I dont think Larry will make new molds for the existing infantry.
Maybe you could make a poll over Italian, French and neutral units ?
What to do with W. Canada infantry?
-
I must say: 1)The US shoudnt focus at all at japan, us should focus only on germany.
2)Japan shoudnt invade america at all, they should go for Russia, since its where they can earn the most IPC and because they will always loose the war head-on the US.
Japan invading western, that can never work against an experienced US player.
-
@AgentSmith:
… If Japan goes to Alaska on their first turn it will seriously deprive them of valuable forces in Asia for many turns to come and lead to problems down the road. So while Japan may get 2-3 ipcs for Alaska and Wcan they will lose many more by not taking Yakut, Sink, Sfe, China and India which are worth a total of 11ipcs.
When I invade Alaska, I do it after I take over both America’s Chinese terrioties and India. By then Russia should have fallen to the Germans, so the Russians will not be focusing on Japan. This leaves Japan able to invade Alaska and begin to try to take out America.
-
Russia shouldn’t fall that quickly. If they build guys and defend Karelia, how will Germany take Moscow. Failing in this if Japan then vacates its Asia territories it runs a great risk of seeing Russia or the other Allies taking them back.
-
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to get everyone off topic here :oops:. However, as someone said, the Japanese usually concentrate on the Russians and the Americans on the Germans in most of our games. Sorry again.
-
@AgentSmith:
Japan concentrating on the US instead of Russia will doom Germany.
I couldn’t agree more. Germany needs someone to keep Russia in check, even if it is only at a loss of 2-4 IPC’s in the first few turns. Plus a lucky/crafty Japan can take away 6 UK IPC’s by turn two and a two border shot into Sinkiang.
-
@AgentSmith:
Russia shouldn’t fall that quickly. If they build guys and defend Karelia, how will Germany take Moscow. Failing in this if Japan then vacates its Asia territories it runs a great risk of seeing Russia or the other Allies taking them back.
Why would Japan vacate its Asian territories?
-
@AgentSmith:
Japan concentrating on the US instead of Russia will doom Germany.
I couldn’t agree more. Germany needs someone to keep Russia in check, even if it is only at a loss of 2-4 IPC’s in the first few turns. Plus a lucky/crafty Japan can take away 6 UK IPC’s by turn two and a two border shot into Sinkiang.
Japan can concentrate on Asia with their Asian troops and use their navy to take out america’s navy.
-
Japan needs to add new troops in Asia in order to push Russia out of Novo otherwise the Russians will park in Novo or Yakut and trade either Sink or Yakut every turn yet concentrate the bulk of their 27ipcs income against Germany. If Germany is only producing 36ipcs the Russians can hold Karelia along time without significant reinforcements from the Americans/English. In the interim US/Uk can concentrate on retaking Africa or pushing onto the continent via Spain in order to open up a second front against Germany. At this point Germany has to pull out of EEuro to defend Berlin, and Russia/Britain move into EEuro finishing the encirclement of Germany. The only leverage you have is the early troops you dump into Alaska, but if you are diverting Jap troops to both Asia and Alaska, say around 6inf to each you aren’t go to be strong enough to seriously slow down either America or Russia. If the Japs go all out for Alaska the Americans will be slowed down, but only slightly, and the Allies will still encircle Berllin, if a turn or two later. It is therefore vital the Japs can take Novo or at least back Russia out of Novo early. The supply lines from Alaska to Tokyo are too long to maintain substantial pressure unless Japan has a lot of transports, but in order to build such a massive flotilla Japan must take away a lot of ipcs in Asia. Otherwise they will only have 36ipcs which won’t get it done, especially if America is at 36-38ipcs themselves. With Japan only able to send 6guys to Alaska turn and America building 12 you tell me who is going to win this one.
-
@The:
@AgentSmith:
Japan concentrating on the US instead of Russia will doom Germany.
I couldn’t agree more. Germany needs someone to keep Russia in check, even if it is only at a loss of 2-4 IPC’s in the first few turns. Plus a lucky/crafty Japan can take away 6 UK IPC’s by turn two and a two border shot into Sinkiang.
Japan can concentrate on Asia with their Asian troops and use their navy to take out america’s navy.
But Pearl Harbor is only a first turn Japan move, it will stall the US while making a less hampered Asian conquest without more US interference. I’ll give it that, but Japan needs to worry about building up as quick as possible so it can bail out Germany.
-
So I take it, that everyone does agree with the following: Japan should focus on asia, us on germany, and if not the side that did not will be doomed.?
-
Well, I think its possible for the USA to concentrate on Japan as Russia and Great Britian together can hold off Germany and any Japanese push in Asia that the USA can’t address. Also, I think a Kill Japan First stategy is also feasible. But this isn’t the easiest way for an Allied victory.
-
The problem here is that while Britain and Russia can combine to hold off Germany for a while they will struggle to retake Africa, Germany’s cash cow. Failing to take Africa can allow an outnumbered Germany to walk through Ukr/Cauc to take and hold Karelia. Even if Japan is getting slowed down, a German occupation of Karelia nullifies the aid Britain can give to Russia. Thus the game becomes Germany versus Russia, and most of the time the Germans can win this contest. In the end America going after Japan may succeed in slowing down the Axis, but it completely nullifies the Allied advantage and deprives them of their best opportunity to win, by triple pounding on Germany.
-
You make some good points. I think this is why the United Kingdom player must spend his money wisely, splitting it between Africa, Karelia, and the invasion of Europe later in the game.
-
I say bring the Infantry to Europe on a transport to help invade Western Europe. Why not there’s a transport there anyway. Anyway If Japan attacks alsaka they’re done for already. If Japan makes such a disgraceful move like that instead of attacking Russia, Germany is doomed. Why not entice a Japanese player to attack Alaska? But thats besides the point. the point is Alaska has only been attacked once in all the games I’ve played in and no I’ve played in more than a few games. So why bulk up it’s defense when that infantry can be used in Europe that’s where the fighting will be…not in Alaska. Anyway what could Japan do in Alaska? take maybe 3 I.P.Cs in a North America campaign before America builds tanks and whips there butts. If Japan wants to attack Alaska go ahead I’ll even give it to’em free, but I won’t waste a single infantry on something so menial and tiny.
-
I’ll even give it to’em free, but I won’t waste a single infantry on something so menial and tiny.
I would say never give your opponent something for free, make Japan at least fight the original troops there to take it.
Here is why I think this is a bad idea: Say Japan sends one transport to Alaska with 2 infantry on any given turn. Japan then gains 3 ipcs, USA loses 3 ipcs = 6 total IPC difference. This already pays for the 2 infantry. These 2 infantry will be missed in Asia, but not greatly. Now you say USA will build tanks then blitz to Alaska (next turn) to take it back. This means for 2 turns it will belong to Japan for a total IPC difference of 12. Assuming no loss of US tanks, the Axis has already gained 6 ipcs on the Allies. But this would be more if US loses a tank or two.
So this gives the Axis at least 6 ipcs plus forces the US to do things other than send troops to Europe or Africa (tanks to Alaska). Maybe Germany can hold parts of Africa a turn or two longer because of this (= more Axis ipcs)?
Yeah, don’t worry too much about it, but don’t just give it away either.
-
when I said i’d give it to them free I was being a little sarcastic. Japan attacking alaska would be a good thing for the allies. you say the axis gains about 6 i.p.cs there but that cash will make little difference because the transports and infantry Japan used to attack alaska could not be used on Russia which is what the mainly want to do. Thus delaying and weakening a Russian downfall. Germany can only hold off 2 fronts for a certain amount of time before the strong economic backing of the allies overwhelms them. But now i’m getting a little off topic. The point is the extra infantry could be very helpful in Europe where the allies should mainly be focusing. I don’t know why’d I’d put it in alaska and force Japan to think about invading there more seriously when that’s excatly where I want them to attack.
Game master players have mostly agreed that Japan attacking America is a very weak startegy. So why not let them attack america so the allies can take full advantage of this pitiful move.
Any way All I have to say is move it to Europe to help out there not in a frozen tundra, which in no way helps anybody strategically.
-
First of all Baker Alaska is only worth 2ipcs, secondly I will leave Alaska empty in order to encourage them to only send 1inf so that I can counterattack it. If the Japs attack Alaska when defended by 1inf and take it without loss it may be too costly to retake it that turn because it slows you down in Africa. However, I think the best way to deter an invasion of Alaska by Japan is to build an occasional bomber to threaten the AlaSz should a lone transport venture up there. Finally, I would say I never worry about giving Japan the 2ipcs in Alaska for a turn because there is a law of diminishing returns on Japanese income. Sure they can take 2ipcs from America, but what is the cost of not sending 2infantry to Asia because they went to Alaska instead. Further, if you plan to counterattack as America, the net cost to the japs will be greater than the reward.
-
Agent Smith, you are correct, Alaska is only 2ipc :oops:
Secondly, I said I would send a couple of infantry. I guess I should have made it clear that I would be certain to send two. Two infantry requires the US to commit more to retake Alaska. The main purpose of this is to slow down the US help to Europe/Africa; or have the Alaska ipcs. Of course, everyone is correct in saying that Japan needs every inf. it can get in Asia, I agree with this. A strong push by Japan into N. America is doomed to failure.
Regarding the use of a bomber as a deterent, will you still attack if I send a capital ship or two with the transport?
I will reinforce Alaska as UK to make it more difficult for the Japanese to take it, let them send a significant force there and disrupt their flow to Asia. As the UK player I don’t want the US supplies to be disrupted in a counter attack, even with a few infantry for one turn while the US deals with Alaska. As long as the US infantry keeps flowing to Europe or Africa, the Axis is unlikely to win, but if the US infantry go elsewhere the Axis stand a better chance of victory.
In reinforcing Alaska as the UK, I am trying to help my allies.
-
Regarding the use of a bomber as a deterent, will you still attack if I send a capital ship or two with the transport?
Of course not but I might roll a few tech dice to see what happens, but who cares I love to see Jap capital ships off Alaska instead of the RedSz/FICSz. I might also be tempted to sneak a few bombers into Novo to strike at any unescorted trannies in the JapSz/FICSz. So in the end going for Alaska will either prevent you from threatening Africa or make it possible to easy kill a trannie. Both of these are good for the Allies both American and Britian.
Secondly, I said I would send a couple of infantry. I guess I should have made it clear that I would be certain to send two. Two infantry requires the US to commit more to retake Alaska. The main purpose of this is to slow down the US help to Europe/Africa; or have the Alaska ipcs.
And I will let the Japs hold it for a turn, but bare in mind the US usually produces 32-34 ipcs which is either 9inf arm or 8inf 2arm, and either way the US will be producing more units than they can transport with 5 transports, so while their is a slow down it isn’t much, and usually not much more than a tank. After the grace turn I let Japan hold Alaska I will take it back with the extra pieces I’ve built up say 2inf 2arm or whatever it may be. If they pull the guys back to Manch I blitz the territory and there is little advantage gained by going to Alaska. Ultimately the US has too much money and because of this can afford to give up Alaska, especially if it slows down the Japs in Asia/Africa where I need time to get set up to defend against them.
-
movin to alaska to defend is best its closer and will do a lot in some of the past games i played…then again i was playin with my family and my brother loves alaska so he tries to take it 24/7….lol
Suggested Topics
