@Caesar:

@wittmann:

And America isn’t? It had 7 Carriers and 17  Battleships in late 1941, yet when the game begins it has one of each.
And Japan starting with 21 Air, is realistic as hell too.

Yes but US can’t get knocked out of the game with a land invasion that can begin on turn 1.

A lot of major powers can get knocked out of the game if they’re focussed down.  That’s the basis of many strategies, including Sealion, Calcutta Crush, KGF, KJF, as well as going hard vs Moscow.  So not sure that should be the bellwether :)

Once you realize that what a player could do is so much more threatening than what they actually do, the game changes.  Why is a stack of bombers so good?  Why does the Axis feel so overpowered at the beginning? It’s all about power projection, and to an extent, forcing responses.

As Germany once you commit to a non-mobile force, your power projection plummets.  If you drop 70IPCs into TTs G2, the range of moves you can do diminishes greatly.  The more Germany can do on its opening turns that threatens both London and Moscow the better.  This is why the 2-bomber opening is so good, as are variations where you buy only 1 bomber and save or save everything.  Those bombers can either bomb London, or hit the Eastern front.  These moves force UK to not play greedy, and still lets every IPC turn around and hit Moscow.

@PainState:

@zergxies:

Besides liberation, one of the other reasons J1 and SL don’t mix well is that the US can get a fighter and 1+ bombers over to London before G3 easily.� � With the amount of fodder on London the fighter alone will probably take out 2-3 German aircraft.

Usually on a J1 Attack that is against UK/ANZAC and not USA.

This is a key point.

IF Japan J1’s against only UK/ANZAC then USA is still neutral until the start of their production phase, which they can then declare war. This is very important because the USA cannot non combat troops/air power forward into UK territory until they are officially at war…that happens on USA1 during production. Which mean USA units cannot enter UK territories unit USA2 non combat phase.

IF that is the scenario, USA can not arrive in UK until USA3, which will be to late if there is a G3 Sea Lion in effect.

Once again I will stress this point.

Japan/Germany have this tug and pull on the first 2 turns. Japan is the key nation when it comes to Sea Lion and the USA response.

Japan goes J1 and declares war on the USA…Sea Lion is off the table, that is the bottom line. If you are the Germany player you need to dust off that G2 against Russia plan of attack.

*** Foot Note ***

Let me clarify and be clear for new players on this point.

IF japan declares war on the USA on Turn 1. What that means is two fold.

#1 USA can now non combat move into any allied country on both the Euro/Pacific map. USA declares war on the Euro Axis powers at the start of the USA1 production phase.

#2 USA Production ramps up to full war status on USA1.

USA can get 1 FTR and 1 STR bomber into England on USA 2 for the FTR.

USA builds 3 FTRS on USA1.

USA2 3 FTRS fly to Gibraltur.

USA3 3 FTRS are in London.

You have now forced Germany to go into London on a G3 invasion or it is all over.

*** Side note ***

I hope your Japan partner is not a friend because some German players will come unglued on a J1 against USA.

Just letting you know.

:lol: 8-) :-D :evil:

This isn’t a rule I was familiar with.  I tried it in TripleA and it’s totally fine with US declaring war US1 after a J1 against UK and Anzac, and in non-combat moving a fighter to iceland.  Is this rule not implemented in TripleA?

Regardless most J1s I’ve seen involve taking the Philippines as you have the units, deny a bonus, and benefit from the mobility the naval base grants.  But to your point, it’s not required I suppose :)

Besides liberation, one of the other reasons J1 and SL don’t mix well is that the US can get a fighter and 1+ bombers over to London before G3 easily.  With the amount of fodder on London the fighter alone will probably take out 2-3 German aircraft.

@Caesar:

It’s all trial by fire anyways. I once tried to take Iraq as USSR without an airforce and all three Iraqi divisions destroyed USSR.

That’s basically canon, if 40 years too early :P

@Requester45:

If you watch GHG you will see that he has outlined a strategy called “Middle Earth” in which the UK uses South Africa, Egypt, and Persia to transport large amounts of infantry around. When Germany can spawn units in Egypt and use them to hit Iraq and Persia, leaving at least one of them for Italy, it creates a great deal of frustration for the allies. Once Germany has Egypt, they can use transports to move onto South Africa, and soon the Axis powers will own all of Africa and the Middle East, taking full advantage of the “Middle Earth” strategy only from an Axis perspective. It is a deadly strategy.

Of course Germany going hard against Egypt would be good against Middle Earth.  GHG’s Middle Earth is designed to play effectively against the more “standard” play of Germany going hard against Russia, where the UK needs to find ways to make progress against Italy and help Russia.  If a player commits/copies a strategy while ignoring what their opponent is doing, they’re not going to do very well :)

FWIW I’ve played building in S France and it generates some very fun games!  Point is not that it’s bad, but when discussing it to bring up those weaknesses as well :)

this conversation doesn’t really go anywhere when one argument is essentially “Germany can do ALL the things!” and the other argument is “good luck with that”.

obviously having africa NOs is a good thing.  but if you’re advocating spending 30+ IPCs of German money in the med, and there are 2 turns of the german air force is a non-factor in Russia, and you’re not buying Italian can-openers you are undeniably going to have a weaker Russian push especially during G3 and G4.

I’d be more convinced if you can show that what Germany gives up in Russia is outweighed by what it gains in the UK.  I’m not saying it can’t, but you can’t just look at the pros of a strategy and tout its effectiveness without comparing it to others out there.

@taamvan:

The carrier “swap” would only work if the carriers started in SZ 38, the other distances are too far to “shuttle bomb” (my name for that swap).  Unless you have the air base, or more carriers.

So J1 you move your carriers to 36, J2 to 38/41 to block 37 getting blocked :) Both of those SZs support a swap on J3.

@taamvan:

With no mobile units to start, how could UK take Yunnan?  It just cant get there until later in the game to threaten it.

So if UK moves its initial units to Berma on UK1, and then Japan is taking Yunnan on J1 and retaking it on J2, those Berma units would be easily enough to take Yunnan on UK2, right?

@taamvan:

The J2 is what is stopped by the blocker.  On J2, Japan can move to SZ 39 at peace, so it just ignores the blockers.  Then you’d use the UK/ANZAC trick, we hope.  J3 is impossible to stop, but it just wont work because there is no landing place (Burma, Ceylon) for the bulk of the fighters.

J3 is impossible to stop if you do this, but the 3 TTs you build on J1 will be at your SZ36 Naval Base on J2, and rely on SZ37 being open to participate.  And if UK is at peace UK2, there’s nothing stopping him from moving a DD to SZ37.  Isn’t the point of the initial transports that you’re hitting Calcutta with 12 land units instead of 6 in front of all of that air power?  Seems like a much more IPC-favorable battle.

@taamvan:

The best move is to get 6 men into Burma, in a way that UK wont attack (because he is afraid of defending short), then get 6 MORE men the next round, so you double the transports ability too.  This only works 1 time because of the limited number of ground troops the Japanese have in that area to start, unless you slow down the whole plan in general to a J3.

I didn’t quite understand the part about doubling the transport ability, but I think you’re referring to using the initial TTs to take Burma J2, right?  That move puts pressure on Calcutta while making sure you keep the Yunnan landing zone.  How can those TTs be reused though, I only see the 2 units in Siam that can get in position for that?

I’ve been reading more about the J3 Calcutta Crush.  I like what Cow’s saying about not getting the air base and doing the carrier swap to “just” get 12 planes to India.  It’s not that the AB is useless, but 15 IPCs isn’t nothing and I’m not seeing how it’s necessary.

It seems the J3 attack is effectively stopped if on UK2 the UK puts up a blocker in 37, or if the UK declares war and takes back Yunnan, taking away the planes’ landing spot.  The latter option has the downside of being an unprovoked DOW, so it seems a UK SZ37 blocker is a simple counter.

For Japan, then, could they declare war J2 on the UK to make sure that no blockers get into position, while not losing Yunnan, and have good odds at a successful India capture on J3?

If UK emptied Burma on UK1, then you don’t have to worry about Yunnan getting retaken.  Your fleet can move towards India, preventing blockers, and the 2 transports in SZ36 might even be able to safely take Sumatra and/or Java and still be in position for a J3 Calcutta strike.  If UK stacked Burma on UK1, Japan might have just enough to take Yunnan with your Hunan troops, 2 of the units brought down J1, and a stack of planes, do a strafe of Szechwan if necessary, and also take the 2 TTs brought down J1 to take 1 inf 1 tank and the 2 inf in Siam to hit Burma with the rest of the planes?  Burma could easily be taken back, but key would be that Yunnan was safe, and UK couldn’t block a J3 Calcutta hit with at least 3 loaded TTs and 14 planes.

Another benefit of the J2 is you can strat bomb the factory for a turn.

With this, you’d leave Hong Kong and Malaya for later.  Sure UK would make bank collecting income after its second turn… but that’s going to immediately go into Japan’s pocket after Calcutta is sacked.

Anyway, this seems pretty obvious, so there is likely some simple counters I’m not seeing.  If nothing else, it seems like this would force UK Pac to play incredibly conservatively UK1, without sending the troops, ships, and planes to Africa that I see a lot of games.

@Kreuzfeld:

@ShadowHAwk:

Thing is that the force composition is very important. But it is not in your calculation that i can see.

It is in the calculation. He does give a 5-10& increase. However, this is an interesting point. Most players overestimate the value of forcesomposition and hiters, as compared to fodder. This is why they buy so many tanks, an no where near enough mechs as germany. This is also why they don’t build about 40% Subs in their battlefleet in the pacific (assuming you are strong enough against a force without DDs). Ususally, subs is the most costeffective unit to buy for defence.

Thanks, ya that was only a small section in the otherwise lengthy post.  Mostly for 2 reasons - I had no real explanation for the numbers, other than that I modeled tens of thousands of battles and these had the “best fit”.  Your 2 examples show basically a similar result. Secondly, the impact was so relatively small, when skews are similar you can honestly ignore it most of the time.

@Kreuzfeld:

Most players overestimate the value of forcesomposition and hiters, as compared to fodder. This is why they buy so many tanks, an no where near enough mechs as germany. This is also why they don’t build about 40% Subs in their battlefleet in the pacific (assuming you are strong enough against a force without DDs). Ususally, subs is the most costeffective unit to buy for defense.

I think this is the most interesting part.  It’s very counter-intuitive to me and I really have to think about this during the buy phase.