I just tried this in our last game, and it worked well (though luck was NOT on the axis side) wonder if anyone else had success with it.
I moved all 4 Russians in China, and moved all 7 Russians on Buy.
I moved my Aussie navy to NZ where it linked up with the US navy.
This really made Japan ineffective (to be fair though, Japan really had awful luck, plus it pulled all of its troops out of Mancheria and let the Russians just walk in there).
The game was a no tech no NO game.
(to be fair though, Japan really had awful luck, plus it pulled all of its troops out of Mancheria and let the Russians just walk in there).
I don’t think luck had anything to do with it……
A no NO game really favors the Allies, probably not a true test of the strategy. Try it in a game with NO’s and see how it works.
@Emperor:
A no NO game really favors the Allies, probably not a true test of the strategy. Try it in a game with NO’s and see how it works.
Just played 1 NO game, and it worked quit well.
To pile seven inf in Bury (if at least just for 1 turn, then you can pull them back), 4 Rus inf in China, and then make the Aussie fleet in an out of the way area, strengthend, and able to make Japan worry about protecting valuable Islands as well does hold the Japs back a little.
They can’t really attack Bury (they can but it isn’t worth it), this forces the Tran at Japan to unload in Man if they want to defend it. They may even not benefit too much from attacking Bury on T2 and still have the threat of 7 inf there and 4 inf on china (which may be one space over now, so there could concievably be a chance of the 2 groups linking up). Doing an all INF build russia T1 makes up for the INF not comming in and by T2 ,if you want, you could build mass art for offensive punch.
The Japanese navy has to play very tight and conservative and almost defensive. And if the US player is still building capital ships (and maybe the occasional tranny) this forces the Jap player to build ships in response, once again slowing Japan down. I don’t know if it is worth it, but an aussie IC is defiantly very viable (though probably not a T1 IC), while the US protects with the navy maby it could build INF trannies and maybe light navy to take over Japanese Islands/mainland/africa/india (once again I don’t know if that would be worth it).
And china while it will still eventually be taken over, it is going to take a few more turns (especially if you pump a Rus inf in every so often). and you may even have the opportunity to attack with actual chinese forces on occasion. On top of which if Japan isn’t careful or under commits it could turn into a real hemmorage for Japan. And in South Asia I think there may be a chance for the Brits to hold India or at least make a counter attack on India on T2 (if you pull out and meet up with the Jordan forces and hopefully the EGY airplane) preventing Japan from securing India for one full turn more, and probably 1 turn more a factory doesn’t get placed there by the Japs.
It looks like there are a lot of things you could do by using this set up, depending on how much you want to commit to Japan. The NO potential is decent too, you could potentialy deprive japan of 10 NO’s for a little bit, while giving the UK 5 or 10 (If you use the fleet to hit EGY you could net 5 for the Brits and deprive 5 to Italy), and the US could be getting as many as 15 NO’s. Even if not, it feels good to at least have the potential to take away japanese NO’s It could be very little, and you still would I think at least give them a bigger speed bump then they are used to.
What about Germany? It seems Russia wouldn’t be doing so well in Europe if it committed that much to Japan.
It is a trade off, but so far it seems doable. If Germany is still a threat, Britain and America could just do 100% Euro builds, the beauty is everything that is being used is already on the board at no cost, and everything you are using is on the pacific side anyway. So if you don’t want to focus anymore on re-enforcing Asia you don’t have to, you just made Japan play a lot more conservative at no direct IPC cost to you. Russia is probably going to have to be buying mass infantry but the Allies could help by throwing 2-4 fig to defend Russia if need be.
Perhaps in a way, it could really help the Allies focus MORE on Europe by tying the Japs up and letting America focus almost exclusicly on Euro builds. Or you could invade Fin and pump troops through there. You may loose 5 NO’s for Russia, but you could very well be getting the 10 Russian NO plus you could finally be having the UK get some NO’s. It is a pretty flexible opening move, that is what makes it nice. I only played it twice with NO’s and once w/o, it has worked well so far.
I think stacking 7 infantry in Buryatia is a mistake. If I’m playing Japan and the Russian player does that……I’m taking that stack out! That’s 21 IPC worth of infantry gone and all of Siberia is left defenseless.
@I:
I think stacking 7 infantry in Buryatia is a mistake. If I’m playing Japan and the Russian player does that……I’m taking that stack out! That’s 21 IPC worth of infantry gone and all of Siberia is left defenseless.
what other attacks is Japan still doing if taking out 7 inf in buryatia?
Can you give details of your J1 when you go after the Russians J1?
Going after that stack is going to stall you out even more, that was why I started putting the stack there, as bait. You are going to be really really stalled on your opening moves for a chunk of 1 IPC land, China will hemorage, and if you are bombarding the allied navy coming south is going to have more freedom to move around. On top of that you may not even be able to threaten india by turn 3.
The most dispensible things you can send out is 4 inf (3 MAN 1 JAP), an art or armour (1 JAP), and 2 fig (1 JAP 1 MAN). If you do this, it is quite dicey, a 55% chance of success with only 1.5 units remaing which means you lose a plane that is 26 or 27 IPC’s worth of material you are averaged to lose, so you still probably won’t get the 1 IPC land if you win. These are all units you are probably used to sending elsewhere on more critical land.
Taking the land is not a problem for Japan, it can throw the kitchen sink at BURY if it wanted to, it is just not worth it though. If I made the opening move I suggested and you attacked that stack and won, I would consider it a bonus (maybe even barring awful awful luck). You have less units now in more critical places, and have probably taken over less critical land. It gives the Allies a bigger playground to trip Japan up for yet another extra turn or two. Hell, I may even consider a KJF or a T1 IC build in AUS if you made that attack (doubtful, but still this is where it would happen).
But the real beauty is, if the bait is not taken (which I don’t expect it to be) it causes Japan to play more tight and conservative.
You might wanna move that AUS IC to SA.
I’ve been toying around with it, and if you send the 2 original british fighters there, you can have an impressive UK fleet at turn 2. (1 AC + 2 FTR, something else to your liking, plus maybe the australian fleet, if they survived).
Japan can’t ignore that, and it gives you a starting point to reinforce/reclaim India. Toss in a few US ships in the Pacific, minor nuisance from Russia, and Japan is not having the field day they normally have…I hope.
UK can still put pressure on German shores with what they have left, america can still funnel troops to Morocco (or hop to Norway via UK), and Russia should just play their normal thing, while using there eastern forces effectively.
(Maybe not stack them at Buryata, but drawm them back, lure Japanse closer through Siberia, and when they are in range of a newly built Russian fighter, strike back with 7 inf + 1 ftgh, which should be enough to give the advancing japanese troops a small punch)
…or something in those likes…
Interesting thought with the SAF IC to help w/ Jap pressure. I was basically just pointing out how I could see the viabilaty of an Aussie IC (which I used to think would be insane), and to show some flexiblity with the strat.
At a quick thought they both have different benefits and costs (and don’t forgot the no IC option, which I still think may be the best).
For example:
-If Germany captured EGY you probably couldn’t build the IC in SAF
-It would be harder to link up the US pacific/ aus fleet with whatever is going on in SAF
-It is further away from all those Islands/ pacific NO’s japan is collecting on
-I think you may have to build it T1, if you did this you would probably have to sit on the rest of your cash and build your fleet on UK2 (that is not particulary a bad thing, you may have to run off a suicide tranny though).
-The SAF kind of hits Jap now on yet another front/can fight Italy/or re-enforce the Caucaus.
-The SAF means the UK is in a way defending and involved in all of it’s starting territories, that is a good thing (as long as it is still able to adequetly keep pressure on Germany)
-It may be tougher to hold than an AUS IC
-A benifit of both the AUS and SAF IC’s is they are both of marginal use to the Axis
If you can put that SAF factory in, keep Japan occupied, pressure Germany, keep Italy a minor power, and not lose Russia that is a hell of an idea. It potentially means the UK is now able to keep all of its lands (even those 4 IPC islands) contested for a (hopefully) reasonably low cost. I don’t know if that can be done though.
I’ve had Russia stack 7inf in Bury, as Japan I tend to ignore them, and conduct my standard J1 opening (attacks on Sui, Hup, Fuk, Kwang, Yun, Philippines, Borneo, Sumatra, SZ’s 35, 50, 53, and 56). Yes, Russia will take Manchuria R2, but it’s of no real advantage to them, they don’t get the IPC’s for it, and Japan is in a much better position to destroy them J2.
That said, I do believe it’s a mistake not to challenge Japan from the beginning, so I usually do move the stack to Bury, buy some ships for the US, sometimes an IC for India. Haven’t tried the IC in Australia, could be viable, you can send 2 fighters there on US1. I would suggest putting the Aussie destroyer in SZ48 to block an amphibious assault from the Philippines.
@I:
I think stacking 7 infantry in Buryatia is a mistake. If I’m playing Japan and the Russian player does that……I’m taking that stack out! That’s 21 IPC worth of infantry gone and all of Siberia is left defenseless.
what other attacks is Japan still doing if taking out 7 inf in buryatia?
Can you give details of your J1 when you go after the Russians J1?
Ok. We have already established that there are 7 Infantry in Buryatia. Based on the 7 infantry stack in Bury strategy, I’m going to assume that the Russian player will make these moves as well. 4 infantry moved in Chinghai and 1 moved into Yukut. Yukut now has 2 infantry (gonna need some kind of paper machete defense for Siberia after this).
On J1 I would bring 3 inf and 1 fighter from Manchuria. 1 inf, 1 armor and 1 fighter from Japan. And 2 fighters from SZ 61. (Total: 4 inf, 1 armor, 4 fighters vs 7 inf) 96% Japan victory.
3 inf from Kiangsu to Fukien. 88% Japan victory.
3 inf from FIC and the fighter from Formosa to Yunnan. 83% Japan victory.
3 inf from the Carolines and the Crusier to Kwang. 95% Japan victory.
2 fighter form SZ 61 to take out the tranny and destroyer in SZ 35.
Battleship from SZ 61 to take out the destryoer and tranny in SZ 50
2 fighters from SZ 57 and tranny from SZ 51 to (fingers crossed) take out the BB in SZ 53.
Depending on how the battles go use the 3 inf and 1 art in SZ to 61 to reinforce either Kiangsu or FIC (probably French Indo-China). Buy a IC and place in Manchuria.
The way I’m looking at it, Siberia is now an open door to Moscow. Russia IMO is now forced to send units out of Moscow (which are much needed for the Germans) to defend its rear. Hopefully the UK player sees this as an opportunity to reinforce Burma since it was not taken on J1. But it can be taken on J2 with the reinforcement of FIC the 2 fighters in SZ 37 and the pot shots from the BB and the crusier. Didn’t like leaving the US transport and destroyer alone. But I’ll deal with the US later.
As Japan, every time I see Russia stack up in Buryatia, I ponder long and hard about taking it, but I never do. They can usually be dealt with in turn 2, or they run away, and you don’t have to sacrifice taking all those fruitful south pacific islands turn 1, AND not being set up for Austalia or India for turn 2. But they are very tempting. Not having to chase them all the way to Russia makes Siberia look pretty simple.
Personally, I like it when the Russian player does the Bury stack when I’m playing Japan. I would much rather eliminate these units early while they are far away from Moscow rather than chase them all the way back. It’s then just one less thing to worry about when I close in for the kill.
Japan should have 6 or 7 Fighters, a Battleship and a Cruiser in range of New Zealand at the end of Japan 1 to stop this maneuver. I’d almost let England keep their Industrial in India to sink the Americans and the British off New Zealand and end the threat to Japan from the ocean, IMHO.
Of course, it sort of has the pre-requisite of not losing two fighters in SZ 56, two fighters in SZ 35, and/or 2 fighters and a destroyer in SZ 53.
@Cmdr:
Japan should have 6 or 7 Fighters, a Battleship and a Cruiser in range of New Zealand at the end of Japan 1 to stop this maneuver.
Which maneuver are you referring to Jen?
The bringing of the Allied fleets together in Solomon Islands. I guess going all the way down to New Zealand might protect them for a round, but it’s an unsustainable position that early in the game. By the time you can move them out to do something, the entire Japanese fleet should be right on top of you because Japan needs it’s fleet down there in the first two rounds of the game, just to get their NOs.
@Cmdr:
The bringing of the Allied fleets together in Solomon Islands. I guess going all the way down to New Zealand might protect them for a round, but it’s an unsustainable position that early in the game. By the time you can move them out to do something, the entire Japanese fleet should be right on top of you because Japan needs it’s fleet down there in the first two rounds of the game, just to get their NOs.
Taking out the 7 inf stack in Bury would leave the Japanese fleet out of position to strike the Allied fleet in the Solomon’s. So because of that would you leave the infantry in Buryatia alone?
I, actually, don’t think Japan can take the 7 infantry stack in Buryatia, nor do they need to do so. They’re virtually harmless to Japan.
What can they do? They can take Manchuria, but, Japan could crush them there. They can stay put, but Japan could crush them there too.
Either way, they’re not really much of a threat. Now, if Japan elects to hit the combined allied fleet in the south, they might have a harder time retaking Manchuria and it could cost them a National Objective, and possibly, give China another infantry on their turn (because of the extra free land), but it’s not guaranteed. You might be able to do both depending on what you lost sinking the Americans in the first round or not.
Even if you don’t retake Manchuria, i think it’s a better deal to sink the combined Allied fleet than get the NO for that round. It can be really annoying to have the British destroyer open a path so the Americans can attack your fleet!
