How exactly does RUSSIA take Japan’s Capital?
Invade Korea? And build a complex there?
And whilst you are busy building boats to fight the Japanese with the Russians and Americans.
How is the U.k. holding out ALONE against Nazi Germany and Italy? A force that can combine at times to triple the U.K.s income.
He pretty clearly said the US takes Japan while Russia and the UK take on Berlin … nothing about Russia fighting Japan there.
This strategy MAY work … sometimes. I guess it depends on who you’re playing against and how flexible they are with their strategies.
Something got lost in translation here…
then they (Japan) are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia
I see your interpretation of it now though Rorschasch.
then they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany.
Its like
“Iraqi head seeks arms”
Without punctuation. It’s ambiguous - and thus pointless to post.
One has to contemplate the utility of an American Naval Base in Alaska. (SZ 2) This would allow the Americans to hit SZ 6 immediately and be out of range of any shipping in SZ 33 (The Caroline Islands).
Of course, it would also remove pressure from Japan down there, but it may tie up Japanese forces up near SZ 6 letting England and Australia liberate some territories, strangling Japan financially.
With the penalty to Russia, I wouldn’t even bother going into Japan with them. Let them, with help from England, attempt to stall the Germanic/Italian units from crushing them until Japan is neutralized. (Generally KJF games are more neutralize Japan and kill Germany anyway, IMHO).
I usually try to be polite on these forums, but seriously Gargantua, you need to be able to understand when you’re wrong and give it a rest.
There is no ambiguity in the clause “they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany” because of the word “take”. Because the verb lacks an ‘s’ it’s clear that the subject of the verb must be plural. ‘UK’ by itself couldn’t possibly be the subject because “uk take germany” doesn’t make sense. The only possible interpretation is “russia and uk take germany” because then the subject is plural.
I don’t care if you admit you’re wrong or not, just please stop insisting that your erroneous reading of the original post holds any merit.
Maybe if you read the ENTIRE thread Larry, you’d realize that I’d already admitted that I misinterepreted the original post. Not a hard thing to do when faced with less than elementary level english.
Posted by me: Something got lost in translation here…
Quote
then they (Japan) are surrounded and i take their capitol as RussiaI see your interpretation of it now though Rorschasch
Time to take your own advice Larry - for either not fulling reading, or not understanding my posts.
you need to be able to understand when you’re wrong and give it a rest.
I admitted the mistake a century before you decided to make a rebuttle to a later comment.
Let me know how that pill is for your own inflated ego to swallow. You made the same mistake I did.
if you don’t like my style…
You can go marx your Larry somewhere else.
At the risk of becoming embroiled in a flame war, let me say that my post was actually a result of reading the entire thread. Yes, I saw that you admitted that another interpretation of the sentence was possible, however by calling it another interpretation you implied that your interpretation could also be correct, which it can’t. But, by itself, that would have been ok. The breaking point was when you wrote
Its like
“Iraqi head seeks arms”
Without punctuation. It’s ambiguous - and thus pointless to post.
openly declaring that the statement was ambiguous, which in spite of its lack of proper punctuation it is not. If you had read my ENTIRE post, perhaps you would have recognized that it was a direct response to the above. I was clarifying that there is no ambiguity.
So as not to disuade this conversation from the topuc.
All and all Littlebird.
This isn’t really a strategy, you have provided no purchases, movements, timelines, assumptions, considerations, or decent punctuation.
It just sounds like something that vaguely happend for you, in one game, at one time. And no, I don’t think the USA going 100% full pacific is a good strategy, but I’m assuming that that is what you are implying.
Agreed
Can America virtually ignore the Pacific without letting Japan win with Victory Cities?
@Cmdr:
Can America virtually ignore the Pacific without letting Japan win with Victory Cities?
If I remember correctly, Japan needs 6 of 8. The US has 3 of those (San Francisco, Manila, and Honolulu), so theoretically they could hold their own and if UK Pacific turtled in Calcutta Japan couldn’t take it easily. But if Japan is allowed to take everything else its own economy would become a lot greater, making it harder to stop them in future turns. Also, Manila is hard for the US to defend adequately, and the US couldn’t stop Japan from taking Honolulu either if they didn’t invest some IPCs into a Pacific fleet.
I think the point of Japan’s victory condition is to force the US to worry about Japan, rather than being able to completely ignore it like in previous A&A games.
Oh, I agree the whole point of VCs are to make sure the Allies stay “honest” and attack all Axis powers throughout the game. I guess the idea of everyone ignoring Japan and pummelling Germany was not appealing.
Anyway, holding Manila (Philippines) is virtually impossible regardless what you put in the water. And I suppose holding NSW is also pretty impossible as well as Hong Kong. So America is going to have to hold Hawaii or the game is lost. (Likewise England holding Calcutta/India.) That stops the Japanese at 5 VCs, but how hard is it to hold Hawaii? How much could you invest in the Atlantic without losing Hawaii?
Did you want to hold Hawaii, with infantry or with air units. (This is for a Europe centered U.S. that only seeks to delay Japan)
If you have a secure fleet at Hawaii, and you use 4 transports that permit you to send two to Hawaii and two back to W. US. then in theory, you could get by with as few as 4 infantry a turn dropped off in Hawaii for a total cost of 12 IPCs a turn. Plus a start up cost of 14 IPCs for the 2 transports, and the whole starting fleet based at Hawaii for security. After 4 turns, you could have 18 land units plus starting air units to hold Hawaii and by the critical turn 7, you would see 30 land units in Hawaii. This means Japan would need a single wave transport fleet of 12-13 transports plus its 3 starting carriers pre-positioned at Hawaii to permit the 6 air units to assist.
If you opted to use 2 fighters a turn, and fly them directly to Hawaii, you would spend 20 IPCs a turn, and be able to use starting assets else where. However, this means that by turn 7, you would only have 4 land units (assumes 1 landing turn 1) and 14-18 air units (depending on if starting units or anzac air joined you). This would only require a Japanese transport fleet of between 8-9 ships.
Personally, the first approach has the best chance of slowing Japan’s conquest of Hawaii with a minimal effort on the U.S.'s part.
However, it is highly likely that Japan would simply focus on Australia and India for the win and thus the above pacifist pacific plan is unlikely to result in a win. I do not see the U.S. capturing Berlin prior to turn 7, but it is conceivable that Japan could have 6 cities by then.
(for my next pacific first camaign)
The allied approach I intend to play test next, will be a US fleet of 3 transports and the rest navy. I would propose a fleet of 4 carriers, with destroyers and maybe a few subs as the primary hit takers, this permits anzac to land its air with your starting air. Your primary goal would then be an economic attack on Japan’s islands and convoy zones. With 6 land units, you can take a few losses, but you will likely need to use air units as casualties to maintain land conquering ability. Air units are the fastest to redeploy. Once the fleet is assembled and deployed, I envision a resupply effort of 1 fighter per turn at a cost of 10IPCS maintenance, so that if the US grabs one island a turn, it can lose 1 forward deployed fighter instead of its non-replaceable land units. With the new air unit moving first to Hawaii, then Australia, then the fleet. If you use anzac transports as the disposable transport for a multiple island per turn campaign, then staging anzac fighters on US carriers, will give you the “teeth” you need to take contested islands. To help the Yanks, I would maybe consider a 2 tank,6 mech build with Russia turn 1 and a turn 2 DOW so that Russia could assist China to maintain pressure on Japan’s land campaign. I do believe that Russia can spare 1 production, its 4 starting 2 movers and its 3 air units for this effort, while still holding Germany as they are likely to spend turns 1-3 against London. This creates a Moscow Far East rapid deploy expeditionary force of 12 land units, with 3 supporting air units for a total strike force of 15 pieces that would yield 4 hits per turn offensively and at an effective range of two spaces, and 7 hits per turn defensively if used to guard Chinese deployments. I would replace Russia’s commitment with 16 of the 18 Far east infantry that would fall back to Moscow for the German drive on Moscow. 2 would remain east to establish road blocks for a mechanized Japanese push.
A big draw back, is that Hawaii will be left vulnerable, and sudden Japanese navy builds could drive back the U.S. expeditionary force. It may be prudent to also build 1-2 subs a turn but that drives the Pacific commitment to 3 rounds of fleet building and then a maintenance cost of 16-22 IPCs a turn, leaving less effort for a mid game turn around on Europe.
This still looks bleak, which is why I developed Operation: Open House. (UK abandoning London as bait turn1, which permits a US turn2 DOW and a contained Italy)
James and Jennifer,
After reading some of your posts, I’m very interested to see what USA (allies in general) would do after a coordinated G3/4 Sealion and a J3 Hawaii, DEI, FIC strategy. Next time we play I have a feeling the Allies in our group are in for a rough game.
Question: Does Germany attacking Scotland (staging for Sealion) bring USA into the war?
Germany taking Scotland does not bring the US into the war. Only taking London will do that for Sea Lion.
Going for HAwaii and Sealion is kind of poker game. I mean, can work but if not, defeat is near thats why i dont like those kind of attack. All in assault againts the hot spots.
:mrgreen:
To my knowledge, taking London doesn’t bring America into the war early, of course, I dont have the rule book memorized either.
Probably moot, earliest you can take London is G3 and America can declare in R3 anyway.
@Cmdr:
To my knowledge, taking London doesn’t bring America into the war early, of course, I dont have the rule book memorized either.
Probably moot, earliest you can take London is G3 and America can declare in R3 anyway.
Per ALPHA rules, a take over of London (or an attack on any territory in north america) allows the US to declare war at it’s earliest convenience. Per OOB rules, the US cannot declare war until end of turn US3 unless an axis power declares war on the US first.
