China is also the shortest path to Russia.
Take another look at the map. A chain of Japanese units thru SFE is the shortest path to Moscow. New inf units take 5 turns.
Preferred option to stall Japanese expansion.
-
I’ve got to agree with gamerman, those Indonesian islands seem a little to big in value.
Like you said they sit at 4 to reflect the resources (mostly oil) that Japan gained from capturing them. But remember Persia had the largest oil reserves in the world at that time and her value sits at 1.
I’m sure I will hit a few negative karma points for saying this but I don’t know that the pacific theatre is AA50 is a very accurate reflection of historical reality. (Or perhaps it simply reflects a motivational difference between the actual Japanese Empire and the one we create which can perfectly coordinate its moves with the other axis powers.)
Perhaps what I’m getting at is that if we were to play out the pacific theatre as close to history as we could, the United States would get annihilated, and would be hard pressed to open up a western front against the Germans. One could perhaps say the same thing about Africa…
…and now I have opened up the whole “historical accuracy” can of worms.
-
I am not a history expert, but it was my understanding that early in the war, most of the US resources went into helping out in europe/the atlantic. Then with Operation Torch, the african landings.
I believe that the fact that we could read the Japanese codes / our intelligence gave the US navy some gains they would not normally have had. Face it, Midway was a big part luck and a big part the fact that we knew Japan was coming after Midway to take it. After that battle, the IJN never really had any offensive momenteum from that point forward in the war. Couple that with the battle in the solomons/guadalcanal and US was able to have the upper and on Japan till the end of the war.
What does that mean to the game? Not much really. The game is about RE-WRITING history, not repeating it. I was speaking to the post by Canuck:
Perhaps what I’m getting at is that if we were to play out the pacific theatre as close to history as we could, the United States would get annihilated, and would be hard pressed to open up a western front against the Germans.
The problem is that the USA doesn’t get much reward for a substantial investment against the Japanese. It is also very hard, if not impossible to team up on Japan. UK pacific forces are decimated on J1, and pretty much wiped out by J2, even India. Sure UK can throw some resources into an IC in India or australia, but those are short term road blocks that Japan will overcome with only a 1 or 2 turn delay…. meanwhile Germany is goose stepping into Stalingrad or Lenningrad on their way to Moscow.
I don’t know if the OP was limiting the discussion to current rules (optional rules included). There have been some good ideas about fixing the pacific theatre on these boards.
-
I find just keeping what you have left in SZ 56 is usually enough to prevent the fall of your islands for at least a few rounds. Thing is, Japan has bigger fish to fry with their navy so they are loathe to move it to take worthless (to them) islands just to take a NO from America. They will if all they need is 1 infantry, 1 transport (or add an armor if they are defended still).
I do like the idea of IC + American fighters in Australia, but with the nerf to Improved Factories, it’s not really worth it either. (You can’t get it to 4 production, so why bother?)
-
@Cmdr:
I find just keeping what you have left in SZ 56 is usually enough to prevent the fall of your islands for at least a few rounds. Thing is, Japan has bigger fish to fry with their navy so they are loathe to move it to take worthless (to them) islands just to take a NO from America. They will if all they need is 1 infantry, 1 transport (or add an armor if they are defended still).
I do like the idea of IC + American fighters in Australia, but with the nerf to Improved Factories, it’s not really worth it either. (You can’t get it to 4 production, so why bother?)
Cmdr, I have always liked the idea of the IC in Australia but have not really put it to the test, fairly. I think an AC with a Cruiser to start (landing any fighters on the carrier you can) followed by a Destroyer and Transport (replacing allied fighter with your own (UK) asap) could really wreak havoc for the Japanese. Especially if you back it with some US fleet. Have you tried this? Has anyone tried this? And if so, how did it work out? This could really stall the Japanese if you could put it together.
Regards,
Captain Crunch -
I would worry more about getting the continent secured FIRST before investing in a UK navy.
UK buys the building, then ground units.USA can provide the ftr cover (ftrs built in SZ56 on a carrier make it to australia)
If Aussie hasn’t fallen to japan by round 4 or so, then maybe you might try to invest in some navy.
I have held australia till J4 with the above US support (and a slightly out of position Japan due to the r1 purchased russian bomber taking out a jap transport on R2 in East Indies)
Then these units made it to India to help hold THAT until J5.It’s nice if you can get it to work. I think it’s much more doable if Japan goes to take the Philipines on J1: India is not as pressured and Australia can be blocked/held J2 with the UK DD.
-
The problem is that the USA doesn’t get much reward for a substantial investment against the Japanese. It is also very hard, if not impossible to team up on Japan. UK pacific forces are decimated on J1, and pretty much wiped out by J2, even India. Sure UK can throw some resources into an IC in India or australia, but those are short term road blocks that Japan will overcome with only a 1 or 2 turn delay…. meanwhile Germany is goose stepping into Stalingrad or Lenningrad on their way to Moscow.
An IC in India can work very effectively if you do it right. If you really want to have fun you can even build 2 ICs on UK1. 8-) Axis doesn’t know what to do if you pull that on them. I literally rolled over an experienced opponent when I showed him something he hadn’t seen before. He was so taken off his game he made two massive coin flip attacks (50 % chance of success) and lost both of them. He surrendered turn 3 because his situation was pretty much helpless.
-
The problem is that the USA doesn’t get much reward for a substantial investment against the Japanese. It is also very hard, if not impossible to team up on Japan. UK pacific forces are decimated on J1, and pretty much wiped out by J2, even India. Sure UK can throw some resources into an IC in India or australia, but those are short term road blocks that Japan will overcome with only a 1 or 2 turn delay…. meanwhile Germany is goose stepping into Stalingrad or Lenningrad on their way to Moscow.
An IC in India can work very effectively if you do it right. If you really want to have fun you can even build 2 ICs on UK1. 8-) Axis doesn’t know what to do if you pull that on them. I literally rolled over an experienced opponent when I showed him something he hadn’t seen before. He was so taken off his game he made two massive coin flip attacks (50 % chance of success) and lost both of them. He surrendered turn 3 because his situation was pretty much helpless.
WOPR can you provide more details? It’s hard to imagine that a factory in India would be that much of a trouble to Japan.
-
@Captain:
@Cmdr:
I find just keeping what you have left in SZ 56 is usually enough to prevent the fall of your islands for at least a few rounds. Thing is, Japan has bigger fish to fry with their navy so they are loathe to move it to take worthless (to them) islands just to take a NO from America. They will if all they need is 1 infantry, 1 transport (or add an armor if they are defended still).
I do like the idea of IC + American fighters in Australia, but with the nerf to Improved Factories, it’s not really worth it either. (You can’t get it to 4 production, so why bother?)
Cmdr, I have always liked the idea of the IC in Australia but have not really put it to the test, fairly. I think an AC with a Cruiser to start (landing any fighters on the carrier you can) followed by a Destroyer and Transport (replacing allied fighter with your own (UK) asap) could really wreak havoc for the Japanese. Especially if you back it with some US fleet. Have you tried this? Has anyone tried this? And if so, how did it work out? This could really stall the Japanese if you could put it together.
Regards,
Captain CrunchThe British Transport is enough to cause headaches for Japan, if you want my honest opinion.
England moves in and takes territory, America follows up with a fleet to defend the British transport and lands bombers and planes on the island to threaten the Japanese fleet/bomb Tokyo.
The problem I have with the factory in Australia (in this incarnation) revolves around the nerf to Improved Factories. If you don’t play with the house rule (and all rules not printed in the box are HOUSE RULES, I don’t care if Larry gave birth to them in the middle of the night after 14 hours of hard labor, they are still HOUSE RULES) that improved factories only apply to territories worth 3 IPC or more, than it’s a great place for a factory! (Cause you can have 4 builds there per round. 7 if you also put one on New Zealand, if it comes too it.)
-
Something i was trying for a while is to fly US bombers and fighters to Stanovj and Strat Bomb Japan from there. It’s a big investment for the Japanese to throw 7 or 8 USSR inf + 2 US ftrs out of there. You can if you can afford it move 1 or 2 USSR arm there and/or fly the UK ftr’s there too.
-
It’s always worth remembering that the US bombers can get there - in case the Japanese forget and mistakenly drop a couple of transports in their waters J1.
-
It’s always worth remembering that the US bombers can get there - in case the Japanese forget and mistakenly drop a couple of transports in their waters J1.
My buddy and I have both done this….ONCE…on J1. But never again :-D
-
yea, that is a mistake one not soon forgets!
Not sure how effectively you can SBR Japan from Stanovoj. Not saying it is effective or ineffective, saying I’m not sure how effective it is! (some people like axis_roll will assume because I said “not sure how effective…” I mean completely ineffective and go off the deep end trying to prove me wrong, hence the clarification!)
I’d say it is a pretty heavy investment from what you are describing.
21-24 IPC in Russian Infantry
- 20 IPC in British Fighters
- 20 IPC in American Fighters
- 24 IPC in American Bombers
- 12 IPC in British Bombers (?)
That’s 88 IPC (if you dont bring the British Bomber) of units tied up to do 3.5 IPC damage per bomber on average. (10-11 Dmg a round expected.)
Just to put some perspective on it. Again, I am NOT saying this is a GOOD or a BAD idea, I am only attempting to investigate further.
-
Hmmm, this has me thinking. If I get the Axis in our next game (we draw markers every time) I just might try the SBR on Japan from Russia (with US/UK bombers) coupled with a show of US coming after Japan from the West coast. This would really force Japan to pull their fleet home to help protect since their building would be limited. This should relieve some pressure from Africa/Australia/India allowing UK to keep some IPC’s for 2/3 extra rounds. UK might be able to buy an India IC on UK2/3 and hold it if Japan pulls back. Any thoughts, problems with this?
Regards,
Captain Crunch -
@Cmdr:
yea, that is a mistake one not soon forgets!
Not sure how effectively you can SBR Japan from Stanovoj. Not saying it is effective or ineffective, saying I’m not sure how effective it is! (some people like axis_roll will assume because I said “not sure how effective…” I mean completely ineffective and go off the deep end trying to prove me wrong, hence the clarification!)
I’d say it is a pretty heavy investment from what you are describing.
21-24 IPC in Russian Infantry
- 20 IPC in British Fighters
- 20 IPC in American Fighters
- 24 IPC in American Bombers
- 12 IPC in British Bombers (?)
That’s 88 IPC (if you dont bring the British Bomber) of units tied up to do 3.5 IPC damage per bomber on average. (10-11 Dmg a round expected.)
Just to put some perspective on it. Again, I am NOT saying this is a GOOD or a BAD idea, I am only attempting to investigate further.
Most of the units are starting units, so do not need to be purchased. Sounds intriguing, falconrider. Jen, I don’t think it’s about just bombing the factory. With all those planes right there, it will be trickier for Japan to build fleet, or the fleet might have to stay home. Also, as he pointed out, if Japan tries to take out that nice little stack it would be costly. The topic is stalling Japanese expansion, and this idea appears to have some merit.
-
WOPR can you provide more details? It’s hard to imagine that a factory in India would be that much of a trouble to Japan.
I don’t like to get into too much specifics on a strategy in a forum where I may find future opponents. I like to surprise people and try to make them play a game they haven’t played before.
Something i was trying for a while is to fly US bombers and fighters to Stanovj and Strat Bomb Japan from there. It’s a big investment for the Japanese to throw 7 or 8 USSR inf + 2 US ftrs out of there. You can if you can afford it move 1 or 2 USSR arm there and/or fly the UK ftr’s there too.
@Captain:
Hmmm, this has me thinking. If I get the Axis in our next game (we draw markers every time) I just might try the SBR on Japan from Russia (with US/UK bombers) coupled with a show of US coming after Japan from the West coast. This would really force Japan to pull their fleet home to help protect since their building would be limited. This should relieve some pressure from Africa/Australia/India allowing UK to keep some IPC’s for 2/3 extra rounds. UK might be able to buy an India IC on UK2/3 and hold it if Japan pulls back. Any thoughts, problems with this?
Regards,
Captain Crunch“From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step” — Napoleon Bonaparte
-
The Australia IC CAN be a good investment IF things go sour for Japan on J1 or J2 with a failure to capture Australia. This can provide a steady trickle of units to nip at Japan’s heels and keep them occupied.
The UK transport can also have some other uses in the Pacific. Normally if it is used it will take the Carolines and the US will re-enforce. But once there it has the POTENTIAL to perhaps liberate Borneo or Sumatra if the conditions are right. It might even be worthwhile to do a suicide run with the TN to do so.
I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.
I would be leery of trying to SBR Japan from Stanovoj. 1st Japan should have more than one addition IC up and running by turn 3 at the very latest. So unlike Germany with its one IC Japan will have other production options. 2. Japan has plenty of firepower they can quickly bring to bear against such. Think of it like India. If Japan really WANTS it they WILL take it.
Now as far as dealing with Japan, I like having the US go all out against Japan. The east coast units and transport may go to Africa and I may send a few infantry this way using such if it survives. I also send the starting bombers to England for SBR duty unless an opportunity arises on J1 to cause some grief to Japan. Provoking a Naval arms race with Japan with the US is not necessarily a bad thing even if they are outproducing the US. Every boat they put in the water is not boots on the ground and this is where I think the old everybody jump on Germany fails in this edition. While Japan may or may not have captured Moscow when Berlin or Rome goes they will have accumulated massive numbers of troops throughout Asia while the Allies units have basically been whittled away each turn fighting against the European Axis. Even if the units are equal in numbers the Allies are spread amongst 2 or 3 countries (depending if Russia fell) while Japan’s are a single Nations that can attack together as opposed to defending together.
-
I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.
You’re right about that. If Japan really WANTS India, they’ll get it… Eventually. However, if the Allies play it right they can make them pay dearly for it. Both in terms of troops, and more importantly, time. A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.
-
I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.
You’re right about that. If Japan really WANTS India, they’ll get it… Eventually. However, if the Allies play it right they can make them pay dearly for it. Both in terms of troops and more importantly, time. A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.
Same goes for the Eastern Russia thing. Japan can take it, but at what cost?
-
A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.
Obvious. But are the allies who have to run, because axis has economic advantage in this scenario (from round 3 as much). If you send soviets to India, you will lose Karelia, Ukranie and such. China is a super good puppet for Japan, and also India. There no solution for 1941 scenario puzzle: allies cannot hold Asia, not a chance, due poor setup and very poor, by gaming and historical reasons, China rules (that make China more a puppet for Japan than an aid for allies). If you have a theater lost even before rolling dices, you cannot win the war
-
Obvious. But are the allies who have to run, because axis has economic advantage in this scenario (from round 3 as much). If you send soviets to India, you will lose Karelia, Ukranie and such.
If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.
There no solution for 1941 scenario puzzle: allies cannot hold Asia, not a chance, due poor setup and very poor, by gaming and historical reasons, China rules (that make China more a puppet for Japan than an aid for allies). If you have a theater lost even before rolling dices, you cannot win the war
You keep beating that “1941 scenario is broken” drum but it’s not true. I think it’s your game play that is flawed, not the game.
While I’m on it what’s with you and China? Why do you think they should be upgraded to a full power? They were not an industrialized nation at the time and were very marginalized. Why should they be producing tanks and bombers?
Suggested Topics
