Giving the Japanese player fits

[axis_roll]

@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?

[dondoolee]

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.

[Woodstock]

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…

[dondoolee]

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.

[jsp4563]

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 like Ike]

@axis_roll:

@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).

1. 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.

2. 3 inf from Kiangsu to Fukien.  88% Japan victory.

3. 3 inf from FIC and the fighter from Formosa to Yunnan.  83% Japan victory.

4. 3 inf from the Carolines and the Crusier to Kwang. 95% Japan victory.

5. 2 fighter form SZ 61 to take out the tranny and destroyer in SZ 35.

6. Battleship from SZ 61 to take out the destryoer and tranny in SZ 50

7. 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.

[Joe Cold]

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.

[ogrebait]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.

[I like Ike]

@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?

[Jennifer]

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.

[I like Ike]

@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?

[Jennifer]

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!

[dondoolee]

If the Allied fleet is protected for a round it can always withdraw towards America.  They can do that plus add a couple plans to defend the Aussies, if australia can survive.  How much equipment though can you freely move around if you have 7 inf in bry to deal with, a fortified China, and a somewhat sizeable allied fleet.  At that point, you are not there to actually threaten Japan just make it respond, tighten up its game play, and hopefully slow it down for a turn or 2, all at no IPC’s spent.  I think it is a good thing for the Allies to force Japans movement as early as possable.  And if you are going Pacific heavy with the Americans it can be re enforced  fairly quickly, or maybe you could send boats up the north pacific, or dump trannies off in Russia.

The 7 inf Bury stack, placed maybe for just 1 rnd is not a game breaking, slam dunk winning move for Russia, but I think it helps, especially if you have an allied fleet on the bottom. And RUS inf in china.  Japan has to have enough equip now both north and south to deal with a 7 inf bury stack and an allied stack.  And in both cases the Allied forces in the area can immediatly withdraw to saftey if they want on the next turn, all at no cost of IPC’s and forcing Japan to react.

[jsp4563]

@dondoolee:

If the Allied fleet is protected for a round it can always withdraw towards America.  They can do that plus add a couple plans to defend the Aussies, if australia can survive.  How much equipment though can you freely move around if you have 7 inf in bry to deal with, a fortified China, and a somewhat sizeable allied fleet.  At that point, you are not there to actually threaten Japan just make it respond, tighten up its game play, and hopefully slow it down for a turn or 2, all at no IPC’s spent.  I think it is a good thing for the Allies to force Japans movement as early as possable.  And if you are going Pacific heavy with the Americans it can be re enforced  fairly quickly, or maybe you could send boats up the north pacific, or dump trannies off in Russia.

The 7 inf Bury stack, placed maybe for just 1 rnd is not a game breaking, slam dunk winning move for Russia, but I think it helps, especially if you have an allied fleet on the bottom. And RUS inf in china.  Japan has to have enough equip now both north and south to deal with a 7 inf bury stack and an allied stack.  And in both cases the Allied forces in the area can immediatly withdraw to saftey if they want on the next turn, all at no cost of IPC’s and forcing Japan to react.

IMO the Bury stack is usefull rnd1 but after that I usually withdraw.  The new map makes the Northern and Central routes to Moscow a really long haul, I use that to the allied advantange with delaying tacticts.  Trying to have a confrontation with Japan on the costal territories is a waste of manpower.  If you don’t withdraw the Bury stack on R2, Japan will kill it.

If your gonna use Russia to bolster China, then withdrawing the Bury stack to Stc makes more sense.  You’ll need some offensive punch too, probablly bombers or fighters, but then that weakens your front against Germany.

If you’re up to it, let’s play and see how it works out.

[dondoolee]

I certainly would like to play it out, unfortunatly this week I don’t have the luxury, so if you take rain checks

[jsp4563]

@dondoolee:

I certainly would like to play it out, unfortunatly this week I don’t have the luxury, so if you take rain checks

Rain check is fine, PM me when you’re ready.