Posts made by The Man in Black

@K-Ration:

The most Japan could hit it with would be 4 inf, 4 planes 1 bomber.

This calculation is incorrect, as is my other post where I state that Japan can hit India with three planes, a bomber and three infantry.

The plane from the Philipines and the plane from Japan cannot reach India and land on turn one (Sea Zones count as movement, remember? And you can’t land on a territory you just conquered) Therefore, the most that can attack India on turn one, assuming that the transport from the Philipines cannot land troops in India, is 3 infantry from Burma, the fighter in Burma, the fighter from Manchuria, and the Bomber from Japan.

This force will be faced with four british infantry, a british fighter, and two russian fighters. The Japanese are outnumbered in all respects.

If you ignore pearl harbor, it becomes possible for Japanese carrier aircraft from the Carolines and Philipenes to sink the UK transport screening India and allow two extra infantry from the Phillipenes to land in India, but this allows the US Navy to consolidate and wreak havoc.

If I were playing Japan, I would pursue the transports and Infantry policy and try to take India by outproducing and outshipping Infantry to Asia. This may become possible on turn two if the US player is reluctant to retreat into India, or the Japanese can force the UK to fight alone by invading both China and Sinkiang, abandoning Burma to the UK counterattack (or reinforcing it with four infantry and aircraft).

@K-Ration:

My normal strategy has been to place an IC in India, and hold off Japan. That has worked until recently. Lately, during his J1, he has been throwing (and sacrificing) all he has, and usually gets it. As it has been a thorn in his side for the majority of our games, I can now count on him doing everything to capture it - so I am now afraid to build it.

I’m the most experienced Japanese Player in our group. And if the UK plants a factory next to burma, I always expend maximum effort to seize it before the UK can build units there. Even by using the transport to reinforce India with troops from Africa, the Japanese can still send three infantry, three fighters and a bomber to blow up your fighter and slay your four infantry.

The solution is simple: Russia must reinforce India on turn one with a fighter or two. This weakens their defense on the Eastern Front, but makes the thorn in Japan’s side sting all the more. The USA should also move whatever surviving units they have to defend the Indian Factory. Combined with a Russian invasion of Manchuria on turn two, you can annoy Japan to no end.

In exchange for the Russian fighters, you may wish to consider moving the RAF in London to the Eastern Front, but since this occurs after the German turn, the Soviet defense is still weakened, at least for one turn.

@BigBlocky:

MIB, if you send 3 tanks against 1 infantry then your 3 tanks are left undefended against a russian counter attack or better yet, the allies coming in with a few infantry and ftrs to attrition out your Jap tanks. BB

You’re neglecting to consider the German portion of the timetable. By turn four, the Germans should be ready to push into moscow on turn five. Therefore, this strategy relies on risking Japanese tanks for a quick seizure of Russian territory. The idea is to come to the aid of the Germans as soon as possible. It’s far from perfect, and can be countered by a determined allied player, but that could be said about any strategy.

In the game I played last night, I played the Axis with a 74 IPC bid for economic victory, RR, and no new factories. The Allies spanked me bad, thanks to some atrocious die rolling (3 fighters and 1 bomber vs Battleship and three transports = all luftwaffe killed, battleship survived…) and that was just ONE of the disasters that befell me. Another was the extremely irritating fact that the USA spent 5 IPC’s on a tech roll on turn one and got heavy bombers… :cry:

Of course, one game I played as Japan vs some first time players and spent 25 IPC’s on tech rolls on turn one, and got Heavy Bombers AND Industrial Tech. So I got to feel the same agony those new guys felt. That was a short game, just like last night’s seven turn fiasco.

@BigBlocky:

OK RE: ftrs on brit carrier. You were talking about taking the US fleet on a pacific adventure with 2 ftrs,BB

Where the hell did I say this? Must’ve been in some other thread…

@BigBlocky:

If you build a carrier and ftr, the ftr is not on the carrier so why build it? BB

Usually this is part of my mad plan to fill the skies over Russia with seven to nine Allied fighters.

@BigBlocky:

If Brit builds a carrier and transport and has the one from Canada and the US still has hers then the fleet is stil thin, 3 transports and a carrier. You need the 2 US ftrs to make this work.

After building the carrier, the US planes STILL land on it, you silly goose. The RAF fighter moves to Russia on turn two. But I generally don’t like the whole carrier thing as it lets Japan get off scott free and keeps the US planes from defending Russia. Right now, I’m looking at saving up the UK and building a massive fleet on turn two, I think that’s the best option. That way, southern europe can be threatened on turn four by the americans.

@BigBlocky:

MIB, how often do you capture Moscow with the Japs on turn 4? BB

Never. The idea is to be knocking on their door by turn four or five, not actually invading on turn four. The Japanese have assaulted on turn five and six however, after a substantial german attack. Usually it’s the germans who take the Russian treasury, but the idea is to be there on the other side with the Japanese. A Russia with 8-14 IPC income tends to be quite feeble in their counterattacks.

BBIf the russians leave 1 infantry on each of the territories next to Moscow, do you exchange tanks to get the territory? How do you defend your factories, with tanks only? It takes 3 turns for infantry built on Japan to get next to Moscow. With 2 factories you must defend 2 spots AND the territory next to russian to plan to attack from. You can only build 6 units per round with 2 factories, you should plan to lose 4/round just retaking territories the allies retook…

I have no problem sending three tanks vs one infantry. The real problem begins on turn five. If the Germans are doing poorly, then the Russians will likely devote resources to take back their Asian territories. This is when Japan must look at moving to africa to win an economic victory while rolling their six tanks a turn taking and retaking Asia. But if the Germans do well, then Russia is out of the Game, and an economic victory quickly follows.

I’m unclear where the allied threat to the factories you refer to comes from. I usually take China and India on turn one. I land all aircraft at the factory built on turn one in Burma. This prevents the two infantry at Sinkiang from getting any funny ideas. The two existing transports also ship infantry to the factory, and/or ship them to Manchuria or Kwangtung if I think the Russians are liable to come across the border.

If the Russians mass their forces, they can be smashed on turn two or three. If not, it takes a little longer to move across the Russian steppes and tundra, but a larger, more concentrated force arrives to besiege Moscow.

On turn two a second factory is built in either Manchuria or Kwantung. (Manchuria being slightly better). and on turn three and four, six tanks a turn roll across Asia. Sometimes it pays to build a factory in Sinkiang, as this saves a turn of movement. But I generally dislike this for some reason.

@BigBlocky:

Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then? BB

That’s the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.

@BigBlocky:

I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB

My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler’s path to regain the momentum.

@BigBlocky:

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.BB

That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.

@BigBlocky:

If you move it up to Wake island BB

I don’t move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.

This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.

Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.

@BigBlocky:

Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then? BB

That’s the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.

@BigBlocky:

I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB

My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler’s path to regain the momentum.

@BigBlocky:

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.BB

That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.

@BigBlocky:

If you move it up to Wake island BB

I don’t move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.

This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.

Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.

@Xi:

I agree with BBs plan. Yet, I rarely build an IC for Japan unless my opponent makes it to easy in Asia.

The reason Japan builds a factory or two in Asia is not for infantry. It’s to place three to six Tanks a turn into asia faster than transports can get them there. Armor can get you knocking on the door of Moscow on turn four, while Infantry will delay you till at least turn six or seven.

All of my strategies focus on the TIMETABLE. Coordination and timing becomes indispensable in this sort of plan. Basically, transports might get more infantry onto asia, but they’re too slow. Japan needs to be on the same page as Germany, and the goal is to have a one-two punch on moscow in turn five. This is not possible if you focus on transports, which might be much more flexible, but do not help Germany out at all.

@Meijing:

I wonder, whether it’s really a good idea for Japan to go after Pearl Harbour.

Yes.

@Meijing:

What can the American fleet do?

Famous Last Words.

Assuming you avoid pearl harbor entirely, this leaves a fleet of carrier, 2 fighters, a battleship, a transport and a submarine to take an infantry from Hawaii and Midway (assuming the Japanese transports stayed on the Asian coast) or two guys from the West Coast to Alaska. On Turn Two, the americans land in the Soviet Far East and begin ferrying troops into Russia, prolonging the Japanese rollback of Russian territory for a good two to three turns.

Or, if the Japanese Fleet retreats back to the Sea of Japan to prevent the above scenario, Macarthur’s Island Hopping Campaign can begin immediately. Possibly threatening the takeover of the Philipenes by turn three.

The weakness in not attacking the American Fleet while it’s in two seperate chunks cannot be overstated. It is easier to handle while not unified and reinforced. Not only that, but if the entire US Navy retreats into the Atlantic, then it places an even greater burden on Germany, who does not need the sort of aggravation that can be caused by an extra USA fighter and battleship in Africa/Western Europe on turn three.

I can see why the Allies win 100% of BigBlocky’s games. The Axis simply isn’t aggressive enough. In order for the Axis to win consistently (as it has in my games, despite all odds) the Axis MUST turn every game into a crap shoot, and then (this is the tricky part) hope that superior die rolling will win the day for them. If they don’t play the dice game and go for a purely statistical victory… well, the allies have 90 IPC’s and the Axis has 57 IPC’s, QED.

The successful Axis turns everything into a lucky gamble. In our group, Fred and I have always been able to use the audacious risky nature of our tactics and psychological warfare (trash-talking) to intimidate the allies into overly conservative play. If we can delay them just ONE turn with our bad mouthing, then we can use other means to delay their attacks even more, allowing the Axis to secure an economic victory.

It also helps that our regular opponents haven’t quite got the message that they are part of an alliance. They understand it in theory, but then go on to carry out some selfish plan that the Axis is able to exploit for even further delays.

@BigBlocky:

If you’re not playing russia restricted then you’re left with 4 ftrs/bomber with the baltic fleet sunk at the start of your turn. It can be expensive to try to erase the entire allied fleet. How often can you sink it all (except say the US transport) and only lose one air unit? If you try for every allied naval unit you are spreading yourself too thin IMHO.

The brits will build a carrier and 1 transport on T1, the US moves 2 ftrs on it and it’s 1 transport. BB

I’ve seen this before. In fact, it’s usually me who does it when I play the Allies. (I build a carrier and a plane though) When I play Axis, I always try for a restricted russia, unless I’m playing a rank amateur. You aren’t really spread too thin if you have the North Sea Fleet to make a sortie. If the Uk commits to massive naval procurement, it tends to hang the Russians out to dry by withdrawing USA and UK fighters out of Moscow/Karelia.

What usually happens in the games I’ve played is that the Royal Navy is sunk on turn one, the USA navy is sunk on turn two. What happens on turn three and beyond is really up to the vaguaries of the dice. Saving the UK money for turn one and building a massive fleet on turn two is something I’ve been meaning to try, it seems like it denies the Luftwaffe a target on turn two, and will deter them from making raids on the Royal Navy in future turns. This would have the adverse effect of the Luftwaffe dive bomb american transports after they unload in Africa.

@BigBlocky:

I’ll take out the US fighter in China, not bother with India (unless open or 1 inf).

India can be left alone till turn two if the UK withdraws the fighter. The only reason I hit it early is to either capture the factory that they built there, or to kill that fighter. Usually, if the UK withdraws the fighter from India, they also transport the Indian infantry to Egypt to give Germany a headache and land the RAF in Moscow or Karelia (three spaces from India to Karelia or Moscow…)

Another dirty trick the UK can do is to send the Indian Transport to evacuate Australia on turn two. Then the Aussies reinforce India. This has it’s flaws though. It makes Australia a more tempting target, and leaves the Indian coastline vulnerable to amphibious assault from the Philippenes.

As in my other thread about Japan Gone Wild, there really is no Germany and Japan, only the Axis. This tends to be less true for the Axis than for the Allies, who are truly sunk without synergy and precision teamwork. The Axis are too separated to have much opportunity for double-teaming, but they can coordinate their efforts in one place: Russia.

Looking at the map, it seems clear that Russia has the most to lose from a combined Axis gangbang. The UK can be hammered by the loss of India, Persia and Australia in the Pacific, but an Australian expedition tends to delay Japan’s land war in Asia by several turns.

An Anti-US program is doomed to failure thanks to things like the Royal Navy and the US Air Force (not to mention the US Navy and the Royal Air Force) sinking the Kreigsmarine wherever they may appear. Germany cannot effectively attack the USA, and the UK seems all but impregnable to any delusional fantasies the German player might harbor concerning Operation SEA LION.

This leaves the Axis with two options: An aggressive campaign in Africa and the construction of Fortress Europe, or an all out assault into Russia (Operation CITADEL). Japan cannot reinforce Festung Afrika or be very decisive against Russia until at least turn four, so the Germans should be prepared to go it alone for quite some time.

OPERATION CITADEL:

G1: 9 INF, 1 Tank
G2: more infantry, maybe a tank or two.
G3: MORE INFANTRY! MORE!

With this build, Germany should feint into Karelia, and possibly Caucasus. The objective should be to reduce as much Russian Infantry as possible, without losing a single German Tank. Thus, retreat as soon as the infantry reserves begin to falter. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine should be sinking as many allied ships as possible. In the Med, you can either ship Italian troops to Caucasus, or reinforce Libya.

EVERY ALLIED SHIP must be attacked. Those who survive, must die on turn two. In the Meantime, Japan must break Russia’s back in the East, possibly foregoing early attacks into India.

FORTRESS EUROPE:

G1: 8 INF, 1 Transport
G2: Infantry from this point on, possibly replacing the occasional loss of aircraft.

Feint into Karelia as above, reinforce Eastern Europe, Germany, and Western Europe with massive amounts of Infantry. Kick the UK out of Africa until at least turn three. SINK ALL ALLIED SHIPPING with massive aerial bombardment and audacious naval sorties for as long as possible (usually for about three or four turns).

Japan should be worried about occuping as much territory as possible, but India and China should fall quickly, in order to hamper UK/USA IPC’s

OPERATION WELTEISLEHRE:

G1: 4 INF, 4 Tanks
G2: Infantry and a couple Tanks.
G3: All infantry hereafter.

This rather insane strategy is based on Hitler’s occult belief that Ice and Winter would favor the superior Aryan Race. So basically it’s full of enough shit to back up a sewage treatment plant :lol:

Anyway, Germany attacks into Russia with 100% force, possibly even shipping the tank in Libya to the Eastern Front. Ignoring the inevitable allied landings in favor of a quick two to three turn victory over Russia. This time, the Luftwaffe ignore the allied navies and sails over Russia, raining death and spreading devastation onto the Soviet Army until Stalin shoots himself in the head. Hopefully, Germany can use the Soviet treasury to consolidate and kick the allies out of Eastern Europe, Karelia, Western Europe and/or Southern Europe. Also, those anti-aircraft batteries in Karelia and Moscow better not score any hits…

G1: 4 Tanks, 1 Fighter!
G2: Infantry and a couple Tanks.
G3: All infantry hereafter.

This variant is the same as above, except for a haphazard assault on Allied shipping during turn one, and turn one ONLY.

G1: 3 INF, 3 Tanks, 1 Transport
G2: Infantry and a couple Tanks.
G3: All Infantry hereafter.

This variant is also the same as above, except it devotes some resources into Africa where visibly annoyed Allied players will kill them all. Also, Russia rolls all over Ukraine and Eastern Europe by turn three or four.

First off, let me say that there is no such thing as a strategy for Japan that does not take into account everything that happens in Germany, and vise-versa. There is no Japan or Germany, they do not exist. Only the Axis has independent reality.

That having been said, let us look at the problems facing Japan on Turn One:

Soviet Far East
Yakut
China
Sinkiang
India
Alaska
Hawaii
Australia

Since it’s extremely unlikely that all of these can be taken on Turn One, it’s clear that some prioritization must be done. If the Axis is pursuing a double whammy on Russia, then perhaps the Russian territories should take priority. If the Axis is pursuing an anti-british plan in some sort of defense of Fortress Europe, then India and Australia become valuable targets. Finnally, if the Axis players have been hit in the head by too much shrapnel and decide on some ridiculously ludicrous anti-USA program, then Alaska, Hawaii, China and Sinkiang become priority targets.

In my local group, I tend to be the most experienced Japanese Player. I enjoy playing Japan because our group usually ignores Japan in hopes of a quick win over Germany, allowing me to flex the muscles of an unstoppable Nihon Teikoku Juggernaut all over their weak candy asses.

Anyway, this is my standard war plan, assuming the USA does not build up in the Pacific:

TURN ONE: Build Factory and Transport, Save 2IPC’s

Attack India from Burma,
Attack China from Kwangtung and Manchuria.
Attack Hawaiian fleet with 1 Carrier, 2 Battleships, Two Planes (one from Phillipenes), submarine and bomber.

Variants: Use transport from Philipenes to support attack on India if sea zone is clear. Use transport from Japan to occupy Soviet Far East if it’s abandoned. Otherwise, transports reinforce Burma or Kwangtung with four infantry.

Manchuria is deliberately vacated to lure the Soviet army into the range of the returning Battleships and carrier fighters from Hawaii.

TURN TWO: Build 3 tanks, 1 Transport and 3 INF.

Attack Manchuria with full naval support, unless a) Russians withdraw towards Moscow for some reason, or b) USA builds naval presence on their West Coast.

Attack Sinkiang from Burma
Occupy Persia

VARIANTS:
Occupy Soviet Far East if Possible.
Finish off US Pacific Fleet unless they retreated to Panama on US Turn One.

TURN THREE: build tanks and factory for Manchuria.

Attack Either Caucasus or Kazakh from Persia.
Attack Novosibirsk from Sinkiang
Attack Yakut from Manchura, blitzing into Evenki if possible.
Occupy Soviet Far East if it hasn’t already been occupied.

VARIANTS: Send 2 Infantry into Persia on turn two, so they can occupy both Syria and Kazakh, assuming the UK concentrates their forces in Africa.

At this point, Japan will collect 42-44 IPC’s, half or over half of the 84 IPC’s needed for an Axis economic victory.

STUMBLING BLOCKS:

• A USA naval program in the Pacific can disrupt japanese operations, at the cost of allowing Germany to conquer Africa and attack Russia much more successfully.

• A British Factory Built on turn one in India can prove to be a thorn in the side of the Emperor’s inevitable victory. Again, this comes with a cost of a successful German Defense of Fortress Europe, a Romellian Africa and threatens an early Russian Collapse in the East.

• Russia could devote 100% of it’s mechanized units into a foolhardy offensive towards Burma. This would be really irritating, but would be somewhat mitigated by the German conquest of Moscow. Alternately, the Russians could sit in Yakut and reinforce it with an infantry division or two every couple of turns. It would be up to the Germans to take full advantage of the slight deficiency in Infantry on the Eastern Front that this Asian Buildup would create.

@C_F:

I guess you don’t play Russia restricted, which pretty much gives the game to the allies if you are not bidding.

It depends on the relative skill levels of who’s playing and what sort of strategy we’ve decided to test that determines whether the “Go For Broke!” boys of the 442nd Axis & Allies Regimental Combat Team plays with a restricted russia or not.

@C_F:

The strategy of giving Karelia to Germany so you can run bombing raids on it is interesting, but I have to say that as Germany I would let you keep Karelia and use my German and Japanese bomber to bomb Russia.

If Germany refuses the Gambit on turn one and proceeds to aggressively attack in Africa (remember that the bombing assumes that Germany will relinquish Africa) , then UK/USA must spend 30-40 IPC for turns 1-3 on Operation TORCH in Africa. They can also send bombers to africa and bomb Italy to irritate Axis players who like to drag the Southern Europe AA to Eastern Europe.

@C_F:

I can just sit in EE and the Ukraine, straif Moscow now and then, and wait for Japan to swallow Asia. If the allies see after a couple of turns that I am not taking the bait and decide to start transportnig troops to WE, FN, and Karelia then the Japanese have gained much needed time to win the race.

This is why the UK builds a Factory in India. This annoying move, combined with a Russian invasion of Manchuria on turn two, delays the Japanese Invasion of Russia until turn 5-7. It also destroys any illusions the Japanese might entertain concerning Africa. It would be devastating to the Allies if the Japanese were able to take India on turn one or two though.

@C_F:

I really do like the idea of giving someone a IC so you can bomb them though, but only the allies are rich enough. Maybe let Japan have the UK complex or have the US build in Sinkiang, since they have more disposable $$$. As soon as they put an AA gun there though it is not very attractive.

A factory in Sinkiang by the USA, and/or a UK Factory in India would be something to look at. I dunno if it would prove successful, but it would certainly be interesting… I’d fear that if the Japanese could capture the Sinkiang Factory on turn two, and they build a factory in French Indo-China on turn one, then Japan could outproduce the UK in Asia on turn three and beyond. Not a good thing. Perhaps the Industrialization of Asia could prove fruitful in an all out allied effort against Japan, but that ill-considered plan usually becomes a bottomless pit for IPC’s…

@BigBlocky:

Britain will lose Africa quick as you can’t defend India and counter the German build up via the untouched med fleet. The English income would rapidly fall to the 20 IPC level. You have to build 3 units/turn in India and use all your fighter airforce to defend it. You’d be lucky to build 1 bomber/round.BB

This is the worry factor for me, that Germany will defend on the continent for the first couple of turns and attack aggressively in Africa. But then I said earlier that the strategy assumes Germany will be conservative in Africa…

If Germany pursued an aggressive African campaign on turn one and two, I would build Fortress Russia (all infantry builds from turn two onwards, with numerous UK and USA fighters to reinforce Russia). I’d also pursue a vigorous naval program to liberate Africa and threaten Southern and Western Europe with the UK and USA.

The med fleet is too much of a wild card for the allies to predict accurately. Sometimes Britain can inflict casualties on it on turn one or two, sometimes they steam into the Black Sea to deliver Italian troops into the Caucasus or Ukraine (putting them in range of the russian fighters). Sometimes they stay put to guard Southern Europe from the USA (who sinks them with air power), sometimes they conduct amphibious landings in Africa etc etc.

@BigBlocky:

As your bombers scale up so does the German income as it takes more of Africa. It will be 3-4 turns before you get Germany below 30. .BB

Math was never my strong suit, but the gist of it is that Germany has less and less money every turn. Your assumption of Germany’s income level relies on a Rommellian Africa, which is contrary to my previously stated assumption of German passivity on the Dark Continent.

@Meijing:

What about this.
G1: Bomb Karellia but otherwise leave it alone. Move the AA out of Southern Europe to Eastern Europe.
G2: If Karellia is still an easy bait, take it, move your AA into it on your non combat turn and, if necessary, build a new one in SE. Else proceed as usual.

If this occurs, the Russians should be able to grab and hold the Ukraine on turn two. This forces the battle into Eastern Europe for turn two and three instead of Karelia. I’d say this puts the German timetable back a turn. Also, Germany spends 5 IPC to build an anti-aircraft, weakening it’s land forces by a tank or two infantry. The bombing contines, only this time, the USA should strengthen it’s commitment to Africa, threatening Southern Europe with both Strategic Bombing and Amphibious Assault. Furthermore, if the Germans send their bomber to an unprotected Karelia, then it won’t be sinking allied shipping. This seems like an acceptable trade-off for the Allies.

Even with anti-aircraft coverage, the bombing continues. See my poorly rendered table in my other post for average losses to Germany for turns one to five.

@BigBlocky:

If russia can counterattack karelia so well (and it could) why do you expect the germans to just park their tanks in Karelia waiting for them to be attacked?BB

If the Germans take Karelia on turn one, the russians counterattack on turn two. Then the german armor is whittled down from 10 to about four to six units. If they ignore Karelia, then the war is fought in Eastern Europe and Germany gives up six dollars of income from Caucasus and Karelia. They’ll end up being bombed in Germany or Southern Europe instead of Karelia.

@BigBlocky:

Russia builds 6 Inf, 2 tanks and saves 2 IPC on turn #1? By my calculations that’s 30 IPC, what game are you playing?BB

Oops, that should be four inf and two tanks for Russia on turn one.

@BigBlocky:

With the brits building a factory in India they really can’t build lots of bombers as well so it’s going to be only the US player doing strategic raids and it takes time to get 6+ bombers going and that’s what you well need to affect germany making 35+IPCs. With no real allied navy in the Atlantic the germans will be able to mass forces against russia without fear of protecting against allied landings.
BB

Actually, Britain builds one bomber a turn, alternating between tanks and infantry into India. By turn four the UK has four bombers. The US builds one or two bombers a turn. So by turn four the US Air Force should have about four to six bombers, depending on how US Naval procurement is going. This assumes that the Anti-Aircraft causalties have been limited by forcing Germany to build an anti-aircraft battery or just being bombed in an unprotected Karelia.

Consider this table:

Turn Allied Bombing German IPC’s
1 2d6 32-7=25
2 5d6 40-17-23
3 7d6 42-24=18
4 9d6 37-30=7
5 11d6 32-37=-5

This table is moderate in both the allied production of bombers, which could be slightly more, and the amount of territory that Germany has been able to hold onto, which could be much less.

@Ozone27:

Not only that, but it seems to depend on Germany hitting Karelia & maybe North Sea SZ on T1 & nowhere else.
Ozone27

Germany is expected to be conservative in Africa and to send the Luftwaffe to sink the royal and US navies on turn one and two. The Germans will probably take Caucasus as well.

@Ozone27:

Japan is just asleep or drunk or both! USA has abandoned Ssinkiang & China & yet Japan has lost Manchuria & sluggishly (even begrudgingly) moved ahead, into China I guess, on T2–since as you said USA still has 34 IPCs.Ozone27

In order to take and hold Sinkiang, the Japanese must leave French Indo-China vulnerable to a counterattack from the British Factory in India. (which could have four infantry, three tanks and a fighter ready to go on turn three, leaving two american infantry (from Sinkiang) and three more tanks left to defend it). This, combined with a Russian attack into Manchuria on Turn Two, tends to give them a lot of problems. The Russians won’t hold, since the Japanese should pull the fleet back to use the battleships and carrier planes against the soviet army before they can advance down the coastline or into China.

In the games we’ve played, Sinkiang tends to fluctuate between the British and Japanese. Granted, when I play Japan, I devote 100% of my resources to crush India on turn one.

@Ozone27:

They apparently won in Hawaii T1, but their mighty fleet did nothing thereafter but sit & watch while the remnants of the US fleet slipped out of their grasp. Why didn’t they take Australia?Ozone27

The problem with taking Australia is that it allows for precious few reinforcements into Asia. The Japanese Fleet spends turn one winning the Battle of Midway in Hawaii. Then spends Turn Two ignoring the US Navy, which usually runs towards the panama canal. Chasing them to panama puts the Japanese fleet two turns away from asia, which means they can show up in Australia on turn three, and back to asia on turn four or five. Meanwhile, the surviving carrier planes and battleships are needed on turn two to hit the Soviets on the coastline of asia. This leaves them with no time for dilly dallying in Australia.

@Ozone27:

End of turn 3 Japan owns virtually every important territory in the Far East, has 0 threat from USA Pacific fleet & faces NO units in USSR. Better hope Germany has been defeated by T5, 'cuz otherwise you’re sunk…Ozone27

This is similar to my timetable for Japan, which I will cover in another post. Mostly, I transport troops from the Philippenes and Japan to the continent in my program to destroy the british factory and seize china/sinkiang. My other dirty trick is to lure the Soviet army (maximum size of seven infantry and a tank. and possibly two planes if the soviets are nuts) to the coastline where the battleships and carrier planes returning from the victory in Hawaii can strike them on turn two. This leaves no time for an Australian expedition, especially as turn three and four require that Japan replenish it’s infantry supply on the mainland.

Here’s an Allied strategy based on strategically bombing Germany into a wretched state of poverty and submission:

TURN ONE:

Russia1: Build 6 INF, 2 Tanks, save 2 IPC’s

Attack into Finland with 3 INF, 3 Tanks, 1 Fighter.
Attack North Sea Fleet with TNS, SUB, Fighter

…or use both fighters in Finland if you feel lucky at sea.

Move all INF to Moscow with 1 left in Karelia and 1 in Cacausus.
Move Karelian Anti-Aircraft into Moscow, Move Moscow Anti-Aircraft into Kazakh.
Consolidate in Yakut, leaving 1 INF in Soviet Far East, Tank retreats towards Moscow.

UK1: Build 1 Bomber and 1 Factory (In India)

Kill the German Navy, try to land fighters to support Russia (Finland, Karelia, Moscow etc.)
Bomb the clear skies over Karelia if the Germans have taken it, land in Moscow.
Reinforce India with troops from Egypt/Syria if Germany doesn’t commit to Africa.

US1: Build Two Bombers and 2 INF.

Invade Africa if possible, ignore Japan.
Bomb the undefended Karelia and Land in Moscow.

Move fighters to UK (or Finland) and Canada.
Abandon Sinkiang and possibly China to reinforce India.
Move Pacific Fleet towards Panama unless a juicy target appears. If possible, retreat the submarine to the West Coast during Japan’s attack.

TURN TWO:

Russia2: Build 6 INF, 2 Tanks. If the Germans have taken the Karelian Bait, counterattack. The object is to kill as many German tanks as possible so that the Soviet Army can achive armor parity with Germany. Russia can also decide to invade Manchuria if things go well in Karelia and the Japanese are fretting over the Indian Factory. If the Indian Factory looks safe, move the Anti-Aircraft battery in Kazakh into Persia.

UK2: Build 3 Tanks, 1 Bomber. Cause havoc on the high seas if the Kriegsmarine is still alive, Bomb Germany (in Karelia if possible), Land as much of the Royal Air Force in Moscow (or Karelia if the Germans fail to retake it). This allows the Bombers to select between German and Japanese Factories on the Mainland. Drop the Three tanks into India.

US2: Assuming 34 IPC’s: Build Two Bombers and 1 INF (saving 1 IPC) or 1 Bomber, two Transports and 1 INF if the existing US Atlantic transport has been sunk. Bomb Germany, land in Russia. US Air Force should also land to support Russia. Continue to press in Africa if possible, to threaten Southern Europe.

TURN THREE:

Russia3: Build INF and Tanks. Press the assault against Germany, expect devastation and ruin to come to the Far Eastern Soviet Army. Move the Anti-Aircraft in Persia into India to shield the Factory.

UK3: Build at least one Bomber, and some stuff for India (3 INF, 2 Tanks and 1 INF etc). Bomb Germany some more. Possibly Bombing Japan if they haven’t put up any anti-aircraft in French Indo-China. Hope that Germany has abandoned efforts in Africa to worry about the Russians.

US3: Build some Bombers and stuff. Bomb Germany. Maybe Bomb Japan. Hope that you present a credible threat to Southern or Western Europe by now (4 INF, 1 Tank, 2-3 Transports). Land Bombers at the (by now) luxurious international airports of Moscow.

CONCLUSION:

This strategy has been quite devastating on the Axis in the several games that my group has played it. We’re still tinkering with ways for the Axis to Monkeywrench it. Mostly, our plan is for the Luftwaffe to sink every Allied ship without taking losses, so it can enter Russia in full strength on turn two. Axis Anti-Aircraft must also roll really well. Japan also has to hustle to take that Indian Factory with every damn thing the Nihon Empire can muster, or her “land war in Asia*” program is sunk.

Anyway, I’d be delighted to hear your witty insights into this blindingly brilliant strategic plan, and I’d be equally delighted to mock any blitheringly idiotic ignorance that might happen to be exposed as well.

*One of the three classical blunders.