Posts made by TheDesertFox

@Argothair

Likely for the best. We could go on and on about this but frankly I think to start a new thread would be the way to go. I think this debate has been incredibly intriguing for me to watch and react, it’s genuinely fascinating to look at a strategy made by someone else, so you can see just how differently you two think. Yeah, honestly the J1 attack when you think about it has less effect towards Middle Earth anyway.

@Argothair

Precisely. That’s exactly what Japan should be doing. 50 IPC’s will allow you to by an AC (along with purchasing a fighter and a tac bomber) which will cost you 35 IPC’s, as well as a Battleship or maybe 2 cruisers or whatever you need most in your navy. Let’s be real here, the only way America is going to outproduce you in naval units is if their spending more then 70% of their money in the Pacific, which won’t permit you in any way shape or form to do a Floating Bridge to KGF. And to be honest, if America thought they could just send their fighters to sydney then I would play the tactic you love so much; in other words, if they tried to move their ground units and airforce to sydney then I’d just take Honolulu. That simple.

@Cornwallis

You’re being repetitive. You’re not giving me a reason for how Germany is going to manage to hold off the Americans every single turn. Say what you want about the Barborossa attack, if the Germans haven’t done a G1 Barborossa then they won’t be taking Moscow by G6

@Cornwallis

If you think so then fine. With 8 grounds units (4 infantry, 4 armory) into Southern France not to mention the air power the Americans will have if they’ve built their 3 AC’s in the Atlantic Ocean, will eventually allow the Soviets to catch up to the Germans and outproduce them. Frankly it doesn’t matter if the American’s invasion suceeds or not, The Germans won’t be continuing Barborossa successfully if they’re spending 1/3rd of their money elsewhere

@Cornwallis

Where are they getting these 8 infantry? Do you plan on rebuilding these 8 infantry every turn with a Major complex on France which in turn will cost you another 20 IPC’s? If it’s happening every turn are you going to just remove your luftwaffe away form the Eastern front for good? These are things you haven’t considered yet. If Germany has 8 infantry in Southern France and their entire luftwaffe then the Americans will say “Nice, you ready for the next one?” each and every turn. Because after t4-5 the Germans should be spending those 50+ on nothing but the Eastern Front or else they won’t defeat the Soviets. The Germans cannot afford to be spending half and half.

Even with the starting lugtwaffe the germans can easily beat back every landing. Ok they will never take russua defending in europe but when US is commited in europe Japan will eventually take Sydney or slowly push in to ME. We have had this scenario a hundred times.

I really don’t think your remark here is very true. The Germans begin with 12 planes in total, (however many are lost in the battle of Britain/Air raids of britain) as well as the amount of fighters you’ve potentially lost against the Soviets. And if you’re whole heartedly committed to taking your entire luftwaffe away from the Eastern front to beat back an American invasion that will continue to come each and every turn then that sounds like a waste of time to me. Also fyi the U.S will be landing 8 guys every turn in Southern France, forcing Germany to take the Luftwaffe extra far to deal with it.

@Cornwallis

Have you not even taken the time to watch The Floating Bridge? Before you keep making points you should go watch it maybe it’ll change ur perception on Dark Skies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkjC0E42d0

Yeah they’ll have a blocker left from the Pearl Harbor attack, the point is not to go after the carriers on Turn 1. Because even if the carriers move 2 spaces away from Hawaii with the naval base the Americans will be able to catch the fleet and destroy by moving 3 spaces.

@Argothair

That’s fine, that’s a perfectly natural and smart way to play. Force the enemy to have to take one loss or the other. The idea of the Pearl Harbor Trap doesn’t expend any resources at all, I thought I’d hammered that down enough after we discussed that Japan really isn’t taking away from the J1 attack. I guess I don’t know though, maybe it’s personal preference, pick your poison. Do you like to have your attacks detailed and clever to try and outsmart your opponent or do you wish to try to end the game fast with the 4 move check mate. Either option works in Japan’s favor.

@Argothair

They probably won’t… The ME only contained 6 IPC’s (not including strict neutrals) in total. It’s really not worth the time and effort to go out there. Even if it was undefended, I’d still go for Sydney because once you’ve taken Calcutta and defeated China, there really isn’t much stopping you from invading the Emu-infested land. And I agree, there shouldn’t be any rush as Japan on the J1 attack. Japan has the time it needs to divide and conquer it’s enemies before they’ll actually get the chance to respond to it. And frankly, if Japan has the American fleet in a stalemate then that’s a win for Japan, because at the point where they should have 3 IC’s on mainland Asia, they won’t be needing their fleet unless they’ve yet to conquer the money islands that is.

@Cornwallis

For many reasons. I’ll give you a few. 1) There stands the incomplete inferior Japanese carrier fleet in Wake Island next your San Francisco fleet. 2) Since the rest of Japan’s navy will be sitting in the South pressuring ANZAC and India they won’t be in reach to help reinforce their 2 carriers. 3) Because that’s over 60 IPC’s worth of units to destroy which, if we’re gonna talk about expendable losses, is something the Japanese won’t be able to build back intill J4.

I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to Taranto. The British have every chance at winning it, and it doesn’t matter what you lose really, because as long as you’re taking off Italian boats then that’s fine. You’re trying to compensate and find a way to not lose anything while still taking off Axis units. Pick one. You’re going to inevitably take casualties, light or heavy, when you try to take off Axis units and if you want to be conservative then you have to let Taranto be. There’s no other way around it, that’s just the way it is dude.

Dark Skies is a really overrated strategy. Spam bombers as Germany? I mean come on. Atleast I can repay 6 infantry for 1 battle rather then repay one bomber a time. Dark Skies is a very cost inneffictive way to spend the German money. This is all my opinion. And if you wanna win the game then KGF, not Japan first. And have you looked at a little thing called the floating bridge? Because with it you’ll be shucking 8 units into France every turn.

@Cornwallis

I’e gotta agree with Argothair on this one.

When as you stated, if trading out is the only way to go then the Allies have to do it. The U.K really doesn’t have a choice but to attempt to trade Axis boats for Allied boats. Doing Taranto would keep the balance in check after a Pearl is done, but not if America falls for the trap. Then there really isn’t anything you as the U.K can do to compensate for that.

@Argothair

Glad we finally agree on something ;)

And listen okay. I hope you know the more you tell people about the trap the less effective it is… >:(

@Stough

You’re really gonna do a KJF without the Pearl attack? I feel that you’re just doing that for the sake of the strategy working in general. The whole purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor is because A) Those planes and carriers are honestly extra to the natural J1 attack, and B) To take the fight to the Americans. You’re not removing any pressure off of anybody. IF anything using the carriers would just be overkill. Frankly, it’s not Japan’s job to threaten the ME, it’s their job to conquer the Pacific. Unlike any other game, Japan can actually win the game without Germany winning. If you’re trying to go to the ME you’re trying to send resources to far out where they don’t belong.

@Cornwallis

I suppose they could be if you really plan to go all in like that then you need to have something a little more coordinated then just a Taranto 2.0. Because with 36 IPC’s worth of 3 units, just know that could all go down the drain incredibly quickly if you’re not careful. But as I said, if you really plan to prioritize on going after Italy and taking it to them WITHOUT doing Taranto then you’ll be taking away from the strength in India. Just, the idea of doing Taranto is to make sure that they don’t get those 2 transports to send units places. For instance, with 2 transports Italy could send 2 guys to Greece and 2 guys down to Alexandria and be much closer to taking Egypt with reinforcements.

That’s very true, but at the same time the U.K doesn’t have a lot to work with. They need to be very specific and choose the right places to focus their 28 IPC’s because if they do it in the wrong area, then the other could prove to be fatally consequential. I understand why you would want to keep the U.K’s carrier in the Med Sea but assuming you’re not attacking SZ 97 or SZ95, that will allow the Italians to consolidate their navy and build on it to which after that you’ll likely never get another chance to take a shot at that navy.

Regardless, the Med is complicated for both Italy and the U.K. It’s a game of chess but you spun around in a circle 10 times before you started. You could say what you want about the G1 German build, personally I dont see much use in building a DD and Sub just because I won’t be needing them right away in a natural Afrika Korps strategy. Frankly, that’s the idea. When Japan does the Pearl Harbor attacking they’re setting up a trap for the United States. And if they fall for the trap then that permits Germany to do Sealion. And even if they get 90% of the Allied money against them regardless Japan will win on the other side of the board.

Personally, I see no reason for Germany to just send their transport down there all willy nilly, that’s a huge waste of what could be used against Barborossa. The destroyer in 110 doesn’t really work because of German Air Supremacy which will destroy it and then have their navy move down to gibraltar in the non combat movement phase. So if you don’t plan to do the Taranto Raid then are you doing Tobruk? Or do you just not feel attacking the Italians?

@Cornwallis said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

1. You cant leave Japan unchecked with the US, sooner or later Japan will take hawai/sydney or go for economic victory and go to africa). When doing a KGF you need to spend like 20% of your means in the pacific (for exemple a few fighters or bombers each turn) just to keep the Japanese navy busy.

Actually, yes you can. Because no matter how much ass Japan kicks in the Pacific they can’t win the game without taking Sydney of Honolulu. I seriously doubt Japan will spend its’ resources to try and attempt a takeover of Africa, too far away.

So let me introduce you to the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan sends 2 destroyers, 1 submarine, 2 fighters, and 2 tactical bombers against the Hawaiian fleet. Scramble or no scramble the odds are in the 90s for Japan to win. Japan has a big enough navy to where they can afford to use some for the Americans without disrupting what they’re doing in a J1 attack

2. UK: If you send your fighters away from londen UK1 than Sealion can and will happen. Unless th US build its first buy in atlantic (as GHG calls out in his 'london calling"). We usually buy a DD in SZ110 to block Germzny from taking Gibaltar and two fighters on london (or a bomber).

How do you know they’re going Afrika Korps??? If you as the British player saw me build 2 transports and an aircraft carrier would you get any ideas? This is the type of thing you have to be really careful with as the British because you really can’t do anything to influence Germany from doing anything. If the U.K built a destroyer in 110 then I’d do Sealion so fast.

3. Taranto or not: if it works perfect. But it’s not the only sollution. We tend to do the Gibastion (hence the DD in SZ110 to block any german ships) or (after destroying the italian transport around malta) retrating with the UK carrier in the red Sea and unit it with the pacific fleet

With the 3 plane scramble in Taranto you might lose a little more then just your destroyer and cruiser. Frankly as the U.K, it’s not a huge deal to let that fleet go, it really isn’t. But it is for the Italians.

4. Question: what if you buy a carrier witk UK pacific and a BB withUK europe in S-Africa and thus building a UK fleet in the pacific strong enough to keep japan at distance and to threaten the Med?

You’d be giving yourself a difficult choice to make. You’re basically saying “Choose to stop Italy or choose to stop Japan”. One or the other. And before I go on about this, both of these surface warships imo wouldn’t seem like good purchases from the U.K. Spending the Majority of your Pacific Economy and over 60% of your Europe economy on 2 surface warships that might not even live to see another day by the Japanese isn’t very cost effective. Because as Japan, I’m going to have 2 battleships and an aircraft carrier left down in Southern Pacific so that already outbeats any navy you try and forge together.

@Argothair

I hear where you’re coming from. And the way you play is perfectly fine. Just know that you’re bound to run out of resources eventually with the J1 attack. See, the one thing that’s always kept me on edge is that for countries such as Germany, they dont have to worry about the Allies interfering with their peace with the Soviet Union and America. But with Japan bringing all the Allies into the war, they’re still able to get away with their opening move without the Allies being able to intercept any of what happens on J1. If you know a way to to defeat the J1 attack on turn 1 then I’d really like to hear it. And this goes the same for the Pearl Harbor trap that Japan can set for America. If it’s as simple as no falling for it then Japan should have no difficulty and watching for their opponents moves. Japan has the time that they need to conquer the Pacific Allies before the Americans come across the water if they even do. And with a Pearl Harbor attack that’s going to delay the Americans from even going to Pearl Harbor for another 2-3 turns just with 2 aircraft carriers and an island worth no IPC’s. ANZAC and the U.K won’t defeat Japan, But America will. It’s up to the U.S player to want to make that happen.

@Argothair

That’s the nuts and bolts I think both of us have been trying to get at here. So to finally get down to business for what the allies should be doing.

I don’t mean to project the fact that I’m paranoid as ANZAC or India. The idea is that these little slow downs, I have an idea of what you’re talking about. It would be just like Russia taking Manchuria only to hold it for 1 turn for the Japanese to spend resources to take it back, am I right? And honestly I do think of that as a distraction and annoyance to Japan, but you’re going to run out of those infantry. You always will. And there’s nothing left to hold Japan back then after that.

Basically, I’ve not stood by for a moment without considering all your thoughts and ideas to lead to a potential win of the Allied Powers in the Pacific. But my point being is that that you’re sort of getting at the idea that there’s an in between when it comes to both these nation’s low income. And I would argue that there really isn’t an in between. If you plan on trying to intercept the Japanese and their moves in the money islands with say the 1 transport from India then that’s fine. You might lose that transport and along with it Borneo Celebes and Java but if you truly believe that slowing down the Japanese will lead to the effective victory then I’m all for doing it.

To get into detail, the reason why I say there’s no in between is because if say the U.K sends frequent air raids towards the Japanese fleet or puts minor defenses in curtain areas to get them to divert small resources to taking it, then you need to be willing to keep that chain of frequent air raids going. But here lays the problem. Air raids won’t win you the game against Japan. Neither will meager small defenses in curtain key strategic areas. (I know you didn’t say that I’m just pointing it out as a notice).

That’s why I’m whole heartedly committed to the defense of Sydney and Calcutta for when the Japanese do arrive. In other words, I’d rather be safe then sorry. Because If I’ve lost too many of my IPC’s where I can’t afford to continue these air raids and small defenses then I’m standing here without a defensive perimeter as ANZAC and the U.K. And swapping between Offense and Defense each turn doesn’t work in this scenario. You cannot build say 3 infantry turn 1, then maybe 1 fighter and a tank the next, and so on and so forth. Because then you’re not committed to one strategy or the other.

That’s why I play the Allies the way I do

@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

I apologize for my remarks, I generally don’t try to be so critical of opinion to win a debate, but I’ll slip up sometimes so sorry about my attitude about that. I think to keep things logistical let’s keep it down to Middle Earth, Afrika Korps and the J1 attack to stay on point of the debate. Sound good?

Let’s talk about starting income for a moment. Japan starts with 26 IPCs in the bank. India, ANZAC, and China start with a combined 39 IPCs in the bank. If you allocate a modest 6 IPCs/turn from the Russians and an equally modest 24 IPCs/turn from the Americans, that’s 69:26 – the Pacific Allies are outearning Japan by nearly 3:1.

Assuming we’re still debating over J1 vs Middle Earth, I’ll do the rounds. I’m going to automatically leave China out of this due to their restrictions as a World Power. I’m going to assume that all of this should be that each Pacific ally dedicates 100% of their respective resources against the Japanese player. If each player could combine their IPC’s to one economy then maybe talking about the ratio of allied money to Japan would be something to talk about. And frankly I’m not sure if you’re trying to take the average of IPC’s America/U.K is spending in the Pacific so you’ll have to fill me in on that part if I’m misunderstanding something. And is it to no surprise that the Allied money combined turn out to be more than Japans?

At the end of a J1 attack that includes Pearl Harbor, Japan has likely picked up about 12 IPCs of territory (Kwangtung, Philippines, French Indochina, Shan State, eastern China) while forfeiting its only NO. So Japan is earning about 38 IPCs at the end of J1. Meanwhile, the Chinese can likely reopen the Burma road so will be up net about +3, ANZAC is going to collect its bonus for Malaya so will be up +5 even if you sink its starting transport, and India can pick up a money island like Sumatra to go up +4. America is now at war and will get +20 IPCs for its basic objectives; let’s say only +5 of those go into the Pacific. So at the end of turn 1 the Pacific Allies are earning something like 69 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 86 IPCs. The Allies are up 86:38 – still over a 2:1 ratio against the Japanese.

I think you’ve also neglected to mention that ANZAC won’t be getting units to Java or Celebes until as early as turn 2. The fact that they have picked up 12 IPC’s already makes up for the loss of their NO for not being at war so that’s really not something that needs to be factored in. I’m sure the Chinese could reopen the Burma road with 6 infantry and the fighter at the cost of leaving their Northern Flank completely exposed to the Japanese, not that it matters anyway with the IC’s that will be going on Hong Kong and Shangai. Once again, assuming they are prioritizing on Middle Earth, they won’t be using that transport to take Java and Sumatra unless they want to be delayed in securing the ME by 1 turn in which the Germans will already be at the gateway to the Med by then. Once again, if I could combine that money together to purchase accordingly to defeat the Japanese then we wouldn’t be discussing the J1 attack’s effectiveness.

So when you talk about how Allied countries can’t afford to replace expensive losses, I think you’ve got it backward. It’s true that ANZAC can’t literally rebuy 3 fighters in one turn, and Japan can rebuild a carrier group in 1 turn, but if the Allies can manage to trade units against Japan at even expected value or even at a slight loss, then they’re doing great. It is Japan’s obligation to explode and conquer huge amounts of territory as quickly as possible. If the Allies can stop or even just slow down that expansion, then the Allies will collectively outearn the s*** out of Japan and Japan will be overwhelmed. That’s part of why I don’t like the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack. Yes, Japan deals more damage in that attack than it suffers, but Japan isn’t conquering any economically valuable territory with those attacks, and it winds up trading quite a bit of material. The more Japan trades, the less Japan is able to expand at lightning speed.

Now this is where this get’s interesting. if I had to be honest, I don’t disagree with you on the fact that the Allies can make attempts to disrupt what the Japanese are doing in the Pacific with precise purchasing of units. But you’ve yet to consider the one fact that ANZAC, nor America, nor the Soviets, no the U.K, and even China to an extent are prepared for an offensive war. Because frankly you could come up with any strategy you want about dealing with Japan in the Pacific, as long as Japan has you at the pointed end of the stick there really isn’t much any of you can do. Hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is necessary. To put America against the wall like that is something that they can’t just laugh off like they usually do, this time Japan is full front taking it to them instead of the U.S 6 turns later arriving in Tokyo. And if we’re going to look at this from a broader perspective, the idea of the turn order is for the Axis to do their thing and win, and for the allies to come back and turn things around. Aside from retaking the Road, the allies really are unable to stop the Japanese in their tracks on J1, which is why it’s such a powerful opening move. So the Allied powers in the Pacific are subjected to only taking at most 2 IPC’s away from Japan and completely unable to do anything about the rest. And as I stated from the very beginning, the Pearl harbor attack really doesn’t take away from the J1 attack and it’s effectiveness, it only adds to it.

All that said, what is your advice for the Allied Pacific player? Are they just supposed to build infantry and the occasional artillery piece and stay at home and skirmish near their capitals? If you see Japan as an irresistible force that can’t be usefully interfered with, then how do you play the Allies?

Well, that’s a good question. Frankly it’s how you would wanna play it. The core of the apple where we’re disagreeing is that you believe that it’s the Allies’ mission to stay on the offense and take it to the Japanese on the forefront of war as they continue to expand and conquer. And what I think is that it’s too risky for them to do something like that and that it’s essential for them to hunker down and defend for as long as possible. Let’s take a look at the way to win the game. Japan needs 6 victory cities in the Pacific to be victorious over the Allies. they’ll get 4 easily, Tokyo, Shangai, Hong Kong and Manila. If the British aren’t building defenses in Calcutta then Japan will more often then not take that out in a reasonable amount of time. That leaves 2 left: Honolulu and Sydney. If you’ve only focused on an outer-perimeter strategy for ANZAC and the U.K then there is absolutely nothing from stopping the Japanese to land in Western Australia and slowly move East to take it. But that’s how I’d play the Allies.

You’re nitpicking here in an effort to score cheap points; let’s try to keep the debate constructive. If Britain has enough air power in the area that the transports would be underdefended, then you build 8 transports and a destroyer, instead.

You’re also simultaneously complaining that I’m “going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany” and that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack. Pick one! Either Germany has plenty of infantry units and won’t miss the units they send on Sea Lion, or buying 7+ land units on G1 is a reasonable part of a Sea Lion attack. Those can’t both be false at the same time.

1. As I said, I’m genuinely sorry for getting all fussy over Sealion. It has nothing to do with the Pacific and therefore has no place for either of us to try and get on top of the other with it. 2) Did I say that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack? I’ll need to check back on the thread for that cause I really don’t remember saying that anywhere but I’ll check back. If I did say it then I didn’t mean to, obviously ground units are everything when going after London. For the sake of the debate I’m not gonna continue ranting over Sealion so let’s just set it aside.

That’s incorrect. 1 fighter takes off from Malta, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then returns 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 1 tac takes off from the eastern Med fleet in SZ 98, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then flies 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 2 fighters fly in from London and will ideally be taken as casualties. If you get fewer than 2 casualties, then, yes, you’ll have to leave the carrier behind in Sea Zone 97 to land those 2 fighters, but at that point you’re doing so well in the Med that Germany can’t sink your boats without taking such heavy casualties to the Luftwaffe that Moscow will be safe for many turns.

Ahhhhhhhh okay that’s completely my bad. I honestly forgot that the Tactical Bomber begins on the carrier so you could just move it to Malta when the attack is finished right sorry that’s my bad so you would be able to take both fighters from London then. I know I’m being hypocritical here but you do realize those fighters can’t make it back to London if there is a Sealion right? (unless you’re planning on building fighters on London, then it doesn’t matter).