Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
Not I, if you don’t attack me, I still retreat my guys. I’d rather put them and 2 tanks into China.
-
If Japan doesn’t attack the Russians they still will need to defend Manchuria from the stacks of Russian soldiers who start in the area and can attack after turn 4, so you’d still have 30+ IPCs devoted to the area with no gains.
Russia can attack Japan on any turn it pleases. It is not restricted similar to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact simulated with the turn 4 restriction on the Europe board.
-
I checked alpha2’s ANZAC NOs. They are the same as in OOB, the only difference being that Malaya+ANZAC gives 5 IPCs, not 3. Still, you need Malaya. So I think that:
- You should focus taking and holding Malaya. This will prevent aussies going greater to 15 if Japan holds all DEI. If you’re not focusing on taking Malaya, your strategic approach is wrong
- If you focus on Malaya and still you cannot take it because of setup, then I agree that alpha needs balancing
- Same goes for New Guinea NO
Japan needs to make her historical conquests to keep the pace with USA (by round 4-5 as much). After then, Japan should kill the Asian minors (China and India), in 2-3 rounds more as much. This is that Japan should be able of do to make this balanced.
-
Did Japan ever have a chance in WWII? In the group I’m in always takes a real aggressive approach to Japan. The longer you wait the more the Allies have to stock pile and plan. I like the game the way it is, at least there are no nukes! When I read my WWII books I see that right after Pearl Harbor Japan goes all out for the Philippines, Malaya, Thailand, Singapore and Hong Kong. Also Guam, Midway and Wake were attacked, also Shanghai was occupied. Then on Dec 16 they invaded Brit. Borneo and Johnson Island was shelled by a Jap sub then on Jan 4 they bombed Rabaul Jan 7 they reached the border of Dutch West Borneo Jan 11 invaded Celebes . then Brit. North Borneo, then New Guinea was under attack. Jan 19 invaded New Britain, New Ireland, Dutch Borneo, and the Solomon Islands. This all happened in a very short period of time, how can Japan do all this in one move, I dont claim to have the answer for ya’ll but the one free round (before the Germany) maybe some American N.O.'s like 10$ for holding their home Island, 5$ for Iwo Jima, 5$ for Okinawa. Then there is the Tokyo express (Dest. carry 1 Inf.)
-
Yes, the ANZAC NO was increased from 3 to 5, so now Australia can get up to 10 IPC from NOs.
Taking and holding Malaya is all great in theory, but it’s really hard to do when you face a 600 IPC American fleet coupled with a 200 IPC Australian + British fleet (includes 3 Aussie fighters flying cap.)
You’ll eventually have to make the choice: Do I want SE Asia or do I want Tokyo?
-
lol ive seen an " ITS OVER 9000!!!" american fleet! between 200-300 is alot more realistic and 100 combined anzac/uk fleet
-
lol ive seen an " ITS OVER 9000!!!" american fleet! between 200-300 is alot more realistic and 100 combined anzac/uk fleet
200-300 American fleet implies the American player is asleep at the wheel - no offense intended.
3 Rounds of 52 IPC = 156 IPC + 129 IPC starting - 12 IPC minor Complex in Mexico (so you can put 6 ships a round into SZ 10, it’s a petty thing, feel free not too) + 52 Round 4 + 25 NO = 350 IPC fleet right there!
Add in a few more rounds of 50 IPC + 20 IPC NOs (assuming you lose Philippines and do not gain the 5 of 7 NO for some reason) and you EASILY hit a 600 IPC fleet even with trading, perhaps even 900 IPC fleet if you are conservative.
-
hey if america makes 0 planes thats got to be good for something, and like u said, america doe snot start with a 600 fleet, it like 6-7 turns of mall dedication to the pacific and no land units to get to that. America would have around 250 at most by the time its at war with japan, and can take all the DEI plus maylay and phil and kwang, by a DoW J3 if it wants to. I have not seen a SINGLE game where america has a 300+ NAVY goin all against Japan.
-
I add planes in the Pacific to my American naval total.
As I said, there’s 129 Naval Warships + 66 Planes = 195 IPC right off the bat, that’s with zero invested in new ships and planes. Add to that 3 rounds of 52 IPC (you said you attack on Round 3, so) that’s 351 IPC you have to face.
More realistically, the naval engagement will happen around turn 6, which would give America 77 + 70 + 70 more, for 568 in navy vs your little Japanese fleet.
Which, for the record, does not even count the extra stuff from Australia and England that will be helping to defend. Just add on 3 fighters, 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, 4 Destroyers and 4 Submarines to that total, in defensive forces so Japan has to attack a 568 American Fleet + 40 IPC British Fleet + 78 IPC Australian Fleet for a grand total of 686 IPC. -
but with 400-500 ipc japan has to defend with, its not such a commanding advantage.
-
but with 400-500 ipc japan has to defend with, its not such a commanding advantage.
It sure seems to be more than enough to limit Japan to SZ 6 and it’s neighboring sea zones, thus allowing England and Australia to take the DEI, snipe Okinawa, Formosa and Iwo Jima as appropriate as well.
I used to want Australia to have DEI, now I am leaning towards India having them gain, since Australia collects 20 IPC a round anyway, that’s 2 submarines and a destroyer, all they really need to keep the Japanese fleet blocked from the American one
-
Well, I just never had a game where the allies do as well as from what you’ve been saying. Even with some well known people here on the allies side. Allies do have the advantage, but not a walk in the park like you say.
-
Yes, I have played a few well known players on this site that all seem to be making the same mistake, they are investing in the Atlantic with the United States of America and thus, are having a bit more trouble in clearing Japan out.
Don’t get me wrong, they do eventually clear Japan out, they just have a much harder time of it than if they go whole hog after Japan. If the United States ignores the Atlantic for the first 6 rounds of play, Japan is done for. If they are more conservative, they can easily ignore the Atlantic for the first 8 rounds of play and really drive the nails into Japan. Again, all you need to do is bottle Japan up and that is no where near as hard as actually beating Japan.
Once you are too strong to beat (defined: If Japan throws it all at you, they lose and you win) all it really takes is an investment of 30-40 IPC a round to maintain your power. The other 40 IPC a round can go into the Atlantic and CRD the Europeans / Liberate England (Africa should not be lost. Unless the attack on SZ 97 went REALLY badly, Africa should be just about to capitulate to the Italians by about round 8.)
-
@Cmdr:
Yes, I have played a few well known players on this site that all seem to be making the same mistake, they are investing in the Atlantic with the United States of America and thus, are having a bit more trouble in clearing Japan out.
Don’t get me wrong, they do eventually clear Japan out, they just have a much harder time of it than if they go whole hog after Japan. If the United States ignores the Atlantic for the first 6 rounds of play, Japan is done for. If they are more conservative, they can easily ignore the Atlantic for the first 8 rounds of play and really drive the nails into Japan. Again, all you need to do is bottle Japan up and that is no where near as hard as actually beating Japan.
Once you are too strong to beat (defined: If Japan throws it all at you, they lose and you win) all it really takes is an investment of 30-40 IPC a round to maintain your power. The other 40 IPC a round can go into the Atlantic and CRD the Europeans / Liberate England (Africa should not be lost. Unless the attack on SZ 97 went REALLY badly, Africa should be just about to capitulate to the Italians by about round 8.)
Jen, this is a great synopsis. This is the main problem- go whole hog on Japan, sack them then liberate England. Allies w/o US can hold their own I believe. I have played enough to see this. I would usually go 75% Pacific and 25% Europe with US. Though I didn’t go whole hog against Japan with US- I can easily see the plan working. USSR and UK CAN keep it together until Japan is sacked. Very convinced now that I’ve seen it on the board.
So then let’s work on solutions which should entail the US having to dedicate more to Europe- best way is through an NO I believe. Non-believers of Jen observations will gasp until they are convinced that US can sack Japan with 100% effort and none to Europe for first 6-8rounds.
So here it is:
Replaced Mexico NO with NO (US at war only) that includes Allies controlling all of the following: Gibraltar, Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia.
Add 4inf, 1art on Tokyo
Add 2inf, 2art on Rome$30 of land material for Axis- now Japan can use $16 on other things, Italy can use $14 on other things.
-$5 per round for US which in gameplay will result to at least $15-$20 (rounds 4-8ish) until they can gain this NO again and keep it.This may seem a little strong but it may be what is needed.
-
instead of units on rome, I say make it so that italy cant get totally screwed in tobruk and sz 97, the 2 inf 2 rtl wont mean anything if those battles cripple italy.
-
The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already. Those I think are in balance, IMHO. Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.
-
@Cmdr:
The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already. Those I think are in balance, IMHO. Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.
Ya but, the damage is more siginificant on the axis, you said that losing the uk med fleet is worth it for killing 2 german planes. Also, how does italy recover when UK destroys torbruk (its mostly UK sided if UK wants it to be)?
-
Mantle,
Why don’t you, for once in your career on these pages, back ANYTHING you say with some FACTS.
I’ve demonstrated ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS that it is not only possible, IT’S ASSURED.
Russia does NOT have to push Germany back to Denmark. Russia has to hold Moscow and EITHER Stalingrad OR Leningrad to defeat Germany, that’s IT. Nothing more, nothing less! I’ve seen Russia do that without American aid for 12-15 rounds, I see it so often, it’s almost STANDARD.
You quoted how America gets a 600 IPC fleet, then say I didn’t prove how? 600 IPC fleet is SIMPLE! 900 IPC is more realistic! Sure, Japan has a 600 IPC fleet too, but it’s not strong enough to take out the Americans, therefore, it’s useless.
Italy is making 50 IPC a round, maybe…that’s assuming England isn’t taking out the Middle east, which is like, DUH, what the F are you doing with India anyway???
Germany is making 50 IPC a round, presumably, but again, not enough to win in Russia, even with Italian help. Meanwhile by the time Italy IS making 50 IPC a round, America has bottled the Japanese and is invading Africa via Brazil and moving to CRD Europe for 32 IPC (it’ll take time, but warships are expensive and America will have PLENTY of Warships by the time Japan is bottled up like a rancid bottle of Pepsi, and no were near with as good a flavor in their mouth.)Honestly, one would assume you couldnt figure out how to tie your shoes, except, you obviously can type.
@Cmdr:
The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already. Those I think are in balance, IMHO. Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.
Ya but, the damage is more siginificant on the axis, you said that losing the uk med fleet is worth it for killing 2 german planes. Also, how does italy recover when UK destroys torbruk (its mostly UK sided if UK wants it to be)?
Yes, but not significantly so. We are talking only the difference between Sea Lion being automatic and Sea Lion requiring the dice to be normal or better, not the difference between Italy getting 50 IPC a round or Italy getting 10 IPC a round. After all, if England is still in the game by round 3, then the Axis screwed up. I’m assuming Italy has all of N. and C. Africa, Germany has England and a strong army in Eastern Europe by round 4 or 5. Even with that, America beats the Japanese back.
Anyway, I’ve given up educating Mantle. From now on, he’s on permanent ignore. He’s dumber than Switch, and I finally shut him up by playing him and beating the ever living crap out of him (so much so, he refused to play and left the boards.)
-
I thought were were talking about balancing the game, not exclusivey about sealion.
-
Oh, I want to balance things out, I’m just saying that the British attack in N. Africa is balanced by the ease of Sea Lion.
Besides, I want to get away from new units, if we have to add units to the game (and I don’t think we do) they should be in Libya so they are safe from England, but they don’t hurt England more. England’s already the biggest wuss on the board, yes more than France, I’ve seen the French do some nice things to Germany, they’re just out of position.
Suggested Topics
