I once played a game where Germany attacked with a good force, France rolled 7 hits of its 9 two combat factor units. France lasted till turn two. However germany took france and Britan on turn 2 which turned the tables for an axis victory.
"Swing Power" in Global '40
-
It’ll be pretty interesting to see how the Soviet presence will change the Pacific. I doubt all eighteen infantry will be left, but I would think most players would leave a substantial force to counter the Japanese, at least ten units, most centered at Amur.
Japan has too much airpower and trannies to allow a Amur stack, even if the whole 18 infs start there. Amur, Siberia and SFE will be forbidden territory for USSR from the beginning. Maybe some people will let 1 inf at Amur to annoy, but you can guess that defensive soviet line will be bury and sak, and it’s possible than ever Yakutia if many jap planes are near. The good old Manchuria IC (mayor or minor) will be deadly
Larry can say what he wants, but the lack of a non-agression treaty means that Japan and USSR are at war from round 1, because even the menace of a attack will affect the siberian forces. And probably Japan will attack USSR round 1 or 2 as much in most of games, unless that a jap attack means that USSR is also at war with West Axis
Unless a jap attack on soviets means that USSR is at war with all the axis, in rounds 1-3 Japan will have only 2 enemies: China and USSR. So it will be a very valid option attack USSR because there will not be much more to do, and this attack will not disrupt jap navies. I predict we’ll have again a fantasy scenario, at least regarding to Siberia, and there are 9 soviet IPCs on Siberia this time, hardly a area with few value
Other stuff is the size of soviet PAcific navy (if any). If there is at least a dd, it could have a value, blocking trannies or shore bombards or sub. Even a sub can be interesting
Finally, it’s a pity that you cannot buy minor ICs at 1 IPC teritories. USSR could buy one at, say, Yak, and so hold the front. In later game, soviets could think buy a IC at SFE to deploy a fleet there. And I wonder if there is going to be a NB at Vladivostok (Amur), It really deserves it
If Japan doesn’t do a J1 attack, the UK can capture 2 DEI islands, and ANZAC can transport units to New Guinea to achieve its objective next turn. Meanwhile, while Japan tries to invade Russia which has 18 inf, UK, ANZAC, and USA are getting stronger.
-
If Japan doesn’t do a J1 attack, the UK can capture 2 DEI islands, and ANZAC can transport units to New Guinea to achieve its objective next turn. Meanwhile, while Japan tries to invade Russia which has 18 inf, UK, ANZAC, and USA are getting stronger.
But probably a jap attack on UK, ANZAC or USA will mean that USA will enter at war with West Axis as well (as in real life), and I doubt that Axis want that in round 1
All depends on the diplomatic system. If it’s well done, J1 attack on any power that is not China will not be a option for Global
-
Do we know what the Russian set up will be? I mean, isn’t 18 inf just speculation? To balance things, I’d imagine there wouldn’t be many Russian infantry waiting to attack Korea.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive. Pound your head against a wall of infantry, all for territories worth 1 IPC a piece that offer no strategic advantage for fighting off your other foes? No thanks. My transports will still head to the mainland or Hawaii.
-
Do we know what the Russian set up will be? I mean, isn’t 18 inf just speculation? To balance things, I’d imagine there wouldn’t be many Russian infantry waiting to attack Korea.
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive. Pound your head against a wall of infantry, all for territories worth 1 IPC a piece that offer no strategic advantage for fighting off your other foes? No thanks. My transports will still head to the mainland or Hawaii.
Larry said ther’ll be 18 inf, so I’m guessing 2 in each territory.
-
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
-
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
-
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
-
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
Let’s say you take Moscow. Then what? In order for the Axis to win, they need 14 out of 19VC’s. If they don’t capture washington, san francisco, london, or ottawa, they have to capture calcutta, honolulu, or sydney, which won’t happen if Japan is losing the pacific. Japan will lose Chinese territories and DEI’s while focusing on 1 ipc territories. I remember larry mentioning how he did an air strike against russia as Japan and failed.
-
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
If KGF is equivalent to Ignore Japan, then this strat will fail. If Japan captures all of Asia and Australia and Hawaii(since the US ignores Japan),Japan will have 68 ipcs just in territories. It will have achieved DEI NO, solomon is/new guin NO, India NO, Australia NO, and Hawaii NO. This would give it 93 ipcs, which would make it stronger than USA’s 80
-
Funcioneta, I was under the impression that the Soviet-Japan Nonaggression treaty was in effect for Global, unless broken, like how the process for declarations of war work. At least, thats what I perceived based on what I’ve seen and read, can you show where you heard differently?
You make it seem that immediately after rounds 1 - 3, most Japanese players will attack north, as if within that time the Allies in the south and west are vanquished, the ‘fantasy’ scenario most seem abhor, probably won’t happen for awhile in terms of actual game play. Besides, was it really that much of a fantasy, I remember reading about over two thousand Japanese-Soviet border clashes between the Manchurian-Soviet border over the period of 1939 - 1945. Plus, the Go North movement within the IJA was pretty strong, even during the Navy’s eventual implementation of Southern Advance.
Another thing, whilst the Soviet forces in East Asia seem paltry, it forces Japan to guard Manchuria, and not chain those divisions to crush China. Bringing the Soviets into the war also means that China can actually be liberated by Soviet forces from the west, if their war Germany allows an opportunity to do so.
-
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
Let’s say you take Moscow. Then what? In order for the Axis to win, they need 14 out of 19VC’s. If they don’t capture washington, san francisco, london, or ottawa, they have to capture calcutta, honolulu, or sydney, which won’t happen if Japan is losing the pacific. Japan will lose Chinese territories and DEI’s while focusing on 1 ipc territories. I remember larry mentioning how he did an air strike against russia as Japan and failed.
Perhaps. Lets hope you’re right. When the game comes out, I will be going all in on this strategy to see if it still works.
Now, I don’t remember the turn order. Does Japan go before Russia? If so, you can hit those 2 Inf border areas right off the bat. If Russia goes first, there will be time for Russia to consolidate some of them creating a stronger defense.
If Japan goes first, all you have to do is taking out those infantry, then sending a tank force through Siberia to Moscow. If the US is focusing on the Pacific, there will be hell to pay in Europe, since Germany and Italy will be all over the place.
-
If KGF is equivalent to Ignore Japan, then this strat will fail. If Japan captures all of Asia and Australia and Hawaii(since the US ignores Japan),Japan will have 68 ipcs just in territories. It will have achieved DEI NO, solomon is/new guin NO, India NO, Australia NO, and Hawaii NO. This would give it 93 ipcs, which would make it stronger than USA’s 80
Does that really matter if Europe is crushed? If the US throws all her might on Germany, and Berlin falls, can Japan compete with the Allies? Unlikely.
-
And why would the Japanese player ever attack Russia? There’s little incentive.
There are huge amounts of incentive. Attacking Russia immidiately with Japan and round 2 with Germany means you’re not that far away from taking Moscow, at least not compared to how long it will take the Allies to get things organized and going. I’m rather hoping there will be some sort of (optional?) rule regarding a non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan. Otherwise I fear that the same tactic always used before (crushing Russia between Germany and Japan) will still be in effect.
Japan will take 5-6 turns getting to Moscow. This is not like previous games where they have no enemy in Asia; the UK will be at their thoats if they focus on Russia, as will the US
Trust me, it will be the road to victory in this game too. Sure, Japan will have a harder time in the Pacific if they go after Russia first, but if you reach Moscow along with the Germans turn 5-6, you will win.
I’m positive that KGF and JTDTM will still be in effect.
Let’s say you take Moscow. Then what? In order for the Axis to win, they need 14 out of 19VC’s. If they don’t capture washington, san francisco, london, or ottawa, they have to capture calcutta, honolulu, or sydney, which won’t happen if Japan is losing the pacific. Japan will lose Chinese territories and DEI’s while focusing on 1 ipc territories. I remember larry mentioning how he did an air strike against russia as Japan and failed.
Perhaps. Lets hope you’re right. When the game comes out, I will be going all in on this strategy to see if it still works.
Now, I don’t remember the turn order. Does Japan go before Russia? If so, you can hit those 2 Inf border areas right off the bat. If Russia goes first, there will be time for Russia to consolidate some of them creating a stronger defense.
If Japan goes first, all you have to do is taking out those infantry, then sending a tank force through Siberia to Moscow. If the US is focusing on the Pacific, there will be hell to pay in Europe, since Germany and Italy will be all over the place.
Turn order is:1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. ANZAC
6. Italy
7. United States
8. China
and 9. France. -
If KGF is equivalent to Ignore Japan, then this strat will fail. If Japan captures all of Asia and Australia and Hawaii(since the US ignores Japan),Japan will have 68 ipcs just in territories. It will have achieved DEI NO, solomon is/new guin NO, India NO, Australia NO, and Hawaii NO. This would give it 93 ipcs, which would make it stronger than USA’s 80
Does that really matter if Europe is crushed? If the US throws all her might on Germany, and Berlin falls, can Japan compete with the Allies? Unlikely.
Germany can delay until Japan takes Africa. Also, it could try a polar express strat
-
Turn order is:1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. ANZAC
6. Italy
7. United States
8. China
and 9. France.Alright, so the Soviets move before Japan. Then I guess a lot depends on what the Soviet player does with those infantry. But judging from how easy it is to crush all of the chinese infantry in A&AP40, I’d say the Siberian infantry will be a pushover. Take them out immidiately, then start going south into China and then India. Somewhere along the way you also build a tank force that will roll straight through Siberia without opposition until it reaches Moscow. You won’t be able to take Moscow on your own, but you can help Germany take it, and also deprive the Soviets of all Siberian territories. You will still be going strong in China and probably take India.
Btw, what is a polar express strat?
-
Turn order is:1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. ANZAC
6. Italy
7. United States
8. China
and 9. France.Alright, so the Soviets move before Japan. Then I guess a lot depends on what the Soviet player does with those infantry. But judging from how easy it is to crush all of the chinese infantry in A&AP40, I’d say the Siberian infantry will be a pushover. Take them out immidiately, then start going south into China and then India. Somewhere along the way you also build a tank force that will roll straight through Siberia without opposition until it reaches Moscow. You won’t be able to take Moscow on your own, but you can help Germany take it, and also deprive the Soviets of all Siberian territories. You will still be going strong in China and probably take India.
Btw, what is a polar express strat?
Japan attacking Western North America while America is fully focused on ETO
-
Raeder, why do you think that Russia will be such a pushover? Sure, it’s easy to steamroll China, but that’s because it’s 27 planes vs. what, like 9 infantry? How easy do you think it is to beat 9 Chinese infantry plus 18 Soviet infantry? Spread out all over 9 territories? While simultaneously smashing India, capturing the DEI, fighting annoying ANZAC raiding parties, and keeping the US from building a super navy with its +30 IPC’s? There is going to be ABSOLUTELY NO tank drive to Moscow. Not in the early game at least. Japan has to much work to do in the south were it counts to mess with Russia and inch through nine 1 IPC territories. Japan would need a major IC in the north AND south in order to pump out units to fight Russia and China and India. And if it’s buying tanks and mech infantry for Asia, how much less is it spending on its navy? Global isn’t going to be like Pac40 at all IMHO. Japan won’t be able to shift every single unit it has away from Asia after China and India fall. This will relieve the US and ANZAC from quite a bit of pressure I believe. Russia is going to be a very credible threat to Japan. Even with a mere 18 infantry.
-
Raeder, why do you think that Russia will be such a pushover? Sure, it’s easy to steamroll China, but that’s because it’s 27 planes vs. what, like 9 infantry? How easy do you think it is to beat 9 Chinese infantry plus 18 Soviet infantry? Spread out all over 9 territories? While simultaneously smashing India, capturing the DEI, fighting annoying ANZAC raiding parties, and keeping the US from building a super navy with its +30 IPC’s? There is going to be ABSOLUTELY NO tank drive to Moscow. Not in the early game at least. Japan has to much work to do in the south were it counts to mess with Russia and inch through nine 1 IPC territories. Japan would need a major IC in the north AND south in order to pump out units to fight Russia and China and India. And if it’s buying tanks and mech infantry for Asia, how much less is it spending on its navy? Global isn’t going to be like Pac40 at all IMHO. Japan won’t be able to shift every single unit it has away from Asia after China and India fall. This will relieve the US and ANZAC from quite a bit of pressure I believe. Russia is going to be a very credible threat to Japan. Even with a mere 18 infantry.
I agree that there is a tendency amongst folks to exaggerate the ‘hulk smash’ capacities of Japan. The Japan player is going to have their hands full(er) in Global. The back-door infantry train from Russia can help shore up China’s defences; throw a couple of Soviet tanks in there and you’ve got a recipe for some serious reversals for the Axis in continental Asia. I think that demonstrates the potential for, in the words of Mike Myers: “SCHWING!”
But let’s stick with the units that we know will be on the Pac 40 map for starters. I don’t believe that the USSR will have a Pacific navy: Larry never mentioned it, and there’s been no other indication at all that this would be the case. The 18 inf up north are a deffo, though, and it shouldn’t be forgotten that that ‘mere’ 18 inf represents 54 IPCs of military production! Nobody can seriously maintain that adding that many units to the board will have zero effect on Japanese movements. It will probably mean freezing the Manchurian units in place, at least, and perhaps even building a factory there for defensive purposes (with the tandem goal of eventually taking out China/UK). On the up side for Japan, they’ll be ideally poised to retake Korea if the US decide to get cheeky with them. But mostly, this is all good news for the Allies… a factory that far north will be much less effective than, say, a major complex in Kwangtung. Without this direct threat to India, I think the UK will be much more enjoyable to play in Global than in Pac 40… The simple threat of Soviet swing power will allow the flexing of British (and US) swing power.
Which brings me back to my original point. As the Axis, you’re limited to responding in one theatre, to multiple opponants, whereas the Big Three can supply endless threats simultaneously, in both theatres (if they’re well coordinated as a team!). Global 40 is the Allies’ game to lose…
-
Funcioneta, I was under the impression that the Soviet-Japan Nonaggression treaty was in effect for Global, unless broken, like how the process for declarations of war work. At least, thats what I perceived based on what I’ve seen and read, can you show where you heard differently?
I think that Larry said that USSR and Japan have freedom to attack each other at pleasure, even if they start at peace. There is no rule for non-agression treaty unless Larry changes his mind
-
You make it seem that immediately after rounds 1 - 3, most Japanese players will attack north, as if within that time the Allies in the south and west are vanquished, the ‘fantasy’ scenario most seem abhor, probably won’t happen for awhile in terms of actual game play. Besides, was it really that much of a fantasy, I remember reading about over two thousand Japanese-Soviet border clashes between the Manchurian-Soviet border over the period of 1939 - 1945. Plus, the Go North movement within the IJA was pretty strong, even during the Navy’s eventual implementation of Southern Advance.
Maybe not a dedicated attack, but even taking two or three territories can be important for soviet war effort against germans. If there is not a rule for the non-agression treaty, they are defacto at war with current rules from round 1
Of course, soviets could reinforce the east and annoy Japan, but that would mean that the historical massive amounts of siberian reinforcements will not arrive at time to fight Germany
Suggested Topics
