Jennifer, I read your recent posts and am going to look into them next time I play (hopefully very soon). However, one of the things you said I’m not sure if I agree with. You said that Japan should wait until round 4 to attack America? I always (and my opponent too) attack on turn 2. We do this b/c when my opponent didn’t attack turn 2 as japan, I reasoned as the allies that since Japan would attack round 3 automatically (b/c America earns their money that round no matter what), that it would be smarter for the allies to attack turn 2, in order to catch japan off guard and get the at war bonuses (15 ipcs, plus positional advantages). So then the next game as the axis I assumed that the allies would do the same and, to prevent this, attacked turn 2 as japan, which prevents anzac and ukp from getting any of their war bonuses, the additional dei, and allows me to get the money islands and territories earlier. I believe that this more than compensates for the 20 ipcs that America would earn extra. And, anticipating your argument for a turn 4 japan attack (which is what it seems like you’re advocating and which I believe is ridiculous), I see the problem of an invicible India, and I don’t really think this argument can make up for that
“Contingency plans have been discussed if Japan wants to gift the Allies with a pre-emptive attack as this allows them to move faster and harder into a now woefully under-prepared and significantly disadvantaged Japan.”
Under-prepared Japan? If the U.S. isn’t at war until round 4, then it can only have built 3 ships per turn in the pacific, something Japan can, and doesn’t even need to, match. The way I see it, attacking earlier (turn two) allows for optimal player set up (which a turn one attack lacks), earns more money for japan than a later attack, and puts them in a better position to threaten the entire pacific.
edit: Was just thinking about it some more, and came up with a possible argument that you could use to support a turn 4 japan attack: that attacking earlier allows the u.s to put 10 units instead of 3 into the pacific. But this isn’t a reason to change when you attack, b/c America can just make its planes in central or eastern U.S. instead of west.
Good work jen with the analysis, just i don’t think people were arguing that the axis will ALWAYS win if usa goes 100% pacific for the first part of the game, they thought u were saying that the allies would ALWAYS win if america goes 100% pacific. So it probably be more accurate if u demanded how the axis can win at all, not ALWAYS win.
ghr2:
I believe I am quite clear that there is no possible way to predict that a specific strategy will be 100% effective. It is why I refrained from entering into blow by blow analysis of what should be accomplished on each specific round of the game.
Further, I brought into play the fact that each opponent is different, the dice are different and what happens on the board will always be different. Despite that, I believe the allies have a much better than even chance of succeeding in a long term strategical goal of winning the game by quickly, and decisively, eliminating Japan from ever having a chance of getting 6 victory cities, and then going to recover the situation in Europe which, presumably, will be close to the brink of loss. (Defined: Germans are knocking on the door of either Novgorod or Volgorod, but as of yet, the Axis only have 6 Victory Cities in Euro-Asia, perhaps trading for the 7th.)
Excellent post Jen. I knew you would take the time to explain well as you usually do.
Thank you. Obviously no plan is absolutely certain. For one, I have noted that a game of Low Luck drastically and irrevokably alters the over all success and failure of certain missions. Japan just has a ton of aircraft it can bring to an engagement and in LL, every two of those fighters is a hit, every 3 of those tactical bombers are 2 hits. It really adds up to a very different game! Therefore, I do not know what should be done about Low Luck games. They have always been the bane of civilized discourse on game tactics and strategies as they greatly distort the results. (It is counter-intuitive. One would think they would stabilize the game, but in fact, it seems to have the reverse effect.
Example: 4 Fighters will always sink a battleship with maybe 1 loss, while ADS results (actual dice server) show that the attack would only have a 99.5% chance of victory with a 13% chance of losing 2 fighters in the process. That’s significantly different than the 67% chance of losing only 1 fighter!
It is precisely for this reason I will not engage in Low Luck games to test my theories and, in fact, the low luck game I am currently involved in has a significant American investment in the Atlantic, precisely because I know I can manipulate every battle to achieve optimum results as I desire, where I desire and how I desire. There will be no “upsets” because of the way Low Luck is designed.)
Russian strategies very based on Italian and German strategies. It is very hard to detail all possible strategies for Russia when all Russia needs to do is hold two victory cities to prevent the Axis from winning.
In the example that Germany ignores England:
Russia builds primarily infantry in forward positions until they cannot be held any longer. Russian units slowely retreat to Moscow (Muskva) over 8 rounds. Losing Leningrad and/or Stalingrad is not such an issue, as London has not fallen and therefore, Germany essentially needs both Leningrad and Stalingrad as well as potentially Moscow.
With Germany ignoring England, Egypt is no longer a certain event. Neither is the German NO for having a ground unit in Egypt, as England can readily put 6 units a round into the holding of Egypt if needed. 3 from Central Persia/Iraq and 3 from S. Africa. One might even go so far as to put a complex in Iraq and Persia to augment the one in S. Africa (and the transports needed to get them up to Egypt) and thus have 9 units a round. After all, once London is secure from attack, it is SECURE from attack. There’s no second chance at Sea Lion, you miss your chance, you’ve missed it permanently. It will only be under-defended so long, after all, and then it becomes cost prohibitive.
Should Germany go Sea Lion, this is at least 4 transports and 20/30 ground units lost or trapped in England the water. That’s at least 100 IPC probably closer to 180 IPC worth of units that Russia now does not have to face. That alone gives Russia the advantage in stalling the Germans and Italians. (Again, I look at a strong British open, going for the throat whereever possible against Italy on Round 1 to neuter it. If Germany augments, this will probably make England that much more secure, if Germany does not augment, then British forces should win more decisively. Essentially, I want to kill every German plane I can with England on round 1. If I cannot kill any German planes, then I can have a much easier time sinking Italian ships and killing Italian soldiers.)
In regards to “back dooring” Russia, as I have said, I invite it. Many have claimed, erroneously, that this is 48 IPC for Japan. (6 IPC a round for 8 rounds.) That is blatantly untrue! First off, you cannot take 6 IPC worth of Russia in one round! Secondly, you are not just walking in, you have to send something! And you have to send something to protect that something. And you have to send something to reinforce that something.
So as I said:
Japanese Gains:
Russian Gains:
Benefits: Japan 55 IPC loss, Russia 81 IPC gain
I do not see invading Russia as a winning proposition, unless you can convince Russia to send units to go fight you. However, I do not feel a good Russian strategy is to go fight Japan. You don’t really need too. It is 4 rounds minimum before they can get units to trade for TIM, and 5 or 6 before they can send enough units there to hold TIM. By then, the Japanese should be completely strangulated with Chinese forces making strong pushes into Jehol, British units from India (the ones I detailed that could be sent to China to help, less the aircraft which should go back to the Middle East long before now) in Kansu holding the Japanese out of China’s back door and what I will detail about naval position now:
Japan is also losing at least 24 IPC in warships a round. It is probably an even trade with Australia, who is putting 24 IPC worth of warships in the water each round. This is to prevent the Americans from attacking SZ 6 by blocking (with picket ships) SZ 16, 17 and 18. Australia then counters with Destroyer, Fighter to SZ 16, SZ 17 and SZ 18. (If both destroyers are lost, then it’s an allied gain, if only the Japanese one is lost, then it is an allied gain, if only the Australian one was lost, then it’s neither a gain nor loss for the Allies. Yes, this means the Allies cannot lose here.) This means that America loses nothing in position, war materials or strength, rather only gains in the latter two while Japan at best stays even, at worst starts to lose strength.
Thus, if Japan invades Russia you have:
24 IPC a round into replacing lost destroyers to Australia (does not include anything to counter American builds.)
Probably another 18 IPC a round into China to hold your own.
69 IPC in units lost in the Russian hinterland giving you virtually no benefit.
But what about Germany and Italy?
Well, with Russia building and retreating (and keeping in mind that if Russia earns less than 30 IPC, they can build it all in Moscow still) and with 6 rounds to walk someone from N. Italy to Russia and 5 rounds to walk someone from Germany to Moscow, it shouldn’t be hard to imagine it taking the Axis 9 or 10 rounds just to get in position to trade territories around Moscow.
That can be cut down with transports, but not significantly, since transports would negate much of the gains in movement speed by cost of the transports and the opportunity cost to divert units to protect said transports.
A tank dash is another option, but you quickly find yourself trading 6 IPC tanks for 3 IPC infantry. That means you need 2 IPC for every 1 IPC Russia earns to break even. Worse yet, since it takes roughly 3:1 odds to win a battle, you are risking at least 2 armored units (with airpower to assist) to kill 1 Russian infantry, whereas Russia is risking 2 or 3 infantry to kill 1 or 2 armored units. This is a trade deficit and will eventually lead to Russia overpowering the Germans. This is why virtually every tank dash in the game has been defeated. Assuming the person being dashed against has seen the solution before (either by trying him/herself or just reading someone’s game who has done it. It is how I learned.)
Parting thought, in regard to Russia: Russia is not the weak kitten it is made out to be. Granted, it does not have nearly the offensive capabilities of Germany, but then, we are not asking it to march to Berlin, we are asking it to stop Germany from marching to Moscow. It does not need the offensive capabilities, it needs the defensive, and it has the defensive.
But but but…I need: {Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Egypt, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow} to win! I don’t need London. Of course you do not need London! No one said you did! But you are going to need Moscow! I can stop you from taking Moscow with Russia! I can stop you with planes from England to help! yes, it takes 2 turns, but if you are not going for London, I have all these extra planes (and a French one, the hell else am I going to do with a French fighter???) to fly over to Moscow to stop you!
Fire Knight:
I once believed as you did. It was my greatest hope that an early attack by Japan would effectively stop America from becomming the dominant force in the Pacific and here is what I learned:
1) Japan cannot afford to replace units like America can.
2) Japan has no national objectives if it attacks too early. America has 20 IPC right off the bat.
3) England and Australia will press Japan and reinforce China, negating any meaningful gains you get in the Pacific early.
4) Japan cannot be everywhere. You have to be in SZ 33, SZ 6, SZ 37, SZ 35, you have to have planes in Korea, Carolines, Philippines, Japan, you have to have ground forces in China, Malaya, Hong Kong, Carolines (else why bother, if you don’t threaten an invasion of Hawaii and New South Wales?), Siberia, etc.
5) America has major complexes immediately and the full income needed to utilize them. This does not sound great, but, and I am assuming here, you probably do not attack until round 2, meaning the Americans probably withdrew to Jonah Island or W. USA and are out of reach. If you attack on round 1, you are WAY out of position. You cannot damage your carriers, since you cannot take Hawaii and thus, any left over fighters will splash into the ocean, lost forever, thus you have to take warship casualties and not soak hits iwth your carriers. America can take hits to the carriers as it can land planes on Hawaii. Futher, an attack on American builds in SZ 10 will only result in the loss of whatever ships you have left. And yes, there is the fact that Hawaii is still American, thus, your ships are trapped, you cannot get to the Carolines, New South Wales or Japan from Hawaii, because the Naval Base is American.
It just has never worked out for me. It always looks like it is going to work out! It looks great, up until about round 3 or 4 when you look at the board and realize that you really need another beer because you just hung yourself.
Jen, I dont get how ur response in any way relates to what i said
Actually I see the point of mantlefan.
But I’m not against Jen’s idea either. In my opnion, more test are needed before implementing a solution.
Jen,
What if Japan does not invade the evacuated Russian territories. Do you move the troops into China anyways?
Jen,
What if Japan does not invade the evacuated Russian territories. Do you move the troops into China anyways?
One would assume, given the financial impact on Japan, that Japan most likely would not invade Russia. Russia invading China, however, is a provocation of war, and therefore, would give Japan the 12 IPCs. One would have to think on whether the potential payoff offsets the losses. For one, you have 60 IPC worth of Russian equipnment in China. If China needs you to protect their plane, then this might be worth it, if only to give China the punch needed to take a territory and then have England fly in to defend it. However, if England and China are doing okay, then it may make better sense to move those units up to the Germans as, speaking logically here, Germany is probably the bigger threat right now.
The biggest hurdle here is to get over the mindset that you have to beat Germany. The second biggest hurdle is to get over the mindset that losing territory to Germany is a “bad” thing. You WANT to lose territory to Germany! You want to do this in a logical manner, mind you, but the idea is to lose the territory slow enough you can build enough to stop Moskva from falling, but fast enough that Germany is hard pressed to mass a single, devastating, army. Invite them into Novgorod. Yes, they get an NO, but if you just retreated 150 IPC worth of ground units and 30 IPC worth of planes agianst a force that would have beat them, you came out the winner there. Not to mention, all those units can go reinforce Russia while Russian units can go reinforce Volgorod. Germany will most likely then pull their fast units out of Novgorod to go down to Volgorod in which you retake Novgorod, etc.
The idea is to harass Germany and Italy, stop them from getting what they need to take all three Russian cities as best you can. If that means building fighters for England and flying them into Russia every round, so be it. Without all three Russian cities, the Axis cannot win. (Because they are not going Sea Lion, I guess. That seems to be the consensus of the nay sayers. IF they do go London, they only need two Russian cities, but again, they lost hundreds of IPCs in equipment taking London and only gained 40 in return.)
Either way, Russia is perfectly able to stop a VC win by the Axis in most, if not all, games. (That will later be taken out of context, the commas removed and the word “most” deleted so that the nay-sayers can claim I declared 100% Allied victory, but I am not declaring that. I don’t care what your strategy is, you can never declare 100% victory for one side or the other. Even OOB.)
Elementary my dear, elementary. Jen- c’mon now, flex those “Caspian Sub” muscles. :-D
Eh, I always find the most humorous thing when Germany forgets about the second Russian submarine!
The next most humorous to me is when Germany goes all into SZ 127 then gets locked in! mhuhahahaha. There are definitely more pitfalls for Germany than there are for Russia. Very hard to cut off the Russians or pummel them into submission whereas the Germans have Scandinavia to worry about as well as France, Eastern Europe and Italy.
@Cmdr:
ghr2:
Russian strategies very based on Italian and German strategies. It is very hard to detail all possible strategies for Russia when all Russia needs to do is hold two victory cities to prevent the Axis from winning.
In the example that Germany ignores England:
Russia builds primarily infantry in forward positions until they cannot be held any longer. Russian units slowely retreat to Moscow (Muskva) over 8 rounds. Losing Leningrad and/or Stalingrad is not such an issue, as London has not fallen and therefore, Germany essentially needs both Leningrad and Stalingrad as well as potentially Moscow.
With Germany ignoring England, Egypt is no longer a certain event. Neither is the German NO for having a ground unit in Egypt, as England can readily put 6 units a round into the holding of Egypt if needed. 3 from Central Persia/Iraq and 3 from S. Africa. One might even go so far as to put a complex in Iraq and Persia to augment the one in S. Africa (and the transports needed to get them up to Egypt) and thus have 9 units a round. After all, once London is secure from attack, it is SECURE from attack. There’s no second chance at Sea Lion, you miss your chance, you’ve missed it permanently. It will only be under-defended so long, after all, and then it becomes cost prohibitive.
Should Germany go Sea Lion, this is at least 4 transports and 20/30 ground units lost or trapped in England the water. That’s at least 100 IPC probably closer to 180 IPC worth of units that Russia now does not have to face. That alone gives Russia the advantage in stalling the Germans and Italians. (Again, I look at a strong British open, going for the throat whereever possible against Italy on Round 1 to neuter it. If Germany augments, this will probably make England that much more secure, if Germany does not augment, then British forces should win more decisively. Essentially, I want to kill every German plane I can with England on round 1. If I cannot kill any German planes, then I can have a much easier time sinking Italian ships and killing Italian soldiers.)
In regards to “back dooring” Russia, as I have said, I invite it. Many have claimed, erroneously, that this is 48 IPC for Japan. (6 IPC a round for 8 rounds.) That is blatantly untrue! First off, you cannot take 6 IPC worth of Russia in one round! Secondly, you are not just walking in, you have to send something! And you have to send something to protect that something. And you have to send something to reinforce that something.
So as I said:
Japanese Gains:
- +14 IPC in conquered land
- -69 IPC worth of units (lost due to position on the board.)
Russian Gains:
- +60 IPC worth of units
- +9 IPC in land not conquered yet
- +12 IPC National Objective of getting Japan to declare war on them
Benefits: Japan 55 IPC loss, Russia 81 IPC gain
I do not see invading Russia as a winning proposition, unless you can convince Russia to send units to go fight you. However, I do not feel a good Russian strategy is to go fight Japan. You don’t really need too. It is 4 rounds minimum before they can get units to trade for TIM, and 5 or 6 before they can send enough units there to hold TIM. By then, the Japanese should be completely strangulated with Chinese forces making strong pushes into Jehol, British units from India (the ones I detailed that could be sent to China to help, less the aircraft which should go back to the Middle East long before now) in Kansu holding the Japanese out of China’s back door and what I will detail about naval position now:
Japan is also losing at least 24 IPC in warships a round. It is probably an even trade with Australia, who is putting 24 IPC worth of warships in the water each round. This is to prevent the Americans from attacking SZ 6 by blocking (with picket ships) SZ 16, 17 and 18. Australia then counters with Destroyer, Fighter to SZ 16, SZ 17 and SZ 18. (If both destroyers are lost, then it’s an allied gain, if only the Japanese one is lost, then it is an allied gain, if only the Australian one was lost, then it’s neither a gain nor loss for the Allies. Yes, this means the Allies cannot lose here.) This means that America loses nothing in position, war materials or strength, rather only gains in the latter two while Japan at best stays even, at worst starts to lose strength.
Thus, if Japan invades Russia you have:
24 IPC a round into replacing lost destroyers to Australia (does not include anything to counter American builds.)
Probably another 18 IPC a round into China to hold your own.
69 IPC in units lost in the Russian hinterland giving you virtually no benefit.
But what about Germany and Italy?
Well, with Russia building and retreating (and keeping in mind that if Russia earns less than 30 IPC, they can build it all in Moscow still) and with 6 rounds to walk someone from N. Italy to Russia and 5 rounds to walk someone from Germany to Moscow, it shouldn’t be hard to imagine it taking the Axis 9 or 10 rounds just to get in position to trade territories around Moscow.
That can be cut down with transports, but not significantly, since transports would negate much of the gains in movement speed by cost of the transports and the opportunity cost to divert units to protect said transports.
A tank dash is another option, but you quickly find yourself trading 6 IPC tanks for 3 IPC infantry. That means you need 2 IPC for every 1 IPC Russia earns to break even. Worse yet, since it takes roughly 3:1 odds to win a battle, you are risking at least 2 armored units (with airpower to assist) to kill 1 Russian infantry, whereas Russia is risking 2 or 3 infantry to kill 1 or 2 armored units. This is a trade deficit and will eventually lead to Russia overpowering the Germans. This is why virtually every tank dash in the game has been defeated. Assuming the person being dashed against has seen the solution before (either by trying him/herself or just reading someone’s game who has done it. It is how I learned.)
Parting thought, in regard to Russia: Russia is not the weak kitten it is made out to be. Granted, it does not have nearly the offensive capabilities of Germany, but then, we are not asking it to march to Berlin, we are asking it to stop Germany from marching to Moscow. It does not need the offensive capabilities, it needs the defensive, and it has the defensive.
But but but…I need: {Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Egypt, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow} to win! I don’t need London. Of course you do not need London! No one said you did! But you are going to need Moscow! I can stop you from taking Moscow with Russia! I can stop you with planes from England to help! yes, it takes 2 turns, but if you are not going for London, I have all these extra planes (and a French one, the hell else am I going to do with a French fighter???) to fly over to Moscow to stop you!
I think it might be a good idea for you to try and figure out an Axis strategy that can defeat this allied strategy. It might take some radical changes to the beginning of your games, plus a few changes to the time tables. For instance, I have already mentioned how easy it is for the axis to save the Italian army in Africa, you yourself said that in that case UK would vacate the Med and save the fleet too! Really this move is a no-brainer. Secondly, because you wait until J4 to attack,(or is it J3?) You are actually beefing up ANZAC enough that they /can/ afford to swap 24 ipcs of production with Japan. In my games(attack J2) ANZAC is lucky to be making 20ipcs 1 turn, after that they struggle to make 15, I think a more realistic ANZAC support consists of 1 sub 1 dd or maybe 2 subs. Thirdly, I don’t see much value to Japan staging their fleet outside Carolines unless they plan on invading Australia/Hawaii. As you’ve said, thats a fools errand for Japan because of the huge American fleet. So why not do the smart thing and drag that American fleet all over the Pacific? Stage in Philippines, or build a minor/NB/AB in Celebres(an awesome location to maintain your naval empire). By forming up your fleet more west you can support the coast(where the money is) and the money islands and forget about Carolines and other moneyless islands.
Lastly it appears you have yet to find out about one of the new units added to this version of the game. The Mechanized infantry is great for adding to the Tank Dash strategy. It now means that if you take a casualty, its only 4ipcs instead of the 6 you have been losing. Try adding a few to your tank dashes……especially for Germany. For 1 ipc more you can now move twice as fast in vast russia. This also might be a reason Germany is stalling.
I think it might be a good idea for you to try and figure out an Axis strategy that can defeat this allied strategy. It might take some radical changes to the beginning of your games, plus a few changes to the time tables. For instance, I have already mentioned how easy it is for the axis to save the Italian army in Africa, you yourself said that in that case UK would vacate the Med and save the fleet too! Really this move is a no-brainer. Secondly, because you wait until J4 to attack,(or is it J3?) You are actually beefing up ANZAC enough that they /can/ afford to swap 24 ipcs of production with Japan. In my games(attack J2) ANZAC is lucky to be making 20ipcs 1 turn, after that they struggle to make 15, I think a more realistic ANZAC support consists of 1 sub 1 dd or maybe 2 subs. Thirdly, I don’t see much value to Japan staging their fleet outside Carolines unless they plan on invading Australia/Hawaii. As you’ve said, thats a fools errand for Japan because of the huge American fleet. So why not do the smart thing and drag that American fleet all over the Pacific? Stage in Philippines, or build a minor/NB/AB in Celebres(an awesome location to maintain your naval empire). By forming up your fleet more west you can support the coast(where the money is) and the money islands and forget about Carolines and other moneyless islands.
Lastly it appears you have yet to find out about one of the new units added to this version of the game. The Mechanized infantry is great for adding to the Tank Dash strategy. It now means that if you take a casualty, its only 4ipcs instead of the 6 you have been losing. Try adding a few to your tank dashes……especially for Germany. For 1 ipc more you can now move twice as fast in vast russia. This also might be a reason Germany is stalling.
The “moneyless” islands can comprise a 10 IPC swing to the US (Japan down 5 and US up 5) and 5 for ANZAC. Granted DEI is a 20 IPC gain for Japan, but the object is not only to get as many NOs for yourself but to simultaneously deprive your opponent.
You can keep ANZAC at 10 with a little attention directed their way and sending some subs their way too.
With the balance changes of Alpha 2, is it a fair assessment that Germany/Japan must use there momentum in the earlier rounds to gain an advantage? If for whatever reason Germany/Japan stalls or loses a battle,due to poor purchases,dice rolls,etc. The Allies begin to even up the odds. If the previous statements are correct, time is on the Allies side. Which brings me to wonder if this AA Global game follows historic outcomes to some degree. Example, Hitlers best chance at Sea Lion was in the early years of WW2. So this translates to rd 1-3(4?). The war with Russia was intended to be quick. If Germany goes Sea Lion it will face a much stronger Russia. At the same time, if US builds right, the odds seem to favor the Allies. I am very inexperienced at AA Global, so you guys/ladies would know best. I appologize if this has been addressed, or is common knowlege. I am simply tring to understand the dynamics of Alpha 2, and its changes.
Basically (Jen’s got the details) the issue is this:
US income is exponential over time. In other words it starts off slow then in mid to late rounds (rounds 8+) it gets very beastly. This is not a big deal if the US is forced through a simple change in NOs to divert some of its cash to the Atlantic where there are no NOs invested. In this way the Axis can somewhat keep up with the US income as the game progresses into deeper rounds- levels out the sharpness of income so its not as exponential. (Think e to the x power graph)- get it??? :-)
I understand what you are saying. If Japan fails to convince US from committing forces, Germany will have a harder time. I have read most of the posts presented in this discussion. It seems to me everyone here is very knowlegable regarding AA. Jen has broken it down very well. Thank you for repling to my post.
After reading many posts it would seem Japan needs Ipc’s early but can’t get them without bringing US into war. Why not get rid of FIC NO and replace US war declaration with the taking of Calcutta or Sydney . Like the London DOW in the atlanic. This would allow Japan to attack many dutch Islands that it traditionally held when the Us entered the war. Maybe move the UK BB and the Anzac ships a space out of reach to start.
@Cmdr:
- Losing 3 destroyers a round is a loss of 24 IPC. That’s a lot of money anyway you look at it. SZ 16, 17 and 18 have to be covered if America has ships in SZ 26 and SZ 33. With Australian fighters helping along with remnants of the Australian and British fleets, odds of a direct assault on the allies being a victory for Japan are nil. Even if you win, you lost. You cannot recover, but the allies can. Thus, the allies do not need to cover all three sea zones like you do.
Why must Japan defend those seazones?
@mantlefan:
@Zallomallo:
@Cmdr:
- Losing 3 destroyers a round is a loss of 24 IPC. That’s a lot of money anyway you look at it. SZ 16, 17 and 18 have to be covered if America has ships in SZ 26 and SZ 33. With Australian fighters helping along with remnants of the Australian and British fleets, odds of a direct assault on the allies being a victory for Japan are nil. Even if you win, you lost. You cannot recover, but the allies can. Thus, the allies do not need to cover all three sea zones like you do.
Why must Japan defend those seazones?
Japan needs the blockers I think.
When I played, my opponent and I just built well rounded navies. Is it better to have a block and have more submarines?
I strongly believe waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a death sentence right out of the gate.
Between Kwangtung, Phillipines, Borneo, Java, and FIC, you’re talking about a 30 ipc swing in territory alone, makes up for the extra U.S. objective money. On top of that, add maybe four bucks from disrupting ANZAC convoys (and four bucks hurts a LOT when you start with ten) and another couple from interdicting off Malaya. You lose 10 ipcs from not getting the peace bonus, but convoy damage you can inflict offsets some of that, you’re halfway to controlling the DEI, you’re taking away a 5 ipc USNO, and you can stomp on India and Australia’s navy while they’re still tiny.
I strongly believe waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a death sentence right out of the gate.
Between Kwangtung, Phillipines, Borneo, Java, and FIC, you’re talking about a 30 ipc swing in territory alone, makes up for the extra U.S. objective money. On top of that, add maybe four bucks from disrupting ANZAC convoys (and four bucks hurts a LOT when you start with ten) and another couple from interdicting off Malaya. You lose 10 ipcs from not getting the peace bonus, but convoy damage you can inflict offsets some of that, you’re halfway to controlling the DEI, you’re taking away a 5 ipc USNO, and you can stomp on India and Australia’s navy while they’re still tiny.
i completely agree!
Game 14 this weekend I cant wait! I’ll take as many notes as I can, I’ll let ya know who takes over the world.
Will the Axis get lucky or will the Allies prevail? ( I feel sorry for lucky, everybody is out to get-im)
