You can also try naval link strategies and forget about Africa. There are very few players who know what they’re doing vs a naval link, and even if they do know about it, Africa will be pretty empty of any troops since both Germany and the Allies aren’t doing much in there, leaving it open for Japan a few turns later.
If you’re serious about Africa, the only way you can make it difficult for the Allies is to land there hard on G1. If you don’t land hard enough, it’s counterattacked and they follow you on turn 2, and you’re just not getting much out of it.
@Cmdr:
Love how you just glaze over what to do if the allies do a Pacific plan.
“Eventually they will get in range of your 4 IPC islands.”
Yea, Eventually is Round 3. Be ready for it. If you are not ready, you WILL lose those islands and lose them fast. Remember, all it takes is one ship to stop your might Japanese fleet from crushing the American fleet and England has a lot of sacrificial ships around to do the job.
You can quickly find yourself in a bad position with America putting up a factory in E. Indies and pummeling SE Asia and you not being able to stop them because they are A) on the defensive and B) building ships right in SZ 37. (Same for Borneo, but at least then you can build ships in SZ 60.)
Mm. Glazed.
However, I find it difficult to believe that the US is going to be doing anything on those islands Round 3. It takes two rounds to reach the 4 IPC islands from Western US. That means that the US has 1 battleship, 1 transport, and its turn 1 build. At best you’re going to have 1 battleship 2 carriers 4 fighters 1 transport 1 sub. Japan should have at least 2 battleships 2 carriers 5 transports 7 fighters 1 bomber at that point (assume Japan builds transports on J1 and switches to fighter/infantry builds or possibly bomber/infantry after seeing the US1 Pacific build, which it should).
If Japan is sticking with a two-transports at Japan switching with two-transports at French Indochina transport plan, the entire Japanese fleet will be well within range to destroy the US should it venture as far west as Borneo or East Indies on US3. The Japanese fleet just isn’t needed anywhere else; Japan can see the US coming a mile away, and Japan itself doesn’t need to be protected against invasion with navy (since the US fleet of 2 inf 4 fighter 1 bomber should be totally unable to crack Japan).
Comments -
1. Enskive’s got some good points.
2. You can’t get Novosibirsk easily with Japan. Any Russian player worth his/her vodka will fight you until you TAKE it. Early on, Japan should get at least 5 total transports, and the rest infantry. Four transports move 8 infantry per turn; 4 to French Indochina (from where they march either to India or Sinkiang/China as the opportunity arises) and 4 to Burytia (or some to Manchuria if the Yakut attack is going well). The fifth transport picks up Japanese infantry off the isolated islands moving them to mainland Asia, or to attack Australia and New Guinea and Hawaii as opportunity allows. Japan can often use a sixth transport, especially if the Allies are going KGF.
You don’t have to take Novosibirsk early. When Japan takes Ssinkiang and Yakut, with infantry following up every turn from Burytia or China/French Indochina, Russia should not be able to afford to attack either Japanese stack, as weak as they are. Russia can usually smack one or the other, or maybe even both, but anything that Russia sends TOWARDS Japan makes it EASIER for Japan to kill Russians faster - the Russians have both done the work of marching towards Japan, AND have even done the favor of attacking the Japanese infantry that’s relatively good on defense with Russian infantry that’s relatively weak on offense. So you build infantry up at both locations for a couple turns and trade Kazakh, then things start to get interesting, especially if you’ve switched to tank builds somewhere in between.
At that point, Germany will be pressured pretty hard by the Allies, but Japan will be able to take Novosibirsk one way or another - if Russia attacks from Novo, Russia will be too weak to defend; if Russia just stays there, Japan can cruise in and unite its infantry and tank stacks. Of course, at that point Russia can see what’s going to happen, so most of Russia’s forces will pull back to Russia while UK and US stall Germany out.
Either the Allies will be strong enough to defend Russia for a while, in which case you take India and put an industrial complex there, and Japan starts grabbing African territory; this task is often made easier because the Allies have to pull back a bit from Germany and Africa to defend Russia. Or Japan pushes its stack into Kazakh and then partially into Caucasus allowing Germany to secure a foothold in Caucasus.
Midgame tanks are good for Japan for a few reasons. One, they let Japan blitz through Africa. Two, Japanese tanks can force Russia to pull back to Moscow faster, especially if UK is mostly out of Europe. (Because if there are Japanese tanks in Sinkiang, and German air in the vicinity, Germany can clear Kazakh, then Japan can blitz through Kazakh to hit Moscow along with Jap air for a moderately powerful attack) Three, if Japan times its tank build well, the tanks join Japanese infantry at the front for added momentum on the attack.
Remember to never overbuild tanks. Tanks are useful, but so are masses and masses of infantry.
Actually, NPB, you’ll probably have 1 Transport, 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Fighters and a Destroyer (plus 2 infantry) in SZ 37.
England will have a transport or a submarine or a destroyer or something in SZ 49 or SZ 48 to prevent Japan from attacking the fleet. Meanwhile, America will have half a dozen submarines in SZ 45 (one of them in SZ 51 again to prevent a Japanese attack)
Why? Because I find a lot of Japanese players confronted with an Aggressive America do exactly what you say, and turtle up. That means they’re fleet is up north, where it is easy to confine for a couple of rounds.
@Cmdr:
Actually, NPB, you’ll probably have 1 Transport, 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Fighters and a Destroyer (plus 2 infantry) in SZ 37.
England will have a transport or a submarine or a destroyer or something in SZ 49 or SZ 48 to prevent Japan from attacking the fleet. Meanwhile, America will have half a dozen submarines in SZ 45 (one of them in SZ 51 again to prevent a Japanese attack)
Why? Because I find a lot of Japanese players confronted with an Aggressive America do exactly what you say, and turtle up. That means they’re fleet is up north, where it is easy to confine for a couple of rounds.
Ah yes, the destroyer. And the US 1 build is 2 ACs 1 fighter. That works. Apologies; I haven’t KJF for a while. For those without maps in front of them, SZ 37 is East Indies, SZ 49 and 48 are Phillipines and Borneo respectively, SZ 45 is Solomons, Sz 51 is Wake Island.
What I usually see is something like:
1. UK India transport and fighter either retakes Anglo-Egypt (possibly with UK bomber aid), or if that not possible attacks Borneo. UK destroyer attacks Jap Kwangtung transport (which I’m unhappy with as UK because I prefer better odds, but I think acceptable). UK carrier moves to Borneo if the UK fighter survives, otherwise the UK carrier joins the UK destroyer.
My turn with Japan is buy 3 transport 1 tank and attack Pearl with 1 sub 1 destroyer 4-5 fighters 1 bomber. Note the sub only survives 2/3 of the time as the UK sub at Australia typically attacks. Note that Japanese noncombat move typically results in two carriers one battleship (from East Indies) at Solomons. The UK Australian transport can interfere with Jap fleet unification off Solomons, but I have a spare fighter that I can take from Pearl. I also take China, usually leaving either 1 inf at French Indochina or 1 inf at Manchuria depending on Allied noncombat; if Allies left 6 inf at Burytia I will usually try to leave an inf at Manchuria to suck more Russian infantry in (Russia attack is followed by Japanese counter on J2 retaking Manchuria and taking Burytia as well). Japanese battleship east of Japan stays there, either battleship support shot against Burytia (if Russia doesn’t have a lot), or simply acting as escort to Japanese transports, which can be threatened typically either by UK bomber in China, or US bomber in case the Japanese attack on Burytia does not succeed.
On US1, the US cannot counterattack Solomons, and cannot attack Japan’s transports. Assume US1 build 2 carriers 1 fighter move destroyer west for US Pacific fleet 1 battleship 1 bomber 4 fighter 1 destroyer 1 carrier 1 transport.
On UK2, UK is looking at a Japanese fleet east of Japan and another at Solomons, with air at Solomons. Remaining UK fleet is forced to run directly west or die. Even if the UK fleet does run, Japan can still hunt them down with air.
Jap2, the Japs can see the US coming. Buy is 1 transport 1 fighter 5 infantry (J1 purchase 3 transport 1 tank leaves 1 IPC in bank; probable J1 income is 32 with China; so 33 IPC total in bank end of J1) The Japs can probably kill the UK fleet no matter where the UK fleet ran to; there are friendly Japanese landing islands all over the place. Japan can choose either to move 2 transports west of Japan and 2 transports to French Indochina (typical 4-transport Japan beginning, if spare Japanese transport send it west so it’s in position to unload East Indies next turn). OR Japan can send one Solomon carrier to join Japan. At worst, Japan should only have to deal with US forces of 4 fighter 1 bomber; that should not be a terrible problem even for the Japanese fleet east of Japan consisting of 1 battleship 1 loaded carrier 3 transports, and note that with that setup, Japan has sacrificed hardly anything at all in progress in Asia or anywhere else.
Essentially, at this point Japan splits its fleet; one fleet is stationary east of Japan, or pulls west of Japan in the face of a strong Allied threat; one fleet cruises the South Pacific (generally moving west as it retreats from US forces). The UK fleet is being hunted and should be dead soon. This is for J2. By J3, rogue Allied fleet should probably be dead, and the Japanese fleet is freed to unite.
On US2, again, the US shouldn’t have any ready targets for its air. So let us say that the UK drew the South Pacific fleet southwest out of position. The US can send its fleet of 1 battleship 4 fighters 1 destroyer 1 carrier 1 transport directly west (if the US goes southwest, it risks being in range of both Japanese fleets, which is a bad idea).
So let us say that US goes two spaces directly west. The defensive punch of the Allies at that point is about 5 hits to the Japanese fleet. The Japs can hit with 1 battleship 1 carrier 3 transport 6 fighter 1 bomber (this is assuming Japan lost a fighter at Pearl) which is weaker on attack, but Japan can afford to lose its cheap transports, and the US has to choose between fighters, carriers, and a loaded transport (if it sinks a carrier, Japan retreats and US fighters splash into water; if the loaded transport goes down, that’s the US invasion threat, and if fighters die, those are the stronger defenders). Japan’s attack is not great, BUT Japan has more fodder and can run whenever it wants, right back to the sea east of Japan where it unites with the J2 fleet build.
Probably then US will not go two spaces directly west; it will go to Hawaii. But Hawaii isn’t in range of any of Japan’s 4 IPC islands, so there is no immediate threat, and Japan has already averted US3 Borneo / East Indies.
It can be a little more inconvenient than above; that UK fleet can be surprisingly resilient if UK fighters flew to Moscow on UK1; those fighters landing on the UK carrier on UK2 probably at India make things difficult for Japan. But such moves come at the expense of UK attacks on Germany, and the UK fleet is out of position to help the US fleet.
2. (less common) UK sub at Australia and UK India fighter attack Japanese sub at Solomons; UK fighter lands on US carrier at Pearl Harbor. In this case, Japan can do Pearl strong (sends navy) and retreat from the US navy and hunt UK navy on J2. Or Japan can use the same old plan, just with the possibillity of another fighter or so lost because of the UK fighter at Pearl.
–
The general game plan for Japan is to use its transports to empty the islands as usual. J1, Japan builds 3 transports to start dumping infantry from the isolated Japanese islands into Asia. J2, Japan hunts UK fleet survivors and dumps 8 infantry into Asia and starts building fighters to defend the Pacific AND attack Asia they can’t really do both because of range limitations, but they can switch back and forth to some degree. J3 depends on the US moves to that point, but it is quite possible that Japan is pressured to some degree, and will start finding its extra transports to be of little use (US is too close for Japanese transports to wander into the South Pacific). Around that point - which may come J3 or possibly J4 or 5+ depending on whether the Allies are going all out against Japan - around that point, Japan switches to buying subs and fighters, uses its air in Asia, uses its subs and existing navy to fend off US advances combined with the threat of Japanese air, and uses the spare Japanese transports as fodder. At that point, though, either Germany should be doing well in Africa and on the European front, or Japan should have an income of 35ish IPCs, allowing regular 6 infantry 1 sub 1 fighter builds.
US can just power through all the Japanese fleet eventually, but it should take a pretty fair amount of time. If US diverts resources to deal with Africa, it takes longer for the US fleet to threaten in the Pacific, which means more time for Japan’s transports to move free infantry off the Japanese islands into Asia, and more time for Japan to expand in Asia as well.
I never see an Egypt that is statistically possible to liberate with England anymore. People generally hit them with the entire German Army and stack it like it’s the end of the world (mainly because I never get more then one hit, but bids have gotten up to 9 IPC for 3 infantry in Libya so that’s a 5 infantry, 2 armor, fighter, bomber attack on Egypt now. No way England’s killing 4 infantry, 2 armor with 3 infantry, fighter, bomber.)
Given that, I’m more inclined to move the fleet to SZ 30 and dare Japan to attack it if I am going KJF. Followed by an IC in S. Africa and 5 Infantry in England to protect against Sea Lion, I can move the British northern fleet out to the Pacific if I want too.
As for Japan in SZ 45, yea, that could be annoying. But no more so then Japan’s Battleship in SZ 52.
Question is, what does Japan do on Japan 2 when you have:
SZ 35 (Bottom of the board, halfway between Australia and S. Africa): 2 Transports, 2 Infantry, Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, 2 Fighters (UK)
SZ 55 (Los Angeles): Battleship, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, Destroyer, Transport
You’ve got a BB, AC in SZ 45, BB, AC in SZ 60 and 5 Transports scattered around. (Assuming you lost the submarine and destroyer on J1.)
@Cmdr:
I never see an Egypt that is statistically possible to liberate with England anymore. People generally hit them with the entire German Army and stack it like it’s the end of the world (mainly because I never get more then one hit, but bids have gotten up to 9 IPC for 3 infantry in Libya so that’s a 5 infantry, 2 armor, fighter, bomber attack on Egypt now. No way England’s killing 4 infantry, 2 armor with 3 infantry, fighter, bomber.)
I typically play TripleA ladder, where you there are bid restrictions on placement. Anglo-Egypt is sometimes too stacked for a UK1 counter, but a fair amount of time it is not. Note this IS for TripleA ladder.
Given that, I’m more inclined to move the fleet to SZ 30 That’s west-southwest of Australia. and dare Japan to attack it if I am going KJF. Followed by an IC in S. Africa and 5 Infantry in England to protect against Sea Lion, I can move the British northern fleet out to the Pacific if I want too.
As for Japan in SZ 45 Solomon Islands, yea, that could be annoying. But no more so then Japan’s Battleship in SZ 52 Hawaii; this presupposes Pearl Harbor heavy, which is quite possible given THOSE UK moves…
Question is, what does Japan do on Japan 2 when you have:
SZ 35 (Bottom of the board, halfway between Australia and S. Africa): 2 Transports, 2 Infantry, Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, 2 Fighters (UK) Well, we’ll get to that in a moment.
SZ 55 (Los Angeles): Battleship, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, Destroyer, TransportYou’ve got a BB, AC in SZ 45 Solomons, BB, AC in SZ 60 East of Japan and 5 Transports scattered around. (Assuming you lost the submarine and destroyer on J1.)
Mm . . . not rly. First, the beginning of J2 you describe would hardly be my Japan move in any event, given that the US can attack the Solomon battleship and loaded carrier with 1 battleship 1 bomber 1 fighter 1 transport. True, these are not great odds for the US, but considering that US has little to lose and much to gain with a little swing of the dice, it is a fairly nasty risk for Japan to take, considering that movement of the second Japanese carrier to Solomons should cost the Japanese little. Note that I do see this beginning of J2 sometimes, but that’s only when the UK has used some of its UK fleet to assure that position.
Second, here’s the situation - if the UK has bought 5 inf 1 IC at South Africa, this is a strong signal for KJF. However, without an IC at India, and with UK splitting IPCs between UK and South Africa, Germany and Japan should both be able to expand into Europe/Asia with relatively little problem - although late Africa will be a problem for the Axis, the lack of UK and presumably US support to Russia will be a countering problem for the Allies.
Third, Japan is not locked into Pearl Harbor, and the Kwangtung transport is alive. Although it is costly because of the UK AA gun, Japan can attack India with up to 1 battleship bombardment, 4 infantry, 1 bomber, 4 fighter. That’s quite a bit. I assume that UK will not want to attack Japanese forces of 1 battleship 1 carrier 2 fighter 1 transport with 2 transport 1 carrier 1 destroyer 2 fighter (they are perfectly welcome to, but will at the least suffer a horrible drain on their resources, and India will probably - almost certainly - be lost forever) And if you want to say that Russia sent fighters to India after a W. Russia only attack, why, that too is perfectly acceptable, as this opens the line for KGF Kitchen Sink attack with surviving Belorussian AND surviving Ukraine infantry available to power an early tradeoff with Russia, either German aircraft can attack West Russia with no problem (if the Russian AA gun is at Russia), or the Germans can strategic bomb Russia (if the Russian AA gun is at West Russia, the Germans can fly and bomb, and fly back over the W. Russia AA gun during noncombat at which point the Russian AA gun will not fire, so no risk).
Fourth, EVEN attacking India, Japan can likely still afford to hit Pearl Harbor with the Pearl Heavy version, as the Japanese sub has survived. It’s 1 carrier 1 sub 1 destr 1 battleship 2 fighter at the very least, and Japan has a discretionary transport.
Of course, Japan can’t do everything. Japan only has a limited number of air available to crack India, attack Pearl, and crack China on J1. Still, it is clear that Japan has a good number of choices that can be bad for the Allies, particularly a J2 industrial complex in India.
Even then, I haven’t mentioned the possibility that Japan simply does a normal Pearl light / China. Britain’s got a lot of interesting possibilities stemming from the fact that the UK carrier allows the UK fighters to harass unescorted Japanese transports (note the UK bomber is probably in the area too), but there are Japanese lines that I think work out quite decently, probably starting with J2 Solomon fleet splitting 1 carrier to east of Japan and rest to New Guinea, Borneo, or East Indies, still threatening and probably preventing an early US attack on Solomons, but also threatening the UK fleet at India.
To answer the original question, I think it is possible, but that doesn’t mean Africa should be ignored, but you don’t want to continue to send tons of units to Africa every turn or you’ll get too thinned out in Europe. And in most cases I assume I’ll lose my med fleet on either G3 or G4 so I don’t anticipate having anything grey in Africa beyond G5 or so.
I do agree with Nix that when Germany is kicked out you can have Japan set up to reclaim some of it or at least be an annoyance with part of its fleet stationed in sz 34 (BB, ac, ftrs).
With an Power Africa bid (8-9 ipc all to Lib), you can look to take Egy on G1 with enough force to prevent a counter. On G2, you blitz your armor while using your trn/bb to take Trj. You should have all of Afr (except for possibly Alg, Safr, and Ken). By the time G3 rolls around you lost Lib, but should be able to pick up Ken and now you are looking to either defend Egy with enough to get your original tanks out of Afr and into the Mid east or write off those tanks and use them to eventually take Safr while you get your ships into the Indian Ocean (assuming the Allies have planes within range of Sz 15) and look to take Mad or maybe threaten India or Aus depending on your Japan strat.
In this case all you spent with Germany is the bid (8-9), 2 units on G1 and 2 more units in G2. Everything else you bought should be used in Europe and this gives you about 4-5 turns of gaining some Africa income and gives Japan time to get to at least 5 trns and 1 IC for their Asia push.
So as Germany is getting kicked out of Afr, (if you can retreat your German troops through Egy to Trj and to Per that is a bonus), you want to make your push in Europe so as you move to Ukr any remnants of your Africa core hit Per with Japan reinforcing and in position to take either Kaz or Novo.
Even with the restriction of 1 unit per territory for the bid, you can EASILY see an Egypt stacked with 3 armor plus an infantry or two/or artillery after attacking with:
2 Infantry, Artillery, 3 Armor, Transport, 2 Fighters, Bomber.
Yea, the old trick (armor to alg, inf to lyb). 1 unit for territory limit don’t do much at Africa (is better at Ukrania, of course)
Still I think 8 bid is tempting the luck and 9 almost suicide against competent axis player… too many sneaky plays for axis…
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
1 unit per territory does hamper Ukraine, but that’s no big loss. I don’t know a single player who plans on having 6 fighters at the start of their turn. We all almost assume we’ll lose Ukraine to Russia.
Yea, the old trick (armor to alg, inf to lyb). 1 unit for territory limit don’t do much at Africa (is better at Ukrania, of course)
Still I think 8 bid is tempting the luck and 9 almost suicide against competent axis player… too many sneaky plays for axis…
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa. That is a significant difference in playing the Germans. I completely disagree that in a situation in which you are limited to placing one unit per territory, that a placement in Ukraine is better, particularly when you can gain the advantage of G2 tank blitz through Africa.
(edit) - Or turbo India with 1 inf at French Indochina and 1 tank at Kwangtung. Although I haven’t seen this variation much, due probably to its vulnerability to Russian/UK moves (/edit)
As far as 9 bid, that is the TripleA standard bid - restrictions are that enemy capitals cannot be attacked except by strat bombing on first round, and that no more than one unit can be placed per territory. At the time my old record was retired, I had 8-9 wins and 0 losses playing with Allies, against some of the strongest ladder players.
So I think I know what I’m talking about when I say that a 9 bid is really the minimum an Axis player needs against a competent Allied player under those strictures. You could say my opponents were incompetent, but I was I think ranked about 17 out of 320 or whatever the total number is when my account retired, and you don’t get there by playing against retards.
The most abusable 8+ bid strategy (unusable in TripleA) is Baltic transport followed by long range aircraft tech roll for invasion of London. Apart from that, though, the Axis really need a good sized bid just to stand a chance in hell. The Axis can “sneak around” all they want, I will just ram units down their throats until they choke - which I wouldn’t be able to do if they had those extra starting units.
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa.
Tanks are STRONG!
@Mazer:
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa.
Tanks are STRONG!
If I could only keep ONE change from AA 2nd to AAR, it would be tanks defending at 3.
And yes, the tank blitz of Africa is great. Which is why you need to make sure Egypt falls with 4 or 5 ground units left. I’ll even kill off a fighter if it means Egypt has 5 ground units (or 4) because it stops England from winning, and most likely keeps you with 2 or 3 tanks.
Fighters can fly to Africa. Tanks need a transport. So that’s a double benefit.
@Cmdr:
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
Ugh! :-o Wining bids with 12? :-o It lets you sub at z8 plus 1 inf at lyb (or ukr) and 1 ipc to japan (for buying IC+2 tra). What bid the opponent? 13? :-o
Sure there are more wicked combos with 12 ipc bid, but that knowlegde is too dangerous for human mind. Better if keeps unknown 8-)
Edit: hope no one is planning bid 16 or more. 2 trannies at baltic? :-o
@Cmdr:
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
Ugh! :-o Wining bids with 12? :-o It lets you sub at z8 plus 1 inf at lyb (or ukr) and 1 ipc to japan (for buying IC+2 tra). What bid the opponent? 13? :-o
Sure there are more wicked combos with 12 ipc bid, but that knowlegde is too dangerous for human mind. Better if keeps unknown 8-)
Edit: hope no one is planning bid 16 or more. 2 trannies at baltic? :-o
D***it, Funcioneta, I keep saying that the bid is a function of the ruleset under which the bid is placed.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that Jen’s talking about one of those sites that only lets you preplace half your bid. I’m pretty sure AAMC goes that way.
No, I’m talking full placement bid, but you can only put one unit per territory.
FIDA bids, which are 50/50 with any remainder being cash not units, the bids I’ve been placing and winning are closer to 18 IPC.
And yes, it allows the submarine to SZ 8, but most players who get a naval unit make it a transport in SZ 14, which I feel is much more function able than 2 ground units in North Africa, if you ask me.
Anyway, bid 12 IPC, for me, is:
3 Infantry in Ukraine
2 IPC to Germany
1 IPC to Japan
This allows a round 1 purchase of 14 infantry for Germany and saves the fighter in Ukraine (which is more important then the 3 infantry, btw. 3 Infantry = 9 IPC, 1 Fighter = 10 IPC. So it’s like upping the bid by 1 without actually upping the bid!)
14 units G1… scary :-o
Even with half bid you can try things as 2 inf to ger, 1 ipc to japan, 5 ipcs to ger (that lets you, say ac, 1 armor, 8 inf G1, or 2 figs, 8 inf … pretty huge boost to axis anyway).
Of course, bid system changes the … bid… :-)
for me FIDA means 16 IPC.
Transport in SZ 14
Germany + 8 IPC
Gives me 48 IPC to spend on G1 which is 16 Infantry, full production in Germany and S. Europe. I can still hit Egypt with 3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter, Bomber (maybe a second fighter if Ukraine lives) which is way over kill.
UK destroyer attacks Jap Kwangtung transport
[…]
My turn with Japan is buy 3 transport
[…]
Note that Japanese noncombat move typically results in two carriers one battleship (from East Indies) at Solomons
[…]
Japanese battleship east of Japan stays there, […] simply acting as escort to Japanese transports, which can be threatened typically either by UK bomber in China, or US bomber in case the Japanese attack on Burytia does not succeed.
[…]
On UK2, UK is looking at a Japanese fleet east of Japan and another at Solomons, with air at Solomons. Remaining UK fleet is forced to run directly west or die.
I don’t agree to let the UK destroyer live.
When the UK bomber is stationated somewhere in siberia (a very common option, I think) and Buryatia is a possible landing place (also common, I think) then the US player can attack at SZ 60 with fighter and bomber. The survivors will be attacked again from the UK destroyer and UK bomber, perhaps assisted from UK sub (in very rare cases, but it could happened). After both attacks the japanese transport navy should be found many feets below the surface of the ocean, and the japanese will have a very slow start in asia. Combined with an aggressive US player that sounds like a quick game over …
