thank you Zhukov44
Keep the Germans out of Moscow
-
as a suggestion, a good target could be 4-6 with 70-100% inf and the rest art (depending on how many planes you have that can reach).
If you have 6 transporters with about 4 tac/ftrs in the carrers you will be able to win an attack against 12 defensive units pretty consitently. This means that germany needs to have about 14-15 units in each of W germany, S Italy, and maybe N italy. For every TT with load you add, he needs to add 4-6 units on defence.
-
Just to add to what Shadow said:
When going to Gibraltar you need to look at more then just the German bmrs if the Italians have a transport. Because of the turn order Italy can take Algeria to give the entire Luftwaffe a landing place allowing them to hit you. Plus getting to Gibraltar is only the first step, you will need get to the European coast at some point, so you’re going to need at least a couple loaded carriers and a few destroyers IMO (UK might be able to help, but they have their hands full supplying Moscow w/ftrs).
-
Indeed, you need at least 3-4 carriers and some destroyers etc. to defend your transports. And I think Germany would be stupid to place units in Normandy or Norway! They should just put units behind the frontline in Paris and Finland to retake Normandy or Norway when the allies attack…
So the allies are going to need at least 12-14 transports (US and UK) in R4…
How many do you use?
-
I never protect them, only the capital of Italy. But that can usually be done by a destroyer.
If Germany can beat more then 20 allied pieces, it can also beat 1 or 2. ;)
Most of the time the Germans will have around 10 aircraft left after turn 2 (usually 11, 1 lost in mediterranean). You have 7 infantry in Finland and Norway (and I always land 2 infantry from Denmark in Norway on G1). Germany has 1 transport, let say they buy another: 11 + 9 + 4 = 24 pieces!!!
Good luck allies in landing in Norway! So the allies have to have a strong landingparty. I never succeeded in landing in US4 or US5…
What about W-Germany? If you have enough in Paris and Berlin, you simply take it back and the allies have to start all over again… That way the NEVER EVER get Norway. But indeed I usually defend W-Germany. Put Mech Inf on it (for Moscow) and planes with the help of Italy’s and your own AA.
Or just buy a destroyer in SZ 110…
The destroyers give Germany or Italy one turn extra to prepare. The allies have to strengthen their effort again in the Atlantic and are delayed in the Pacific…
-
1. I have never lost ANY German plane in the Atlantic! And we rule luck out as far as possible by our fair dicing system…
2. If my planes are in Germany or Polans they can reach both ways.
3. 2 destroyers are worth the trouble the allies have to go through: one entire turn is lost!
4. I never fail to subjugate the Russian army by strengthening W-Europe. Germany will get to Moscow eventually…
5. How many turns are the US planning to buy 4 transports in the Atlantic?
6. Sorry have to go to work, talkt to you later. Thanks for all your arguments!
-
Hey Tolstoj
Again, with all due respect, this is another example of how it feels like every Axis counter point you present is “Well I’d just have every unit everywhere at the same time.”
In our private messages back and forth I mention how, as the US, I can have 7 or 8 (let’s call it 7 for this example) loaded transports in SZ91 by turn 3. So let’s say G4 they buy that DD in SZ110 to block: depending how the board looks the US can either take that guy out and hang in the Channel (they should have a loaded CV, a DD and a C) and rely on extra defense from UK, or kill him anyway and go to 109 and group with the UK fleet and planes, which can scramble from two bases in 109.
That same US4, any loaded transports (let’s even say they have 1) that may be ready to go from EUS can make their way up to Iceland* to join in the attack on Norway next round (obviously we’d have to see the board, but I’m assuming your subs are gone. If Germany bombers can reach Iceland, and UK can spare the units, you send a couple up there to defend). Based on what you’ve said, I don’t believe Germany’s planes will be a threat to either fleet.
*(As an aside: this is something the US can do on turn three to prevent a DD block to begin with. If Germany doesn’t have any real naval presence to speak of, head to Iceland instead of Gibraltar. The bulk of Germany’s air force cannot make it up there and they cannot simply buy a DD on G4 to block).
Next turn you can’t block Norway. So US lands 16 units in there, something like 13 inf/mech, 1 tank, 2 AA. On UK’s turn they can put a few planes in, plus land ground troops as well (I’m guessing they’d have at least 3 transports). So let’s say UK helps to the tune of 3 fighters, 6 ground units (5 inf and another AA): we’re talking 18 inf, a tank, 3 AA and 3 fighters. You said you’d have 13 ground units and 11 planes. Based on what you’ve said, I’m assuming most of the 13 are inf, but I’ll even give you 9 inf 4 art:
Using David Skelly’s battle calc, with low luck, I have the Allies winning 61.6% percent of the time. If I change that 9 inf & 4 art to 11 inf & 2 art the Allied odds go up to 76.5%. Germany cannot commit to that battle.
There are certainly variables here and, as with all arguments, unless we’re looking at the board on that specific turn, this is just theory. But the Allies can absolutely land in Norway and Europe in general. Is it always quick enough? Strong enough? No. But they can absolutely make it there.
-
If Russia doesn’t get enough help to push the Germans back, why hold onto Moscow proper if you’re guaranteed to lose a large stack fight? By the time it can no longer be held, Russia isn’t producing units anymore due to low IPC + strategic bombing + losing the other three ICs, so it’s not like anything but the position itself is gone.
-
Nippon-koku, remember that you can’t land AAA in an amphibious assault. So in your scenario, when the USA takes Norway, those 2 AAA would have to stay on the boats until next turn.
The UK could add its AAA during its non-combat move though. -
Nippon-koku, remember that you can’t land AAA in an amphibious assault. So in your scenario, when the USA takes Norway, those 2 AAA would have to stay on the boats until next turn.
The UK could add its AAA during its non-combat move though.Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the AA guns can move into the space during non-combat, no? So the ground troops land, taking the space, then the transports with the AA guns can non-combat onto Norway?
If not, US can simply take two extra ground units and the UK can supply the extra AA guns
-
Hey Tolstoj
Again, with all due respect, this is another example of how it feels like every Axis counter point you present is “Well I’d just have every unit everywhere at the same time.”
In our private messages back and forth I mention how, as the US, I can have 7 or 8 (let’s call it 7 for this example) loaded transports in SZ91 by turn 3.� So let’s say G4 they buy that DD in SZ110 to block: depending how the board looks the US can either take that guy out and hang in the Channel (they should have a loaded CV, a DD and a C) and rely on extra defense from UK, or kill him anyway and go to 109 and group with the UK fleet and planes, which can scramble from two bases in 109.�
That same US4, any loaded transports (let’s even say they have 1) that may be ready to go from EUS can make their way up to Iceland* to join in the attack on Norway next round (obviously we’d have to see the board, but I’m assuming your subs are gone.� If Germany bombers can reach Iceland, and UK can spare the units, you send a couple up there to defend).� Based on what you’ve said, I don’t believe Germany’s planes will be a threat to either fleet.�
*(As an aside: this is something the US can do on turn three to prevent a DD block to begin with.� If Germany doesn’t have any real naval presence to speak of, head to Iceland instead of Gibraltar.� The bulk of Germany’s air force cannot make it up there and they cannot simply buy a DD on G4 to block).�
Next turn you can’t block Norway.� So US lands 16 units in there, something like 13 inf/mech, 1 tank, 2 AA.� On UK’s turn they can put a few planes in, plus land ground troops as well (I’m guessing they’d have at least 3 transports).� So let’s say UK helps to the tune of 3 fighters, 6 ground units (5 inf and another AA): we’re talking 18 inf, a tank, 3 AA and 3 fighters.� You said you’d have 13 ground units and 11 planes.� Based on what you’ve said, I’m assuming most of the 13 are inf, but I’ll even give you 9 inf 4 art:
Using David Skelly’s battle calc, with low luck, I have the Allies winning 61.6% percent of the time.� If I change that 9 inf & 4 art to 11 inf & 2 art the Allied odds go up to 76.5%. Germany cannot commit to that battle.� �
There are certainly variables here and, as with all arguments, unless we’re looking at the board on that specific turn, this is just theory.� But the Allies can absolutely land in Norway and Europe in general.� Is it always quick enough?� Strong enough?� No.� But they can absolutely make it there.�
Hi,
Thanks, now that’s something I can work with as a US-player!
The argument was about when a US fleet would go to Gibraltar (how to defend Italy and W-Germany?).
Still Germany can get a destroyer in between. If the Germans see the fleet coming: G2. They buy a destroyer in SZ 112.
And I really don’t agree on my units being everywhere everytime. I just state (as before in the Pacific) that planes can be put in between and that Japan or Germany can chose who they attack, not the other way round.
Another point I will make is that when the Germans see the US coming. It can buy another transport in G2 to bring more groundunits to Norway. But if you put 25 units on Norway in US/UK3 it will be a hell of a job to defeat those to Germany!
Can you play a game this weekend, to test our theories?
-
Whoops, just thought of more setbacks for the allies in the Atlantic…
When the US builds in turn 1 in the Atlantic. Japan will not enter the war until J3. So you cannot be in SZ 91 in turn 3, you cannot even be in SZ 123. So the US cannot attack until turn 5!!!
By then Germany can have at least 30 units ready…
Good luck Allies! :-(
Any thoughts?
-
Whoops, just thought of more setbacks for the allies in the Atlantic…
When the US builds in turn 1 in the Atlantic. Japan will not enter the war until J3. So you cannot be in SZ 91 in turn 3, you cannot even be in SZ 123. So the US cannot attack until turn 5!!!
By then Germany can have at least 30 units ready…
Good luck Allies! :-(
Any thoughts?
Sure, UK-pac and anzac will be making 30ish. China will be doing not so bad.
US can put a few more turns of pressure on germany.
Germany cannot have 30 units ready, because if they do those 30 are not going to moscow so moscow is saved.My thoughts exactly.
If the US1 build in the Atlantic means that Japan has to change their plan and Germany is keeping 30 units back, I consider that a success
-
Tolstoj
This weekend doesn’t work for a game but we can figure something out. I won’t lie: I rarely play online. I like to be able to see the whole board in front of me, get up and move around, etc. Plus, my group plays almost every weekend so I’m never really wanting for a game.
Seeing as how we live far apart though, we can make it happen sometime 8-)
-
That’s all short term. China will always be defeated in J4, as I explained earlier (or J5 if things turn out dramaticaly for Japan). UK-PAC wil have around 5 IPC after turn 4, and ANZAC their usual 10. As US is spending in Europe India will fall and Russia will be defeated in the east…
Germany can always count how many units are needed, the rest will be of to Moscow. The 30 units include at least 10 aircraft, and 4 mobile units (that can be transported). So the force will be minimal.
The Allies will have to buy at least 12-14 transports, a whopping 84-98 IPC’s!!! :O And they have to be loaded with units. The Brazilian units cannot help, because the US can’t attack Brazil until turn 4. You have only 4 infantry, 2 artillerie, 4 Mech, a tank and some AA guns. So you will also have to buy at least 15 infantry: 45 IPC’s.
The US has only 3 turns to do this (if they want to be in Norway by turn 5): 156 IPC’s. And they need to protect their fleet. How many ships do you think you need for protection? You will have around 30 to buy a protective fleet. This won’t be possible!
And are you planning to take Gibraltar in turn 4?
-
So I’ve been in a run of games where I’m playing Axis, after never having gotten them previously.
Japan simply cannot be contained without a combined effort by all 5 neighboring powers. So US1 Atlantic build is the signal for Japan to become as aggressive as possible.
Looking at it from the Japan perspective, the Allies need to bring in all 5 powers to prevent them from becoming powerful quickly:
-
Russia needs to stack Bury with 18inf/2aa. Their job is to move to Amur in round 2 to tie up Japanese assets or make them pay for it. All assets the Japanese divert will then NOT be used against China and UK-Pac.
-
China needs to focus on Yunnan to the greatest extent possible, with the goal of stacking and holding it with UK-Pac backing.
-
UK-Pac needs to stack Burma in round 1 to back up the Chinese.
-
UK-Pac and ANZAC need to garrison the DEI as much as they can - leave inf on the islands to force Japan to bring in extra assets to take them, while blocking up sea spaces with DDs.
-
Finally, the US needs to build in Pac round 1 to stop the Japanese navy/air from being able to maneuver without reserving units for defense. A strong US navy brings a lot of Japanese air away from the south.
If the allies do ALL these things, Japan doesn’t have enough units to counter them all. It will lose somewhere. Note that the Allies need to be trading off pickets and small forces with Japan, NOT giving them a juicy target to hit.
Failing to do any ONE of these things breaks containment and Japan can go hog wild. Bring those Russian inf west, and Japan now has the units to steamroll China/UK-Pac without a problem. Fail to bring in a US fleet and Japan will easily sweep away the efforts to stymie them in DEI and will bring naval threat against India. Fail to contest Yunnan and Japan will use it as a base to contain UK-Pac while plowing through China, or as a highway to India.
So now the question is: assuming the US1 build and Russian Far East forces are committed against Japan, can Germany be contained also?
I think it can. It doesn’t really matter if Russia falls if Japan is failing also. US builds Atlantic starting round 2, so they come in one turn later, BUT there are cascading benefits from a better eastern map position for the western side, e.g. UK can commit more against Germany and less to help UK Pac survive, US can commit more to Atlantic with its Pacific-side allies healthier and generating more IPC and Japan fewer.
The trick with Allies is that assets are fungible. A dd bought by ANZAC can mean one fewer bought by the US in the Pac theater, which means one more with the Atlantic fleet. UK fighters and ships not moving to India (because it doesn’t need the help) can be leveraged against Italy in Europe instead. 20 eastern Russian units can shift more than their value’s worth of IPC by garrisoning Korea, taking Manchuria, diverting and killing Japanese land units, and giving UK-Pac more time holding onto their income territories, giving China the chance to fight back more easily and generate more inf, and so on.
Making the Allies effective is essentially a financial game, being able to build assets in the theater where they need to be built, and using responsibility-shifting among the allies to free up units and IPC for the powers that need them most at any given time.
-
-
Good post Elk. I agree strongly with everything you said, with one exception:
The US is better off using US1 to stack the Atlantic and then play catchup in the Pacific. My reasoning behind this:
It seems to be universally agreed upon that the US cannot just split its money the whole way, but rather must spend heavy in one Theater, at least early on. That being the case, the US will have to play catch up in the the other Theater, meaning that, in the long run, the US will actually spend more on whichever side they ignored in round 1. So the question is which side is better suited for playing catch up? Since the Japanese have to eventually get Sydney or Hawaii, the answer is the Pacific.
If China focuses on Yunan and Russia goes Buryatia, Amur, attack, Japan should be slowed down a little.
-
I’d argue that the Atlantic is better for catch-up. The trade-off is you enter one round later than you would otherwise, so you need to find a way to stall Germany for one round more than otherwise.
The reasoning is that if the US builds enough of a fleet in Hawaii to tie down half the Japanese air force in defense and force the fleet to at least stay within 1 move of Japan - which it can achieve in round 1 - and combine that with aggressive play by Russia/UKPac/ANZAC/China, Japan’s “monster” phase can be delayed significantly. That represents 50+ IPC a turn swing in resources (mostly from Allies holding DEI/UK-Pac territories longer) which can then be committed by the US and UK to the European theater, since now the four other powers can keep Japan contained. ANZAC and UK-Pac making 35ish combined per turn plus the Chinese contribution is an even match against a 45 income Japan with half an airforce to use (and 18 inf 2aa in Korea is extremely inconvenient as well), Japan can be entirely consumed on land and unable to afford any additional ships at all, their transports dropping units on the mainland and not Java, Sumatra, Celebes.
Someone showed me a trick the other night where you can construct a defensive web of allied destroyers in the DEI to further frustrate and divert Japanese resources and delay the monster phase. He did everything else on the stop-Japan list as well, except he didn’t build US fleet in Pac. However, with the fleet free to do something other than defend Japan, it was able to do the job of cleaning up that nest and assaulting the islands on its own. If it were tied down in defense, then air would be diverted to both defending the fleet and also to capturing the islands, and even with everything they start with that’s not enough to also get good combats in China as well.
So that first US spend in the Pacific really does come back in a big way in making the other allies sustainable, freeing UK-Eur resources to spend immediately against Germany, and allowing the US to focus on the Atlantic as long as it needs to to get the job done.
The Atlantic “hammer” takes a few turns of builds to set up, so if you focus on it first, it’s now round 5 or 6 before the first real Pacific spend, and Japan is at 70+ IPCs with China and UK-Pac no longer able to resist. This is true even if Japan needs to clean up Russian inf in Korea as well. At that point Japan can match the US IPC for IPC and has defeated the enemy on the Asian front, while floating a nice navy into the Indian Ocean for further gains. Japan can now force the US to spend all its IPC in the Pacific and not in Europe in order to hold the line.
So the build-Pac-late scenario basically gives the US one good shot at scoring a winning blow in Europe, and that offers Germany a great strategic option, of bleeding off the US units trading territories (inf/ftr builds) and lessening the hammer’s strength with every kill. Even if you take Italy, Germany can take it back.
The Axis don’t really need Russia to fall on a schedule other than “eventually”. They just need to push it back to its capital so it’s not building, and have enough of a stack next to it not to kill it but to keep it contained. Actually capturing the capital itself is not terribly meaningful at that point. And the Germans can do that easily while dropping large amounts of inf/ftr and the occasional sub back home to repel landings - they are reinforcing every turn at 50 IPC (figure 10inf/1art/1sub/1ftr every turn) while the US is now committed to 100% Pacific builds for as long as Japan likes.
So a strategic scenario of Japan vs. US full build in the Pacific with Japan advancing on Mideast/Africa, and Germany in highly-efficient compact-defense mode pulling in 50+, China and UKPac out of the game, Russia just an idle holdout stack destined to die… that’s a pretty good Axis scenario. Allies’ whole game chances rest on that one initial US strike on Europe being effective, essentially - UK Europe won’t be able to fight off Japan and contribute against Germany at the same time.
I would rather be fighting a smaller Japan and have that hammer fall one round later, in such a manner that reinforcements could be continuously on the way, at which point extra IPC can go into Pac builds against a weaker version of Japan that can’t afford to dedicate its full IPC to a naval race and has a healthy ANZAC to contend with as well.
The more practice I get on the Axis side the more I am realizing that you can overload Japan and short-circuit the process of becoming a monster, but you need all 5 pieces (and maybe even that French destroyer) to actually achieve the effect. Japan can do three things and hold off one more threat. It cannot do three things and hold off TWO more threats. US full build Pac1 is the tipping point where Japanese resources are no longer adequate to do all the things it needs to do. You can get it at the cost of arriving in Europe one round later.
-
Thats true if Japans attacks on J3. Not everything is lost for the allies! But if UK-Pac attacks in round 2, then the Americans can’t attack in round 3.
But they can’t use the units from Brazil to attack Norway in US4…
Japan has enough landunits to take China, see my other entries on this issue (at least 13 landunits in Kweichow in J2). And if the US is buying in the Atlantic, Japan will also have no problem taking DEI, and hold them for the rest of the game.
5-6 transports will not be enough. That’s just 10-12 units… Germany will have at least 20 in G4 (but I think more)…
AGAIN, I ALWAYS HAVE 10 OR MORE GERMANS PLANES AFTER G2!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW/WHY GERMANY WILL LOSE SO MANY PLANES, I NEVER DO! And, again, if they are partially in Poland they can fly both ways. But how many planes do you need to drive the Russians back? I never use more then 2-3-4. Only later if you are going to hit Moscow, or Bryansk you need them all…
If Germany will have a destroyer and a carrier (plus 4-5 aircraft) I dont think the UK will attack.
Italy can defend itself and Germany has to have a minimum of units in Norway and France. Actually Germany would love you to land in France, because it has a major factory there. And how are you going to land there from Iceland?
Yes the French plane can destroy the destroyer, I think it would not be wise for Germany to buy 2 destroyers.
What units am I using twice? And the actions I am asuming are deducted from your stated actions. Which actions are you specifically referring to?
-
Keep in mind the Paris factory will be reduced to a minor once you take it.
The transports ShadowHawk is speaking of are US only and don’t include any UK help. Earlier in the thread I posted an example of what US and UK could land in Norway: 18 inf, 1 tank, 3 AA, 3 ftrs. In reply you said the Axis could delay the US from getting to Norway until turn 5 (which is true) and that Germany could have 30 units (20 ground 10 air) ready to go. Let’s go off of that for a second.
First thing to remember: the extra turn delay also allows the Allies to get more units up there. But more important than that is how much Germany has sacrificed in the push for Russia in order to counter attack Norway in this scenario. Your planes are out of position; if you have 2 on that carrier and 2-3 ready to scramble, that’s 4 or 5 that are not engaged in Russia.
Let’s look at a few numbers: Germany starts with 57 ground units (I know they get 8 from Finland and Bulgaria, but they’re going to lose units in Paris and any other territories they attack, so let’s call that a wash). By the end of G4 they should’ve spent roughly 200 IPC. Take off 24 for the CV and DD you’ve purchased and that leaves 176. However, you also said you’d buy 2-3 transports, so let’s go with 2, taking it down to 162. A ten tank buy G2 seems to be standard (please correct me if I’m wrong), leaving 102, which is roughly 22 units if you buy a mix of tanks, mechs, art, inf. So let’s call this an additional 32 units, giving you 89 (assuming you’ve lost none since G1).
So, you have 20 ground units in Finland ready to counter-attack Norway and, based on your other posts, I imagine you’ve got roughly the same in Paris ready to counter attack Normandy (btw, any ftr or tacs in Poland cannot reach the battle in Normandy). That’s 35-40 ground units in Finland and Paris, plus maybe 8-10 you had to place in Berlin, bringing us somewhere between 43-50, out of about 90, ground units, and 4-5 planes nowhere near Moscow by the end of G4. In this given scenario you are absolutely not taking Moscow. It’s not happening. The Atlantic Allies have defended Moscow without even landing in Europe.
-
I’d argue that the Atlantic is better for catch-up. The trade-off is you enter one round later than you would otherwise, so you need to find a way to stall Germany for one round more than otherwise.
The reasoning is that if the US builds enough of a fleet in Hawaii to tie down half the Japanese air force in defense and force the fleet to at least stay within 1 move of Japan - which it can achieve in round 1 - and combine that with aggressive play by Russia/UKPac/ANZAC/China, Japan’s “monster” phase can be delayed significantly. That represents 50+ IPC a turn swing in resources (mostly from Allies holding DEI/UK-Pac territories longer) which can then be committed by the US and UK to the European theater, since now the four other powers can keep Japan contained. ANZAC and UK-Pac making 35ish combined per turn plus the Chinese contribution is an even match against a 45 income Japan with half an airforce to use (and 18 inf 2aa in Korea is extremely inconvenient as well), Japan can be entirely consumed on land and unable to afford any additional ships at all, their transports dropping units on the mainland and not Java, Sumatra, Celebes.
Someone showed me a trick the other night where you can construct a defensive web of allied destroyers in the DEI to further frustrate and divert Japanese resources and delay the monster phase. He did everything else on the stop-Japan list as well, except he didn’t build US fleet in Pac. However, with the fleet free to do something other than defend Japan, it was able to do the job of cleaning up that nest and assaulting the islands on its own. If it were tied down in defense, then air would be diverted to both defending the fleet and also to capturing the islands, and even with everything they start with that’s not enough to also get good combats in China as well.
So that first US spend in the Pacific really does come back in a big way in making the other allies sustainable, freeing UK-Eur resources to spend immediately against Germany, and allowing the US to focus on the Atlantic as long as it needs to to get the job done.
The Atlantic “hammer” takes a few turns of builds to set up, so if you focus on it first, it’s now round 5 or 6 before the first real Pacific spend, and Japan is at 70+ IPCs with China and UK-Pac no longer able to resist. This is true even if Japan needs to clean up Russian inf in Korea as well. At that point Japan can match the US IPC for IPC and has defeated the enemy on the Asian front, while floating a nice navy into the Indian Ocean for further gains. Japan can now force the US to spend all its IPC in the Pacific and not in Europe in order to hold the line.
So the build-Pac-late scenario basically gives the US one good shot at scoring a winning blow in Europe, and that offers Germany a great strategic option, of bleeding off the US units trading territories (inf/ftr builds) and lessening the hammer’s strength with every kill. Even if you take Italy, Germany can take it back.
The Axis don’t really need Russia to fall on a schedule other than “eventually”. They just need to push it back to its capital so it’s not building, and have enough of a stack next to it not to kill it but to keep it contained. Actually capturing the capital itself is not terribly meaningful at that point. And the Germans can do that easily while dropping large amounts of inf/ftr and the occasional sub back home to repel landings - they are reinforcing every turn at 50 IPC (figure 10inf/1art/1sub/1ftr every turn) while the US is now committed to 100% Pacific builds for as long as Japan likes.
So a strategic scenario of Japan vs. US full build in the Pacific with Japan advancing on Mideast/Africa, and Germany in highly-efficient compact-defense mode pulling in 50+, China and UKPac out of the game, Russia just an idle holdout stack destined to die… that’s a pretty good Axis scenario. Allies’ whole game chances rest on that one initial US strike on Europe being effective, essentially - UK Europe won’t be able to fight off Japan and contribute against Germany at the same time.
I would rather be fighting a smaller Japan and have that hammer fall one round later, in such a manner that reinforcements could be continuously on the way, at which point extra IPC can go into Pac builds against a weaker version of Japan that can’t afford to dedicate its full IPC to a naval race and has a healthy ANZAC to contend with as well.
The more practice I get on the Axis side the more I am realizing that you can overload Japan and short-circuit the process of becoming a monster, but you need all 5 pieces (and maybe even that French destroyer) to actually achieve the effect. Japan can do three things and hold off one more threat. It cannot do three things and hold off TWO more threats. US full build Pac1 is the tipping point where Japanese resources are no longer adequate to do all the things it needs to do. You can get it at the cost of arriving in Europe one round later.
Reading this over and giving it some thought, I’m wondering if you’re right. I usually do a massive US1 Atlantic buy, but still don’t end up in Gibraltar until US3, meaning it may make more sense to save that large buy for US2. I will try it and report back!
Suggested Topics
