I feel like a Russia-Japan non aggression pact would make it too easy for Germany to be taken down. The real battle of the game is whether or not Japan gets to Russia before everyone else gets to Germany.
Aggressive America - how to stop it?
-
Same way….wanna play?
-
This is a standard Jap opening. Â Although I’ll often drop 1 trn FIC 1 trn MAN if the FIC sz is safe for a trn.
I have also tried purchasing 3 trn and doing a “Pearl Lite” of 3 fgt 1 bmb 1 sub. Â Then non-combating my original 2 trn to SOL sz with 1AC 2fgt 2bb (w/4 inf 1 bmb 1 fgt on SOL). Â This is a strong position from where you can strongly take AUS in round 2 while threatening WUS/MEX/HAW and Brazil in a few rounds. Â I still think this move has potential but haven’t quite figured out the most optimal lines of play with it yet.
-
Screw australia! That’s fools gold I tell you, fools gold!!
-
Clayton, I have tried that as well. It only work if the Germans really cooperate in the atlantic. But it is seriously based on luck and that is not the way I like to play the game. If you do it right you are forcing the allies to heavily invest into their navy, that means more than just the AC the UK buys normally.
The point of that strat is to let Germany hold Africa longer than it should control it, while slowly but steady advancing to Moscow with the Japs. Buying time for Germany by stalling the allies with their shuck shuck. I must say that I am like 4-1 playing this, but I played against some guys who were not really experienced so I don’t really put much value to it. The only thing that really helps this strat is that your opponent is totally offguard if you do this move, so you have some element of surprise. The last thing I recommend doing if you play this strat, is combine Germany and Japan! If you don’t you will lose really hard, because you lose your fleet, won’t advance against Russia and won’t hold Africa… I usually bought a bomber on Ger 1 to get started this strat. (a 23 bid we always play)
-
Are you drunk, bashir? 8-)
-
I also like the G1 bmb buy. Stationing GER bombers in WEU early prevents the US from just dropping 1-2 unguarded trans in EUS each turn (as they are often prone to do).
-
im confused…wht does U.S. have to be aggresive with? at the gbeginning of the game that is. I guess they can invade algeria…
You were assuming they went KGF!!! From that quote, while were talking about KJF… So don’t turn this around on me so you make that I asked the ‘stupid’ question. You go for Japan first! So why should they land FFS in Algeria? You tell me boy!
If you go KJF you are going to island hop and threaten Japan itself, that is why its called KJF!
relax bud. Aggresive america against japan….
the aggressivness that hte US can do is simply to LEAN on japan and gradually wear the Japs down -
LOL so now you are teaching me what KJF is…
-
Yes I am, gotta problem with that boy? :-D
-
im confused…wht does U.S. have to be aggresive with? at the gbeginning of the game that is. I guess they can invade algeria…
You were assuming they went KGF!!! From that quote, while were talking about KJF… So don’t turn this around on me so you make that I asked the ‘stupid’ question. You go for Japan first! So why should they land FFS in Algeria? You tell me boy!
If you go KJF you are going to island hop and threaten Japan itself, that is why its called KJF!
relax bud.  Aggresive america against japan….
the aggressivness that hte US can do is simply to LEAN on japan and gradually wear the Japs downAnd by the way tell me, how do you lean on Japan while you are not investing in the Pacific…
-
Jennifer you certainly didn’t play against that strategy.
Yea, didn’t notice this was a classic thread, not revised. In revised a KJF campaign, done correctly, is going to absolutely screw Japan. Problem is, you have to know how to do it correctly and in what order. Short of getting truely aboninable dice, there’s no way Japan can recover in a KJF in AAR-LHTR.
-
It’s okay Nuno. But in future, you may want to check when the last post was before denegrating the poster. You were responding to a post on the 21st of March. Kinda hard to deal with on the 23rd of July. wink
-
Well, date does have a bearing because new threads are created and positions change. :)
-
:-o
In Classic; It is MHO that Japan really can’t afford to buy ICs’ until turn 4 or 5 if they are doing real well in territorial gains, like two or three a turn and no losses. this assures you more combat units. Just think, if you buy 2 ICs’ that is the equivilant of 6 tanks!
A Transport per turn is the way to go, untill the US fleet gets under way, then buy subs. a couple a turn. Also, get those flat tops fully loaded.
Japan has to threaten Russia and force them to face the yellow menace. Germany, not havng to deal much with the US can really put the pressure on Moscow, eat up Africa, and keep the Britts out of Western Europe. Aggression is the “Key” to victory, especially if you are going for economic victory, so attack everywhere possible.
Success favors the bold!
Crazy Ivan -
It has been interesting reading this thread, as it shows how unrealistic the game really is when it comes to production capabilities. Giving the Japanese the same industrial production as the UK in the revised edition is totally bizarre, considering the actual differences in production between the UK and Japan during the war. Then the US is frozen at 1942 production levels throughout the game in both classic and the revised edition, when in actuality, by 1944 the US was producing one-half of the WORLD’S military equipement, as well as feeding a large portion of the world, building an enormous merchant fleet of Liberty and Victory Ships, and producing more trucks than the rest of the planet several times over. Japan’s military production never exceeded 10% of the US in the entire war, and the Japanese produced studies prior to the war that under the best of circumstances, by the third year, they were is serious trouble. That was assuming that all of their conquests succeeded and exploitation was absolutely perfect.
There is also the blythe assumption that every nation could devote the same amount of resources to research and development for all of the new weaponry mentioned. Yes, the Germans did develop both the V-2, the Messerschmidt 262, and the high-speed U-boat. However, the V-2 as an effective weapon was so limited in range that most of the UK industrial production was far out of range, and the engine on the ME-262 had a life expectancy of 15 flight hours before a total overhaul. German radar development lagged behind the Allies the entire war, and they never had the resources or fuel for long-range aircraft. The P-51 was a MAJOR shock for German aircraft designers. Germany could not afford to build heavy bombers, as fighters were far more vitally needed.
As for Japanese R and D, the Japanese military thought that a scientist was more valuable carrying a rifle on the island of Peleliu than working in a biological weapons facility in Manchuria. Note, I am not making this up, I have read the transcripts of his interrogation after capture. He sang like a little bird, and accurate data too. The Japanese did do some research and develop some new weaponry during the war, like their Magnetic Anamoly Detector, and in microwave radar research, they were ahead of the Germans. The Long Lance torpedo was developed long before the war, but they still had problems producing enough. They built a total of slightly over 4,000 tanks in the entire war. The US built 88,000 tanks, for the great part, much heavier vehicles. For bombers, they were still using the Betty and the Sally at the end of the war, as the replacements were delayed and not that great an improvement. The US had developed and put into major production by 1943 the B-29, and we were in the process of building the B-36. They never got beyond 92 octane aviation fuel, when the US and UK were using 100/130 and 115/145 octane avgas, for major performance improvement. The Germans had the same problem with respect to aviation fuel.
The German player also controls the Italian military assets in addition to his own, and they are German, not Italian. That gives the German player a boost that did not exist in the actual war, as Italy was always the weak link in the chain. In reality, the game should have 6 players to include Italy, and its splendid fleet, and colonial empire. Of course, the Italian player might not necessarily join the Germans and the Japanese, or he could also change sides as actually occured.
As for US production, the US should have by turn 5 a production of about 120 IPC per turn, while Japanese production should be reduced to one-half of the UK production, and I am being generous there. The Japanese never replaced their losses in warships or merchant ships in the entire war. The British did end the war with a bigger fleet than they started with, and produced far more tanks and aircraft than Japan did throughout the war. What carried the Japanese so far was there prewar military buildup. Once that was gone, they were doomed.
Finally, those of you who like having the Germans or Japanese win should do some reading about German activities in Russia, or Japanese treatment of prisoners and conquered peoples in the Far East, or maybe have the opportunity as I did to talk with some survivors and descendents of survivors of the Japanese occupation of the Solomon Islands. Beastial is a good term to describe the Japanese soldiers.
-
this in increase in american production is symbolized though conjuring territories.
-
this in increase in american production is symbolized though conjuring territories.
Given the actual US production, to equal that, the US would need to conquer the entire map, and control every IPC on the board first.
And Japan should, at most, be given one-half the production capability of the UK. Against that, if that was actually in the game, the Axis would have a horrible time winning, even without additional US productionl.
-
this in increase in american production is symbolized though conjuring territories.
Given the actual US production, to equal that, the US would need to conquer the entire map, and control every IPC on the board first.
And Japan should, at most, be given one-half the production capability of the UK. Against that, if that was actually in the game, the Axis would have a horrible time winning, even without additional US productionl.
i figured it out matmatichitly before. you would need to take 14 ipc from Japan and give them to the US. thats the only change to keep everything historic. my historical game might intreast you( that is when i’m finished with it. ) :lol: :lol: buys are so hard to figure out though.
-
It has been interesting reading this thread, as it shows how unrealistic the game really is when it comes to production capabilities. Giving the Japanese the same industrial production as the UK in the revised edition is totally bizarre, considering the actual differences in production between the UK and Japan during the war. Then the US is frozen at 1942 production levels throughout the game in both classic and the revised edition, when in actuality, by 1944 the US was producing one-half of the WORLD’S military equipement, as well as feeding a large portion of the world, building an enormous merchant fleet of Liberty and Victory Ships, and producing more trucks than the rest of the planet several times over. Japan’s military production never exceeded 10% of the US in the entire war, and the Japanese produced studies prior to the war that under the best of circumstances, by the third year, they were is serious trouble. That was assuming that all of their conquests succeeded and exploitation was absolutely perfect.
There is also the blythe assumption that every nation could devote the same amount of resources to research and development for all of the new weaponry mentioned. Yes, the Germans did develop both the V-2, the Messerschmidt 262, and the high-speed U-boat. However, the V-2 as an effective weapon was so limited in range that most of the UK industrial production was far out of range, and the engine on the ME-262 had a life expectancy of 15 flight hours before a total overhaul. German radar development lagged behind the Allies the entire war, and they never had the resources or fuel for long-range aircraft. The P-51 was a MAJOR shock for German aircraft designers. Germany could not afford to build heavy bombers, as fighters were far more vitally needed.
As for Japanese R and D, the Japanese military thought that a scientist was more valuable carrying a rifle on the island of Peleliu than working in a biological weapons facility in Manchuria. Note, I am not making this up, I have read the transcripts of his interrogation after capture. He sang like a little bird, and accurate data too. The Japanese did do some research and develop some new weaponry during the war, like their Magnetic Anamoly Detector, and in microwave radar research, they were ahead of the Germans. The Long Lance torpedo was developed long before the war, but they still had problems producing enough. They built a total of slightly over 4,000 tanks in the entire war. The US built 88,000 tanks, for the great part, much heavier vehicles. For bombers, they were still using the Betty and the Sally at the end of the war, as the replacements were delayed and not that great an improvement. The US had developed and put into major production by 1943 the B-29, and we were in the process of building the B-36. They never got beyond 92 octane aviation fuel, when the US and UK were using 100/130 and 115/145 octane avgas, for major performance improvement. The Germans had the same problem with respect to aviation fuel.
The German player also controls the Italian military assets in addition to his own, and they are German, not Italian. That gives the German player a boost that did not exist in the actual war, as Italy was always the weak link in the chain. In reality, the game should have 6 players to include Italy, and its splendid fleet, and colonial empire. Of course, the Italian player might not necessarily join the Germans and the Japanese, or he could also change sides as actually occured.
As for US production, the US should have by turn 5 a production of about 120 IPC per turn, while Japanese production should be reduced to one-half of the UK production, and I am being generous there. The Japanese never replaced their losses in warships or merchant ships in the entire war. The British did end the war with a bigger fleet than they started with, and produced far more tanks and aircraft than Japan did throughout the war. What carried the Japanese so far was there prewar military buildup. Once that was gone, they were doomed.
Finally, those of you who like having the Germans or Japanese win should do some reading about German activities in Russia, or Japanese treatment of prisoners and conquered peoples in the Far East, or maybe have the opportunity as I did to talk with some survivors and descendents of survivors of the Japanese occupation of the Solomon Islands. Beastial is a good term to describe the Japanese soldiers.
A game is a good environment for testing theory.
Assuming the 2nd Ed version where US, GBR ground forced have landed and migrated to Karelia while Jpn forces have conquered Persia. and Ger forces have massed in Ukr for the Lurch on Cauc…Rus withdraws forces mostly to Kar, leaving 1 inf in Cauc.
Ger attacks to take it, but leaves bulk of the force in Ukr. 1-2 inf in Cauc. Ger gets $3 more.
GBR attacks Cauc. wins with a few ground units. no money.
Jpn attacks Cauc. Gets $3 more, holding with a larger force.
USA attacks Cauc weakens the Jpn force, and then retreats.
Rus attacks Cauc, wins it back. Gets $3 more.Sure Ukr is worth $3 for whoever holds it at the end of their turn. Reality I would expect a piece of land fought over that much in such a short amount of time to be stripped of value until after a rebuilding time.
The game example shows the Ukr is actually worth more for all of the fighting. $3 for the Allies + $6 for the Axis
This being a game and a fun one at that, I really don’t mind a few historical inaccuracies. Milton Bradley was doing their best to create a marketable product that would make money for their shareholders.
It beats Risk by a landslide.
-
this in increase in american production is symbolized though conjuring territories.
Given the actual US production, to equal that, the US would need to conquer the entire map, and control every IPC on the board first.
And Japan should, at most, be given one-half the production capability of the UK. Against that, if that was actually in the game, the Axis would have a horrible time winning, even without additional US productionl.
i figured it out matmatichitly before. you would need to take 14 ipc from Japan and give them to the US. thats the only change to keep everything historic. my historical game might intreast you( that is when i’m finished with it. ) :lol: :lol: buys are so hard to figure out though.
that was for revised not classic. never tryed to do it in classic.
Suggested Topics
