Does anyone else just move the infantry in Korea over to Manhcuria and just… keep all the starting Manchurian infantry there? It’s what I normally do when the Russians stack Amur. 10 infantry and an AA gun is bad odds for the 18 Russian infantry up there. Yes, it leaves Korea open, but I’m generally okay with that because they can’t go anywhere else from there. Stacking Korea allows the Russian infantry to go all the way down the coast and become a real nuisance, so I usually just… write off the 10 infantry in Manchuria as insurance against the Soviets.
I do the same. If the Russians stack all their infantry there, I just leave the 10 inf and AA gun in Manchuria. If they do attack Korea, then I’m fine with it because then I can expand into Russian territory without activating the Mongolians. It only really gets annoying when the USA takes Korea and then the Russians reinforce with all their guys.
Good morning gents,
I generally agree that the G40 game balance favors the axis. This is not based on their advantage in pieces, or even economy–it is based on their initiative and their “white player” first mover advantage. There are no allied strategies that can be pre-supposed to be successful until you see how the game plays out. And, as you do gain this information, the Axis are better able to adapt and take advantage of this than the Allies are.
I do have several suggestions that make the Allies somewhat harder to beat in the Pacific.
1) Move the Chinese holdout to Kansu, not Sikang or Szechwan (“Chicom”). Retaking Yunnan is tempting, but if Japan already has their MIC down, it is probably better to draw them Northwest than South. If Japan intends to attack Russia, being up north is not a problem for them, but if they have to chase you that direction, it puts them out of position to attack UK Pacific. If Japan does not have a plan to strike Russia, it will be fairly obvious (abandons Manchuria), and it would then argue for keeping all 18 infantry there to pin down any Japanese troops (and block a retake of Korea, if that happens).
2) Russia will often have to move their pieces West, but if they don’t, and Japan doesn’t build its MIC in the north, then it cannot possibly defend against Russia, China, UKPac, ANZAC and US.
3) The primary US goal is to pressurize SZ6 and take Korea, going south puts you way out of position. Building a Naval Base on Wake or Midway makes it impossible to screen you out from SZ 6. Even if you lose the battle, you can reduce the threat, expend his kamikazes and follow up. If his fleet goes south, you can screen it by blocking SZ 21-23and “break him in two” by preventing his separate fleets from all converging back on you.
4) on J3-J4, Japan will try to make threshold income by taking the spice islands, and this is what will cost them a bunch of their ships. Fighters on Australia, malasia and NGuinea and US carriers can attack detached fleets.
5) After Taranto, land your planes on Malta, not Syria. This pulls Italy west instead of East just like Chicom pulls them north not south. If Italy can cross the oil states, UK Pac is finished.
6) if Japan threatens UK Pac directly, buy only infantry and camp within one space of your capital. Their goal should be to take over Ceylon and use it as a landing pad. Screen SZ 37. But if they don’t, packs of UK mechs and tanks can ward any Japanese stack within range. You will likely only get to make a single attack to retake Siam, Malasia, Yunnan etc…Make it count.
7) Declare war with UK2-UK3 if this is the only way you can gain your bonuses on a certain turn. The penalty in the Pac game is that the US loses its bonus, but there is no bonus in the Global setup.
8) you cannot directly bomb Japan into submission or retake it with force. You have to smash its income by destroying its ability to move in and out of SZ6.Japan can do everything, and can smash any stack, but they have to telegraph that intention at least one turn ahead. They can take all the territory they like, the only reply is to trim them back slightly.
Many of the conversations here try to focus on the exact detail of where certain ships and captures will occur on turns 3-6, and how many of those moves can be accomplished simultaneously. This isn’t very productive, as it tends to exaggerate how thinly Japan can practically be spread, and implies a false sense of certainty about what they will do. They do have a ridiculous amount of planes–and it actually is quite a good idea to use the Japan Dark Skies strat to kill every Chinese piece even with sacrifices. You will not be able to focus every US dollar on the Pacific, but you can get pretty close. Beating either axis player in detail is uncertain, cannot be accomplished by naked gambits or stratagems, and requires patience.
However, I have never seen a scenario where (for example) all the UK air and all the Siberian forces converge on the defense of Moscow. Everyone says that this is possible and desirable, but it never happens, and Russia falls. I am not that certain that G40 is all that unbalanced, assuming that the Allies take extreme measures to prevent endgame. It is simply an unplayably long game (More than 10 turns, tending to 14-16, we did 8 in 12 hours…) that people analyze on the basis of assumptions, the conduct of the early game, and their personal observations and biases.
First off, I want to give a shout out to taamvan. Well said, good sir.
Secondly:
Does anyone else just move the infantry in Korea over to Manhcuria and just… keep all the starting Manchurian infantry there? It’s what I normally do when the Russians stack Amur. 10 infantry and an AA gun is bad odds for the 18 Russian infantry up there. Yes, it leaves Korea open, but I’m generally okay with that because they can’t go anywhere else from there. Stacking Korea allows the Russian infantry to go all the way down the coast and become a real nuisance, so I usually just… write off the 10 infantry in Manchuria as insurance against the Soviets.
I do the same. If the Russians stack all their infantry there, I just leave the 10 inf and AA gun in Manchuria. If they do attack Korea, then I’m fine with it because then I can expand into Russian territory without activating the Mongolians. It only really gets annoying when the USA takes Korea and then the Russians reinforce with all their guys.
Bad odds for the Russians to attack? They’d have a 61% chance of success vs 12 infantry (or 90% in low luck), let alone 10 and a half. Stacking Manchuria with enough to simply hold the Soviets off is a viable plan, but it’s going to take more than that. If that’s all you have, the Russian player SHOULD attack you. If he doesn’t, that’s on him.
Like Nippon-koku mentioned, the Chinese would love to get the Manchurian money and spawn location.
Bad odds for the Russians to attack? They’d have a 61% chance of success vs 12 infantry (or 90% in low luck), let alone 10 and a half. Stacking Manchuria with enough to simply hold the Soviets off is a viable plan, but it’s going to take more than that. If that’s all you have, the Russian player SHOULD attack you. If he doesn’t, that’s on him.
Like Nippon-koku mentioned, the Chinese would love to get the Manchurian money and spawn location.
Exactly. Not sure if it’s because of the 1’s, but people seem to underestimate the Siberians. Ran the calc and the highest probability was Russia survives with 11 infantry. Non-combat those two AA guns and Japan has an issue (and that’s before China places units up there).
Again, not a bulletproof end-all be-all strategy to beat Japan. But another example of how you can slow Japan down, and how it would take more than a simple “Well I’d just do this and the problem would be solved” to slow down the Allies.
The plan to threaten Manchuria in this way is a solid plan. Usually my opponent only has 12 infantry in Buryatia at the start of R2. That is nog enough. You need the 18 infantry. I will certainly try that next time.
But when I am playing Japan and I see 18 infantry threatening Amur, I keep most of my infantry in Manchuria and my planes in Jehol in J1. If they take it, Japan can attack with maybe 23 units plus landings. And they will do so immediately! That way both the Russians and the Chinese are defeated in one stroke, and Germany will have less trouble to take Moscow. Not only will Russia lose it’s 18 infantry, it will also lose all it’s IPC’s in the east…
China
When you stay in Szechwan in C2, you cannot go back to Kansu which is easier to defend by the Russians. So every infantry you invest in Szechwan will be lost in J4 in my opinion. That is why I retreat to Shensi in C1. That way I am in Kansu in C3 and the Russians (6 infantry) can help in R4.
I believe China will always be better off trying to get Yunan back early on. We may just agree to disagree on that one. No worries there :-)
As for the 18 in Amur
Your Amur plan goes back to the question we’ve been going back and forth on: how much is too much to do for Japan? If you’re committing 23 ground units, and accompanying transports, to Amur on J2 you simply don’t have enough units in position to push back China + UK in Southern China and aggressively threaten the DEI. If, as China and India, I see Japan commit that much to the North then I’m thinking move everything China has into Yunan, then back it up with India. Now Yunan is protected and Japan has no serious DEI threat J3.
But with how many Chinese units are you willing to retake Yunnan? They will have to be left behind in Szechwan. Japan can react to that, so I think it is a waste. And Japan can always kill them with airpower…
Japan doesn’t need 23 ground units, perhaps 15 will be enough. And you are right that taking all the islands in J3 will be almost impossible, but Japan has solved it’s problems on land early in the game. And will you seriously put 18 Russian infantry forward when Japan can destroy them all in one stroke?
When you have taken the islands it will be easy for Japan to keep them! The allies will have more dificulties retaking the islands then Japan has on taking them back, because the Japanese navy is better situated (it can use airpower from carriers or from land to retake the islands). Only if the allied fleet is at Queensland can the allies have better access to the islands. But then the Japanese homeland is safe…
Let me preface by saying I’m enjoying this back and forth. Tone is never present in online discussions and therefore words can come off the wrong way. Just know I’m loving the discussion :-D
Said respectfully, I feel like your Japanese plans never include the fact that the Allies get to buy units and move as well.
The US and Anzac will be steadily buying ships, planes and units as well. To maintain, and constantly retake, the DEI is worthwhile for Japan, but it’s certainly not easy or without cost. You will lose transports, men, and if you spread your force too thin trying to protect too much you’ll eventually get picked off. Again, Japan is strong and can certainly win the game. But it’s not as simple as saying “Japan will just take the DEI and hold them the whole time!” I’ve never played a single game of Global where Japan took the DEI J3 or J4 and held them virtually uncontested the rest of the way.
Let’s get back to China and Russia
In an earlier post you said you like to have the main Japanese fleet situated at the Caroline islands, plus a transport in 36/37 with some protection. You later mentioned you keep planes in Jehol. So let’s look at the setup going into round 2:
Russia moves 18 men and 2 AA into Amur; you want to counter with 15 ground units and some planes. Ok, no problem.
First things first, you’d have to anticipate Russia moving into Amur R2, meaning you’d have to leave back the Manchuria troops. So right off the bat Russia is, as the very least, dictating where your units have to go. Not a game breaker, but a nice ancillary benefit for the Allies. Moreover, you’d have to commit a couple of transports. Again, nice play for the Allies. Finally, since you’re doing the attack, you’ve now activated Mongolia and given Russia 6 extra troops. Once again, not a game changer, but still nice. Finally, let’s say you do have all your Manchurian troops still there, and your Korean troops, and transports ready to go, and half your air force in Jehol: Russia sees that and decides to sit in Buryatia on R2. So now what as Japan? You aren’t going to keep that entire air force in Jehol, right? You’re going to move those transports down toward the DEI, right? So Russia made you keep your men out of place for J2, then just moves into Amur on R3. What’s the next step? I’m guessing you’re not going to redirect your entire air force to Northern China on J3?
As far as planes go, I’m guessing on J1 you hit Yunan with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr & 1 tac from Shanghai, 2 str from Japan. Let me know if I’m wrong, but this seems to be the standard as far as I can tell, since taking Yunan is important for J1. Those planes would have to land in Kwangsi, and I’m guessing you have at least a couple of your carriers loaded up in the water? And you at least brought a couple to Hunan? It’s very unlikely that you have your entire air force in Jehol.
As far as the Japanese homeland goes, I rarely find that it’s prudent for the US to spend heavy time and resources threatening SZ6. Ultimate, it just puts them out of position and let’s Japan do exactly what you said: control the DEI. Trust me, as the Allies I will have plenty of loaded carrier power down in Queensland around turn 4, 5.
Lastly, you mentioned that if China retakes Yunan and has to sit in Szechwan, they are susceptible to Japanese air strikes. I mentioned earlier in the thread that China can have about 12 inf, a ftr and 4 Russian units in Szechwan by the time J2 rolls around. Now, certainly you agree: the Japanese air force cannot be a threat to that stack, AND a threat to Amur, AND sitting on your carriers at the beginning of J2?
Indeed, I to like to have an open debate without ‘tone’ or disrespect. I want to learn from others, and of course I think I am right sometimes, I have also learnt from this discussion. Next time I play the allies, I will certainly have a different approach. I will try to involve the Russians more and perhaps coordinate in what turn the allies should put pressure on Japan collectively.
But still think Japan is to strong! ;)
Fleet
The allies can buy, but not enough. You can only have a maximum of 19 units at Queensland in US4 (if you buy 3 carriers in US1). Japan has around 35 at that time (and can buy more, the US can’t). And you’re welcome to try to take the islands (which indeed always happens), but Japan not only has the advantage of a large unified force, it is also better situated to take the islands back. So in fact the allies lose more units then Japan in this manner. But the reward is more IPC’s, so we agree that they should try.
Russia/China
Japan has 19 air units. 4 are used in attack on Yunnan in J1 and 3 in Hunan. That leaves 12 planes, plus the bombers which can reach amur from Kwangsi… . 6 planes are used at sea, so Japan has 8 left on Jehol. Japan has 11 landunits on Manchuria plus Korea, and 5 transports in J2. Must be enough.
If you don’t attack in R2, Japan has to re-arrange of course. But from Ahnwe it can reach the whole of China and Manchuria (and Burma). So contrary to what you say the Japanese airforce can threaten northern China and Manchuria at the same time.
Germany would love Russia to invest 4 extra units in China by the way (Szechwan). And again from Ahnwe the Japanese airforce can indeed be a threat to those units. In fact if you don’t put the 18 Russian units forward in Manchuria the forces in Szechwan will all be destroyed in J3…
Still I don’t see how you are going to safe China???
IPC
My assumption is that if Japan takes the treasure islands one time, they have around 70 IPC. If they do they can buy as many ships as the Americans, and the US has to divert power to Europe. Japan also has the advantage of airpower (I like to drop this argument as often as I can :p), of inner lines and they are closer to the islands then the US homebase is.
Mr. Tolstoi,
Can’t really contradict you, as the things you say are correct–Japan gets the income, it gets the air, it gets the flexibility.
The only blatantant weakness it has are
In agreement with the poster above, you cant just threaten SZ 6, you have to be ready to attack it at the only opportunity you will have (usually J4-J6) when he splits his fleet.
If japan hangs out at Carolines, you cant sit off Queensland.
If japan hangs out at the Philippines, it is the southernmost point he can be and still return to SZ 6 defense
If japan hangs out in SZ 6, he isn’t accomplishing anything
If japan hangs out in Manchuria, he can’t kill China
If japan goes for Malaya, the Spice Islands, Australia, Bombay etc, he cannot help SZ 6
This set of assumptions reveals that the only positional moment to attack him will be the one where he has to grab for his true objective. That battle will be at a odds disadvantage to the allies, but you have to take it.
This is also my (mild) objection to the discussion of how to speed the game up by having Germany and Japan go at the same time–seems like a good idea until you recognize that certain G1 moves (sea lion) will not be compatible with a certain Japan move (attacking Russia)…and Russia has to ‘read’ this intention…
People often opine that Russia should not put all 18 men on Amur, but this battle is very risky for Japan and I have seen it blow Japan’s strategy before. I think that it is a “tell” to move all the pieces to Buryatia facing westward…Japan must have some doubt that you will be leaving permanently and not re-forming up in Amur/novosibirisk. Japan can’t lose Manchuria and that’s the biggest difference between 1940 Pac and 1940 Global.
This is all clear language Mr. Taamvan, thank you.
One question, what do you ean by:
This set of assumptions reveals that the only positional moment to attack him will be the one where he has to grab for his true objective. That battle will be at a odds disadvantage to the allies, but you have to take it.
Fist of all Japans has 4 destroyers to start with, and the US should buy 3 carriers in US1. (I never buy battleships). Japan has two advantages: they buy ships nearer to homebase and they are first.
J2 Japan buys a carrier (or 2 destroyers) and 2 subs.
J3 Japan buys a carrier and 2 subs.
Japanese navy: 5 carriers 2 bb 2 ca 4 destroyers 6 subs = 29 units + airsupport. And may I remind you that Japan isn’t the one who’s on the attack!
I dont know if you are assuming a J1 or not. If I assume that you do a J3 attack
2 CV, 1 BB, 2 CR, 3 DD and 2 sub
If us Buy 3 CV on US1 and 3CV on us2, they will end up with
8 CV, 1 BB, 2 CR, 3 DD and 2 subs for a total of 32 units that can reach queensland by US5
You can also go this way:
on US1 buy 7 subs and 1 DD
US2 buy 3 Carriers. You now have
5 CV, 1 BB, 2 Cr, 4DD and 9 subs for a total of 29 units + anzak that can reach queensland on US4 (I assume anzak and uk helps with filling up the US carriers)
The subs you build on US1 can actually go from the east coast to hawaii by US3.
No they are not weak on land: they defeat China in J4/J5. Russia will have to deal with Germnay sooner or later and India is reduces to 5-7 IPC after R3/R4…
I have to say it’s been a while since I’ve seen a J3 attack. J1 (w/G2 attack on Russia) is just too good to pass up but to each his own.
As for the Russians if they keep all 20 units together in Bury, yea that is a concern for the Japanese and they will have to hold some units back to deal with them if/when they come forward. It will make a difference because it ties down those slow moving Japanese ground forces, and puts them out of position. If the Russians do invade Manchu the Japanese would have to take them out I think, but it will cost them a lot of ground units and a couple planes, plus it weakens them in other areas. It could be interesting if the Japanese (seeing what Russia did) decided to stack Manchu w/air cover J1 and build an IC (now Russia is kinda screwed). Plus I’ll have to say that the Germans are loving that, because the first six units would be a round late upon arrival to Moscow if the stack does decide to head east. Maybe the Axis plan has now changed, and Russia has just sealed its fate (maybe it was the axis plan all along and you played right into it LOL). Japan can be pretty devastating w/IC on Manchu pumping out mech/tanks blasting through the Siberian wilderness, Mongolia and/or northern China. A second IC in FIC can still pressure India/China, but the Japanese would have to keep pumping out expensive mobile units as well as keeping up w/US in naval buys.
In the scenarios you guys have put out there the US is spending Pac the first 2-3 turns and then still some after that (which is good for Germany). They are most likely sitting off Queensland by US3 with a navy that will rival the Japanese. It may not be quite as big, but Anz (and maybe a Brit BB) makes up the difference defensively. Even if the entire Japanese navy is sitting on the Caroline’s they aren’t going to hit the US and Anz/Brit combined forces J3 because they have to come to you, and they will lose (can’t land planes if they take hits on the carriers etc….they would be a sitting duck afterwords if they did survive, and they aren’t reaching their goals in the south. They do however have the option of just hitting the Anz/UK ships though, but the US counter attack would be devastating so that’s not going to happen either.
With that said, the US is still lacking in offensive fire power to go toe to toe w/Japan, but Japan has to worry about a 1-2-3 punch. It would cost Japan too much to stay at Caroline’s in blocker dd’s (and the possible hit by UK/Anz after US clears the way for navy and dose an air strike) so they will most likely be evacuating Caroline’s and setting up shop at the Philippines (they need to take it J3 anyway). There they could block out the US w/dd’s (likely), or set up a mostly air counter attack from China if the US gets ballsy (depends on what is there). They will most likely be using dd blockers so they can split the navy to protect at least one of their transports that will be taking The DEI. They will be sacrificing 1-2 transports in doing so, because they simply can’t split the fleet up anymore to protect them all. They would lose war ships to allied air attacks, or US can opener and Anz/UK navy/air.
I personally don’t like J3 because it leaves too many allied naval units in play in the Pac, and the UK Pac (and Anz) gets to much income to defend itself (harder nut to crack). I like to do J1, kill the Brit BB, and the US ships at both Phil and Hawaii. You lose a sub and a couple dd’s but it really screws the allies. You still move inland on China, take FIC (build IC J2) and Kwangtung on J1. J2 take Malaya and maybe DNG (anz NO’s), and start grabbing money islands. It is much safer and easier to grab DEI when the US isn’t parked off Queensland and you only need to worry about the cowering UK Pac/Anz. Now even if the US spends all it’s income in the Pac the first 3 turns it still isn’t up to par with the Japanese navy. The US can’t even come out to Hawaii on US1 with Japanese fleet sitting at Wake (you left a dd blocker at Hawaii when you killed their ships so they can’t counter) and are hard pressed to do so even on US2 with you bulked up on the Caroline’s J2.
Now you talk about a Japan that is too strong…
“Out of range” for the Japanese air force is as many as 3 or 4 spaces off the coast - carrier and island landing spots really extend that fighter range quite a bit!
My philosophy on Pacific naval battles from the Allied perspective has always been this:
If Japan can win the battle, but it will cost them a good chunk of units, even if they’ll completely destroy what you have, it’s usually worth it for the Allies.
Even if you prefer to buy heavy early on in the Atlantic like I do, US should still have a steady stream of ships heading down to Queensland as the game progresses. From turn 3 on I’m usually doing an alternate turn buy of 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 sub, 1 loaded transport, and then 2 ftr’s, 1 DD, 1 sub, 1 loaded transport. As other posters have mentioned already, in the Pacific you only really need to stop Japan from getting Sydney or Hawaii (for the record, this is why I’m such a big fan of the Russians in Amur move. Anything that delays Japan from taking India is a massive advantage for the Allies, as it gives them extra time to make trouble in the water). These steady buys from America, plus whatever Anzac can do to help, will go a long way in combating Japan.
Tolstoj
At this point I think we just respectfully agree to disagree. Japan is a beast and they can certainly wreck havoc, but I stand by my contention that they cannot be everywhere at once and, with proper coordination from all five Allies in the pacific, they can be kept at bay.
Perhaps one day we’ll get to play a game and put this to the test 8-)
“This set of assumptions reveals that the only positional moment to attack him will be the one where he has to grab for his true objective. That battle will be at a odds disadvantage to the allies, but you have to take it.”
What I mean Mr. Tolstoi, is that the megastax of Axis planes or ships will, at some point, have to leave the core income area for 2 turns in order to make a monumental strategic attack. On the Atlantic Map, this is the point at which Germany transitions from keeping its stacked airflotte on West Germany (or HB) to having it move East for 2-3 turns to support its culminating attacks on Moscow, Stalingrad and or Leningrad. This is the only opening the Allies have to put a fleet in the water or commence an invasion, because after Russia falls, everthing will fly back West in a single turn and become available for offense and defense again.
In the Pacific Map, this moment comes when Japan has moved too far South or West to quickly return to supporting SZ 6. Japan has to “reach” to get the DEI or Malasia, and this will be only chance that the Allies have to confront something less than the entire fleet at one time. The turn after they conquest all this stuff, they can form back up into a gigantic stack again, but there will always be 1-2 turns when Japan must subdivide its ships and planes in order to stage them up for upcoming attacks and it is at that point that you will have a brief opporturnity to confront less than everything at once. By J5-J7, he will have the luxury of forming it all back up into a stack again and you will have to confront him with equal forces.
Bad odds for the Russians to attack? They’d have a 61% chance of success vs 12 infantry (or 90% in low luck), let alone 10 and a half. Stacking Manchuria with enough to simply hold the Soviets off is a viable plan, but it’s going to take more than that. If that’s all you have, the Russian player SHOULD attack you. If he doesn’t, that’s on him.
Like Nippon-koku mentioned, the Chinese would love to get the Manchurian money and spawn location.
I’m actually very surprised that Triple A’s battle calculator gives Russia an 80% chance with all 18 infantry vs. my usual 10 man stack and AA gun, so it seems my complacency was misplaced. I will also note however that the average attacker units remaining are 8-9, which I think you’ll agree is a much more manageable number than 18 and can probably be dealt with by a single drop from SZ 6 (which for me isn’t normally a problem, I usually do have transports there).
I don’t think Japan is too strong.
Well, ofc., compared to its historical counterpart, yes, but not in the balance of this game.
If the Victory Conditions would be 14 instead of 8/6, the allies would win all the time, so no, Japan cannot be too strong.
With the VC set to 8/6, both axis powers are too strong because the allies must focus (the USA its income) on 1 axis partner in order to achieve anything meaningful and, with much less to nothing from the USA, try to prevent the other from winning at the same time.
The allies are always able to achieve meaningful victories on the map they’re focusing on (so also on the Pacific map), but the axis power that is not getting the heat is then skyrocketing into someting uncontrollable, and then they will get their required number of VC…
The way I see it now is the USA has 2 options:
1. Focus on Japan. Japan will then quickly (within ~7 turns) be reduced to 50-60 IPCs income, at which point the USA must refocus to Europe, to prevent a German win. If they don’t (refocus), the allies will crush Japan into oblivion, but loose the game on account of German successes in Europe/ME/Africa. If they do (refocus), this will enable Japan to make a comeback and in the end, the allies end up way behind in economic situation, achieving nothing.
2. Focus on Germany. The Nazi’s advance east (all into the Middle East) will be halted after turn ~7 or so, and the allies will crush them. Japan however, will win on the Pacific. Nothing the allies can do against that anymore. In order to prevent this loss in the Pacific, the number of turns the USA can focus on Europe is very limited. Only 2, maybe 2½, but that’s about it. After that the USA must refocus on the Pacific again. So much for Germany first, but if timed and calculated very precicely, the allies may have a small window of opportunity to land in Western Europe and if they can land without being thrown back at once, this usually heralds an allied victory. I can’t stress it out too often, that the landing must be calculated and balanced very carefully because otherwise it fails. This is very hard but in short it comes down to buying only as much escorts as needed (depending on the German airforce) and the rest transports with men and equipment. Lots of transports. Also with the UK. The allies need at least 11 or 12 transports (total togehter) to make a landing during turn 4 (more if forced to land turn 5 because of whatever axis delay-tactics…). This is when Germany has invested a LOT into the Luftwaffe and the allies are forced to buy more escorts for their transports. If Germany has invested more into troops and keeps them west, the allies will need even more transports…
Maybe there is another option that may be the solution to the allied problems of late, but I never tried it because I always assumed it cannot work: spread the US’ s income evenly between the two maps… I very strongly assume this will not work, but if some1 thinks otherwise, please come out ;-).
