Posts made by thespaceman

Also try these ideas.

Take art and inf to persia to claim for brits. Move a couple of units to trans jordan. Turn 2 hit iraq.

Build a tank mec and art in South africa. Use to clean up somalia and Ethiopia by turn 3.

Build factory in persia and iraq. Build 4inf plus 2 art each turn. You should end up with all of africa fairly quickly.

Then maybe send some subs into med to drain italies money.

After you build up build enough you can pop turkey and walk into balkans.

Or go the long way around through Caucasus.

Hi all,

Been playing around with this strategy for a while now and have found a few interesting results.

After about 6 games, Japan had tried different strategies to combat it

India Crush, land in WA, Massive fleet battle in 6, Split defensive fleets. With the US flee stacked in 4 and ground troops streaming south the Japanese player was put under great pressure. When they tried to hold China, Islands and Attack ANZ or India they were stretched so thin that their entire front collapsed.

1. Fast Units.  US tanks and Mech have much more impact in the game in China than artillery or Infantry.
2. Transports. The results seemed to be the same irrespective of how many transports the US built. About 3-4 seemed sufficient to take Korea/ Manchuria by T4.
3. Japanese planes are still very dangerous, but cant be everywhere at once. Japan could either use them offensively against India/ANS or defensively against US but no both.
4. Once the US got powerful enough a complete Naval blockade of SZ 6 then branched out into capturing Islands etc. By the time Japanese fleet had gone to India and Back again US was in total control. 3CV BB 3CG 8DD 10SS + land based air.

In a sense though none of this is a surprise. Its like playing Pacific map only with us on 70 income. The things I found frustrating about the strategy were as follows.

China.
You cant capture the factories that Japan builds and you cant build new ones.
You cant us Chinese troops to help India

India
US activities don’t really help them much if Japan goes hard.

ANZAC. Still to weak to put up a decent fight to really help India.

Overall the strategy doesn’t really offer that much to take the pressure off Russia. The US troops flooding into Asia might help in a long game and maybe Russia can pull back the 18 guys from Siberia. But to have a major impact on Russia or Liberating India will only really happen around turn 10 or so.

So in conclusion I would probably still see a landing in SFE as a potential strategy to send a moderate force to Korea to set up a factory right under Japan’s nose, and then help clear China. The threat of further Amphibious assaults and convoy raiding can make life difficult for Japan, but this has to be combined with other ideas, such as strategic bombing or sending troops to Europe as well.

Hi, thanks for replies.

While I have been playing for over 30 years we have only upgraded to Global in the last few weeks. I always find when we change editions we always spend the first few games playing the tried and true strategies from older games, until we work out its not working. So I decided to do some thinking and try out new strategies with this one and not just bring over the anniversary tactics or revised etc.

I noted the following.
Both sides start with about the same IPC value of troops on the board.
Allies have a huge income advantage
Allies lose about 2-300 points worth of units on the first few turns.

Axis advantages really come down to momentum gained by

having factories closer to battlegrounds
greater airforces and mobile units
units in better position to attack
less units that are out of the battle (eg stuck in canada)

On the average game we were playing the turning points were coming between turn 5-8.

The European map Axis would wear down the Russians while the Italians termited wherever the Allies were weakest.
In Asia, The allies (UK/China) and Japan would grind each other down in China. The US and ANZAC would also tend to stalemate, both building fleets and staring at each other.

Given a stalemate in the Pacific and Axis win in Europe I went looking for something different.

The first element of the strategy is Naval Power. The first goal of the US is to achieve Naval Dominance. Naval battles can be devastating so I did some maths and figured out the best fleet structure for the Americans would be to achieve parity in CV (T1). Then mass produce damage soaks (6 DD + 6 SS). The existing 3 Cruisers + BB is sufficient. With this in place (T2) it should be possible for the US to bully the Japanese into reacting.

The second element is ground forces. There are about 6 key battle grounds in the Asia map

1. Northern (Korea to SFE)
2. China
3. South East Asia(Hong Kong to Malaya)
4. Islands
5. Australia
6. India

First I looked for the safest and easiest to reach, this was Northern. But this has flow on effects into the others.

Assume for convenience that the Japs have 3 carrier battle groups. Lets day on T3 they want to hit Sumatra/Java and Malay. With 3 US Battlegroups (3CV + 3CG + 6SUB 6DD + BB) backed by troops and planes ready to go what does Japan do.

Also ANZ and UK have been busy building DD/SUB as well.

If the three Japanese groups go South. US can Japan T3 or 4 with decent chances of winning. If the 3 go North then UK/ANZ take the islands. If the fleet splits UK destroys half while ANZ/UK hits the second half and US mop up later.

The key is speed. The US will be in position to do a lot of damage before the Japanese can get the Islands and return. If the Japanese spend T2-4 building ships then this just worsens their already stretch infantry shortage.

Playing aound with which turn the DOW happens doesn’t seem to help much either.

Hi all,

Here’s my latest plan.

The goal of this strategy is to release some pressure from Russia Anzac and UK Pacific through aggressive US play towards Japan.

I would like to share some thoughts for how I came to these ideas as well.

1.  Boots on the ground in Eurasia is the key to winning. Over the long game the side that has the most men and tanks in the centre of the board will reap the economic benefits of cost efficient battles. Battles involving Naval and air come at a steeper price and usually dont generate income.

For this reason the US must get men ashore as quick as possible.

There are several routes the US can try to achieve this.
West Coast to South Pacific
West Coast to North Pacific
East Coast to Africa
East Coast to France
East Coast to Scandinavia

Looking at these choices we can work out the cost of getting 10 troops ashore each turn. I chose 10 as the number because thats equal to 1 german factory.

1. South Pacific 40 Transports (WC - HAW - CI - PI - China)
2. North Pacific 5 Transports (Alaska - SFE)
3. Africa 10 Transports (via Brazil)
4. France 15 Transports (via UK)
5. Scandinavia 15 Transports (via UK)

Even though US has lots of money I would rather be building ground troops not transports. Now the clear winner is North Pacific. Considering US starts with 3 already only 2 transports need to be produced before the fun can begin.

Obviously the Japanese Navy needs to be dealt with in some way to protect the transports. We will start with 2 CVs on turn 1 to make use of on board starting air units. and be spending 20-24 per turn building 4subs/ 2 DD 1 Sub or 3 DD.

Our goal with the Navy is primarily to keep out transports safe over the first few turns. We will initially hit sea zone 3. This spot is out of range of all Japanese land based air. Later we can move to 4 which is only in range of the bombers.

There is very little the Japanese can do to stop this. Even if they pulled their entire fleet back to SZ6 they are only reaching parity. If they want a Naval arms race they can have it. Because while they are holed up in Japan the ANZAC and UK pacific are busy gobbling up all their islands and china is cranking out infantry and artillery that Japan isnt.

The first 5 turns of production orders might look like this
T1. 2 CV    1 TRN  4 INF.
T2. 3 DD,  1 TRN  2 TKS  2  ART  2 MEC  5 INF 1  FTR
T3. 2 SUB  1 TRN  4 TKS  2  ART or MEC  6 INF
T4. 2 SUB  1 DD  4 TKS  2  MEC    6 INF
T5. 2 SUB  1 DD  4 TKS  2  MEC    6 INF

By T3-5 a steady stream of 12 units per turn will be pouring into Korea and a factory will go up there. This will add 3 more TKS (or art) to the mix.

From there the US will push in three directions.

1. Send Fast movers to central asia/russia
2. Clear the Coast down to French indo China 
3. Clear Yunnan and on to India.

At some stage there will be a major naval confrontation. There are a couple of things that will tip the balance to the US.
1. Keep out of range of Land based air
2. Stay next to friendly land territory so fighters can rebase after carriers hit
3. Lots of Subs and DDs to soak hits.

While this is going on ANZAC will be building up so that when Japanese are weak they can strike. Maybe 3 DD 3SUB 3 FTR or something like that.

When UK pacific feel the heat coming off they will switch to building FTR ARM + MEC and head north to release some pressure off Russia. They will not go after Islands. Leave that to ANZAC

UK Europe will basically try to hold as much ground as possible. T1 they will try to sink as much Italian ships as possible and build 1-2 units a turn in SAF. The rest will be based around holding London and possible nusiance attacks.

Obviously Germany will rampage against russia but there is a chance that either the Siberian Troops, US tanks and planes or UK pacific (or all three) will reach them in time.

The last game we played using this strategy the axis were completely unprepared. They  launched a counterattack against the 2 US troops backed by 18 russians in korea and lost big time, China was blown wide open. Jap fleet was near India / Indonesia and couldnt get back to save Japan from invasion.

How should japan defend against this?

The whole thing I am trying to do with US is about the Speed of getting troops to the front lines.

That’s why we have been playing around with the Northern route to SFE. The southern route to say Phillipines requires 18 transports to get 6 units into the combat zone. The northern route requires only 3 and can be active T2.

The T2 push to SFE also threatens an amphibious assault on Japan on T3. This would have
1 STR
6 FTR on 3CV
1 BB
2 CG
2 INF
2 MEC
1 TANK

This means that Japan has to react or they will be in big problems. If Japan DOW on T1 you can add in an extra MEC and 2 INF.

I cant see an 18 TRN convoy working before T7-8 at the latest. I would rather build Tanks Infantry and planes with all that cash

I  am happy to let Japan grab those 30 if it means I can get US boots on the ground. ANZ and UK will be able to regrab at least one of those islands which will cost Japan 9.

On the Euro side all those ideas are excellent.

Yeah. Basically for us. Thinking about attacking norway around turn 4-5. Then build factory there. British can land troops and planes to defend it. Follow it with factory in finland. Pump out tanks to punch germans out of leningrad.

On the other side of the world running us troops across from alaska to korea to set up a factory there . The 18 russians walk in to defend. Plus half a dozen us fighters. This should help out chinese and brits.

The other one is uk- persia. But that depends on what is happening around london.

Italy could build a minor in egypt if they were going well enough.

Thats about it.

So does the coastal strip count as chinese and not japanese. (Except korea)

Therfore small factories only in those areas with the blue stars

Would it worth it for Japan to build a major factory in China T2. (assuming they have the 30 IPCs?

What do people think is the best option (mostly for US) to get boots on the ground in Europe or Asia, factories or transports?

If factories where do you put them?

Us fleet in the north means japan needs to respond by moving their fleet north. This allows uk and anzac to jump in and grab a few islands. Also forces japan to build more ships in response. Each ship build is 2 less land units in china.

I like sea zone 3. Its out of range of land based air which is one of the main threats. It threatwns japan enough to force fleet back to japan to defend.

This allows floating bridge to russia but there is another threat.

If japan is asleep and does not defend adequately then ussr can drop a naval base there allowing a strike on japan fairly early in the game. I think around turn 3 to 4 is possible.

Its probably not a strategy for every game but might catch an agressive opponent with the japanese fleet at Indonesia

Why send the US fleet to Australia? or Southern areas. Wouldn’t a more direct approach to Japan yield quicker results.

Hi all,

Just finished a game as Allies trying out this strategy. Both sides made mistakes but it was an interesting game. We played 10 turns and it ended in an allied victory. Summary as follows.

Germany
Pushed as far as Moscow but lost everything in counterattack. Second push east stalled at Smolensk. Landed troops into Scotland but not enough to crush 25 defenders in London

USSR
Gradually withdrew forces and hit Germans with counterattack in Moscow with 20 INF 10 ART 4 ARM 2MEC FTR TAC which wiped out spearhead. Then continued to recapture lost territories. In last few turns arrival of UK ARMs and MECs from India helped relieve the siege.

JAPAN
T1 DOW against Allies. Spent whole game trying to fight 5 ways. (UK/ANZ/ CHI/ USSR/USA). Got above 50 for two turns then got knocked down to 35 for rest of game.      USSR DOW on JAPAN on turn 2 allowed US to set up land bridge to Eastern Siberia.

US
Spent 100% of income for first 7 turns in Pacific. By turn 7 had totally blockaded Japan with 3 carriers 1 Battleship 2 Cruisers 7 Destroyers 14 subs. Japanese fleet was camped at Carolines. US Tanks were marching south into China. Japan was down to 2-3 territories on the mainland and 2 Islands.

Initially parked the fleet in SZ3. This is one turn from Sanfran and can shuttle troops from Alaska. by about turn 4 US was dropping 6INF 2ARM 2 ART per turn into Asia. Japan simply could not stop this assault.

China
Spent the game trading back and forth with Japan. Basically aimed at population control so that Japan could not get organised to mount a concentrated attack or respond to UK/US land forces coming from the North and South.

UK (pacific)
Built up fleet to 2 carriers + battleship + multiple cruisers/subs/destroyers. Spent the game advancing towards Vietnam and grabbing Islands when the Japanese fleet went North to deal with US fleet.

UK (Europe) Factories in Sth Africa and Persia pumped out as much as possible to hem Italy in. Basically frontline held in Central Africa/ Iraq. Late game had to turtle London, but held till US fleet arrived.

Italy. Got to 45IPCs due to UK not doing Taronto. UK forces withdrew to Persia and Central Africa. Italy took all MED areas but couldn’t expand. Late game Fleet entered Atlantic but wasn’t enough to challenge US.

ANZAC Grabbed NewGuinea then spent next few turns trading Java with Japan. Eventually ANZ navy got big enough that the combined 3 navies swamped JAPAN.

Conclusion.
The KJF did work but UK Europe and USSR both nearly fell to Axis. By allowing Italian fleet to survive in full they easily got all their NOs and grew to 45. If Germany and Italy had put 100% into Russia they probably would have won. but they were distracted by fighting UK in Africa, and then turned to London.

Overall I would use this strategy again but would probably not go 100% with US for so long. I would build Carriers for Europe to help UK establish a more credible threat against France by about T3-4.

UK production in S-Africa and Persia was a major factor in stopping Italian expansion and keeping them bogged down despite their growth to 45.

Would it be worth throwing a few Anzac subs into the areas around Indonesia. It would mean Japan has to commit a sizable force to take each island. Vulnerable Japanese ships can be knocked off and the subs are safe from air attack. The subs can raid convoys if Japan ignores

Would it be worth building a second carrier for India, Especially if the Battleship survived.

If this also combined with some Anzac subs and a US threat from the North Japan would have some big problems.

The biggest threat would be from the Japanese land based air force, but if you lure them all out to sea around phillipines or celebes then this would take the pressure of the Chinese and Indians on Land. If the Japanese ignore them you grab islands. If they send the whole fleet south, America can move in to support in a 1-2 combo.

Did UK grab Persia and build factory to support USSR/India?

I reckon an agressive us naval build strategy can cause problems for the Japs. I am going to target sz3 and nuild afloating bridge to soviets. The goal is to stay just out of range of Japanese air support for their fleet and force them to come North on turns 3-5. By this time us will be shipping i units a turn to russia.

If japan fleet stays north uk and anzac grab islands.

If fleet goes south us can pressure japan even more.

In general is it better to send lone transport to Indonesian islands if they are lightly defended or unguarded or do you send whole Anzac/UK fleet.

If ANZ/UK sends a lone transport then JAPAN hits it with single plane or sub, so instant kill.

If ANZ/UK sends a larger escorts (2 destroyers+ Cruiser) then Japs send larger force and sink them anyway

Or do you ignore islands and save fleet for later when you can team up with US? Maybe wait until JAPAN fleet is out of range or something like that?

Which is the best time that Germany/Japan should declare war on USSR/USA/UK?

Should USSR Attack Japan?

Should the axis spend a few turns building up or does this let the Allies grow too strong?

Ok Thanks for feedback,

So as far as German Fleet goes,

T1 Collect fleet in sz 112
T2 Hit Gibraltar (+ remaining subs for ablative wounds)
T3 Hit Frenchies
T4 Start shucking to NW Africa.

This means no BB for sz 110 battle T1, So will send in more planes.

Italian Fleet
T1 Hit Greece
T2 Hit Egypt/Syria or Shuck to Tobruk to reinforce
T3 Merge with German fleet.
T4 Shuck more to Tobruk or wherever

Turn 3-4 Germans/ Italians can start to build up a few more destroyers/Subs etc to protect.

The main idea is that with the majority of early purchases focusing on land units for Russia, the fleets will survive longer in the Med as a combined unit than separate targets. The extra support from the Germans will help to secure Italy’s NOs for longer (Unless UK/USA go all out )

This is just a distraction however while the ITA/GER blitz moves east to secure caucasus /persia. After that the Axis can start mobilising more troops/ships to defend the West.

Hi all, Thanks for comment

@ShadowHAwk:

How will you take greece round 1 with italy?
And how ill you take egypt round 2 with italy?

Round 1 there is 2 inf and a tank in range of greece, and a UK navy next to italy, and you will have only 1 transport left most likely.

You might not even get to gibraltar G2 if UK choses to block it or sink your ships.

Sure its a nice plan but the UK will also do something in between your turns.

The idea for Greece would be to use the surviving fleet from sz95. In G1 The Germans will send 3 planes to Italy to Scramble. This gives Italians 4INF 1ART 1TK 2FTR and 1 STR to take Greece. (This assumes that any surviving Brit ships are dealt with first with the cruiser/sub/destroyer from 95)

Egypt is an unknown and really a gamble based on what the Brits do. If dice go well the fleet + any survivors will push into EGY otherwise Ill spend a few turns shuttling troops to Tobruk until Germans arrive.

Gibraltar is just to help Italy grab its NOs. Depending on Brit T1 reaction the German fleet may be trapped in the Baltic for a few turns. Basically On T1 the goal was to get the Bismark to St Nazaire where it will be able to auto repair on T2. The Cruiser and TRN aim to link up T2 as well. This is risky but any British air counter weakens Taronto raid. If they survive they continue to head to Med T3. So (fingers crossed) T2 SZ 91 will have battleship + cruiser + surviving subs defending transport. Capturing Gib means Brits have to factor in the auto repair as well before hitting it. Of course a strong Brit build on T1 will make this difficult.

That is basically best case scenario depending on what survives first round, using a combination of Ethiopian troops, Amphib and guys from Tobruk. If that is a no go, The other option would be to go through Syria to activate Iraq