. Then a grand plan of setting up Moscow with a counter attack in mind instead of pilling up the dudes 3inches tall on the game board on Moscow and just pray. For you guys on TripleA INF stacks of 25+ are around 3inches tall on the real game board.
Yeah, I hear you dude in the back row. I know Germany VS Russian has been discussed numerous times. Epic videos made of tactics to defend Moscow. Endless discussion across some beer with some fish and chips hashing this out.
But you know what, some lessons in life need to be constantly revisited and pounding into your head.
Just like my life lesson of not drinking 18 beers, 9 shots of whiskey, top it off with 3 cement mixer shots and then hit McDonalds on the way home. After a discussion with my toilet we hash it out and then for some stupid reason we are talking about the exact same think 2 weeks later.
So, Commissar give me some insight on how to make Russia the power house it should be and defeat the German horde.
One thing that always confused me/ make me scratch my head when reading the 1940 global forum is this.
How much of this is influenced by AAA and tournament board play?
I get tournament play, limited time per round, can only play 8-10 rounds. Come up with a VP system in order to determine a winner.
My experience on AAA, which is around 10-12 games, but every game my foe would basically declare after round 8-10 or so that the game is lost by me/won by him no need to continue. Any discussion would result in snarky remarks that ole PainState is living in a fantasy land and cannot come to grips with his obvious crushing loss.
Here is the issue Iam bringing up. All these battle plans for Axis and the allies to basically reduce the game down to a quick fire game of 8-10 turns, mainly for the Axis. Bold statements that if Moscow is not taken out by turn 7-8 just pick up the game. Which means in reality just disconnect from AAA never to be scene gain.
Tournament play you devise plans that are quick strike to achieve 2-3 VP and then hold on for dear life. A staple of quality Japan play in Tournament action. (AKA Calcutta crush)
So for a player like myself who plays 99.5% of his 1940 global on a table top, that can stay there for weeks. We could play 40 turns if necessary to finish a game. These battle plans and ideas for tactics seem to not fit that scenario. They are great if you know the game is 8-10 turns and then the game is over.
At the end I quess what Iam saying is that it seems that most of the “talk” on the 1940 global forum is not really directed towards how I play the game. Which usually means when I do post stuff guys come at it with a different POV which is based on AAA or tournament style play.
Just throwing this out there.
(foot note: is it possible that the Allies need a bid to win because there is a underlying assumption that a game is actually only going to be 8-10 turns long?)
What is the Alamo? Well in military terms it is the famous battle where the Texans stood their ground and fought to the death. Now, granted, the Texans won the war but the battle is considered a last stand scenario.
So, Is Moscow really the Alamo for the Allies? Do you really need to throw everything the Allies have into that battle? If they should lose the battle is the war over?
It seems to me a lot of players think, devise plans, come up with ways to throw everything the UK/USA have into the battle to tip the scales because the entire war depends on that one battle.
Remember the Alamo I say. The Texan army could of thrown all in at the Alamo. But they decided to do another plan. Fall back with their entire army and fight another day on a field of their choice. Well, we know now how that worked out for Santa Anna and his army, dying in a swamp.
I propose that the Russians should adopt the exact same battle plan.
The common group think is that the battle on the European map after the fall of Moscow is Cairo or London. That will decide the game and war. The main issue with this group think is that you now put the UK/Euro in the position that they have to defend both Cairo and London with under 40 IPC. This is a position they cannot hold.
So, you could have the USA help out with this situation but it is still under turn 10. They cannot help out the UK in enough force to tip the balance at this point in the game. So the Allies will just buy time, just like the Texan army did.
Once Germany is at the gates of Moscow you move ALL your forces out of Moscow towards the Middle East or China. Germany cannot blitz through Moscow so that will give you a turn to retreat.
The Idea is that Russia is buying time with their huge stack. They keep falling back to the Middle East. You will be tempted to make Persia your Alamo moment with them but do not bite on that. Keep falling back to Cairo. Germany has to kill off the large stack of Russians, they are the only ones standing in the way of victory.
Force Germany to attack Cairo with the entire Russian stack plus the UK and USA forces defending.
I hear some dude yelling about Germany buying a huge navy and going after London instead, valid point indeed.
But we are talking about a Allied plan that moves the game into Turn 12+. I will not go on and on about what the allies should be doing. You should have a good idea about that already.
If we are talking Turn 14+ and the Allies are still in the game obviously the Pacific map is taken care of at that point.
There are so many random things that could happen. Moments where Russia could counter attack or exploit an over sight by the Germans.
Bottom line: Do the Allies really need to make Moscow the be all/end all Alamo moment of the game?
IMHO: NO
I would like to point out that you do not have to strat bomb a naval base with a bomber….you can use a Tactical for that job. In the big picture it is never a bad idea to bomb Naval and Air bases. It forces the Allies, mainly, UK, to have to pay for repairs. It cuts down on the allies ability to use those bases and sometimes…the Allies simply forget to repair them or fell they need IPC in troops and just maybe, at a critical time, having those bases denied to the Allies does give the Axis a one turn advantage.
In my table top group the Allies have won 7 out of 9 matches in the last year.
Now, that being said. Our entire group was new to 1940 and had no knowledge of 1940 tactics and plans. Sure, we all played classic A&A but had never played a version of the game like 1940.
Reading the threads and watching videos online of 1940 it seems that the tactics of the Axis was the first to be explored and hammered out….this caused a period of anarchy and chaos and then Allied plans and so forth where hashed out and now there seems to be a balance. When played between two experienced players who know of these tactics and plans.
Which in turn has now reduced 1940 to a game that if the Axis have not won by the end of turn 8 or 9 just pick up the game and play some Cattan or Risk. My game of choice to default to is Euro Rails or Iron Dragon but that is just me.
That is why I support rules that add more chaos to 1940 instead of restricting it. Iam talking mainly about Tech rolls. Does it add chaos, yes. Does it change tactics, yes. Is it based purely on luck…well, maybe…but it changes up the game and thus it changes the replay ability of the game. Guys who hate tech do not want to move off the current meta of boredom and outcomes that are very static right now, ala the if the Axis have not won by turn 9 reset the board.
I fully support rules that allow tech tokens. I like my optional rule of reroll counters for attacks and so forth.
** Foot note **
It seems most players online over at Triple A do not like Tech and optional stuff…maybe some bids but that is it. My experience on Triple A of playing the Allies is that I have won the last 4 times playing allies with a 15-20 bid which I put all of that on the Pacific map in China and Russia. You shut down Japan in Turn 1-3 or slow them down…Allies have a much better chance to win the game.
1940 Global is unbalance because of Japan…Most Global Axis victories come on the Pacific map.
I think the best approach is to forget about China, let the Chinese have it, they cannot go anywhere.� � Hold the larger territories (3/4 IPC) for as long as possible but do not pump infantry in…just a money pit.� � Concentrate on the islands, India, ANZAC…maybe even East Africa/Middle East.� � Control sub-spam as best as possible.
This is the plan of insanity my friend. Mainland China is worth 11 of the 26 IPC Japan starts with.
IF you let china get so large to control all of the mainland, well, yeah, they cannot move out of china BUT they have one Victory city in Shanghai and China is allowed to move into Hong Kong regardless if UK Pac is still alive or not. So, Japan lost 2 victory cities on the mainland.
Remember that China has two exceptions for where they can move. They can move units into Burma and Hong Kong.
In essence this plan makes the only Axis path of victory reside on the European board. The Pacific map is the easiest path for victory, which, this plan just blew up.
Iam with Cow on this idea that ANZAC is the focus after UK Pac has been dealt with first.
The main issue with going at ANZAC right off the bat is a long list.
I can keep going on but will just leave it at this.
Is it possible the counter to the USA sub spam is that Japan then starts spamming 5 subs a turn in response?
And then what? you got 5 subs that can only convoy the US in 1 SZ so i can attack them with 1 destroyer and 10 air units.
Japan is at risk of this because with the money islands they got 11 convoy zones to protect, that is 22 dice thrown from subs so 20-30 ipcs loss if not countered.
But each sub is on its own so you need 1 destroyer against each sub, and each sub you kill i can counter with 2 to kill of the destroyer.
You missed the point of the counter….
If the USA is putting all its IPC into subs and the only surface fleet they have is their starting fleet and the ANZAC fleet is small. Well, Japan if they spam 4-5 sub a turn, they do need IPC for land units and so forth. Well, all the Allies will have left is a bunch of USA subs and ANZAC and UK Pac getting convoyed.
Granted convoying UK PAC and ANZAC does not seem like a big deal BUT they only get around 10 IPC a turn with out bonuses and you can reduce them to the 4-6 IPC range, that is HUGE.
Is it possible the counter to the USA sub spam is that Japan then starts spamming 5 subs a turn in response?
@Arthur:
� Â
I would much rather lose control of SZ6 and have the Allies convoy raid the adjacent territories, compared with having either a single Money Island fall firmly into Allied control.�  The economic and strategic swing is significantly bigger.� Â
I totally agree with this.
Lets just say this is the scenario.
Japan holds the money islands and USA has subs parked in SZ6 and SZ19, those two SZ are worth 20 IPC to Japan. So, the worst case scenario is that the USA hits Japan for 20 which results in a wash for the money islands.
note this is a dice game…Variance of dice rolls could only result in a loss of 14 IPC for both SZ…Japan nets a +6 gain then in IPC on that turn for the USA all sub plan.
As long as the USA cannot threaten to take out the Japan homeland with a naval invasion they are still in the game.
If you want to really hurt Japan the Allies need to focus totally on the money islands early and deny them not just the 5 NO bonus but also the IPC for the islands themselves.
Knocking out the money islands and then hit SZ 6 and 19, well that is the death of Japan. Subs alone cannot achieve this goal.
Another of looking at this is this way.
As with all spam X unit plan of attack that leaves that nation weak in a lot of areas…Attack those areas.
So USA goes all in on a spam sub campaign. Lets say USA is at war and spending 60 IPC a turn for 4 turns in a row on the West Coast. Well, USA now has 40 subs and nothing else in the Pacific. Sure they have their starting fleet but nothing else. No threat to take back islands, no threat to take Japan or Korea. They have no surface fleet, no airforce, no land units…nothing. All they have are subs.
IME anytime you face a foe who goes all in on a singular path of attack, subs, bombers and so forth leave themselves open for so many ways to counter them.
I have no issue with a player who posts a essay on a particular tactic/strategy.
The forums are used as a discussion point between fellow players to hopefully come up with a refined and better plan of attack.
Now when it comes to the essay it self I do have issues with it. My main issue is that Germany is way to aggressive on the opening turn. Putting to many German units at risk on the opening turn and if the dice turn south….disaster.
I also found it interesting that the next essay is on how Italy and Germany can work together to win the game. In my experience taking Southern France and Normandy and Paris on the opening turn is bad for Italy. Italy needs money…Let them have Southern France and Normandy while Germany looks Eastward for the real prize of Russia.
Sea Lion tactics have been discussed at length on this sight. I have no complaint about the essays goal of achieving a successful Sea Lion attack. My issue is the big picture, Germany needs to focus on the real enemy which is Russia. Uk is a side show and will derail them on G2 if they focus on a sea lion attack. Germany cannot win the war knocking out London and letting Russia become so large Germany cannot ever contain them.
Bottom Line
Germany needs at a minimum 2 of the three victory cities in Russia and that is being generous that they took London and Cairo. A G5 attack on Russia in force has 0% chance of achieving those goals.
@Cow:
I am on the triple a lobby often. I don’t take Allies less than 23 lately so I always get axis… About experienced of axis player you can get… Don’t plan on a sealion every game, do it for fun or if I’m gives you the opportunity
This is a interesting topic but probably needs it own thread.
In 99.9% of games Germany has to take Lenningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow, it is a must. Then the question is do they go after London or Cairo after the fall of Russia. I have always felt Sea Lion was a end game type of move instead of a opening move.
UK/USA are having to defend Cairo and keeping an eye on London. Also due to the map those forces are split and far apart so they cannot reinforce each other. If Germany has knocked out Russia and is collecting 70+ IPC they can then afford to devote resources for a Sea Lion operation. Of course this totally hinges on the “map” and where the UK/USA are on the Europe map. It might be a lot easier attempting to knock out Cairo BUT sometimes in that middle to late game UK homeland is not stacked up high with troops. UK has been dumping IPC into the middle east to stop the fall of Cairo.
So, Germany has the ability now to drop all the IPC into a fleet because they no longer have to worry about Russia.
Taking London on G3 or G4 is strictly a target of opportunity because of UK mistakes. It is just to annoy the Allies and delay the USA a few turns. Germany cannot afford to devote all their IPC at UK on G2 and ignore Russia.
@Marshmallow:
#2 Historically, Japan considered the Solomons strategically important and so did the US.
If you look at the map the Solomon Islands is the most important SZ in the south. It splits ANZAC and the USA in half.
Japan only has 2 NO’s when at war. 5 IPC for the money islands and 5 IPC for the outer island defense.
The problem with the outer defense NO is it requires Japan to take to many islands, which by themselves have no value, thus the vast majority of the time the Japan player just ignores that NO.
I would propose then to change up the outer defense NO by saying all Japan needs is Guam, Wake and Solomons for the 5 IPC.
I would double down on the Japan NO and say if they hold Guam, Wake and Solomons they get 10 IPC instead of 5.
It makes Japan focus on the south, it makes the USA and ANZAC concerned about holding the south. Plus taking the Solomons it breaks ANZAC NO.
Johnston Islands has no tactical or strategic advantage.
Now, if the battle is going to the South Pacific the Solomon Islands is a key sz for both USA and Japan.
Then again how many Japan players have you faced who focus on the naval aspect of the game? The vast majority of Japan players ignore the naval side of Japan and go all in on China/India.
Here is the issue with the USA going all in on a sub tactic against Japan.
Iam going to look at it from the Japan POV
Sea Zone 6 and 13 are the two big IPC sea zones.
The money islands are areas they need to defend also.
So, Japan really has 7 sea zones to defend against subs.
IF the USA goes all in on subs, that naturally means they are very light on surface ships besides their starting fleet. The USA starting fleet is inferior to the IJN starting navy so iam not very concerned.
Japan needs to only engage the subs in Japan, Caroline Islands and Phillipines, this is the reason. All three SZ have a harbor and a Air Filed. So they can scramble 3 FTR and any capital ships like BB can repair for free. This is one of the scenarios where it might be a good plan for the IJN to build up some BB.
IJN DD are built not for defense but offense and you do not need that many. Any USA sub off the coast of China or money islands gets a DD + air power to kill them.
USN subs going into your fleet which has air base and naval base, well, the BB take the hits which are free, they repair at the start of you next turn. You can even use your CV to soak up some hits because the planes can land and then the CV repair.
The flip side of using subs is that Japan can ignore them and just move through any SZ they are in. As long as you have a DD and FTR protection Japan can stave off a counter attack in the USA turn.
Japan only takes interdiction on the convoys in their turn. You can look at the board and determine the best places to stop the USA subs. Having 2 USA subs in SZ 6 or 13 is no need to go crazy on how to stop them.
All you need to do is build one dd and place in SZ6 against 5 USA subs on your build turn. USA on their turn decides to attack……Japan defends on a 2 and 3X4. They will destroy the USN sub fleet in short order if they continue to engage your sole DD.
As a Japan player you want the USA to plan on a all in sub plan because it is easily � countered.
