Posts made by Spendo02

@MrRoboto:

@Spendo02:

Its not game over for the Allies, but taking India out of the picture means Egypt is going to be much easier for Germany to take for Europe’s win.  Leaving India around and particularly if not threatened generally means Cairo is going to be a tough nut to crack for the Axis.

Everything else is very subjective and situational because the Pacific is so big and the US can simply spend rounds 1 and 2 in the Pacific and can cause some serious problems for a Japan that has not removed any US starting navy.

That’s a very good statement here.
I want to say, however, that you do not need to capture India to ensure a fall of Cairo.

Putting a submarine there to reduce UK-PAC income to <=3 is sufficient more often than not. As long as you make sure, that you’ll always be able to move a couple of transports in range for an India invasion, the Indian forces can’t move to Cairo. As soon as they start moving, just put the transporters to FIC or Malaya again, and UK-Pac will have to retreat to defend Calcutta.

There is truth in this statement.  Containing Calcutta is more important than conquering it.  There is a cost associated with allowing India to persist such as maintaining a convoy which requires shutting the economy down outside of India whilst protecting SS that can be threatened simply by UK putting a DD off S.Africa which will be difficult for Japan to block.  Sydney can also sneak DD around to remove the convoy.  Blocking both routes to lift the convoy costs resources Japan would much rather have threatening the VC win at either Hawaii or Sydney.

Alternatively you have to basically go “All-In” to take out India as Japan which may or may not include sacrificing a significant portion of the air force to do so.  An Air force that generally creates a massive advantage in the naval battle because Japan can spend 16 IPC to place a Carrier and load it with 2 Aircraft whereas the US must spend 36 IPC to maintain the equity of naval presence.  Japan will happily trade its surplus in aircraft to sink US carriers, and BB.  Of course the inherent weakness of a heavy Japanese Carrier build are US bulk builds of submarines which nullifies the air superiority of Japan once Japan has to decide between losing the screening Destroyers (to hit the subs with aircraft) or aircraft to get another round to hopefully wipe out the subs before Japan’s carriers are unable to let aircraft land on them.

As it is with the common cold, it would be infinitely better to cure the common cold than treat it as treating it leeches resources better used elsewhere.  The problem is curing things is easier said than done.

In the case of Japan, removing Calcutta is infinitely more valuable than simply convoying it.  Convoying, however, is a good alternative if India plays well and creates an expense battle for Japan.

Its not game over for the Allies, but taking India out of the picture means Egypt is going to be much easier for Germany to take for Europe’s win.  Leaving India around and particularly if not threatened generally means Cairo is going to be a tough nut to crack for the Axis.

Everything else is very subjective and situational because the Pacific is so big and the US can simply spend rounds 1 and 2 in the Pacific and can cause some serious problems for a Japan that has not removed any US starting navy.

Japan only exists as more than a speedbump unless it takes the DEI and holds them for a few rounds.

The choice is when to try for it.  The longer you wait, the more resistance you face.  Japan’s game is in playing aggressive and taking risks.  You’ve got ample aircraft to trade for strategic advantage, so use that in your planning - particularly in removing Chinese units from your flanks where trading a Ftr for an Inf means you don’t have to land ground units in the North to deal with them swinging in behind you.

I’ve always liked a J2 move to take Flip and Borneo.
I’ve done J1 DOW and although the momentum is strongly in your favor, it tilts quickly back to even on dicey rolls and puts you into a dogfight in China.

J3 or later DOW is going to be a simple play for Japan to march on Moscow.  Problem is that you allow India to get large and they just start the shuttling of units to the crown prize of the European win: Egypt.  Germany is generally in no position to hold off the UK and US while also making a march to a well reinforced Egypt by India.

The lynchpin, therefore, of the entire game is cutting India out economically. This is Japan’s sole job.  Either by conquest or convoy or some combination of both.  This plays into Germany’s favor because it makes Egypt much easier to claim if India is unable to reinforce Egypt.

So the longer you wait to cut down India, the worse off it gets for Japan - and later, Germany.  J1 or J2 is the best DOW strategy to keep India from stopping a German swing from Moscow to Africa.  And that assumes Germany is successful in Russia - which is never a guarantee for even experienced strategists.

@Karl7:

Whats the solution?

I would change a couple things.� I would not take back any units added to the Axis.� I think the editions were good.� I think any changes would have to be on the allied side.� I don’t think a ton of new units are necessary but I would put back that airbase in Gib (placed there in Alpha2).� Why did they take away the airbase in Gib?� Can anyone explain?� That makes a huge difference.� Replace that, put a harbor in Panama, and give the UK more NO’s.� The UK really comes off as the weak power in most global games in the long run.� Even when they are on the offense and get their 1 NO, I rarely see them get over 40 IPCs.� Maybe a UK NO for no subs in the Atlantic, an NO for no ships in the Med (a reflection of the Italian No)…� A boost like that to the UK would go a long way to even out the game I think,� �

Whats the UK going to spend more IPC on once it control of the Channel has be established for the Allies?  You can only place 10 units, and if you’re in a slug fest in Europe you’re going to be spending 35 IPC / round shuttling 5 Inf and 5 Art into Europe on 5 TT.

I think much depends on the nation you play.

Clearly you’re never buying anything but Inf and maybe Art as China ;)

Germany can basically buy nothing but Armor and Mech for the entire game.

UK can probably get away with never buying Armor, ever.

US can get away with never buying Mech, ever.

France can get away with never buying anything!

@Amon-Sul:

I have to make a comment about the value of units. From what i have played now i think that some units are too expensive, not too much but enough that they are so rarely bought that it does not help making a very fun and diversed game as it could be.

AA gun 4 IPC / 5 IPC with extra abilities

AA gun is rarely bought. It could either cost 4 IPC or 5 but then it should attack at 4 air units not 3.

AA guns can fire every round at aircraft, rolling two dice @ 1.  Attacker can declare in any combat round if aircraft will be targeting AA guns or ground units, but all aircraft hits must be used only against AA guns when AA guns are the declared target.  Any additional hits by aircraft that combat round are lost.

Its a better solution to the rule than we currently have, makes AA guns a viable defender against aircraft, and doesn’t really pervert the strategies to take London, Calcutta or Moscow which seem to be the only places AA guns really show up in combat.

As I cannot see the map as discussed, I am presuming that there was an enemy fleet initially blocking the carrier from reaching the spot for the aircraft to land on?

To play by the rules, the attacker sent a sub against a fleet it had no chance of winning against to create the “opportunity” for the carrier to move into position during NCM for the fighter to land on?

Its a genius move.  Shady, but genius.

Was it for a single TT or two?  It’s a bit pricey to trade 16 IPC for 7, but 16 for 14 and sinking TT before they can be used is a big win.

US NO’s are a bit jacked if you ask me.

I’d remove the America Influence in Asia (Flip), the National Sovereignty Issues (Alaska, Aleutian, Hawaii, Line and Johnston) and the Defense Treaty & Trade Obligations (Mexico, SW Mexico, Central and West Indies) NO’s.  Thats 15 IPC less for the US.

Instead, replace with Pacific Island Clusters:

Control 2 of 3: Midway, Wake or Iwo Jima
Control 2 of 3: Flip, Guam or Oki
Control 2 of 3: Johnston, Line or Caroline

Each would be worth 5 NPC NO for either the US or Japan, whoever controls 2 of the 3.

The US would most easily control the Johnston, Caroline and Line section indicating supply support to ANZAC.  It would create a lynchpin fight over Midway and Wake and the Flip / Guam would be a mostly Japan controlled NO.  So US gets 1 easily controlled, Japan the other, and the third is a see-saw.

If Japan just took Flip, like many J1 moves include, the US would get 10 IPC, Japan 5.  Alternatively, Japan could take both Flip and Midway, giving Japan 10 IPC in bonuses, and the US only 5 from these NO.  I don’t think its a terrible imbalance, but provides a significant incentive for Japan to aggressively fight the US for control of the Pacific - which the current NO’s do nothing for.

I basically look at it one way:

For Germany, TT are not a necessary evil to win in Europe.  Spending more than I have to on TT removes an Inf and Art that I’d like to place in Paris, or a Mech and Inf (In Berlin and Paris) or an Arm (In Berlin) from the Europe Map.  Buying up 70 IPC worth of TT equates to trading off with Russia 7 Inf / Art, 7 Mech / Inf, or 11 Armor.  Think about that for a moment before doing Sea Lion and how it would impact your odds against Moscow or pushing the Allies out of Europe each round when they do land.

I’m willing to trade a few Inf/Mech/Art/Arm purchases early to keep the UK turtled up, but I don’t want to trade a full round of purchases of offensive ground units for the UK just to make 2 rounds of purchases to give me a 55% chance of either winning with terrible losses, or losing entirely.

No matter the case, Sea Lion just doesn’t seem to be worth the investment except if you play against someone who has no idea how to play Russia and won’t make you pay terribly for the Sea Lion Maneuver.

Of course, if the London player gets aggressive and doesn’t make defensive purchases early and leaves London open for trading 28-35 IPC worth of TT to eliminate them mid-game, I won’t hesitate to make that happen while shoring up gains in Russia (which inevitably seems to happen around round 5 or 6 anyways).

Although Krieg has answered…

I would suggest that Kamikaze elections are akin to SBR.

Combat in of themselves in the entire combat phase, but not subject to initiating a standard round of combat outside of their special ability.

Japan’s navy would only be in Hawaii for the turn to land the invasion, after which it can swing to Carolines or back to SZ6.  I’ve hashed it out elsewhere and its not a strong strategy unless you are certain the US and Allies will commit everything to Hawaii’s defense for a J2 attack.  Even then, a bad first round dice roll will cost you more ships than is you want to lose.

A prudent Allied commander would not send his navy to Hawaii with the full weight of the IJN staged to invade Hawaii.  A foolish one would, and would lose sorely and spend multiple turns rebuilding a navy to chase Japan around the Pacific with again.

I wouldn’t say the minor should not be allowed, but you sure have a serious handicap (golf term, not intellect associated) if you require 12 IPC to play as the Allies.  That or you’re sandbagging.

If you know Japan is waiting until J4 - I’d probably purchase a Tac.  2 Tac, 2 Ftr will be on 2 CV by the end of UK3, reinforced by a BB, CR and a DD or three (depending on what you do with the S.Africa and French DD).

That, combined with a US and Anzac fleet being built over multiple turns probably spells the end of Japanese aggression once the war breaks out?  IDK - never waited the full length to DOW as Japan (well I did once, as Japan marched across Russia)

Generally I feel that move-able pieces make more sense from a bid perspective.  Particularly ones that changes odds of low unit count fights (IE a SS off Egypt).

I don’t think I’d agree to 12 IPC for Anzac to begin with as ANZAC should take multiple turns before it is very relevant.  Giving a minor on top of an AB and NB that is in a position to land its purchases on so many places cripples Japan’s ability to be confident in taking and holding anything south of Flip.

Japan can in fact get large, but winning the game is far from decided with a well employed strategy.

Additionally, I’d probably put 3 Mech on Calcutta if I was given 12 IPC because Burma could be all settled rather quickly and decidedly hurt Japan more by losing ground in China so early.

I thought marching across Russia was insane with Japan - until I tried it.
I thought skipping past Calcutta with MY ENTIRE FLEET was insane - until I tried it.
I thought attacking J1 was insane - until I tried it.
I thought buying bombers with Germany each round was insane - until I tried it. (devastating)
I thought Sea Lion was insane - until I tried it.

In short, most strategies are born from doing something extreme and learning something from it.  When you find something that works, you either work to make it better or keep it in your back pocket to pull out at some unlikely time - such as an early all SS build for the US puts Japan in a tough spot because those subs act as fodder, can’t be be hit by aircraft, are effective at convoying gains and can sink ships if Japan doesn’t buy DD - which is generally a losing proposition for them.  Factor in a handful of SS making their way into the Med can spell doom for Italy when coupled with a few UK SS as well - who would have thought buying 12 SS in a single round was EVER a good idea - perhaps not the best, but disruptive for sure.

I actually employed that strategy once with the US and was very successful now that I think about it - the bait and switch that is.

I mostly just hate playing the same strategy, which is why I was trying to come up with a way to accomplish the same thing in a different way.

Back to the drawing board.

@Dark_Destroyer:

With that in mind, being able to sack Sydney on J4 (trading aircraft for minimal ground units), Flip on J5 from produced units on J3 and J4, its entirely possible to win and have the US spend nearly all its income in the Pacific for 5+ rounds - which leaves the UK and Russia on islands in Europe until at the earliest probably Round 7 or 8 before the US can intervene at all.

They would not need to spend 5 rounds of income to stop Japan.�

Much of that assertion is based on play testing of the Allies moving to defend Hawaii in the first round.

Obviously that changes if you withdraw because the only trade would be the starting fleet off Hawaii, which easily translates to a strong consolidated navy off of Western US.

That is why I posed the question regarding what would be an Allied response to a J1 DOW that stages in SZ6 and paves the way to sack Honolulu on J2 as I was not sure if that would be an experienced US player’s response.
EDIT
Note my normal opponent generally responds to Japanese aggression in the Pacific with a 10 SS purchase in Western US the moment he can enter the war.  Its annoying to deal with on many levels.
END EDIT

Clearly a withdraw to San Francisco that includes a heavy Naval build (IE SS and Tac) changes the dynamic of the board.  My standard play has been to defend Hawaii at all costs which included Anzac’s involvement (to see what the board looks like) while purchasing US1 SS and Bombers.  I never considered the US option to give it up and consolidate - which appears to be a better and stronger play.

I wouldn’t want to move the IJN to Hawaii facing over a half dozen subs, and Tac’s rolling at 4 and the bulk of the US Navy sitting off of Western US.  Trading some ships to have the US with no Ships is one thing - but to run a 55% chance battle to lose all ships is not viable.

With the premise of the strategy to force the US to spend in the Pacific beyond the first two turns, I’d give this strategy a C+ or B- against an average player, but an F against an experienced one.

I’m still a firm believer in taking and owning Flip and DEI while dealing with China as the primarily best strategy for Japan - I was just looking for an alternative to it that keeps the US actively investing in the Pacific that is beyond the “standard” buy TT, get a minor in SE Asia, take DEI, convoy India and subdue China.

I’m trying to play this out “generally” on TripleA, so I was hoping for some specific input.

I’m well aware that UK should be getting large, which I am accepting on the premise that I have multiple VC’s within range of my Major Complex and they are multiple turns from truly threatening any of them if I capture them.

I would expect India to look to take 2 DEI for themselves and start mobilizing to get to Egypt and support Russia’s underbelly unless they need to try to retake Kwangtung to stop a Japanese VC win.

I am also fully aware that the US can outproduce me and that economically I’m disadvantaged (said that from my OP) by not targeting DEI and China early.  Most of my purpose is to put Japan in a potential position to win, but the primary purpose is to keep the US spending in the Pacific beyond the first 2 rounds of play.

Note, I don’t have to take ANZAC after Hawaii, I can return to Japan and pick up multiple Infantry and a few purchased Art and take Flip after Hawaii and stage myself to reclaim all the DEI by round 4-5.  India would not be happy with this if its economy gets halved after sending armor and mech towards Europe.

However, if my intent is to put all the pressure on the US to spend in the Pacific for multiple turns, reversing course is not part of that plan.  I can even plan to return BACK to Hawaii with those Inf on Korea, further keeping the US considering its position in the Pacific.

What I’m trying to see is what the Allied response from experienced players would be if Hawaii was seriously threatened on J2.  In particular would you move your starting fleet to Hawaii and reinforce it, and to what extent would the Allies reinforce it IE does ANZAC get involved or not?  Are the US Ftr scrambling to defend or all possible aircraft landing on Hawaii itself?

So I’ve been toying around with a J1 DOW with the intent to take Hawaii on J2.

This is how the board looks for the US after Japan ends her turn:

Japan:
SZ6: 1 SS 2 DD 1 CR 1 BB 4 TT
SZ25: 1 DD
SZ26: 1 DD
SZ31: 3 CV 3 Ftr 3 Tac 1 BB 1 CR 1 TT
Japan: 1 Ftr 1 Bomber 6 Inf 2 Art 1 Arm
Korea: 10 Inf
Wake: 1 Inf 1 Art
Marshall Islands: 1 Ftr 1 Tac 2 Bomber
FIC: 2 Inf
Hunan: 1 Inf
Kwangtung: 2 Inf 1 Art
Kwangsi: 6 Ftr 4 Tac
Anhwe: 6 Inf 2 Art
Chahar: 2 Inf 1 Art 1 Mech

Yunnan is Chinese Held
Hawaiian Aircraft did not scramble (3 Ftr, 3 Tac, 2 Bomber, 1 SS, 1 DD were sent)

With that board laid out, how would you plan your US purchase on US1?  
More importantly, would you reinforce Hawaii and send your outgunned fleet to its demise?
Would you send everything possible to defend Hawaii?
Would you try to block the Japanese landing by moving to Midway?
Would you send ANZAC’s CR from NZ to SZ26?  What about all 3 Ftr?

I’m fully aware of the impact that this creates on Japan economically, but assuming Hawaii goes well, I intend to purchase 2 Bombers on J2 and be able to have the 3 Bombers (1 Japan, 2 Marshall Islands) fly back from Wake, plus the 2 from Japan to the mainland to support the large Airforce already there.

The intention is not to gain ground, but to use the current ground units as fodder to eliminate the larger stacks and/or artillery builds of the Chinese until I can get produced units onto the mainland.

Assuming all goes well, I have the choice to either return all my TT to SZ6 on J3 and be able to land the 10 Inf from Korea on the mainland on J4 to turn China around OR leave aircraft in Hawaii and then proceed straight to ANZAC on J3.

The entire premise of this is that by sinking the US fleet on J2 AND taking Hawaii, the US won’t be able to build enough of a force to reclaim Hawaii until round 4 or 5.  US2 would be a naval build to defend SF, US3 would be a mix of TT and supporting naval, US4 could be a landing depending on how empty Hawaii is, if not, the filling of TT with offensive units capable of taking Hawaii.

With that in mind, being able to sack Sydney on J4 (trading aircraft for minimal ground units), Flip on J5 from produced units on J3 and J4, its entirely possible to win and have the US spend nearly all its income in the Pacific for 5+ rounds - which leaves the UK and Russia on islands in Europe until at the earliest probably Round 7 or 8 before the US can intervene at all.

I figure if I take Moscow and have 8 Armor left over, plus most of my starting aircraft, I should be in good shape as I didn’t “overspend” taking Moscow.

I’ve been playing with the Bomber purchases for Germany, and there’s something to be said about flying 6-8 bombers home from Moscow in 1 turn to fly over a stack of 10 inf or mech each round to push the Allies out of Europe.

@Gekkepop:

Turn 2 buy depends on the board, but usually transports and men to capture Sydney.

J1: 2 TT and 1 Bomber
J2: 2 Bombers and 1 DD

Provided you go “all in” with your starting TT by staging them in SZ6 on J1, Anzac will be entirely obligated to send 3 Ftr to Hawaii plus their… Cruiser? from NZ.

Of course I J1 DOW if I am going to take Hawaii, I strafe Hawaii with 3 Ftr/Tac, 1 DD, 1 SS and 2 Bombers.  I take Wake on J1, fly my bombers to Marshall Islands (after strafing the Hawaii fleet in port), stage all 3 Carriers plus the remaining starting navy in SZ6 at Wake and NCM a DD to Hawaii after I finish the strafe to block the US fleet.

Basically you invite the US to return to Hawaii on US1 with the full weight of the Japanese navy and half its air force including 3 Bombers waiting to sink it - and you’re still going to take Hawaii on J2 unless Anzac elects to not scramble and instead to defend Hawaii over sinking Japanese ships.

Of course in doing so, you have 1 single goal in mind:  Make the US spend in the Pacific for 4-5 turns because they won’t be interfering in Europe until at the earliest of round 8 or 9.

There IS merit in going full out Hawaii, because if the Allies ignore it and spend on Europe, Japan wins the game in round 5.  If they don’t ignore it, and shut Japan down - which will take at least 4 rounds of purchases to do by the US, Germany and Italy should be well on their way to securing their side of the map.

Of course, the smart strategy is for India to just start sending units to Egypt after UK2 gets them most of the DEI in anticipation of that being the lynchpin of the game.