Posts made by rockrobinoff

and takes the territory. Is it now Chinese or Russian?

@tin_snips:

and also, Perry, if Italy knows the invasion is coming (and any descent A&A player would), then they get that many turns to build their defence forces up. even if italy is reduced to its 10 IPC count, this is 3 infantry per turn, plus whatever ground forces they already had left

like i said, launching an invasion from UK to Germany is still the best bet

I like the Italy attack. Two American bombers stationed in the UK (you can just pop them there on U1, after italy has gone, so Italy won’t neccessarily be preparing for an allout KIF) can pound the Italy economy. If you are playing without NOs KIF is even more viable.

KIF is a serious strat.

@a44bigdog:

Once all this has been done, on J2 mind you, Japan can set its sights on comfortably taking
India when it is dang good and ready to with the proper resources.

Well, I wont go so far to say that Egypt is a must, but that tank and fighter with a little bit of Russian help could easily translate into an India stays allied on J2. To my mind, that is a disaster - meaning a whole extra turn that the Russians get to build guys. Protracted wars dont favour the axis - speed speed speed.

@Heavy:

So its just KGF 100% of the time?  zzzzzzz…

Maybe? I dunno. I am merely contending that putting presssure on Japan does not automaticaly = good.

@Danger:

I think that an IC in Australia with an American player who is taking an active role in the Pacific would give Japan more to think about than blind expansion into Asia.  A combined fleet between the two means that both the UK an the US can threaten Japan without expending all of their IPC’s on a KJF strategy.  If time is truly the Allies friend then slowing down Japans expansion in anyway is a good thing.

This might be true, then again, it is all the less pressure that is put on Germany, which means all the more pressure that Germany can put on Russia, which means that Japan needs fewer guys to take down Russia.

Speaking in such generalizations is rarely useful.

Germany getting Long Range Aircraft on turn 1 = sinking every allied boat in the atlantic.

@WOPR:

I suppose you’re right, but I still want a German BB. I just think it would make the N. Atlantic much more interesting. The allies would still dominate that theater but it would at least give the Germans a few more gameplay options.

I think these game play options are already there. You have the opportunity to sink the lions share of the british navy, and make a naval build of your own, if you think that is the way to go.

@Flying:

New Guinea sea zone connected to East Indies sea zone? Map is at in laws. I thought it wasn’t connected there.

Yes SZ40(NG) and SZ38(EI) are connected. Looking at it right now.

I can see missing this though.

@Flying:

You can’t get to East Indies J1.

Yes, you can. You have two transports off the caroline islands.

Well, the way i play Japan it does. You take the east indies and borneo with two inf and 1 inf respectively, dump 3inf and 1 art from the loaded transports in burma, and land 1 inf and 1 tank in FIC. park a carrier by the burma coast with two fighters, and land 3 fighters from your china fights in FIC.

kaboom!

@MP84:

@bbrett3:

A lot of people argue over this so i figure its about time to get some hard data on the issue

The UK rarely makes a breakthrough in the Pacific, but it is suicide to cede India and allow Japan to gorge itself on the soft underbelly of the Middle East and the USSR. An IC in India early in the game will at least make the Japanese devote time and money to make sure the British don’t cross the line. It is a necessary delay manoeuvre to stall Japan, and to give them an additional thing to think about. This is important early in the game because it should take the US a few turns to get their footing.

All that being said, it is possible that the UK, aided with smart purchases and good die rolling, could take Kwangtung, and Indo China, and possibly push into China. I’ve never seen it, but it theoretically is possible.

In 1941, with the exception of Russia sending 6 inf, and building two fighters and sending them to india as well, Japan can force its way to India on J2. A factory there is a gift. It might be possible for Russia to devote such resources to making the India IC viable, but I highly doubt it.

…and the east indies are two squares away from from the transports off of the caroline islands.

@Alair:

You’re right, Japan does go before England, but I don’t see Japan knocking out the fleet off India.

You’re talking about what can be done, vs what most people would do.

No, I am talking about what should be done. What most people do is not relevant.

It would require moving the aircraft carrier to SZ 37 to hit the destroyer with any fighters.  If Japan did move their fleet to off Burma then I’d adapt to defending against a KEF strategy and play aggressively with the US to move against Japan.  That looks like it would be a ‘take out India’ strategy with Japan which would be successful, but you’d be cash poor focusing on India vs taking territories or sinking the American fleet so there is a tradeoff.

I am afraid this is also incorrect. You can take east indies and borneo, destroy most of china,sink the USA battleship, sink the west coast dest+trans, sink the phillipines fleet, blow up burma and kwangtun, and destroy the indian fleet. All of this quite cleanly and simply.

I’ve read a couple of battle reports, but I’ve never seen Japan their fleet to that sea zone.  Japan has a lot to do J1, I don’t see it as high priority to take out that fleet.

Another thing, when E1 counterattacks and takes Egypt back, if I1 attacks with everything they have they could take Egypt back, but I don’t think they’d be walking in, they would take heavy casualties…  If England moved their bomber to south Africa E1 then they could throw that in to the African battles.  Then, with the transport there could be another counterattack E2 using the transport and bomber, but it would depend on how the dice went.

Again, all of this depends on Japan not sinking the Indian fleet. You say they have too much to do. I suggest they can achieve just about everything if they want to. Have a look at the board.

@Alair:

Taking Egypt on G1 is a bad idea, much less weakening an attack somewhere else to do it.

If I was playing England I’d counterattack with 2 from Trans-Jordan and an infantry and artillery from India.  If you do take Egypt, even with using all the material available, you’ll lose it E1.

This is both erroneous and beside the point.

Japan playing before UK permits the Japanese to sink the dest+trans combo off of India with a fighter (50% chance of sinking both, or 2, with a 95%).

This limits UK counter attack to the bomber from England and the two inf in Trans Jordan, which the Germans would welcome, even if they stand lose it with the average material they will have left in Egypt after their maximum attack (1 tank).

Such a counter attack would mean the bomber is not being used elsewhere, like to sink the baltic navy. In addtion, when the bomber is forced to land in Trans Jordan, it dies when the Italians attack it.

The absence of the Trans Jordan inf would make India fall easier, putting somewhat more pressure on Russia from Japan.

Destroying the British fighter in Egypt is an obvious and large plus.

@Ranor:

Sorry for asking but doesn’t Italy plays before UK, at least that’s what I remember from reading the rules for 41, so why can’t the Italians sink the brithish fleet at gibraltar?

Germany->Russia->Japan->UK->Italy->China/USA

I have built a carrier in a couple of games and won with that buy, though whether I won despite of it or not is up to debate.

The positive results are that it forces the UK to build an even bigger navy and airforce than it otherwise would, and delays any intentions the UK has on North Africa, which discourages a KIF strat significantly.

Also, when it comes time to sac the German navy against the UK navy, in say rd 3, the UK will be hard pressed to rebuild it yet again (assuming Germany still has planes) given that while UK is rich at the beginning (43) it loses money fast (with NOs, UK is having an even harder time, because their NOs are the hardest to achieve).

Fewer units against Russia is the obvious downside. Perhaps fatal. Japan must be very fast.

@Alair:

England starts with a butt load of fighters on England, move them onto Karellia after fighting the German fleet on it’s first turn = Karelia isn’t takable by Germany r2.  I don’t know why people overlook this.

[/quote

One reason not to do it, if you are playing with NOs, then you have just cost Russia 5 bucks…

@Perry:

The thing in -41 is, that japan doesnot need to choose….

They can take China, IND, AUS AND capture east russia…there’s not too much strat involved. it’s mainly to optimize piece usage…

That really is it. Japan strategy is reduced to economy of force and speed.

i’m pretty sure that a factory is just an abstraction, and comparing it to building a battleship is neither here nor there.

Right. I have to admit, reducing UK to only a fighter/occasionally winning the battle, plus sinking all of the UK boats, might be best.