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 simply feel the game is too easy and less complex if you don’t have to worry about tech. Naval battles specially are pretty scripted unless you have to worry about tech, but the whole game gets more scripted without tech. I like the tactical thinking required against a possible LRA, HBs, JF or super subs. If the enemy has a balanced navy/airfleet, it’s very possible he get some valuable tech and then toast you. If youd didn’t take tech into account and abuse of battle calculator to see the exact amount of boats you need without the tech, you deserve being punished by the tech. The same applies for land combat: you need more effort and more thingking, nore less, because you have more variables
If you base your strat only in HBs, you deserve lose, because you have a very slight chance of getting them when you want it, and there is also a chance of your rival getting the proper counter before you get the HBs. The better strat is always the most balanced: ignore a point of the game, being a theater of war or tech or you want, and you are probably lost
No tech gives a too scripted game also. You can play LL if you fear complexity and non-scripted games
-
I agree with Funcioneta here. +1
-
seconded +1
-
Thank you, guys! +1 to both :-)
-
Naval battles specially are pretty scripted unless you have to worry about tech, …
This was my original point about tech that brought up the whole tech discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15129.msg478194#msg478194WITH TECH, USA has a better chance to run a pacific strategy. Without tech, it is much more difficult to crack the japanese naval monster.
You almost will get as much difference of strong opinions when you discuss low-luck versus ADS game as you will get with Tech versus no-tech.
Seems like there’s a lot of tech fans here willing to hand out +1 Karmas to those who share the same opinion. Tech is fine. It’s a different game, that’s for sure.
And I even seem to remember those who say it’s better BECAUSE it’s more random. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about why this game is so great.
Good gaming!
-
WITH TECH, USA has a better chance to run a pacific strategy. Without tech, it is much more difficult to crack the japanese naval monster.
I doubt it. Japan can also roll tech, has more income available than USA, and also starts with more figs than USA. It can absorb more bad rolls than USA in any case, tech or not, since Japan’s position is superior. What tech does is making the Pacific theater more difficult of handle for both sides, since tech adds more options and more complexity
LL, that leads to more scripted games and changes the game dinamic very much, serves axis purpose pretty good, due axis great default advantage and due axis attacking first. I’d probably change my usual opening as axis in a hipotetic (very hipotetic) case I wanted play a LL game, and I’d probably would do a double against UK in Egypt and z2, a thing I would never do in normal games
-
WITH TECH, USA has a better chance to run a pacific strategy. Without tech, it is much more difficult to crack the japanese naval monster.
I doubt it.
And you also say that
Naval battles specially are pretty scripted unless you have to worry about tech
which can imply that scripted naval battles lead to the already superior force (japan)….
So are you saying that the US should not try to run a Pacific strategy?
I don’t know how you voted above.
-
Back to the original topic, about stalling Japanese expansion. I guess I’m not offering a way to stall it today, I’m just going to give another anecdote about how Japan is unstoppable in the '41 scenario.
I am playing a skilled opponent on the forums right now. It’s the first time I’ve played as Axis in '41 against someone good. I’m more of an Allies player, traditionally, and I struggle to really play a mean Germany. I do know what I’m doing with Japan, though, I think. (She is similar to playing USA or UK, which I have a lot of experience with). I did sneak in on round 3 and conquered the UK and 40 IPC’s, but that was just a speedbump for my opponent, who had already secured France.
So anyway, as Germany and Italy are “turtling” in round 5, Japan is going crazy, with about 80 IPC income, Heavy bombers (I own 5) and have secured Western USA. It is very soon going to be Japan against the world, and it’s going to be very interesting. You can check it out in the Play by Forums. It’s called “Solo game” because I started playing solo but my new on-line gaming friend jumped in at G1 (for which I was glad).
Remember that Larry’s theory about A&A starting scenarios is that he just tries to accurately depict the military situation at that point in history. Then “you are in command” and whatever happens is whatever you make happen. Of course, the games also ignores many “facts of life” and is an abstraction, and is designed for fun. -
(Continuing my post here because of the annoying scrolling problem)
A few observations - Japan can pretty much permanently deny UK 2 of 3 NO’s by securing Australia and Japanese original territories. Also, the 2 USA Pacific NO’s can easily be denied.
I play by Larry’s suggestion of no new Island complexes. This helps blunt Japan’s samurai sword a bit in '41. If not for this alternate rule, I would always build IC on East Indies J2. Because of no new Island complexes, my opponent is not dealing with a Jap assault from the South on Caucasus yet, and I am not taking all of Africa as rapidly.
Anyway, it would be cool if you guys reviewed this PBF game (on the first page right now) and review how things went for Japan in the first several turns and what the Allies did.
My opponent was smart enough to not try building any IC’s with the UK. However, he ran from the Pacific with the USA to go after Europe hard. It would be great to read your thoughts, ideas, observations. As for me, this just confirms my perception that Japan is an out of control Godzilla in '41, which is why I prefer the '42 scenario. -
The US leaving the Pacific is the primary cause of the Godzilla Japan. Also an IC by Japan in the East Indies is not as easily defended as it may seem.
-
I think Zygmund v Lynxxes abandonned Pacific and did good. I tried to copy this but it didn’t work out as planned.
Granted, both Germany and Italy are down, I’m still not sure if 2x 50+ ipc nation can beat a 100ipc Japan
Robert
-
The best way, tech or no tech, is to stop them from gaining that 6-8 IPC swing in Ind/Aus/Haw for as long as you can.
I prefer to do this in such a way:
R1:
key purchases:
bmb, arm
key movements:
2 inf kaz -> per
2 inf stc, 2 inf far -> bry
2 inf nov -> chi
key mobilizations:
bmb cau, arm cauR1: These are mostly moves to keep Japan honest. You’re moving units toward Asia to force Japan to take out the chinese now or never have a chance of securing it. It usually happens anyhow, but when/if it doesn’t you’ll be ready to make them pay in a big way.
J1:at this point you’ll know whether JPN’s decided to take his sz 61 units to burma and ignore phi. It’ll cost him cash in the long run but it can pretty effectively put a stop to this IC going up. It’s a good way to keep 7 IPCs out of jpn’s hands for J1 along with getting 7 more for US when their turn comes. The rest of the turn assumes Jpn wants to hit their island bonus and does not do that.
UK1:
key purchases:
IC
key movements:
any units that can make it -> ind
dd sz 41 -> sz 48
key mobilizations:
IC indIf you’re extremely lucky, your Egy ftr makes it to ind. I’d suggest leaving all the units you can in Aus and resisting the temptation to transport them around the map and to the atlantic. dd blocks phi trns from getting to Aus.
US1:
key purchases:
at least 1 trn
key movements:
ftr haw, ftr sz 44 -> aus
key mobilizations:
everything purchased moves toward threatening Pacific theatres, chi inf -> sikR2:
key purchases:
key attacks:
bmb cau -> sz 38
7 inf bry -> man if there are 3 inf or less there
key movements:
2 inf per, arm if built R1 in cau -> ind, 2 inf chi -> sikUK2:
key purchases:
3 land/air units to place in ind.
key movements/attacks:
take bur back if you don’t have it.At this point, you can play things by ear. If you feel like Aus might be in danger without ftr, keep them there. If Ind needs them, to Ind they go. The key here is, the Soviets are forcing the Japanese hand by making them have a significant commitment in northern Asia on J2. If UK2 opened the Burma road, R3 allows for 2 inf and an arm to take back yun. J2 has no chance of picking up their 3rd bonus except phi -> haw and that’s death for whatever units go, since you’ve built in the pacific. Get aggressive with that American fleet! Just pour units into sz 51, take Car giving the Brits a bonus, and make the Japanese answer this threat too. It’s going to be quite hard for Jpn to get above 50 on J3.
Getting UK units into China is important because any territory UK liberates in China can’t be retaken before the Chinese count territories for conscription.
Lots of things can obviously happen between R1 and R3, but the strat has been pretty effective for me against a wide range of strong players.
-
Good post souL.
J1:at this point you’ll know whether JPN’s decided to take his sz 61 units to burma and ignore phi. It’ll cost him cash in the long run but it can pretty effectively put a stop to this IC going up. It’s a good way to keep 7 IPCs out of jpn’s hands for J1 along with getting 7 more for US when their turn comes. The rest of the turn assumes Jpn wants to hit their island bonus and does not do that.
It is for this very reason (to get UK out of India for J2) that I forgo going after the Philipines on J1 and attack Burma J1.
This also opens up the opportunity for Japan to hit persia or transjordan or egypt J2…
So to me, that cash you describe as being lost for japan is not long term cash (because Philipines fall J2), but rather short term cash (one round’s worth)
-
I have started employing it when I see Russians stacking up against me as well… getting boots on the mainland is key. Still, if you’re working a long-term KJF, -7 IPC to JPN and +7 to US could be a very big deal. It’s a shame there’s no really good way for the Allies to exploit Phi being left open J1. A lot can also go wrong with leaving Phi.
I’ve been monkeying around with ways to counter J1’s bur grab… I’ve come up with a few things that are interesting, if not implausible. It’s based on the idea that you have to stay as aggressive as you can against them if they decide not to get their economy up to speed.
-
There are some things I like about that souL and some I do not.
I welcome an Indian IC by the UK as Japan. I find it to be more of a drain on the UK’s resources than anything else in the long run. Once the UK builds the Indian IC they MUST defend it. All Japan has to do is not get overly excited about such and simply out muscle the UK and India will fall.
I also do not like a heavy Bury stack and push into Manchuria. I find this simple as Japan to clean up. I prefer to leave 1 infantry in Bury and consolidate the rest in Stanovoj. This keeps Japan from grabbing Bury with 1 infantry and can lead to liberation of Bury by Russia after Japan takes it lightly.
If the Philippines are left open I will fly the Hawaiian fighter there Just to up Japan’s commitment.
I do like feeding Russian Infantry to China. It slows Japan down and ups their commitment to what is other wise a quick advance to Russia’s doorstep.
I also like pestering Japan with the US Navy. Japanese units that have to attack US units in the Pacific are not free to go elsewhere. Even buying Navy with the US can be beneficial if all it does is make Japan spend money on fleet units.
I find it is less a problem with the Godzilla Japan with their income as opposed to all the ground units they have dumped into Asia or Africa that is the problem with an ignored Japan.
Now some of all that is probably just a play style difference, but hey if it has been working for you more power to you. Anything beats realizing Japan is making 70 IPCs and has as many units on the map as the rest of the worlds combined. :-D
-
The India complex is not only possible to defend, it can be made nearly likely. The idea behind the bry stack is to FORCE jpn to be able to answer 7 inf bry -man. That’s part of keeping those 2 trn from going from sz 61 -> sz 37 unload bur. If they go to bur they can stop the IC or at least slow its emergence. In sz 50 they’re in position to go back to sz 62 and unload. in sz 37 they are not. It’s all about keeping jpn honest.
Landing a ftr in phi is the other thing I’ve really been kicking around. Is it better going to phi and dying, or is it better going haw -> aus -> ind and reinforcing ind some more? It’s clearly dead in phi, and might not even up the commitment.
I’ve been working on “splitting the middle” with the US a lot, concentrating on trying to control sz 51. Any time the US can keep a foothold there it does a few things:
1. 5 IPC for Britain. Obvious one.
2. Air base. Such a good central location in the Pacific theater. I like to “color scope” maps, and the coverage of a bmb in the Carolines lights up most of the Atlantic in the areas it can over (assuming control over the entire north american continent.
3. Threats. Too hard to answer so many threats for the Japanese. Japan is directly threatened, along with their big money islands. Their navy HAS to rally to this sz and control it. That’s why on US2 I suggest getting everything you can to sz 51.As long as you’re FORCING jpn to answer threats (man on J2, sz 51 on J3) and with different types of resources each turn, in different areas of the world, it seriously tests both the flexibility and pure capacity of Japan. They start with a lot, but the quicker you tax it the more difficult it is to replace. It’s why 7 inf bry -> man is so key. It’s 21 IPC and 7@2 just for japan to recover IPCs they already had. Japan has to give you something. When ground forces are going north, they’re not going toward an India complex, and as the game progresses they’re not even going toward FIC which becomes a British/Russian target. They’re not going toward Australia which is involved in 2 NOs. If you can catch the navy in sz 62 because they need to transport lots of troops, the American navy can go to sz 46, threatening sum, burn, and phi.
@the British cash split. Think about the territory they defend. ind 3, aus & bur 2, per nze ngu 1. That’s 11. That’s 2 inf and an arm. Think about what they do for Russia. With a simple commitment of about 4-5 inf initally, they’ve got 1 less choke point.
How do you deal with having a little bit less money in the Atlantic with the British? Don’t make any mistakes. Either fortify your fleet and make sure it won’t get sunk before leaving sz 2, or just abandon it for the most part. You can take the easy way out. Build 2 bmb and an inf with your leftover money, simultaneously threaten to destroy the Italian navy while bombing the Germans into the stone age. The Americans don’t have to COMPLETELY abandon that theater, either. They start with some units over there, and if you’re gentle with them, they can still have an effect in the Atlantic. Also bmb can be built in wus and flown to gbr on the subsequent turn, if they’re not immediately attacking in the Pac. I always try to mix in 1 bmb/turn with the Americans after US1, as it can threaten in the Pacific then go to Gbr as fast as if it were mobilized anywhere.
-
Again I think a lot of my observed differences is a play style thing. I know I do a different J1 than is common.
A Buryatia stack moving into Manchuria is rather to eliminate on J2. Russia gains no benefit as far as income and it should be back in Japanese hands before the Chinese can possibly benefit by an additional infantry. Also once these far eastern Soviet forces are gone that is it as far as the North. There is now no opposition between Japan and Moscow.
I also do not like the idea of a US fighter in Australia at all. With my J1 opening I can hit Australia with up to 6 fighters provided none were lost on J1.
Again I do not like an Indian IC at all. I prefer to bring in UK troops heavy through Africa to archive this. I may occasionally reinforce the original UK force here with a Russian tank to delay or add to the expense for Japan.
I do think Russia benefits greatly from reinforcing China as this allows the Allies free troops in this theater.
I will agree with you on SZ51. I think US 2 is probably too early to venture forth, but at times the US can benefit from Naval battles it looses as long as it forces Japan to invest in ships and lost opportunities.
I also think one of the biggest thing Japan needs to do against an Indian IC is simply not over react. Time can be on Japan’s side if Japan plays its cards right. There is no need to attempt to seize India before Japan has the proper and sufficient resources to do so. Japan can play defensively in need be.
This last is something I have noticed with AA players. Call it strategic tunnel vision. A prime example is no one ever considers an Axis SBR campaign. They will sit there and watch Germany get hammered to dust while England or Russia is unscathed.
-
Excellent points, big dog, I agree with practically everything you said. Obviously you are an experienced A&A player and have good sense.
-
I think it’s unfair to say the Axis ignore strategic bombing. The nature of AA41 is the Axis start with more units and less IPCs, so obviously you’re setting yourself up to earn money rather than take it from your enemies. I know it sounds like the same thing, but if the Axis can’t fuel their war machine on the respective sides of the globe, no one’s coming to help them for the most part on J1. Most tech games I get a tech and a bmb. If it’s at all possible it lands in bur on J2 and SBRs cau on J3.
The man stack isn’t about income or the ease of which it gets destroyed. The man stack is about forcing the Japanese, who’ve only built 17 IPCs worth of units since turn 1, diverting troops from either Phi/sz 50 or from sui back toward a territory worth 8 IPCs. Ground units from Phi -> Man are not heading to SE Asia for at least 2 turns, they’re not heading toward Aus (which has been blocked this turn by a dd), and they’re not heading toward the US islands that hold monetary value for the US.
Assume: J1 2 trn sz 61 -> sz 50 unload phi and twol
@Aus and American ftrs. I like to land 2 there, putting 6 total units there. If I’ve picked off your trn in sz 38 via Russian bmb and blocked the transport from sz 50 via dd sz 48, you can only likely get 1 trn there. I’m most definitely ok with 2 inf from brn and your 6 ftr v my 3 inf art 2 ftr and aa. You’re bringing 66 IPCs worth of value into this fight v. my 33, taking opening fire, and having to lose 10 cost units after the first ground hit.Assume: J1 2 trn sz 61 -> sz 37 unload bur twol.
I’m a proponent of J1’s 2 trn sz 61 -> sz 37 unload bur. That allows the threat of those two either going to Ind or Aus, while if there’s still a trn in the north and one in sz 49 you’ve got a much more favorable 4 land units (and 6 aircraft is very dangerous) going to Aus while there are 4 assaulting Phi simultaneously. Also I would assume up to 5 aircraft and 6 land units threaten Ind. There are likely only 8-10 defenders in Ind at this point so I’d like Jpn’s chances in either place. With this move Jpn’s sacrificed a 1st turn IPC swing of 14 to put themselves in a much more favorable position.It’s just 1 more reason I like moving the American pac fleet, if I’m KJF, on turn 2. Whether it be sz 46/sum, 51/car, or 59/Iwo, it’s just to force the Japanese into acting. As long as I feel like the fleet I build in sz 56 can counterattack and destroy whatever remains of the fleet that defeated me, I’ll move them out. I know the spectre of an American fleet can force the Japanese to sink money into the ocean, but I feel like putting pressure on a player can also cause mistakes. With so many things coming at the Japanese from so many angles, sometimes the end game can be hard to see. I don’t COUNT on them, but giving yourself the best opportunity to capitalize on a sub-optimal move is a good way to seal a game early. Besides, if the Allies aren’t aggressive against the Axis very quickly, we know how games can end up.
It’s all about the transports. If the Japanese allow the sz 62 trn to be unguarded either in 63, 62, or 61 without having both Fuk and Kwa, it needs to be sank by the bmb on wus. The Japanese player wants to expand so fast it’s easy to catch stray transports. Without a large number of them, places like Aus and Ind become much more easily defensible.
-
I know the spectre of an American fleet can force the Japanese to sink money into the ocean, but I feel like putting pressure on a player can also cause mistakes. With so many things coming at the Japanese from so many angles, sometimes the end game can be hard to see. I don’t COUNT on them, but giving yourself the best opportunity to capitalize on a sub-optimal move is a good way to seal a game early.
My buddy gets mad when I do this too him so much, he’s become gun shy. Actually I think he’s finally learned that I am setting traps for him. Good players see the traps and ignore them. Sometimes, the traps can be very tempting though :evil:
Suggested Topics
