what Hobbes is saying is 100% true. But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia. Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak. Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.
Japan counters to a West Russia stack
-
In the mid game what is Japan’s best option for countering a WR stack and helping Germany knock on USSR’s doorstep? Should Japan come around the bottom fork to Persia and (assuming Germany can stack in Ukraine) secure Caucasus when Germany attacks? Or should Japan put pressure on the middle/top fork to force USSR to split their stack between WR and either Novisibirsk/Moscow to pull heat off Germany so Germany can get through to Caucasus by itself (hopefully)?
Just wondering what has worked for everyone else?
-
Ideally, strong presure on all 3. In reality, you only get strong pressure in two avenues of attack.
To relieve pressure caused by West Russia, Southern and Central (India/Persia and China/Sinkiang). With a strong enough push you can potential catch a break to grab Caucuses, or stack Kazakh and threaten both Caucuses and Russia, forcing West Russia forces to pull back to either Caucuses or Russia, and allowing Germany to aid their push to a drive on Caucuses, or have free reign in northern europe (barring Allied force pressence of course)
-
Hmmm… Interesting thought. In my current game I’ve been trying just the south prong through Persia, with a GER stack in UKR. But it seems very slow to go this route. I can see that putting pressure on NOV/KAZ as Japan through the middle might work better to split the Allied defense. In my current game I have a few units in SIN but not really enough to put any serious pressure on NOV.
What about the top prong?
-
I think W. Russia is a minor nussiance compared to a large stack in Novosibirsk. How does Japan over come a 300 IPC army in Novo?
-
A 500IPC army in Sinkiang?
-
I was thinking 1 INF in Evenk with Moscow vacant was all you needed…
So only $3 IPC :-D
-
Well, assuming that you cannot just blitz into Moscow. A 300 IPC Allied Army in Novo is pretty much going to stop Japan in its tracks until Germany can apply pressure to Moscow and force a retreat, no?
-
And my point was that it is not ALWAYS just blunt force on blunt force…
Besides, 300 IPC of bombers piled into Novo is not much of a defesne…
Not just cash folks…
-
No, sometimes you can out maneuver, but the odds of out maneuvering 300 IPCs worth of allied units in Novosibirsk are pretty slim, all things considered.
-
No, sometimes you can out maneuver, but the odds of out maneuvering 300 IPCs worth of allied units in Novosibirsk are pretty slim, all things considered.
Only through Persia (in this case) can such out-manuevering be accomplished…
MUCH easier said then done. Revised does a good job in slowing the Japanese advance on Moscow since the three prongs can not easily be merged into one (due to nuetrals being impassable). A good allied player can more easily manuever to match Japanese advances than Japanese advances can gain ground on moscow/caucasus.
-
I would say go top with “slow” units Japan have in japan (and with you ´build with “lefover IPC´s”)
Go middle with your main force, this is best accomplisched with IC´s in Kwangtung, Manchuria and FIC (but build only 1/turn)
Go south with your Island Infs and Take India, take Persia with 1 Inf to Stop Russin attack to grab India or T-J, Take Egypt and T-J with an Trn after India, Send your fleet against first Australia (on turn 2, this is accomplished by moving the trn SZ60 to SZ36 round 1), then take that fleet to SZ28, and then SZ28 (left) or to Egypt… whatever you likes more… -
High/low is always the best way to go. It forces the Russians to split their infantry to defend both Kaz and Novo before Persia falls to Japan or Cauc and Novo after Persia falls. A big Russian stack in Kaz can control the low/middle route and a big stack in Novo can control the high/middle route.
I usually go with 3 IC’s in India, FIC, and Kwang with 4 TP’s in sz60. The Kwang IC sends 2-3 inf through China to trade Sink and the 2 other ones supply the Persian front. The 4 TP’s drop 8 units in Bury unless the Persian front starts to heat up with US reiforcements, in which case, I’ll rotate 1 or 2 TP’s down to sz36 to drop 2 or 4 extra units in FIC. If I need heavy units for a push, I’ll drop down to 4-6 units built in Japan and add art and armor support to the southern IC’s. Taking and holding Persia is always my primary objective.
-
Yea, the bottom route seems to be the preferred route. However, you can see it comming and block with America easily enough. Just go the N. Africa route to Europe with America. By the time Japan’s threatening Persia America’s threatening India. Now you don’t have to split your forces and you need 50% as many transports as America. (SZ 12 to SZ 9 to SZ 12 instead of a group going SZ 8 to SZ 1 to SZ 8 and another group going SZ 5 to SZ 6 to SZ 5.)
-
For me it depends on how the game goes. As Japan I move like water does I take the path of least resistance. The US forces always fall fast with no reinforcements there, so I take those. If UK wants to be a pain and pull an Alamo trick in India, Persia, or Trans-Jordan I say let them. I stack INF or what ever else I can muster to create a stale mate there. For the most part Russia consolidates its eastern forces I tend to find it easier to mow them down b/c they don’t get reinforcements often So I tend to put pressure on Russia from Novosibirsk, and Evenki National Okrug. The Northern route puts pressure on Russia in two ways b/c they lose real estate and the IPC collection (as apposed to the UK on the southern route) and both ways you have troops waiting to take Moscow. Then who ever gets the most troops there first gets Moscow as the trophy.
-LT04
-
If it is mid game I send Infantry from my IC’s in India and French Indo China, ARM from Manchuria and Japan. Keep the forces split among Kazakh, Novo and Evenki. This make the Russian player pick one of the smaller armies to attack or hold in Russia. Either way Russia is trapped between a rock (GER) and a hard place (JPN).
-
I think you are discounting the level of headache the N. African route can be for Japan. If America goes N. Africa s/he can be sending in 12 grounds units a round to Persia quickly, plus fighters. That’s as good an anchor as can be, and suddenly, Japan finds him/herself defending Industrial complexes in India and FIC against a possible American invasion, while America is free to calculate his or her least chance to kill all attackers and move the rest of his or her forces to the German front as reinforcements. (If America wants an 80% chance to win, then they calculate that. If they want 99% then that. If they only want 33% they can send more forces to Germany.)
Persia is not THAT far from Algeria. Especially for tanks. And if you play NAs and America gets Mechanized Infnatry, just forget going the southern route at all because you’ll never make it.
(E. Can/E. USA –> Algeria --> Libya --> Egypt --> T-J --> Persia = 5 Turns max. Japan needs twice as many rounds to be a reasonable threat to Moscow, let alone hold Persia.)
And no, for the record, Germany CANNOT defend N. Africa against British forces and Americans. (I like using Britian to take Algeria and Libya. Softens the blow of Japanese acquisitions a little, especially if England also took Norway.) Sorry, but there’s no way 1 transport can move enough troops to N. Africa to even threaten the Allies.
-
Jen I agree with you but I think if US were to do that a good Japan player would see it coming at least 2 or 3 turns out before the US got to Persia. Lets say for sake of discoution that Japan got blind sided when US troops landed in Algeria b/c s/he thought that they were going to Norway. For a tank its one more turn to Anglo-Egypt, and another to Persia. If Japan had a good TRNS fleet in SZ 61, or SZ 60 (as any good Japan player would) and a sizable standing Army on Japan (I’m using Japan as an example to illustrate the fact thats as far away as Japan can possibly get and still be able to produce troops if they still control their capital and have no IC’s on the mainland) when US troops get to Algeria, its one turn for TRNS to SZ 36 troops can unload in French Indochina and the next turn the tanks can move to Persia before the US gets there.
Lets me explain the easier:
US to Algeria, Japan to SZ 36 and unload in French Indochina, US to Anglo-Egypt by tank, Japan to Persia by tank, now you have a dead zone in Trans-Jordan and if Japan did it right you have now created a stale mate if for even a short time.
I guess this strategy would only work it you use what I call the Ho Chi Min trail technique. I love this strategy here is a good example of how to implament it. Lets say UK builds a IC in Union of S. Africa and buys 2 ARM every turn for it. Every turn following 2 ARM move to Anglo-Egypt from there they can move to Persia, Algeria or French W. Africa and can reinfore 2 ARM every turn after. The reason I said all that is b/c this momentum train is a vital concept of the game. Japan and the US have just as far to go to get to get to Trans-Jordan from their capitals. Yes $ for $ the US would probably win but what I’m trying to say is that Japan doesn’t have to make it easy for them, and has the ability to make that decision.
-LT04
-
You’re right Jennifer I was discounting the N orth African route because the group of guys I play with don’t typically use it. However I think that one of Japans greatest strengths is that you can see everything coming a couple of turns in advance. I think if I saw a rather large syack of US/UK units in Algeria I would be able to adjust my avenues of approach on moscow to limit that stacks effectiveness. Maybe not who knows thats what makes the game fun.
Even with the UK and US dropping units in Africa Japan can build a force to counter them and still take IPC’s from the UK and RUS. So japan would have more money to allocate to stopping that advance plus the JPN IC’s are closer to the action. The US and UK have to shuttle their troops by TRN. Advantage JPN.
-
And Germany will if US puts troops thrue africa in the start smash them, and later they will just send everything against Moscow, since no allied landing is in sight (and no UK can´t Break Germany by themselves.)
-
5 turns for the US to be putting heavy pressure on Persia is rather optimistic. The first round landing in Algeria is only 4 units and since the US has to build more TP’s, the second landing will be pretty small as well. Plus it will take an extra round to get the first big group of units going through E Can from E US. And since Germany will most likely have Africa the first 2 US landings will be dealing with cleaning up Axis units. And by the time the US gets to Persia in force the Imperial Japanese fleet is alrealdy sitting in sz34 chewing up the advanced US reiforcements with BB bombardments and diverting US troops with landings in IEA. That doesn’t even count the Japanese ground forces that have been massing in India from the beginning. My Indian IC is never under threat from invasion and I always get Persia no matter how many Allied units are sent there. Sending US troops through north Africa is merely a delaying action to give the UK/Russia time to contain Germany. The amount of Russian units it would take to be able to hold Persia is staggering and it ends up drawing Russian units from other areas and smart Axis players will take advantage of that. As a strategy, it’s one of the better ones but don’t make the assumption that you will be pushing Japan back. All you will be doing is holding them off with the goal being trying to keep Russia alive long enough to destroy Germany.
Suggested Topics
