I think we’re pretty much in agreement – the Allies do have some initiative.
Marsh
If there is a buildup in SZ26, means US is not building in Atlantic. It is one thing if the plan is to defend Hawaii…. its totally different if you want to use the initiative to “occupy” SZ 6 !
Japan starts with a vastly superior Navy which when the US is AT PEACE, building 3 units a turn in W. Coast, will take minimum of 3 turns to just come to parity.
With 21 planes Japan has no problem defending SZ 6 . One DD blocker is enough to delay US coming there for a turn.
So with:
Japanese play is IMHO the most complex in the game.
If US approach is to stack Hawaii to go forth and sally into SZ 6 and not build an effective navy in Atlantic, with competent German play, a good overall plan to win, barring bad rolls, a competent Japanese player, it is hard to see how the Allies will win.
This scenario has been played against me about 3 times and each and every time, Allies have lost.
Hence, yes, there is initiative, but used the way advised going to SZ 6… will surely lose the game double quick.
If US approach is to stack Hawaii to go forth and sally into SZ 6 and not build an effective navy in Atlantic, with competent German play, a good overall plan to win, barring bad rolls, a competent Japanese player, it is hard to see how the Allies will win.
That seems about right but without some IJN presence in SZ6 the USN can get there with its starting force, and not even all of it. 3 scrambling fighters and a DD doesn’t really seem enough to me.
The Mahatma Gambit
Curious about this one. Looked it up and it seems to assume that the UK BB will block access to the DEI for TTs in SZ20. It won’t happen that way in most games I’ve seen. Nearly everyone reinforces Kwangsi J1 which puts at least one TT south of the BB which can then go on to hit the DEI. This is normally also defended so WTF?
Is it just an outdated idea killed by some change in the rules or tactics or am I missing something?
Transport loading rules according to rulebook I got , said that Transports could not be Loaded in a Hostile seaZone.
Ie: if the UK - BB were to be in SZ 6 , in peace on UK2, and Anzac declares war on Anzac 2….then on Japan Turn 3, they could not load the Transports, as the UK BB on SZ6, made it a hostile zone…
That was the point of The Mahatma Gambit…
If they changed those rules recently, then they removed the only preemptive capability of the Allies in the Pacific.
It’s not easy to have changes made in the rulebook, and should such a change have been made, although I (Ramdas Vaidyanathan )should get credit for that, it would be truly sad to see one more element of advantage added to the Axis domination of the game.
I tend to leave TTs in SZ6, SZ19 and/or SZ36
Transport loading rules according to rulebook I got , said that Transports could not be Loaded in a Hostile seaZone.
Ie: if the UK - BB were to be in SZ 6 , in peace on UK2, and Anzac declares war on Anzac 2….then on Japan Turn 3, they could not load the Transports, as the UK BB on SZ6, made it a hostile zone…
That was the point of The Mahatma Gambit…
If they changed those rules recently, then they removed the only preemptive capability of the Allies in the Pacific.
It’s not easy to have changes made in the rulebook, and should such a change have been made, although I (Ramdas Vaidyanathan )should get credit for that, it would be truly sad to see one more element of advantage added to the Axis domination of the game.
As I noted above, the rules prohibit that kind of cheese; and rightly so, as it would break the game.
Hence, yes, there is initiative, but used the way advised going to SZ 6… will surely lose the game double quick.
I’m so glad we’re in agreement that the Allies do have some initiative of their own. Also, I never advised a build up in sea zone 6 – I used it as an example. Next time you’re looking up definitions, look up “example”. :-)
Marsh
That seems about right but without some IJN presence in SZ6 the USN can get there with its starting force, and not even all of it. 3 scrambling fighters and a DD doesn’t really seem enough to me.
The US has enough naval power in the Pacific that Japan still has to pay attention to it, even if the US does not place a build there.
Marsh
That is what I was saying.
That is what I was saying.
Yep, I should have said I was agreeing with you there. My apology for that oversight!
Marsh
MOW,
The rules as such are already so tweaked in favor of Axis. Just look at the way Germany is set to obliterate UK Navy in Atlantic…
So, finally , playing within the rules, I come up with a play to at least give Allies a chance, and it’s termed “cheesy”…
There are different types of play and players.
Some favor the mindless, brute strength if the Axis battering away at Axis, till they win or bust.
Some favor some artful play, with interesting moves, that may confound the former type of players.
So now, this is basically “Dumbing down the game” for the sake of the former.
What this is guaranteed to do is to add BIDs for playing Allies, as the tilt is so profound.
Comparing history to the game, Japan attacks either J1 or J2…
J3, and J4 are definitely not following the historical timeline.
But…playing a J3 or J4, gives immense advantage to Axis in Europe.
So UK BB in Hong Kong, generally draws in a J2, DOW…that is point of TMG.
Now, by this rule change, we go back to the old J4G4 boring game…which is almost always an Axis win without bid.
Before TMG was proposed, there were numerous players , good ones at that, who were bemoaning this very type of play.
TMG was criticized, that UK is “giving” away the BB…
With a mild Allied counter, suddenly, it’s all “cheesy”… and they do a rule change to shaft the Allies.
There is a reason why Chess played in 1800 or 1900 s can be compared to now, and beauty of moves can be appreciated.
Imagine suddenly, they say “Castling” is illegal…or change the way Bishops move… then the game is substantially changed.
That is why rules should nor be changed so abruptly, it destroys comparitive ability of the game…over time. There are choices one can make called “House Rules”.
-----------------------’
Now, as far as US initiative in Pacific, the only thing it can do other than defend Hawaii is bunch up in Queensland…
In the short term, neither one of these sites does not present much of a threat to Japan.
Look at the common scenario…
All Japan SZ6 navy joins SZ 33 Navy in Carolines…and lands 2 SBRS and 6 FTRs there too…
UK Malaya BB joins Anzac navy in Queensland.
Remember, Japan can selectively obliterate Allied Navies at its will. MORE IMPORTANTLY , also take hits on planes Alone, and land new FTRs on undamaged CVs…they have 11 of them…!
It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!
(Unless they changed that too…)… and wipe off half the Allied Navy… and USN will have to decide to vacate the SZ or attack the Japanese Navy .
Initial USN, from PHP, SFO and Hawaii, combined would be hard put to damage the IJN…forget destroy… And they risk being destroyed the follow up force Japan sends. All this when the islands are taken…no allied Navy will get there in ages…
Most folks play Japan close to mainland China with Factory buy… but there is also the agressive Naval and Air build in Carolines play…which leads to very narrow number of reactive actions US can take.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope. it cant do that.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think. The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions; the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack; the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope. it cant do that.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think. The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions; the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack; the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
I used to think that way taamvan. After playing the past two seasons of league I have to agree with them that the game is not very balanced. Without a bid or (Balanced Mod 2.0) I cannot see allies having a chance in a league game. Its very easy for Germany to roll Russia and with Japan’s help make it happen early on round 6 or 7. With a bid you prevent Italy from taking the med and thus create a quick pathway for fighters to make it to Moscow. Without the fighters Moscow will not survive on their own. Without a bid these fighters make it too late or not enough to make a difference. Sure you can try many different strategies for the Axis but why change when there is one that cannot be contested.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope.� it cant do that.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think.� The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions;� the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack;� the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
I used to think that way taamvan. After playing the past two seasons of league I have to agree with them that the game is not very balanced. Without a bid or (Balanced Mod 2.0) I cannot see allies having a chance in a league game. Its very easy for Germany to roll Russia and with Japan’s help make it happen early on round 6 or 7. With a bid you prevent Italy from taking the med and thus create a quick pathway for fighters to make it to Moscow. Without the fighters Moscow will not survive on their own. Without a bid these fighters make it too late or not enough to make a difference. Sure you can try many different strategies for the Axis but why change when there is one that cannot be contested.
You dont need the bid to clear italian navy, it just makes it an easy win there. Give the bid to russia to give it extra figher or tactical so it can slow germany down a bit or at least force germany to stay together. And you can still build the IC on turn 2 with or without the sub so the path to moscow is just as clear with or without a bid in the med. With the bid it is just a no brainer regardless of what happens in G1 without the bid there might be better targets to hit and you have to chose.
I used to think that way. Without a bid in the Med most players are going to take 1-2 fighters and 1 bomber from London to seazone 97 to make it 90%+ If Germany sinks the CA off Gibraltar they will need 2 fighters from London depending if they scrambled any on Germany’s turn. Now the two fighters in the med are going to take out the DD/TT at malta. If they lose the CA off Gib they can no longer take 97 and block Egypt. If they buy an IC I can almost guarantee they will get Sealioned. That will shut down their production in Africa.
“It can declare war only on UK and Anzac, and Not against US…!”
Nope. it cant do that.
Actually, Japan can. It just can’t do that without allowing the US to declare war on its turn.
Example: if you mass the UK Pacific, ANZAC, and US fleet elements in one sea zone, Japan can declare war on the UK and ANZAC and destroy those fleets while the US fleet looks on helplessly. If Japan’s navy is large enough to withstand the attack from the US navy, this would clearly be much better for Japan than declaring war on the US at the same time.
Furthermore, depending on positioning, the US navy may not be able to escape being hunted down after the US declares war… Depending on the specifics, this could lead to the ludicrous situation in which the US watched the ANZAC/UK fleets being destroyed but finds that declaring war in response would be a game-losing move.
The game is way more balanced than people like to think. The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions; the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack; the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
I agree with you here. The Allies may have a small disadvantage due to logistics, but not the bids in the 30+ that some folks on the board are getting.
Marsh
Mr. Marsh;
Then we are only arguing semantics; a declare against UK is war with the US. Whether Japan attacks or declares at that point is immaterial; the American factories pop the moment it enters the war. The only ally Japan can attack without consequences is China.
It’s fairly easy to see the Axis as all powerful; if Japan and Germany are played by strong players they will leave few openings to exploit. But this is always true of any wargame. There are several devastating combination strategies that the Axis can do;
German planes into Africa
Germany and Italian planes against E UK
German and Italian bombers fly to Japan
Germany Italy Japan all attack USA
Germany Italy take UK together
Germany fakes sea lion and goes to nemestia
Axis dark skies Germany Japan Italy all strat bomb
etc etc
The ones people tend to dismiss see are the Allied versions of the same concepts, using all of your powers moblity together. When you do it right, its Japan that seems weak.
The better Axis openers are J1 J2; but they have some serious disadvantages to them in terms of brining USA into the war early, forcing Japan to move in a specific way…
The only ally Japan can attack without consequences is China.
Yep, this I agree with! The rest I mostly agree with :-D
To clarify – I’m not sure about Sea Lion feint/land in Nenensia being devasting. It seems like it would depend on bad play by Russia. That’s a lot like expecting White to play Byrd’s opening in chess… I would welcome elucidation about why you think this particular Axis trope is devastating.
In any event, I think we’re pretty much on the same page.
Marsh
The game is way more balanced than people like to think.� The bid is just a way of exploiting their impressions;� the Allies have plenty to do, its mostly when people are imagining strategies and fantasy moves posting on the board that it seems out of whack;� the real game has too many moving parts to be so easily dismissed as stereotyped.
Agree 100% I’m still yet to experience this imbalance, despite over 100 live games, with a large variety of opponents, under my belt at this point.
It only takes 1 transport to feint :-D
I dunno Marsh, I do play Russia badly at times, its very easy to assume that Archangelsk and Nemestia are in your backfield.
Here are my Russia rules I never follow;
What sometimes happens is that Russia is tempted (or forced by G1) to leave some men in the Vyborg/Karelia/Finland death zone and the map is expertly designed to make it super easy to cut off the German forces in Novograd by controlling or can-opening Belarus. Smart players then abandon this front once it becomes untenable, because anything that gets left up there is going to die. It is good to take Finland and Norway, but esp during G1G2, its easy to take back and they need only 2 trans to keep it forever.
It is when they abandon this front that the opening occurs. A lot of players will turtle Moscow; hardly anyone puts anything on Vologda. This is where you need troops.
If the germans get a carrier and a few transports, UK will freeze up and turtle. At this point you have options
If you pull this off right, you can grab a second round of troops off scandanavia, putting half your force north of Moscow and half west. At this point, the Japanese can land their entire air force on your LZ (usually this is Vologda from Chahar a turn after).
unlike most naval strategies, you aren’t necessarily 100% in with navy. Only need 2-3 trans and sea cover.
