Yeah those are pretty important factors, do you have a personal preference of doing one or the other or neither?
Personally for me i do like to attack J2 but I don’t always stay true to J2 attacks when certain circumstances call for certain measures by Japan
Just out of curiosity do you attack J2 or J3?
What he said.
Also, even if I was coming from Japan, I wouldn’t need to bring my carriers, just my fighters, and they’d fly right over that tiny destroyer :/
Precisely, Pearl Harbor might be the most ingenious and generic move a player playing japan can do, having left the fleet alone turn 1, sways the US to move everything onto Hawaii having been able to consolidate and then destroy it all. And if they think they can just keep it on San Francisco well then their fleet won’t be doing them a lick of good but the enemy.
Again, the Germans will pull the Battleship back to stay protected in the seazone with fighters to scramble on G2. G3 the Bismarck will move inward more to the point where British airforce can’t even hit it. Germany isn’t taking any fighters away from the fight, and frankly they have until G4 to properly get the fighters and bombers toward the Soviet Union since the Soviet player more than likely won’t have any actual units on the Soviet-German border meaning you won’t actually start fighting the Soviets until turn 4, this is cold hard factual evidence man, you wouldn’t even need a game to prove it, all it would take is to setup the pieces, test out the scenario and see that it’s the truth that the German battleship will be safe and protect by Luftwaffe early game, and mid game the luftwaffe will head East to fight the Russians.
As I said before, I’m not saying the Italian fleet is unstoppable to beat. Obviously if the allies commit to building a proper navy than yah they’ll withstand the Italian consolidated fleet, but that’s mid-late game. Not to mention the fact that if I can get the UK to prioritize the Europe and Pacific economy on wasting their IPC’s on ships they will only use one time then I’ve done my job as Italy, because the British and Americans need to be getting actual ground units on the mainland continent of Eurasia. Again, I to include many other youtubers have seen this common trend countless amounts of times where if the US or UK dont get ground units mobilized, they will eventually lose the game.
Germany building a carrier to send down to the Med to help Italy doesn’t get the Soviets off Scott-Free not even the slightest, because I’m not taking anything away from my Barbarossa attack. I usually like to spend the first 30 IPC’s on 2 transports and a carrier if I plan to do an Afrika Korps opening or as a backup plan do Sealion. On G2 I will have 71 IPC’s to spend which 60 of it will go to 9-10 tanks on Germany and spend the other 11 on whatever you want. Nothing is being taken away from the Barbarossa attack and Germany will still be attacking with the same monstrous force they usually do always, that’s the beauty of how well it works out for Germany.
As per the UK, we both agree that it is absolutely imperative to have a good-standing UK player that knows what they are doing, or you lose the game. You and I both know that it’s gonna take a proper UK1 to set the stage for late game in attacking the Axis powers, they just have to do it correctly.
With all do respect, I would have to disagree on that sediment.
As I had previously stated Marsh, I am not saying that there is any right decision for the UK to do one, the other, both or none. I cannot tell you definitively that one is better than another. What I can tell you though is that of which doing one or the other or both or none can and will prove fatal to the UK in the event that Germany or Italy were to properly utilize either of these assets.
As per the German battleship returning to the Baltic Seazone under 3 fighters, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, because this is only G2 where I haven’t even attacked Russia yet. These 3 fighters will have more than enough time to provide ample assistance to the Bismarck, and then get over to the Soviet Union without the Bismarck being under any fire, so the airforce won’t be diverted away from Russia.
Perhaps if an American fleet were to come across the water Italy couldn’t keep it for long, but that still takes time, 4-6 turns to be exact if America wanted to properly develop a strategical transport shuck to get units into Africa and then Western Europe. So, in turn, if the demise of the Italian fleet is inevitable, would you care to explain exactly how? British aircraft will be busy defending Calcutta and Moscow from the impending Germans marching toward the capital. The British won’t possess a large enough navy to take on the Italian fleet and if they are building a navy in India just to send over to take out Italy then that’s time and money wasted on what could be valuable units of both land and air that could’ve been built to protect Calcutta.
I can honestly see where you are coming from. Personally, I tend to focus more on the Europe side of the board and closing fronts with Germany and Italy one by one until I can burn em’ out of the bunkers and back to the mainland of Europe.
That being said, I don’t really like to leave devil that is Japan to his demons like other American players tend to do. I get that as long as you protect Honolulu and Sydney from the Rising Sun then they can’t win the game on that side of the board but yah’ wanna believe me when I say it that them Japanese are gonna D-Daying the beaches of Hawaii before the American player can even say “Pearl Harbor.” I’ve seen it happen, and Japan is fully and completely capable of wiping out the American navy early or late in the game.
Hence why as the Americans, I like to intercept Japan, and sabotage them. To put simply, not make any particular military gains against Japan, but rather slow down their operations. A few examples of what this would look like could be sabotaging say a newly mobilized navy of warships in the Sea of Japan, move in with your own navy, destroy it, maybe even get a few kamikazes of the mainland Japan, and get out of there before the Japanese can bring in the rest of their navy. Another example can be limiting the size of the Sphere of Influence Japan has by securing significant islands and using them as a hub for units to post up. A typical island some players will use is Wake Island where they will build up around 6 or 9 transports in the Pacific and build a naval base on Wake Island to shuck units to Wake and then with the naval base, you have access to wherever you need to go in the pacific without Japanese blockers being a setback for you.
Unfortunately, yeah it is. Why? Because the UK won’t get another chance at either of them past turn 1.
You let that German battleship go and it’s headed right back into the Baltic Sea to meet up with the cruiser and a position for fighters to scramble if attacked by air, already eliminating sea units from moving in to take it out since they cannot enter the Danish Straight unless owned for a whole turn.
The same goes for the Italian fleet, only this time it should be even more emphasized. If you dont attack that fleet on Taranto, then all Italy has to do is consolidate their navy and you’ve just lost you’re chance to take it out. You won’t have enough ships for cannon fodder nor will you have enough aircraft to do some real damage in any case that you do want to attack it.
It really doesn’t cost Germany anything to protect the Battleship, especially if it goes down to the Med for an Afrika Korps opening with a carrier and a few other smaller ships.
So granted, you can do one, the other, or both, or even none. Just know that there’s no ‘right’ option to choosing any of these as the other 3 will hurt you in the long run.
And with the idea that Italy already begins with 2 transports, they build another 1 and an infantry turn 1 and thats 3 transports to shuck units down to Africa, so Italy is kind of a big deal when you don’t attack their navy. It genuinly does make a big difference in the game.
I see, this gives me alot more insight now.
Granted, with no bid you could still do both with 2 fighters remaining on England, but at that point if you were diverting fighters to Taranto and fighters to take out the undamaged German Battleship than that would be a clean Sealion attack for the Germans, so the UK could do both if they really wanted to but for the purposes of not overstretching the airforce its unlikely and unwise to do both.
I like that name. The banana split. Not a bad strategy it can just prove to be costly for America
I can definitely see a different aspect of an IJN concept of beating the Japanese back, which includes Island hopping starting at the Solomon Islands, working your way into New Guinea and so on and so forth a very basic concept but all the same forcing the Japanese to prioritize a large American force and navy moving from island to island and potentially landing in mainland China.
Unfortunately I do not play games on the forums since I dont have as much time as I used to but I still enjoy thinking and talking about strategies for potential future games maybe even participating in the Grasshopper tournament or something
Right, alright that gives me some more insight.
As I said, average, close to average scenario that you’ll gave a G40 game I’m not super concerned with bids since obviously with bids you’ll be more than capable of doing both without cutting your losses but I feel the idea is that the UK should have to make these kinds of pressing decisions to overcome their enemy.
Granted, leaving the Battleship would largely open for an attack on London, but being that Sealion has died down in popularity I can’t really put my hand on it.
That’s what has me so lost is that there are so many variables to which it can be almost impossible to predict what the UK player might do or for what is better and more beneficial to remove either naval pieces.
I kind of expected most average/above-average UK players to prioritize Taranto since leaving that many Italian boats in the Med can prove to be troublesome but all the same thats not to say they won’t try for attacking the Bismarck.
So here would be the ideal factors:
These can obviously vary but this is as close to what would be an ‘average scenario’ as it can get
Something that’s always been in the back of my head for the longest time now in Global 40’ for both the Allies and the Axis is that of which the British seek to destroy the German Battleship Bismarck in Seazone 110 (assuming it was used) or send planes in from England to do the Taranto Raid.
I dont want to definetively say that the U.K player will do one or the other since it feels too significant of a decision to prematurely decide if they’ll go for one thing over the other.
What would any of you guys do in this situation, destroy the Bismarck at sea or divert those planes on the British Isles to fight Italy in the Taranto Raid? (and for the purposes of this decision making assume that there will be a 3 plane scramble if Taranto were to happen)
I explained earlier in a message of my understanding that one cannot put a Major Industrial Complex on a territory he did not originally start with.
I understand that the American Navy is ‘bait’ per say for Japan. But let me break down the numbers.
Assuming Japan sends absolutely everything in to cut their loses, they are more than likely going to lose the 2 subs and likely 1-2 destroyers, so half their cannon fodder. Which still leaves them with 2 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers with fighters and tac bombers, a cruiser, and 2 destroyers.
3 subs and a fighter and 2 bombers might at most remove another destroyer and since Japan is easily capable of mobillizing another destroyer they dont have to worry about keeping one around, so they will at most lose both their destroyers and likely take a hit on one of the battleships. 3 subs and 5 fighters, again assuming Japan is reinforcing themselves with newly mobilized ships destroyers should not be a factor in whether they can hit submarines or not. So in turn with 3 more subs and 5 fighters, you’ll more than likely destroy the 2 more mobilized destroyers the Japanese have, and likely damage their other battleship, and maybe 2 of their aircraft carriers.
Japan has too many units in their navy that unless they miss every single shot from every single ship, it’s gonna be limited to a 1 round combat. Keep in mind that the majority of their destroyers and even their aircraft carriers defend at 2, their battleships and fighters at 4 which would be like 6 at 4 with 2 battleships and 4 fighters, and 5 at 3 with tthe cruiser and 4 tac bombers. Granted, you’re forcing Japan to really commit to fighting you instead of elsewhere, but are you really getting anything done in doing this?
Yah ain’t seen nothing yet though.
Being that the whole “Italians are incompetent” joke goes around, well its reality.
Was doing well in North Africa with German support as Italy ready to invade Egypt against a moderately sized British force but one that wouldn’t stand a chance to what I had to bring.
Began the battle, right off the bat missing EVERY landing shot from my cruisers and battleship, and in the end getting wiped by the British. Like, the dice rolling was so bad it wasn’t even a joke at that point and here I was waiting for Larry Harris to tell me “Its just a a prank bro.”
Easier said than done though.
Right off the bat Germany will be consistently making more money than both Britain and the Soviet Union having taken out the rest of Europe and thats before they start attacking the Soviet Union.
Keeping the income advantage really only rests on America since the only change in their income will be losing the Philippines islands, as for everybody else, they can expect their IPC count to plummet with the combined strength of the Germans and Italians.
Also, like I said, taking Rome and Berlin is on the table to accomplish, taking Tokyo however not so much since A) it’s on an island B) It’s gonna have lot’s of dudes on it and C) the Pacific is too big to build any assortment of floating bridge and would be too expensive, hence why we would end the game if Japan is limited to their home island plus maybe Korea since they’re pretty much dead in the water so there is no point in playing any further.
Couldn’t have said it better. As the player playing Japan, I absolutely welcome the Americans to put their 72 dollars into the Pacific, seriously, I invite them to do that with open arms. Why? Because I know that stuff is all going to end up in the bottom of the ocean. Part of what most American players dont really realize is that when they put ships in the Pacific Ocean, they dont’ realize that those ships are being built for the purpose of fighting the Japanese head to head. But instead, they’ll build them there only for them to just sit in the ocean and not do squat… which is great for me.
To be honest, I can understand why someone such as General Hand Grenade would think that the so said Floating Bridge and Middle Earth are unstoppable and it’s because he’s completely negated Japan.
Part of what he said in his “My thoughts on Pearl Harbor” video was quote on quote: “I’ve never been super fond of doing a Pearl harbor attack because it put the Japanese navy in a place that it didn’t need to be in”.
This is exactly why his strategies seem unstoppable, because he’s absolutely negated what the Japanese player should be doing, and yes, Japan should absolutely have their navy in Pearl Harbor and Wake Island, because that is what forces the Americans to fight Japan, there’s no better unit meant for harassing the hell out of America than the good ol’ aircraft carrier, capable of carrying a fighter and tactical bomber.