Posts made by trihero

If you have problems with the US, strike Pearl Harbor. Not killing it is inviting the US to attack Japan very quickly. The best defense is offense in this case; I do not advise skipping it and playing “defensive” with your fleet like your friend is doing. Also do what you normally do with investing a bit of navy if you think he is going after you. If he takes borneo you’e usually in big trouble unless you can destroy his fleet after he captures it….if the US builds a complex there Japan is pretty much done, it’s just a matter of time.

I would put 1 IC in manchuria and 1 IC in Indochina. Why is it risky? I do it because it allows you to generate offense very quickly against Russia (who shouldn’t be falling against Germany so soon normally); turn 2 you can have 6 tanks on the board ready to crash deep into Russian territory or build up and take out India if the UK defended it well. The normal build is 3 transports + 1 tank. 3 transports doesn’t let you get enough offense going nearly quickly enough (especially considering the units you offload onto the mainland can’t move until next turn) and limits you since you have to combine infantry in the transport…infantry simply take too long to do anything as Japan. And if you lose those transports it takes you much more time to get things going again…

If the UK/Russia try to detain Germany without US help, then go into Africa. I win a lot of games this way if the Allies split up early like this; I drain 10 IPCs from the UK in Africa then I bust Russia solo then kill Britain. The UK has a very tough time getting into Africa on his own unless he ignores your coastal lines, which is good then you have a freer hand with Russia. With Japan I just build a lot of submarines if the US is trying to kill me because they’re the best naval buy against other naval units on pure math, plus you have 2 battleships/carriers to deal with air assaults anyways. Always be ready to strike solomon islands as the US will very likely pass through there to get your islands. And quickly try to get a lot of territories so you can match the US income; taking China/Sinkiang puts you at 34 IPCs vs 38 IPCs so grab those few Russian east territories and India and you can match his navy every turn that he produces.

Why not go into Africa?

The first turn you could send 4 fighters + sub against the battleship in the med, then send a transport with 1 inf 1 tank + battleship + 1 fighter against the destroyer in the med, and then also send 1 fighter + 1 bomber + the troops in libya to attack anglo-egypt once the sea battle is won. I’m not going to spell out exactly which fighters from where go to where but it can be done easily; just look at the board a bit. Once you take anglo-egypt the UK navy cannot sail through the canal, and you have destroyed a fighter that otherwise could have been used against you elsewhere.

If you can manage to get into Africa early, you cause the Allies headaches because they have to march all the way down there to free the IPCs.

I understand the lure of mass early tanks, and have done it myself, and it is effective in some situations, but just bear in mind that Russia can withstand this assault if he’s wise with his troops, and that in building so many offensive tanks early on, you have very little to offer to defend your coasts against invasion. And like the guy above me said, eventually you would like to have infantry as fodder; 5 inf + 5 tanks > 8 tanks for the same IPC cost because you lose less attack power as you lose units; since infantry take so long to get to the front it’s nice to have them early on. I would advise against looking for Russia’s strongpoint like you are; it is disastrous against good players who mass their troops well.

Something is very weird about your Russian friend’s play if he’s dying on G2-3. Played right usually Russia can easily hold out for many turns and usually victory goes to the Allies in my games. Maybe the UK/US isn’t pressuring Germany enough? Or Russia is splitting his troops up and getting slaughtered?

I understand where your Japanese strategy is coming from, but really the best way to take pressure off of Germany is to attack Russia, not to distract the US. Japan has a great backdoor into Russia which you can exploit early on if you start with a 2 complex build and start churning out mass tanks. If the US goes after you then you have helped Germany out a lot; get Germany into Africa quickly as the UK is in a hard position to defend it alone. If the US didn’t go after you then quickly roll up as many Russian IPCs as possible and force him back; meet up with the Germans if possible and beat up Russia. I would only advise beefing up the Japanese navy if a KJF is very apparent; against good US players any distractions you put up will be quickly countered by some land troop buys on the west coast which has just wasted your time with your navy at not much cost to the US; in fact he would like you to build a navy as to give Russia more time.

What he’s doing is very much a cornerstone strategy that most Russians should do when fighting against Germany; consolidate a ton of troops in West Russia and use it as a staging point to contest Belorussia, Karelia, and Ukraine. Be extremely careful of your attacks and where you leave troops after them; Russia’s positioning is excellent for reinforcement from West Russia and Caucausus.

The best overall counter is to basically mirror him; consolidate your forces in Eastern Europe and abandon everything else on the front except leave 1 infantry in each location. What will happen is you both fight for and exchange territories every turn. This is the best you can do if the UK/US are pressuring you from the west. Your fighters will give you a great advantage in retaking territories; send infantry + fighters to retake the territories. Try not to send tanks as you will lose them in the counterattack. When you can, start upping the bar by retaking the territories with more infantry. Russia will run out of men before you do and he shouldn’t dare to send a large force into one of those territories or he’ll be counter attacked by your own huge stack of tanks + fighters + infantry waiting and he’ll be too far to reinforce the attack.

Germany needs to get into Africa to get the IPC edge needed to push Russia well. If the Allies insist on keeping you out of there, then just play defense; you will never crush Russia alone.

If the Allies aren’t pressuring you too much, start building stacks of tanks and march your infantry eastward and simply try to overpower his forces. You can pretty much build 8 tanks per turn while Russia is building 8 infantry; combine with the momentum of your fighters and initial tanks and you should be able to outdo his cluster of troops which you will absolutley need to attack at some point.

I would not recommend putting all your troops in Ukraine. It is too close to everything that Russia can pound you with, and you also cannot spare fighters to simply land there for defense; they must be used elsewhere to throw the UK out of the mediterranean and go into Africa. The best you can reasonably have in Ukraine would be 6 infantry and 6 tanks, which is going to get annihilated by a combined attack from West Russia (11 infantry + 2 art + 4 tanks) and Caucasus (2 fighters + 6 infantry; you cannot deploy 6 infantry in Caucasus but you can move the ones from kazakh into there to combine with the 4 you did deploy there). You would need nearly all of your fighters in Ukraine if you wanted to try to keep it from the first turn and onwards, which is very stupid since it takes a couple of turns to get more troops there while Russia is building right next to you.

Well to be honest with you I don’t know what to say about fast carriers. I haven’t even experimented with the US NA fast carriers. The thing is I can only really see how this helps the Allies more than the Axis; it allows the Indian fleet travel farther than normal as well as probably helps the US/UK with defensive maneuvers in the Atlantic. Why do you think that carriers need global improvement?

I didn’t know you were responsible for Japan’s Most Powerful Battleships! I like that change in LHTR because lightning assaults was useless -_- I’ve tried lobbying Larry to improve Tokyo Express and Dug-In Defenders which I feel are extremely poor and useless NAs because the way I play Japan I don’t build destroyers; I build subs for fodder against the US since I already have a very strong core of battleships/carriers, and I’d much rather buy a cheap transport to carry 2 units rather than one infantry in a destroyer . Personally I think that Dug-In Defenders should give infantry resistance or immunity to bombardments, because currently this NA is so poor since the infantry are usually bombarded before they can take advantage of their roll of 3. Who makes infantry on islands anyways?

I don’t see how you have both a fleet of destroyers and so many fighters/bombers to threaten me. Like I said, I only build subs if I’m looking to fight a naval war. They are clearly the best unit to kill other navies with.  I don’t ever mass destroyers because there are more efficient units for different goals. I have no opinion on your fast carriers because I plan to adhere to LHTR and I don’t experiment with extra rules; call me lazy or conforming if you want ; P

Subs don’t need to worry about air because you should always have at least one fully loaded carrier anyways as any nation except Russia. Use the subs as fodder. It’s a great trade to lose subs while they lose fighters/bombers. It’s not a good trade to lose destroyers which cost more than fighters.

An equal IPC of subs will beat out destroyers even with their opening fire suppressed. I don’t see how that makes them a “poorer” comparison than battleships.

I would always have one destroyer if I think I’m facing subs, but I would never go haywire with destroyers over other naval units. If I’m looking to scrub out the opposition’s navy then I’ll go mass subs with a loaded carrier to defend. If I’m looking to invade islands easily and engage in hit and run, then battleships. If I’m worried about their air force truly, then get lots of loaded carriers for defense.

What your math doesn’t show you is that battleships can bombard territories at a 4 without any technology rolls, and that battleships are far superior in hit and run engagements. If you go in for a round and absorb hits on battleships then retreat, you have lost nearly nothing while incurring casualties on the other navy. I think the only country who really has to think about DD v BB is the US. I would take the battleships because they’re great at flushing out troops on the islands and because you hardly lose the core of your investment once you get enough of them.

Look at your math; what if the battleships retreat after round 1 if they’re the attackers? You have lost no BBs yet the destroyer force has dwindled.

I’m pretty happy overall with the cost of battleships vs destroyers. If anything I think that destroyers need to have some incentive vs battleships, not the other way around. I’m just not that happy about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters.

And if you’re really looking for the best navy to counter another navy, it is best to build purely submarines, not destroyers. The math supports that subs are the best way to wipe out another navy. 3 subs have the same attack power as 2 destroyers but they can take more hits; and clearly 3 subs is better than 1 battleship provided no retreats and if you’re not concerned with taking islands. Not to mention that sub hits are forced onto navy units, thereby giving a greater chance to take out battleships/carriers without having to claw through sacrificial fighters first.

It’s probably staring me right in the face, but isn’t it 5 spaces from Anglo-Egypt to Borneo

Whoops you’re right. What I really  mean is if you have both fighters then I would consider taking Borneo because then you have a fully loaded carrier afterwards which is pretty annoying.

I usually recommend using attacking the solomon islands sub with the australian sub + indian fighter. If you have the anglo-egypt fighter then go ahead and invade Borneo too. It’s just that I like to help shift the Pearl Harbor odds out a bit so Japan has to be more committed to it. The problem with attacking Borneo is if Japan builds 3 transports the first turn and if you can’t sink them; he can easily retake it the second turn and invade India the third turn which will be 2 infantry weaker. He may even be tempted to attack it turn one since it will only have 2 infantry maximum and he can bring something like 2 infantry + 4 fighters + 1 bomber against it if he so wishes.

That’s a poor pearl harbor attack group. If you happen to take one casualty then you’re screwed on the counterattack since you have just 1 BB + 1 dest + 1 ftr + 1 car. The US will attack with 1 BB + 2 ftr + 1 trans + 1 bmr and more often than not win. Sometimes you don’t even have the SS to attack with because the UK’s sub sunk it 1/3 of the time which makes it even worse.

That attack against Borneo is also pretty risky. You will win the naval battle no doubt, but you’re pitting 1 inf + 1 arm against 2 inf. That’s a tepid 50% to win. I’d rather have more assurance than that.

Also since you did nothing about the kwangtung destroyer, you’re going to have to build 1 dest + 2 trans instead of 3 trans because the trans would be at risk of dying to that destroyer. Even so the UK would probably attack and try to get another transport even if you protect them with a dest since his navy is pretty much suicidal anyways.

There is a very interesting use for a 2 fighter-buy in the first round. Place all your fighters in Caucasus (4 total). If Germany chooses to do the traditional first turn anglo-egypt attack with the trans/battleship, Russia can destroy that little med navy next turn. It is costly for Russia to lose some/most of those fighters, but shutting off Germany from Africa early is pretty devastating. At the least Germany won’t try to take Anglo-Egypt first turn, which the UK will thank you for as he can fiddle around with those troops to his liking.

It’s quite possible to survive against Germany unless he has all of Africa and the UK is doing nothing about it. The key is being aggressive and realizing that you can actually extend your borders to Ukraine/Belorussia with no problems since West Russia/Caucasus are great staging grounds. Send troops built in Moscow to West Russia. Germany has farther to travel from his complexes so he has a much tougher time keeping those territories. You can swallow up them and if Germany is foolish enough to try to counterattack those places then slam him with your forces that you have in west russia/caucasus. Be careful of going farther though, you kinda want to wait until Germany’s bleeding more until you thrust in for the kill.

I’m not a fan of buying any airforce with Germany. I find I need every single IPC in land troops and some basic navy first turn. Germany has a lot of territories to defend from many angles and seazones. I need 3 infantry rather than 1 fighter to shore up the border territories. If the Allies want control of the sea they will have it. Building some fighters delays this a bit but has the negative effect of having less forces to defend against Russia.

If you wanted a second turn invasion of Britain, your buy is not the way to go I would think. You want to get transports because you don’t have enough land troops otherwise to take casualties as well as invade. Even if you win the battle with just your airforce left you can’t capture it. The best you can do is 5 transports and send the mediterranean fleet west. This allows a second turn invasion with 7 infantry, 7 tanks, 6 fighters, 1 bomber, and 1 bombardment as long as you didn’t lose any of these to bad rolls or a first Russian offensive. It requires maximum effort on the Allies part to block this threat (UK build 6 inf 2 tank, US send stuff in the 2 trans + 1 fighter + 1 bomber, Russia send 2 fighters over).

It is too “cheap.” Try to use the LHTR rules; it fixes the imbaalnces in the box rules and is used in official tournaments. Larry Harris Tournament Rules limits it to the total amount of bombing damage inflicted, not a per bomber rule. Also factories can only be attacked by 1 rocket per turn, and only 1 AA gun can act as a rocket in a territory even if you have many guns there.

1. I have tried it.
2. I usually try to have 6-8 Russian infantry defend Sinkiang. You need about that much and sometimes the Russian fighters to deter a full push from Japan if his goal is to knock it out.
3. I’ve done that a few times. It scares the crap out of newer players. However you have to understand that you’re letting the Kwangtung transport and the Solomon Islands sub to live.
4. My friends have done both. Personally I think it’s a mistake to gun the British fleet down in the first turn in that scenario. Letting Pearl Harbor survive is a big mistake as it allows the US to accumulate a significant naval force 1-2 turns faster than usual.
5. Well, what do you mean by work? In the short term doing all of those things (both ICs, combining British fleet, sending us fighters and russian infantry) will indubitably control Japanese expansion. But past that it’s all up to what the US does. The ICs alone won’t stop Japan for long; if you look at the math Japan can overwhelm India on turn 3 even after doing Pearl Harbor. Japan simply has too many fighters to stop early on if he is focused on his targets. If the US continues to gun after Japan then you will stop Japan from being strong permanently, but then Africa will fall to Germany quickly. You always also have to keep a very careful eye on the UK because a tricky Germany player will pop out 6 transports in one turn and try to overwhelm the UK since he’s been building troops in India and is down all those IPCs in Africa.
6. A tough question no doubt. Like I said, I think it’s asking for trouble if you let Germany take over Africa, which means it’s a good idea to have the US liberate it early on. However, if the US doesn’t follow up on those ICs, then Japan will overwhelm them if he’s good.

I’m not really an expert on this as I haven’t tested it extensively in a while (I tried KJF a few months ago but I didn’t know a few tactics I know now). I would say though that if the Japan player is excellent, then nothing short of all 3 powers going after him will hinder him permanently. I have personally broken free of the sinkiang/indian IC very quickly without US naval support bogging me down. Good Japanese players realize that it’s OK to empty the mainland territories to charge straight into China; although it lets Russia/UK take a territory, this lets you completely and utterly bone the Sinkiang IC turn two, and you can always easily regain the coastal territories using your fighters and battleship bombardments. Your strategy is very good against perhaps low-mid level Japanese players though, looking at that combined British fleet and all those ICs on the mainland it bound to panic him.

I have some additional tips for KJF:

1. Take a good look at where the Japanese player is placing his first turn transport buys. If he is silly enough to place them in the outer Japan seazone, then blow them out of the water with the Hawaaiin fighter + Washington Bomber or just one of them. Believe it or not, the bomber can reach that outer seazone and land in Buryatia; fly up to eastern canada, then to western canada, then to that seazone bordering the north of western canda, then I think from there it’s 2 spaces to that seazone then 1 space into Buryatia, making for 6 spaces. It’s an almost instant game win if you destroy the 3 transports he builds there, and is very clever the first time you see it, although probably past then it will never work. Also if China somehow survived then the fighter there is in a great position to strike at either seazones that the transports deploy in. It takes an observant and clever Japanese player to protect his transports carefully.

2. Somtimes you can panic the Japanese player by consolidating 6 infantry into Buryatia as well as sending 2 tanks in Moscow to the east 2 spaces. Against good Japanese players this probably won’t affect their strategy but against people who haven’t seen it, they will usually panic and not attack China first turn because they’ll look at Manchuria and panic.

3. You can consolidate the British fleet into sz30 as well as sz38. Sz30 is much more out of the way of the Japanese navy than sz38, though if your intent is lure them into attacking your fleet with a lot of units then this isn’t the way to go. Putting them in sz30 though really forces the Japanese to keep an eye on it since it’s in a position to invade some islands. Load full infantry into both transports when you converge them into sz30 will make the Japanese player sweat a bit. He’ll have to keep his bship/car in west indies or you’ll invade it, and he’s not in a good position to attack your fleet with just that because he’ll probably take at least 2 hits and lose a fighter or so. He may be tempted to strafe you with all those infantry aboard but thats’ pretty much what you want because your navy will make him pay for the strafe (1 car + 1 or 2 fighters if the anglo egypt one survived, 1 sub, 1 destroyer, 2 trans).

Also Britain can send their bomber to sinkiang on turn one. This puts an additional monkey wrench in Japanese logistics if they’re used to buying all transports turn one. Now they have to protect their transports wherever they mobilize them, which means buying a destroyer or something which they normally wouldn’t do.

Another alternate monkey wrench move is instead of consolidating the fleets, do this: send the destroyer, carrier, and transport to attack the Kwangtung transport. Send the fighter and sub to attack the solomon island sub. The fighter will land on the US carrier =) Usually you’ll end up destroying the enemy sub before it can submerge. Now you have presented the Japanese with some thorns. Pearl Harbor is a little harder to attack now since he lost a sub and now that there’s an additional fighter defending there. Also now there’s this quirky fleet sitting next to Kwangtung which is poised to strike as new naval units being built if it isn’t instantly targeted by the Indies fleet. Sometimes you can incur a fighter casualty with this fleet when Japan strikes it (2 hits total).

4. When your US fleet is gunning after Japan, I personally believe that the best tactical maneuver is not to charge straight west into the Japan seazone (2 turns), but to drop down to Solomon islands. This puts Japan in a bind, because from here you can attack his money islands (boreno, philiippines, west indies) as well as the Japan mainland. He is going to be forced to attack you there, giving you the defending advantage, or risk you grabbing his money islands because he can’t defend nearly all of them and then deploying an IC there, which totally throws things out of whack for him.

There are a number of Japanese strategies to help counter these tricky KJF strategies, but I don’t want to go into them right now because I’m lazy. Besides a few tricks the basic goal is to wait for Germany to overcome Africa, take some Russian territories, and then either crush Moscow then go to India or surprise attack Britain.

In a purely naval battle, mathematically it is best to mass all subs. They have the best attack/defense/life points per IPC. 3 subs will win against 2 destroyers or 1 battleship on average. They are the best fodder and the best way to knock out another navy (can’t select fighters as casualties so you’re likely to knock out their battleships and other key naval units if you have a strong force). But you should always get a carrier for the naval nations if you don’t have one yet and land 2 fighters on them before massing subs, because subs can’t fire at air units ; O Actually I also like having 1 destroyer and 1 battleship in the group; 1 destroyer negates all enemy subs abilities, and 1 battleship lets you bombard territories/islands that are lightly held.

If you research super submarines then subs become an overwhelmingly good naval unit.

Well, I sort of look at it this way -

The sub’s way of retreating is submerging, right?

The order of play is always attackers, then defenders.

Therefore, attackers get to retreat first (by either moving to a seazone or submerging).

Then the defenders get to retreat (by submerging).

I don’t tend to look at submerging as a separate step from retreating. I would say you do all your retreating/submerging at one time. And given that, then it is easy to see that the attackers get to opt out first.

And that’s just freaking clever using retreats like that. I would never have thought of it in a million years! Have you talked to Larry about it?

The one you’re talking about is sea zone 6 (six) that borders england, norway, and western europe. Sea zone 5 is the Baltic. Sea zone 4 is the one where the Russian sub starts. Sea zone 3 is the one just bordering Norway and England.

Personally I still don’t think it’s any real advantage to either side about sz2 or 8. I have definitely cursed the fact that as Germany I can’t reach the UK’s fleet hiding back there in one turn, but on the other hand his fleet hiding back there can’t reach you in one turn either, giving you a chance to build a carrier and land some of those fighters you started with on it. I actually think it favors Germany later in the game because it gives Germany the time to react by building a navy, instead of constantly having to monitor your navy’s strength relative to the UK if both couldn’t hide from each other.

Your point about building in sea zone 6 being strong is very two-sided. While it does allow you to ‘instantly’ reinforce your navy that you move from sz2 or 8, this also puts the UK navy in full range of fighters in Germany, Norway, and Western Europe.

1. It is not clear whether attacking subs can retreat to another sea zone or if they can only retreat by submerging.

I don’t see why your issue number 1 is a point of confusion. A sub is a naval unit like any other. It can retreat to another sea zone like any other naval unit.

The attacker (never the defender) can retreat
during this step. Move all attacking land and
sea units in that combat to a single adjacent
friendly space from which at least one of the
attacking units (excluding air units) entered.
All such units must retreat together to the
same territory, regardless of where they came
from. The attacker may retreat only if enemy
units remain on the battle board.

The amendment currently under consideration will clarify both issues.

Attacking subs may do EITHER: submerge or retreat to a different sea zone from which at least one attacking sea unit came.

This is already the case. You could never both submerge and retreat. Can you please explain why you think LHTR ever makes the allusion to you only being able to retreat by submerging with subs? Subs simply have 2 ways of retreating (submerging, normal retreat). You choose one way to do it.

Edit: I read the wording again and I guess it is indeed a little bit unclear since it says subs can retreat by submerging; it is unclear whether this means that is the only way for the sub to retreat. I’m sure we can imply that subs can retreat like other naval units to another sea zone, but it is slightly unclear so I after all agree with this slight wording change.

I disagree with the way you fix #2 though. I think it should go:

1. Attacker declares a retreat if he wants.
2. The attacker can submerge a sub instead of retreating it to another seazone.
3. The defender can submerge a sub, which only happens if the attacker hasn’t already retreated and if the attacking force hasn’t all submerged.

The way you propose to fix it forces the amphibious assault to continue. I don’t think it’s the intention of the game to make it so you’re forced to attack with inferior forces because of a clever interpretation of the rules. I think the attacker should have the choice to retreat immediately after all the firing has been done in one round. To me it makes more sense that, after losing a couple of trans, the attacker would be able to call of the amphib assault.

I admit it’s a very clever way to force the assault to continue, but just because it’s clever doesn’t mean it should be allowed.

I looked at the map and I’m confused - UK can’t build in Sz4. We’re talking about the sea zone that the Russian sub starts in, right? Next to karelia and archangel. That doesn’t directly border England where the factory is. Maybe you’re talking about sz2 which is to the left of england?