Posts made by SubmersedElk

The general idea is to play the most solid, risk-free offensive moves possible. It’s based on the theory that the game is grossly unbalanced in Axis’ favor and therefore all risk should be eschewed, because assuming risk can only work in the Allies’ favor.

Unless my opponent is informed beforehand by telling him exactly what I plan to do, he will almost always go Atlantic with US. It’s not at all necessary that he does, that’s just what ends up happening. If he goes Pacific, no biggie, half the fleet is in the Philippines and can protect SZ6 as long as need be. I’ve playtested both scenarios and it’s frustrating as all hell for Allies because he can’t advance anywhere that matters, and what advances he does make are glacially slow in the execution.

The Allies always get the choice of whether to give either the European Axis or Japan a better game, by deciding which way the US will focus. This strategy accommodates either choice. If the US goes Atlantic, Germany builds defensively a bit earlier, ends up more in a stalemate with Russia, and Italy goes defensive for the whole game - but Japan runs rampant and becomes a superpower. If the US goes Pacific, Japan will still get to be large enough to hold the US off more than long enough for a Germany that builds fast land units almost exclusively to overrun Russia. I anticipate in either case Italy will be reduced to a rump player, so beating up on Italy in the Med doesn’t faze me, its only truly essential job is to hold Rome.

Doesn’t matter which poison the Allies pick, they still get the poison.

@Marshmallow:

@simon33:

I’m going to take some convincing this strategy of yours is impregnable.

There are no impregnable strategies.

Marsh

If the game were balanced that would be true. I’m not convinced it is. I’ve yet to see an example of a game where Axis played well and still lost.

You’d have to weight the cost/benefit between that and forgoing the use of the immensely-powerful harbor in the Philippines.  The reach of naval units from there is incredible, it’s a major force multiplier and threat projection platform.

Major factory has an additional limitation in that it can only be placed on an originally-owned territory, so there are very few eligible territories to place new ones. You will almost never see someone buy one due to that and the cost.

Minor factories have an additional limitation in that they cannot be placed on islands. So all those islands in the South Pacific are ineligible.

In practice, 80% of minor factories will be UK placements in Egypt, Persia, and Iraq; and Japanese placements in FIC, Kwangtung, Kiangsu and Manchuria. In late game US will place one in Norway or Korea if given the opportunity, and sometimes you’ll see ANZAC place one in Queensland.

Airbases tend to be placed more than harbors. Gibraltar is a popular spot for UK and Japan will often place minor factory, airbase, and harbor all in FIC. Harbors are rarely purchased otherwise, although sometimes there are opportunities to place them effectively in Norway or in the Pacific. At 15 IPC each they are somewhat on the expensive side so unless you can really maximize what they do for you, keep your airbase/harbor purchases to a minimum.

Also, all these installations can be captured by the enemy, so don’t place them unless you can hold the territory.

@simon33:

Sounds like a mistake to me to go full Atlantic against this play. Hawaii needs to be threatened. I surmise that you have sent two full ac, bb, some destroyers and subs there. A force which could not stand up to a decent counter or am I getting it wrong?

I ignore Hawaii until endgame (and often even then in preference for Sydney as the last VC). It’s just way too easy for the US to defend and the US has the IPC to do it. Better gains for the effort can be had in Asia.

One thing about this play is that the J1 moves are quite modest so it gives the US the signal it’s free to go Atlantic. But it’s quite solid even if the US goes west instead.

In this case, the US player moved into the Atlantic on US1. If he moves the western fleet to Hawaii, a DD blocker plus a carrier and a few airplanes are sufficient to deter a quick attack on SZ6 or Japan proper. With half the initial fleet at the Philippines at the end of J2, Japan is in a position to defend SZ6 if the US goes full Pac, or can use that fleet offensively if the US doesn’t muster a Pac naval threat.

If the US spends several early turns building in the Pacific, Japan can use the half-fleet plus carrier builds, DD blockers, and air sent home from the mainland to defend SZ6 for as long as it needs to. In that case, Japan can’t be as aggressive, but Axis makes up for it by having better opportunities on the European side of the map.

Allies could potentially stack Java SZ after J1 with 1 BB, 2 cruisers, 3 DD, 1 sub and can put 4 inf 5 ftr 1tac on Java proper.

As Japan I could theoretically respond to that by sending in 2BB 2 cruisers 1 sub 3AC 2bmb 2ftr 2tac, allowing a landing on Java with 6 inf 5 art 1 arm 2 ftr 2 tac. Running the numbers that’s about a 95 IPC swing, and of course the Allies would have zero warships, zero transports and zero airforce afterward. US could ship in what’s in Hawaii and a bmb for a counter but it would be facing 5-7 capital ships and a half-dozen air 1-2 DDs defending, so that would be another big win for Japan if it were tried.

Alternatively, Japan could be prevented from taking Java for one round by picketing 5 different sea zones using 3 DD 2 cruisers. In the J2 scenario an ANZAC DD build or the French DD could prevent amphibious bombardment the next round, and those fighters if stationed in Java could counterstrike one or two of the picket killers, and that’s about as difficult as they could make it. With no air threat left except perhaps the US bomber, Japanese transports wouldn’t need warship cover for most of their movements for a few rounds.

I don’t like how those numbers add up for Allies, they’re better off consolidating a fleet off Queensland that could do some real damage to the IJN defensively and would have some protection from airbase fighters stationed there as well as backup 1 turn away in Hawaii moved there from western US SZ. If you sacrifice all that material then Japan is not under naval pressure at all for quite some time.

@simon33:

Thinking some more about counters to this strategy, could a multi national naval stand off Java work? Sorry, not sure I understand the meaning of the icons in the graphic. But you can have:
UK BB
UK Cruiser
UK DD
ANZAC DD
US DD
US Sub

Probably not enough against a couple of carriers supported by land based planes and some ships. Is that what is present?

There is also the option of landing on Java and reinforcing with ANZAC troops and planes. 4 inf and 2 fighters aided by a DD off the coast to prevent a bombardment would at least require two transports to do a landing.

Just throwing ideas into the air. Please don’t jump on me.

From the J2 position Japan has 14 air and 9 ships that can hit the Java SZ, and there are 6 fully loadable transports that could drop onto the island, so Japan could quite easily kill both the fleet and the garrison in the same move. It would essentially be walking right into the teeth of the IJN. The distraction value would not likely be enough to offset the loss of almost all potentially effective Allied forces in the area.

I second the ANZAC-is-difficult notion. They don’t have a lot of pieces or income and it’s really easy for their production and units to be wasted ineffectually. To do ANZAC right you need a keen sense of maximizing their ability to help India, help the US, and harass Japan in DEI. It’s way too easy to waste their 15-20 IPC/turn doing nothing productive.

There’s simply no way the Axis make any headway into Africa unless the Allies screw up bigtime. It’s the easiest place on the whole map for Allies to dominate. If you’re finding you can make successful invasions of Africa as Italy, you need to find better opponents if you want a challenging game.

I’ve seen the Phillipines fleet move to Queensland or more directly back to Hawaii, and also seen the DD used as a blocker in the DEI. Hawaii either gets sent to the Atlantic, Queensland, or Western US. There’s another thread here that details my J2 moves and the resulting positions, I call it J2/I2 strategy. Having a mid-sized fleet in Carolines at the end of J1 in that method tends to discourage any US fleet from being in either Queensland or in Hawaii unless he’s going full Pacific (at which point he’s played his hand first, so on G2 you can adjust appropriately).

I typically do a J2 and I still think Axis are dominant. It’s actually because Axis are so dominant that I prefer the less-risky J2, since Axis are better off not taking any extra risk - even small ones - to their dominant position.

it’s been a while so I don’t remember all that clearly but IIRC the UK stack got wiped as a sacrifice so the Chinese could gain superiority on land, and he responded by bringing a big transport fleet and lots of air to Calcutta where the Chinese couldn’t help.

It’s extremely frustrating to have a potent Chinese stack sitting on Yunnan right next to a vulnerable IC/airbase in FIC and not being able to attack.

@Marshmallow:

@Nippon-koku:

Got it.  I’d like to see China be allowed to go into FIC.  Would spice things up a bit down there!

Don’t forget that Chinese forces can enter Burma even while Japan is not at war with the UK and ANZAC. This is a nice surprise that some folks don’t think of.

Marsh

They’ve got to get there first, and other than landing the fighter there, it would be extraordinary to see the Chinese able to move their slow units through Yunnan that early in the game.

no it isn’t, this is a argument

Good call let me modify my post so no one gets the wrong impression

SBR can be used effectively against Italy - not like you need it, but it can.

1. When you’re ready to invade Rome you can SBR before hand to prevent Italy from using its meager remaining income from adding units to its defense.

2. If you’ve beaten Axis in the Med, and have the SZs stuffed with subs to blockade away Italy’s income, one good SBR run on each Italian factory can shut them down for good, since it can be very difficult for them to come up with even the few IPCs needed to repair it. This can stop Italy from building the inf or two a turn needed to work in conjunction with Germany to trade territory or can-open.

It’s a bit tricky, I had some trouble coming to grips with it as well.

Here’s the rules, as best I understand them:

Aggression-qualifying attacks consist of:

• Russia attacking Japan in Korea or any Japanese-controlled Chinese territory that borders Mongolia
• Japan attacking any Russian territory that borders Mongolia

Whoever does one of these first is the aggressor from the Mongolians’ point of view.

If Russia is the aggressor, Mongolia stays forever neutral.

If Japan is the aggressor, they become Russian at the END of Japan’s turn in which the aggression occurs. So Japan cannot in the same combat move attack both (without declaring war on all neutrals). Since China can’t move into Mongolian spaces, the earliest anyone can interact with these newly Russian units and territories is the UK turn after Japan’s aggression.

Hope that helps! Best to watch it unfold in others’ games to get a more concrete sense of what’s going on there.

@regularkid:

a well-timed danish can opener can work wonders ;P

optimal timing: 6:30AM when all the Germans have fallen asleep

If you ask me, the Allies are much harder to play since the Axis decide where the focus is going to be, at least for the first 5 rounds or so. I can play Axis and give very good players a serious challenge, but I cannot play Allies at the same level, not even close. Maybe at the top level things even out a bit, but at my intermediate level the sides are very different in difficulty.