@SuperbattleshipYamato said in USA Crush-Turtle or Die:
2024-5-31-World-War-II-Pacific-1940-2nd-Edition Human.tsvg
Played another game. Both sides made mistakes, though I think the Allies made more egregious ones. That being said, I will admit your strategy was marginally beneficial to Japan. However, I’m not sure when and where in the game could Japan have refocussed their sights on Australia and the South Pacific to adapt to America’s growing capabilities. They were in a position where moving their forces would’ve taken far too long for little benefit.
Bottom line is, though, in 3 games played, all 3 have the Axis set to lose.
I think the US must be left alone as long as possible before the war starts and both sides are in position, if possible, to execute the strategy.
What do you make of this modification to your strategy? And my playtesting results? Thank you!
I’d like you to try things my way for comparison. If the russians stack Amur, you attack them. So dont stack.
Take the fleet with 3 full carriers to Caroline Islands. Take and drop 1 transport load into Kwangsi (from Japan). Take SFE (Okinawa transport). Take the 4 china territories with as much airforce help as you can. Leave 5 planes in Japan (3 on island, 2 on carriers). Rest of planes (5) go to Kiangsi with 2 bombers 2 fighters and 1 tac to Kwangsi. Since Amur isnt stacked you can bring the Manchurian troops over and Korea ones to Manchuria, and drop troops into Korea (Formosa transport). Make sure the mech is in Anhwe for a potential Yunnan J2.
If UK kills the lone transport, you attack them alone and dont declare on the US. If China tries to load Yunnan, you can hit it.
This should help mitigate your China situation while leaving it ambiguous as to what Japan is actually doing. (See below for how I envisioned it before Allies go).
Changed British bid a bit. If you have any objections, let me know and I’ll redo the turn.
2024-6-3-world-war-ii-global-1940-2nd-edition.tsvg
Also, do you intend for us to just play side by side, or do you want me to also do the Axis turns following your instructions? Thank you!
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in USA Crush-Turtle or Die:
Changed British bid a bit. If you have any objections, let me know and I’ll redo the turn.
2024-6-3-world-war-ii-global-1940-2nd-edition.tsvg
Also, do you intend for us to just play side by side, or do you want me to also do the Axis turns following your instructions? Thank you!
Well I wont play a whole game but I can playtest for a few rounds. This would be my response as Italy.
2024-6-3-world-war-ii-global-1940-2nd-edition.tsvg
@SuperbattleshipYamato @squirecam
Please do any further playtesting in the Play Boardgames Category.
You guys are over thinking it.
This is a one time catch your opponent sleeping strategy.
They will never see it coming.
Once they have seen it and their IQ is above room Temp, don’t keep trying this strategy.
Sure there are possible variants of this strategy.
If opponent abandons Pacific, you fight like mad to hold the two Victory cities in China and beeline if for Australia.
I have won that way 6-8 times myself.
I have also, delayed declaring on Allies and that did work a couple times. In both scenarios I bought more Germ Tran and the Krauts took USA.
This is still a viable strategy, I have sprung it 10 times or so since my original post and was 7-3. Some of those victories the opponent had seen it before. The 3 losses, the opponent knew it was coming and curb stomped me.
The funniest thing, some guy named Melonnade sprung it on me.
I had been waiting for that moment. He raged when I kept the Germans pinned in Europe, said the strategy sux. I had a good laugh. EnterpriseCV6 witnessed it. When he jumped in the game he assumed I was Axis…took him a bit to realize I was not. Too funny.
@kaihlhac
Every German I ever tried it on were surprised by it.
The most rigid players you will find are usually German.
Sorry, that is my experience.
You say the strategy reeks after turn 1…well ya, because now you know about it. Had you been seeing it for the 1st time, it could sneak up on you. Acting like you are too superior to fall for it is laughable. Those are the people that generally fell for it.
Thanks for clarifying.
@squirecam If you want to keep playing, we can. If you’re not interested, that’s fine too. Either way, I admit that your strategy is sound, at least as effective as the original.
@Galendae I did this strategy against the hard AI on TripleA, and I think I am losing right now. I made a successful landing with Germany and Italy in Mexico, but since the AI is kind of weird, it does some strange moves in central America and buying random troops in USA for whatever reason, which thwarted my plan. Japan is doing great and has so many planes in USA right now, so I will see how it goes and tell you what happens vs AI, also things look good in USSR as well, they are consolidating in Leningrad so I will bypass and go to Moscow.
Dang, you’re struggling against hard AI? That’s a very bad sign (TripleA hard AI is rather easy to beat with conventional strategies in my experience)?
Ironically this would not work at all with the easy AI since all it does as the US is buy ground troops.
@SuperbattleshipYamato So I finished the game, Moscow fell but the American adventure failed, so Idk what to make of it. I know the AI is trash and I should be beating it every time, but that is with conventional strategy like you said. So when I saw the AI doing all the crazy movements it normally does, such as moving land units to Mexico on the first turn as well as moving the US Navy there as well, I knew it was doomed. But I carried on anyways. Japan was successful enough, taking western twice, but since Germany and Italy had their navies destroyed as well as heavy German casualties in the 110 and 111 battles, the landings failed. So either the AI secretly knew about the strategy and played its cards right, or the AI is so bad that it makes ridiculous moves like the ones it did that coincidentally destroy this strategy but is a god send for any normal game.
Probably the latter. This is probably the case with bad players as well.
Note that the original poster who came up with this plan essentially said that it depends largely on the Allied player following conventional strategies and who are quite good and used to doing them, which usually means above average players.
@SuperbattleshipYamato That’s usually who I play against, people with traditional strategy, and normal tactics, usually pertaining to a Europe or Pacific first strategy with the USA in the lead, and Russia just buying infantry, and the stack in India. I do a J1 usually and G3, with my own take on it. It gets kinda boring when I play now because I use the same opening strategy, with the wildcard being Italy, they are the ones I can be creative with. So I went to this strategy to find something new because my usual opponents will be studying my plans. So I hope to use this against them to try something new.
Hi @jacobgeo24 said in USA Crush-Turtle or Die:
It gets kinda boring when I play now because I use the same opening strategy,
If you’d like to try something different, @The-Captain has an excellent mod here I highly recommend it :)
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36945/axis-allies-global-1940-house-rules-expansion
Good luck! This strategy is certainly creative and should be a shock to conventional players just as intended.
TripleA also has various versions and setup of the the game.
So you could start the 1942scenario or balance mod, or tournament rules.
Or even classic or revised.
I’m going to say that I don’t really like that this strategy is as effective as it is. If Japan changed the J2 buy to 2CV+1TT even full Pacific naval buys by USA wouldn’t stop this half the time, although obviously that would weaken the ground attack.
My view is that the game is a little broken here.
UK helping defend USA should stop this strategy pretty dead with troops/planes dropped in Quebec but really, should they have to? The other possibility is UK/Anzac retake of the Philippines which would help USA income if they can hold it but distracting Japan from its objectives may be enough.
