Posts made by Spendo02

@simon33:

Tobruk does mean sacrificing a transport. Ethopia crush or Middle East conquest has an advantage here. Not sure which is best on this one.

While Sumatra does commit 13IPC on largely a suicide mission, what is the alternative use for the TT?

UK1
Take the TT from the Med, pick up an INF/ART and land them on Persia
Take the TT from Calcutta, along with the CR and DD, take an INF/ART from Calcutta and also bring them to Persia.
NCM the BB off Malaya to Calcutta
NCM the Inf to the non IPC Persian territory
NCM the 2 INF and 2 ART onto Persia

Net gain is the IPC from Persia without tossing away the TT to the Japanese

UK2
Bridge the INF from the minor persian territory, plus 1 INF from Persia to Iraq.
Move the BB from Calcutta to join your units off Iraq.
Amphib Iraq with your Persian INF, ART and the 2 INF on the TT, you get Bombards from both the CR and the BB as well.

Now you own both Persia and Iraq.

You didn’t trade out the TT to get Sumatra, or strand the INF on that island to die to the Japanese.  Yes, you don’t deny Japan the DEI bonus, but you also didn’t trade much away and economically you just gave UK London 6 IPC and will continue to give it 4 IPC / turn going forward.

You also now have 2 TT with a DD, CR and BB to move into the Med to threaten all the gains Italy may have gotten in the interim.

Assuming you sunk the Italian ships on UK1, you should be in a very good position (without having to spend ANY additional IPC) to create serious headaches for them.  If you withdrew, the Italians are not going to be able to leave the cover of their AB with a CV, 2 DD, 2 CR, 1 BB and 2 TT without investing in Naval from I1 forward.  Chances are if you leave their navy alone, they’re going to invest in other things which just plays into your hands.

You can also now have the choice for the UK build MIC on Persia and later Iraq if you want to assist Moscow or push back against Japan’s KIF strategy or reclaim Calcutta if necessary by using London’s income.

I actually prefer to build a strong offensive force with Calcutta and eventually evacuate before the Japanese arrive.  Reinforced with some purchases from London, Japan may find it prohibitively expensive to continue to invest in that region with the US and ANZAC now massing in other regions of the Pacific.

@simon33:

@wittmann:

when their Inf Divisions in WW2 were  all Mechanised.

I have never heard that before. I’m sure it doesn’t apply to their airborne ones.

Is it indeed a fact?

I think the issue is the conceptual synergy between mechanized and motorized infantry.  They are mutually exclusive terms.

The US could, for example, motorize an entire regiment, but trucks and jeeps are just as vulnerable to small arms and artillery fire as if the infantry was on foot.  Mechanized units however received some level of protection from those threats by either projecting force through light cannons or higher caliber automatic weapons (think .50 cal mounted on a truck with some armor vs a Jeep Wrangler with 6 guys riding in it).

Granted, we don’t see a combat difference between MEC and INF in this game, so I’d suggest that MEC is actually a misnomer and should be probably named MOT.

A true MEC would attack at 1 and defend at 3 if you wanted to apply the terms correctly; and potentially attack at 2 if combined with ARM (based on how MEC and ARM units are historically in real life more effective than either individually).

@simon33:

Pedantry:

• That should be 1-2inf 1art remaining in Yunnan after J1 attack
  Agreed, I think that is what I said - did I not?  I didn’t include a battle calc for that one, just ran it.  I was also trying to be overly conservative for results for Japan.

• China only gets to place 4 inf China1

Note that the Mec from Manchuria can’t make it in J2 unless the Hunnan territory is taken. I’m reading the third inf in the attack on Yunnan J2 is coming from Hunan? If I saw 1 inf in Hunnan I would surely attack it with 1-2inf+ftr unless perhaps all four ground units survived in Yunnan. I guess attacking 3 land units with 6-7 inf might give me some pause. Perhaps that attack on Hunan fails, but you can’t just assume that. I would roll Hunnan first and if the attack fails I might think if I need to accept the loss of Yunnan. I guess claiming Hunan only really means losing 5 planes to claim Yunnan J2.
Hunan is a certainty to take on J1, it difference is if I have to trade a plane for it or not.  Obviously, I’d prefer not to!  Hunan is a complete gambit.  I’d rather have enough units to take 3 islands in the pacific or I could make it a complete certainty units will be there.  However, if you send 2 INF and a plane to Hunan to attack my lone INF, I’m willing to trade you having 2 less INF in Yunnan because I’m only falling short by 1 unit - which improves my position on J2.  China’s strength is in rolling lots of dice, mine is in rolling dice that hit.  I’ll trade 2 INF out for 2 less INF rolling.  It may translate into an additional plane along the way, but thats the gambit to ensure I have units to take Flip and DEI.

Assuming the Japanese have the 1 inf on Hunan and 2 on FIC at the start of J2 it would probably happen as you outline. I expect I’d be inclined to strafe Yunnan China1 in that scenario but if the UK can’t take it down it and Japan can land its planes on Yunnan then I think Calcutta would be dead in the water. That’s why I like the idea of Soviet help here.

I intentionally left out the Reds which I know you’ve suggested because I wanted to illustrate the China UK effort.  Including Russia likely means I have to give up some DEI for a round because I have to divert units that were on Flip to Kwangsi.

@simon33:

A couple of other points

• sending the 2SB to Yunnan J1 means letting the UK BB live.
  Yes, the cost of doing business in this fashion is letting the UK BB live.  I’m okay with that because the only time it will play a decisive factor is shoring up a combine allied fleet by fleeing to ANZAC.  I’d rather take gains now and worry about the BB later when I have more economic freedom.

• If the Hunnan attack succeeded, I’d be inclined to move at least the tac bomber to Yunnan UK1. Can also move at least a Mech Inf to Yunnan USSR2. That would increase the Japanese plane losses. I’d probably move some Soviet planes in too. There comes a point that the price is too high for Japan to take Yunnan J2, although it might still strafe it. Is that what you’d do?

This is the worst case scenario, too much Russian intervention.  I’ve never faced this type of investment, and only toyed with it once as the Allies - and didn’t go through with it.  I am rather curious - if Russia moves into Yunnan but does not DOW on Japan, how can its units participate in combat in Yunnan?  It doesn’t force a DOW as far as I know?  Personally, if Russia moved into China on R1 I may actually delay a DOW on Western Powers and only DOW on France to get FIC.  I haven’t fully thought that through.

Oh, and BTW, thanks for the answer.

You bet.

@simon33:

Fair enough, I’m happy to hear your viewpoints and experience. I just have some trouble reconcilling it to my own.

Regarding a J3 attack, no unit produced in Asia can reach by that time. Let’s count the maximum which can reach:
J1 produce 3TT+art, take art from Machuria & Japan, including 2 inf. 4inf+art to Hunnan
Then: Mec + 6inf + 2art arrive from north, 3art+tank+6inf from Japan via Kwansi. Note I am assuming ignoring Kwangtung which is clearly absurd unless there is no DOW J1 or J2.
Total for Japan (up to): 16inf+6art+tank+11ftr+8tb+2sb
I get in Yunnan:
UK: 1ftr 1tb 8inf 1arm 3AAA
China: 17inf 1ftr

Japan wins losing all land units on average. Interesting. They’ve made some enormous sacrifices to get there though. You could also throw in some Strat bombers produced J2.

SIMON: Feel free to critique / address anything I’ve missed. I tried to be as specific and accurate as possible making logical aggressive UK purchases to contest Yunnan.
Lets go through (ignoring alternative issues) the J1 DOW and Yunnan on the ensuing rounds.

China starts with 4 INF on Yunnan.
J1 attack will include
3 INF, 1 ART from Kwangsi
2 SB from Tokyo
1 FTR, 1 TAC from Kiangsu

On average TripleA shows 6.38 of 8 units remaining.  That leaves 1 INF, 1 ART for Japan on Yunnan, or 1 ART.  Depending if you want to round down or up.  I’ve seen it go clean sweep on the first round, and I’ve seen myself end with 1 ART.  I’d suggest typically its 1 INF 1 ART - in my experience.

Now, J1 ends with these units in range for J2 Yunnan
1 INF in Hunan
1 MEC via Manchuria in Anhwe
2 INF in FIC
Total, 4 INF
Japan also has all starting Aircraft less the FTR/TAC in the Carolines and the FTR in Korea (now Tokyo), so 9 FTR, 7 TAC, 2 SB that are in Kwangsi.

Japan took Flip with 3 INF and 3 ART.  Odds are typically 1 INF dies in my experience, so there are 2 INF and 3 ART on Flip that can move to Kwangsi on J2.

Japan also risks losing 1 FTR at each Kwangtung and Hunan as Japan only sends 1 INF in each place from Kiangsi (the other INF/ART are used on Flip).  Odds are low this happens, but it does.  I’ll concede that 1 FTR is lost if that is agreeable?

J1 Also placed 2 TT off Tokyo which will ferry 2 INF, 1 ARM, 1 ART on J2 to FIC; but they aren’t around for J2 Yunnan.  Just wanted to put that out there.

China 1:
China attacks Yunnan with up to 8 INF, 1 FTR.  Odds show China loses 1, so that is 7 INF remaining.  My experience seems to be it tends to be 6 INF more than 7, but we’ll go with 7 to be conservative.

China also gets to place 5 Units, all INF.

UK goes and can move 2 INF into Yunnan and if you want, 2 FTR and 1 TAC.  I’m presuming UK would wait another turn where it could move its 3 AA and its starting INF stack there before committing its aircraft.

All said, J2 Yunnan squares up like this:
China 12 INF
UK 2 INF
vs
Japan 3 INF, 1 MEC, 8 FTR, 7 TAC and 2 SB.  Japan can include the FTR/TAC from the CV in Flip however, so it could be 9/8 FTR and TAC.  I’ll show odds next.

Without Flip or UK Aircraft

In this situation, Japan has to lose 3 Aircraft, 2 FTR and 1 TAC to leave 1 INF remaining.
China then has 1 INF (via Shensi NCM on C1), 1 FTR to reclaim it.  Those odds are “good”, but a Japan could roll to make China choose between a FTR or retaking Yunnan and placing units there.
UK can clearly settle Yunnan henceforth, but not at the numbers you suggest for J3 due to the J2 attack.
I typically make this trade because of the overabundance of aircraft Japan starts with because it puts both the UK and China on their heels going forward.

With Flip Aircraft

Nothing really changes here, more aircraft but you still have the same amount of losses.  It makes it clear the losses are depending on the defenders and Japan has achieved as much of a critical mass as possible.  Same scenario as Standard Yunnan going forward.

With Flip and UK Aircraft

In this scenario, Japan takes 10 total losses.  3 ground units and 7 Aircraft which is 4 more than the standard Yunnan.  Effectively you force Japan to use its FTR from Flip, lose them, and 2 more than the standard.

However, due to the inclusion of the UK FTR, effectively the UK trades 2 FTR and 1 TAC for 4 Japanese FTR.  To me, this is a losing proposition because Japan still has the advantage and you’ve traded out your most expensive and valuable aircraft that you cannot replace easily.

In all three scenarios, it still comes down to China’s ability to reclaim Yunnan with 1 INF and 1 FTR against 1 ART, which is VERY dicey.

Now for J2 positioning:
J2 will NCM 2 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM from the TT off of Tokyo to FIC
J1 saw 1 INF, 1 ART move from Kiangsu to Kiangsi which now NCM to Kwangsi on J2.
Anhwe had 5 INF, 1 ART from J1 which are unlikely to be harrassed, meaning the are either in Kweichow via combat or NCM to Hunan on J2.
J2 placed 3 MEC on the J1 MIC in either Shantung or Kiangsu which are out of range for Yunnan J3.
All told, Japan now has:
8 INF, 3 ART, 1 ARM in range of Yunnan for J3.
In a best case scenario (for Japan), Japan has 6 FTR, 6 TAC, 2 SB now on FIC.  In a worst case scenario, Japan has 5 FTR, 5 TAC, 2 SB (Flip and UK Aircraft version).
Minors are also placed on both FIC and Kwangtung.

Now onto China 2:
China now has purchased units, which I think is 4 INF and it has the combat battle ahead of itself for Yunnan which, if you stacked like you suggest means there is 1 INF and 1 FTR remaining to reclaim Yunnan.  Assuming you do well, you take Yunnan with 1 INF, land the FTR in Sze and place your 4 INF on Yunnan - leaving 5 INF.

UK 2:
UK 2 could go different ways depending on the UK1 Purchase.  If UK 1 purchased MEC on UK1, it could have 4 MEC in range of Yunnan on the second round.  Assuming you’re intent to contest Yunnan, that means you have 6 INF 1 ART and 3 AA in Burma and have yet to expose your aircraft.

Now, presuming the China 2 scenario goes well for China, that lets the UK walk in with 6 INF, 4 MEC and 3 AA.  It can also land its 2 FTR and 1 TAC.

End of Round two looks like this:

Japan
8 INF, 3 ART, 1 ARM, 6 FTR, 6 TAC, 2 SB

Yunnan
11 INF
4 MEC
1 ART
3 AA
1 TAC
2 FTR

As J3 starts the way J2 ended, Japan now has to conduct the assault - again.

Here are the odds:

Japan takes more heavy losses, losing 15 total units.  However, as Japan brought 12 land based units, and needs 1 to survive, Japan has to trade 4 more aircraft to ensure victory.  At this point, Japan is trading 2 FTR and 2 TAC.  Putting Japan down to 4 FTR, TAC, 2 SB with 1 ARM remaining on Yunnan.

Shoring up positioning for Japan:
NCM 3 MEC from Shantung to Hunan
Place 6 MEC, 3 on Kwangtung MIC and FIC MIC

That puts 9 MEC, 4 FTR, 4 TAC and 2 SB in range of Yunnan for J4.

On China’s turn, it has 2 INF from Suiyayan that have now NCM twice, once to Shensi on C1, and then to Sze on C2.  China can yet again take Yunnan with 2 INF and 1 FTR, likely leaving 1 INF and 1 FTR remaining.  The FTR then can fly somewhere, potentially Burma as it is likely Sze may be under duress at this point.  Maybe not.  I don’t really think it makes a difference at this point.  China I believe can still place 4 INF, possibly 3 depending how northern China went and if Russia has taken Manchuria.  We’ll say worst case scenario China places 4 INF leaving 5 total INF on Yunnan.

On UK’s turn, the UK again is based off of its Round 2 Purchase, which was either 3 MEC or 4 INF.  Nothing is in Burma because MEC were piled onto Yunnan on UK2.  Assuming the purchase was MEC, UK NCM’s the 3 MEC to join the Chinese again in the slaughter.

Round 3 ends up with units in range of Yunnan as follows:
Japan
9 MEC, 4 FTR, 4 TAC, 2 SB

Yunnan
5 INF
3 MEC

J4 Yunnan appears fairly decisive as follows:

This leaves Japan in control of Yunnan with 5 or 6 MEC remaining and no aircraft losses.

Japan placed at least another 6 MEC on FIC/Kwang MIC’s which will shore up the advance going forward for Japan.  If Japan purchased MEC for the MIC on Shangtung on J2, they are also now in range of Yunnan as well.

China is now out of retaliatory options and can choose to buy and place units wherever is left in China, but China has now lost control of the Burma road.

UK now has likely seen its income decrease that it is placing 3 or 4 INF per turn on Calcutta going forward, and Japan now having superior numbers and a supply of units streaming out of MIC, India is poised to fall.

Assuming there was not much issue for Japan claiming DEI while this was going on, Japan could add another 2 INF and 3 ART on Burma to join the 5 or 6 MEC from Yunnan and now the siege is set: Very little income for India, China is in a corner and Japan’s able to pump out ground units at its leisure to take Calcutta or simply convoy India into a corner with no future investment.

Of course, the US, Russia and ANZAC are likely creating new issues, but that is a whole different scenario going forward and impossibly hard to predict other than merits of where to go first and how much to invest.

@wittmann:

The US is the only nation with the economic and logistic ability to produce and supply mechanised units. It annoys me that their Transports have to choose to carry a Mech  or a Tank, along with the “free” Inf unit, when their Inf Divisions in WW2 were  all Mechanised. The US’s Inf should all be mechanised, I believe (and transportable, as the Inf unit, therefore).

I’d tend to agree with you here.  Considering MEC get no advantage or disadvantage for AA landings, it does make sense that the US units remained purely MEC.

However, I’m unclear if MEC would actually make a difference in Europe.  Perhaps North Africa?

@simon33:

@Spendo02:

So my suggestion has been to enable ALLIED surface combat ships to carry solely infantry across the ocean if they take a single hit, and if they can take two hits they have the option of carrying a piece of equipment instead (ART/MEC/ARM).� These units can only be moved off combat ships in a NCM move.

This addresses:
1. Reinforcement of an initial wave
2. Reinforcement to reload TT and advance when island hopping in the Pacific

This isn’t the worst idea but does undermine simplicity for a debateable improvement in game play. Should the combat roll of the warship be reduced by one while carrying troops?

And what about CV as TT? I’m pretty sure HMAS Melbourne was used a TT in the Vietnam War, again with no amphibious ability and no planes carried.

I don’t see how a warship’s capacity to engage in combat would be hindered by carrying extra personnel.  Of course, if you allowed a CV to carry ARM instead of FTR you could have an argument but the lack of FTR alone probably solves that debate in of itself.

I am presuming you are suggesting a BB rolls to defend at a 3 instead of a 4, or a DD rolls at a 1 instead of a 2?

I could see valid arguments for, but if you’re going for simplicity that makes things even more complex.

Besides, the allies have it hard enough trying to defend TT with warships that reducing their combat values would probably negate the entire point of the change - that being that the Allies have difficulty bringing ground units into theaters.

For the record, I’ve yet to see Calcutta saved unless Japan chooses not to pursue it.

Even “optimal” play by the Allies to save Calcutta is a sub-optimal strategy because Europe is almost guaranteed to be lost.  Saving Calcutta is not worth giving up the game in Europe.

I think this is the point Elk is making Simon.

You may be able to save Calcutta, or make it severely expensive to do so, but in the 4 years I’ve been playing global, the only time I’ve failed to take Calcutta as Japan is because I did something else like attack Russia instead or sack Sydney early.  I have saved Calcutta by misplays or poor calculations by my opponents, but that isn’t classified as optimal play.

Sometimes the losses for Japan are prohibitive which are the nature of dice games, but I’ve yet to see Calcutta saved by playing it against my own strategies or against human opponents.  I’ve stacked Yunnan like you’ve suggested for J3 showdowns and Yunnan still falls with very little left to defend Calcutta, I’ve turtled, and I’ve even done the full Allied investment into saving Calcutta multiple times (MIC in Iraq / Persia) but it forsakes Moscow and turns the game into a meta game of playing for Egypt in sub-optimal conditions for the Allies due to proximity of production as Europe quickly becomes an impenetrable fortress for the Axis.

In my opinion there aren’t many viable strategies for India except to get a MIC in the Middle East for London to help fly planes to Moscow and then hunker down to keep Japan bogged in a sub-optimal location as the Allies assert control over the Pacific.

You can argue otherwise, but my experience leads me to believe that the hundred or so games I’ve played gives merit to my assertions.  You may have alternate strategies for a more effective India, or a more annoying one, but in my book Calcutta falls to Japan if I say so or I get diced.

I’ve suggested this elsewhere, but instead of simply changing unit values, we just change unit mechanics.

The issue many times with Allied landings in Europe is not that you cannot win an amphibious landing, but are unable to hold it after winning.  The amount of transports required by the US to not only land 10 units / round but to continue to do so turn after turn is immense.  Its in the range of 20-25 TT in the Atlantic alone not counting the units to fill those TT or the ships to defend them.  The US economy may be strong comparatively, but go 100% Atlantic investment and calculate how many IPC you require to effectively project force in Europe and how long it will take to amass the units required and position them to do so.

So my suggestion has been to enable ALLIED surface combat ships to carry solely infantry across the ocean if they take a single hit, and if they can take two hits they have the option of carrying a piece of equipment instead (ART/MEC/ARM).  These units can only be moved off combat ships in a NCM move.

This addresses:
1. Reinforcement of an initial wave
2. Reinforcement to reload TT and advance when island hopping in the Pacific

When looking at Germany, it has 2 Majors and 2 Minors in Europe that it can place units; one of those minors are potentially lost if the Allies land on Normandy.  Italy has another Major and typically a Minor (S.France)  that can reach most Allied landing locations in Europe with MEC/ARM.

The Allies require at least 10 units a round from the US and another 8-10 from the UK to combat an Axis full investment to repel them.  If the Allies give the Axis a single round of breathing room where you do not reinforce or introduce more combat units in theater, you have effectively given back the territory you first claimed from to the Axis.  There is simply too much Axis production capacity to hold a territory in Europe otherwise.

To combat this, you either need the Allies to arrive earlier to force Germany to divert investments to sack Moscow, or enable the Allies to develop a front they can potentially hold - which requires a constant supply line.

To achieve the latter you can either:
Expand TT capacity
Lower the price of TT
Introduce new transport capacity

Introducing the Allies to Europe earlier is really a mechanic of slowing Germany down in Russia that would force Germany to divert units to fight on two fronts, not speeding up the Allies ability to move across the Atlantic.

@simon33:

@SubmersedElk:

I mean even in an all-out KJF, India cannot be saved if Japan is determined to take it. US can go full Pac and Russia can help China and UK can shuffle units from Africa and all of that combined can’t save India.

The only thing that can save India is the Japan player deciding he has other priorities.

That is not my experience.

You can save India, but it costs you Europe.

@simon33:

I see you having 3MEC at Kweichow/Hunnan plus perhaps a few survivors of J1 and the 6 at FIC/Kwangtung. Are you getting through Yunnan with this force?

BTW, why MEC at FIC? Surely that’s a waste when you could be buying art.

Honestly?  Simplicity and I’m lazy.

But I really never considered ART in FIC because I make the assumption it’s all fodder and expensible anyways.  I do suppose it helps my odds.

And Simon we’ve been over this before.  UK and China can stack up Yunnan for a J3 showdown.  It can be made worse with Russian interference.

Note my J1 is 1 MIC and 2 TT, so on J2 I’m putting 4 INF taken from Korea in position to augment the J3 showdown.

If things look entirely sinister on Yunnan, I can drop my surviving J1 units island hopping back on the mainland as well on J2.

I’ve never had to pull back my DEI island hoppers yet, but it’s possible.

J1 simply because it accelerates the production of ground units on the mainland.

J1 - Build Minor and place in Kiangsu
J2 - Build 2 Minors, place in FIC and Kwangtung.  Build/Place 3 MEC in Kiangsu.
J3 - Build/Place 9 MEC in Kiangsu, FIC and Kwangtung.
J4 - You’ve now got 12 MEC on the Mainland and another 9 to be placed (maybe some ARM too!).
J5 - You’ve got 21 MEC on the mainland, which is 4x the amount of units Calcutta has been puts out per turn out since J3.

If you wait until J2:
J1 - Build Minor and place on Kiangsu
J2 - Build/Place 3 MEC on Kiangsu
J3 - Build/Place 2 Minor on FIC and Kwangtung.  Build/Place 3 MEC in Kiangsu.
J4 - Build/Place 9 MEC on Kiangsu, FIC and Kwangtung.
J5 - You’ve now got 15 MEC on the mainland which is 3x the amount of units Calcutta has been puts out per turn out since J4.

The difference is subtle, but the difference in units and the volume of them for two turns for Calcutta is approximately 10 ground units, of which you now have 6 less ground units yourself by waiting a turn.  You also setup a much larger nut to crack on Yunnan meaning you have to fight potentially two large battles and win both convincingly to ensure Calcutta falls quickly.

That 1 round delay gives you a much smaller ground unit advantage in Asia which translates to more lost planes to take Calcutta (excluding the SB blitz people do from FIC now).

This is why I always subscribe to a J1 DOW and voted as such.

@simon33:

Are you advocating unloading all CV and attacking Yunnan with everything? Hmm.

Japan can get in 11ftr 8tb 2sb and maybe 2inf vs 14inf (including 2UK units) and 1tb. On average, Japan loses 2inf 3ftr in the first round for killing 13inf. It needs to trade planes to take the territory.

Japan is in the position to trade a few planes to totally decimate the combine Chinese and British if they stack Yunnan for J2.

The longer you wait, the worse that stack becomes to dislodge.  Not to mention, you now have to worry about your weaker flanks in China being exploited (FIC, Northern China)

As in betting in poker, once you raise after the flop you have to continue raising or you forfeit the lead (assumption you have the best hand).  If you give up the lead, then everyone knows you don’t have the best hand and may start calling your bluff.  Even if you don’t have the best hand, once you’ve committed, you better play like you do or you’re throwing money away.

Same theory applies for Japan.  You take Yunnan every turn, forcing the predictability of both China and India in being forced to send forces to re-take it and defend it, or they must admit defeat - which means you’re gearing for Calcutta with all future purchases.  Forcing your opposition into predictable moves is essential for Japanese success.  The board is too big and there are too many flanks to allow someone else to dictate your moves.

The second you let China and India do anything else with their purchases, you’re giving up the “lead” and therefore conceding “defeat”.  Defeat is defined as they’ve made you spend more time and resources to achieve an end you could have reached more rapidly and with less economic investment (starting units are sunk costs and are not economic investments).

@simon33:

How do you figure that remaining navy?

The calculator shows 9 hits approximately. Losses are likely to be 1 CV, 3DD, 1Sub, 1Cruiser and 2 Fighters. Leaving 2CV, 4Ftr and 1dBB. That navy could withstand the 3Ftr + Cruiser from ANZAC, with an average of about 2 hits.

Here’s the question:

Where exactly is your navy going on the next turn to continue the momentum?

@Private:

Ahhh! Thanks Witt. Tech has not been played in any of my games.

Due to the complete randomness of tech and the potential expense associated with it, the uncertainty of tech typically makes tech a non-viable strategy.

Of course, plenty of people play with house rules to get tech into the game beyond the novelty that it typically is.

@Nazred:

Q4. Can fighters be scrambled to attack defenceless transport ships in adjacent sea areas. (example German fighter in Normandy can be scrambled to attack lone British transport ship who wants to unload its troops in Holland & Belgium. (Bonus question can Kamikaze be used against lone transport ships or  can Kamikaze never be used against transport ships)?

As Normandy does not start with an air base, I think it may be prudent to point out you can only scramble from an air base adjacent to a sea zone.

Taking Hawaii early is the equivalent of the US taking SZ6 early (like we’ve been discussing on the other thread).

The cost to defend the gain is too high and plays right into your opponents’ strategy.

Best leave Hawaii alone until you need a VC victory.

You don’t need a full contingent to clear the Hawaiian fleet.

With the glut of planes on J1, you’ve got room to take a loss or two in your Hawaiian attack from aircraft that could still be reinforced in NCM.

Just my two cents of course.

I prefer sending the FTR/TAC from Caroline Islands to Flip just to ensure the victory.

@Marshmallow:

Best yet: if my plans all go down the toilet, my buddy playing Germany still wins because if the US is spending in the Pacific it is either not spending enough to trouble me or it’s not spending enough in Europe to trouble Germany and relieve Russia.

Marsh

This is the only real important thing to take away from continuously enforcing an Allied SZ6 convoy strategy.

The US in almost every game is better off not denying income from SZ6, but denying Japan victory long enough to turn the Germans in Europe.

The cheaper the US can achieve this, the better; which is why I fully argue the US plan in the Pacific has to be forcing Japan to retake Flip that you have fortressed up while it was away in India.  Effectively, trading one VC for another and gaining multiple turns of production in the process.

@simon33:

Interesting comments.

How do you stop the US from building an industrial complex on Korea and therefore rolling back Japan on land? Also, how would you stop the US Navy from reinforcing across the Pacific?

As I said earlier, if the US is spending in the Pacific to maintain control of SZ6 and/or producing through Korea to keep control of it - the Allies have taken the bait, are caught in a mousetrap and Europe is in dire straights.

Assuming Japan built minors in Coastal Asia - Japan has twice the production capacity the US does once it secures India; and that includes the US building a Korean Minor easily SBR’d by Japan.

The US faces a losing battle if incomes are generally equal and Japan can simply put more units on the board.

Additionally, SZ6 is a terrible position for the USN if Japan decides to ignore it and shoot for ANZAC for the win.

In my humble opinion, the USN needs to reclaim Flip as early as possible and have ANZAC reinforce it.  This forces Japan to have to redirect to Flip and buys the Allies a few turns before Japan threatens ANZAC or Hawaii.

The US can achieve this with a minimal investment while investing heavily in the Atlantic in the early rounds.  The real naval conflicts with Japan won’t arrive for a handful of turns after Calcutta falls anyways - and even longer if you simply reclaim Flip and scuttle back to Queensland while Japan is focuses on India.

@SubmersedElk:

Losing SZ6 is extremely difficult to recover from. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it done successfully. It is not merely the 11 IPC lost to convoys, but the need to now defend Japan proper with land units to avoid losing the capital, as well as the loss of strategic leverage in the lack of ability to project threat from that SZ over the entire Asian coast and much of the Pacific.

IMO losing SZ6 is a game-breaker for Japan. If Germany is not having a fantastic game at that point, the Axis have lost.

My position with Japan is always the same:  If the US is spending in the Pacific, the Axis are still winning.

Russia and the UK cannot stop a well played Germany and Italy for the Europe win without participation by the US.

If the US is fighting to keep a convoy on SZ6 and Japan has consolidated its power in Asia, the US is likely committed to KJF at this point and if so, that leaves Europe open for the Axis VC win.

Rarely, if ever, do I expect to win with Japan.  However, a hyper aggressive Japan forces the US to economically invest in the Pacific.  This is a win for the Axis 9 times out of 10.  Tokyo is a hard nut to crack for the US.  Accepting the Convoy in SZ6 is just part of the “trap” to encourage the US to continue to invest in it’s “gains” in the Pacific.

Put simply, SZ6 and therefore Tokyo is the cheese in the Axis mousetrap for the US.