Ok how about this :D ; you send 1 SUB, 3 FTRs, 1 BMR to attack Hawaiian Islands SZ and NO PLACE ELSE! You take no territories 1st turn and make no extra money. But you will then probably only lose 1 FTR, land the remaining 2 on the CV which sails to Central Pacific. Land 4 INF on Manchuria, build 1 TR, 3 INF save 8 IPCs (since you don’t need a fourth TR this turn–if you want it, buy it.).
T2 you hit Yakut w/ 7 INF, 3 FTR and a BMR, hit SFE w/ 2 INF 1 FTR and 2 BBs–or any combination thereof depending on the Russkies 1st move. Now at the end of T2 you are in Yakut w/ ~ 5 INF w/ more on the way–on T3 you are poised to just RAPE Russia.
Also if India looks threatening you can beef Burma up w/ extra INF T1, rolling them down the Kwangtung Conveyor.
Basically this odd 1st move looks like you are foregoing a strong opening move in favor of building up a massive strike T2. You could go in a number of different directions T2, but your main object is Russia. This would accomplish the object of hurting USSR severely by T3, but leaves India pretty open to being built up by the Allies as a base.
This is a pretty wierd opener! I’ll have to keep tweaking it to see if anything cool can happen…
Ozone27
Whoa, no territories taken! This is the most radical departure from strategy since Japan moving its navy into the Atlantic by taking Brazil! However, when testing a new strategy, you must ask always yourself if it can at least hold ground with professional strategies. The major problem I see here is the lack of income that Japan receives T1 and T2. By T2, I at least expect Japan’s income in the mid-30s. (Usually 30 and 35 respectively for 65 IPCs). Under your strat I would only be making 26 and 30 for 56. This is a 9 IPC difference, pretty major. However, you might lose less inf (and therefore, IPCs) in the end by using combined operations on T2. Well, at least, good job for trying! :wink:
Most of the games I play, the UK vacates India to hit Egypt and knock Germany out of Africa or to reinforce Syria for attack on the German navy on UK2. Sometimes they vacate to South Africa. Of course ocassionally they will build a factory in India, or rarely hit Kwang - but other than that India is ripe for the taking.
I can’t remember ever seeing a UK player just leave his stuff in India without reinforcing it and building a factory. If he did, I would definitely hit both India and China, leaving the Far East for later.
Most of the games I play, the UK vacates India to hit Egypt and knock Germany out of Africa or to reinforce Syria for attack on the German navy on UK2. Sometimes they vacate to South Africa. Of course ocassionally they will build a factory in India, or rarely hit Kwang - but other than that India is ripe for the taking.
I can’t remember ever seeing a UK player just leave his stuff in India without reinforcing it and building a factory. If he did, I would definitely hit both India and China, leaving the Far East for later.
Finally, someone who has experienced what I have and likes to take India and not Hawaii! How about we form our very own “We Do Not Take Hawaii On T1” Fan Club? :wink:
Ok so maybe when you’re the 2nd most powerful/2nd poorest country on the board, siezing NO territory on T1 isn’t such a great idea. Here’s my latest modification to the developing “Hawaii compromise” :) :
So T1 you buy 1 ARM, 1 TR, 1 FTR. You move 3 INF 1 FTR from Manchuria to China, plus 1 FTR from F I/C Burma. What you do w/ the WangChung guys depends on what UK did–if India was evac’d, throw both of them into China; or use just 2 INF from Manchuria, both from Kwantung. If India was beefed up, use 1 INF from Kwantung in China and move the other to F I/C Burma on NonCom. Or whatever. You should attack in China w/ 4 INF, 2 FTR.
In Hawaii, attack w/ 1 SUB, 2 FTRs, 1 BMR. You may lose 1 or 2 FTRs. Regardless land the Philippines FTRand whatever else is left on the CV(which has moved to Central Pacific). If the USA were able to withdraw their SUB, you might wanna add a BB or 2 there for further protection.
On NonCom, have TR in the Philippines p/u 1 INF from Philippines 1 from Okinawa and land them on Manchuria. TR from Japan moves to Wake Island, p/u 1 INF there, move back to Japan, load another INF and land them both on Manchuria. FTRs in China should split between F I/C Burma and Manchuria, depending on the relative strengths of India and USSR. Place all units on Japan.
Now lets assume UK is quiescent in India, and USSR have 5 INF Yakut, 1 INF SFE. Now T2 you strike the coast of SFE w/ 2 ARM, 2 BBs. You hit Yakut w/ 4-5 INF, 4-5 FTR, 1 BMR–as you can see: overwhelming force! Assuming the Soviet Yakut force hits twice (and the BBs conquered in SFE T1), on T3 you can get 2-3 INF, 2 ARM into Novosibirsk no problem, with a lot more on the way. Each turn spend 17 IPCs on 4 INF, 1 ARM to land on Asia and use the rest for whatever else you want.
This offer is subject to change without notice. Cancel anytime.
Ozone27
I like it! :)
It seems like nowadays, I am the only one to try out new and interesting battle plans. I hope you succeed at what you’re trying to accomplish. I hope you succeed at what your new approach. But if India is quiescent, how come you just don’t take it on the first turn? I once tried a similar method of splitting my forces between Asia and Hawaii at the same time, although I used my naval ships to attack the island and sent all my planes to hit the Allies in continental Asia.
Your second draft of the “Hawaii Compromise” does look much better than before. But what options are there if the Allies mount still resistance in SE Asia?
@TG:
Your second draft of the “Hawaii Compromise” does look much better than before. But what options are there if the Allies mount still resistance in SE Asia?
:D Simple: there aren’t any! :D
If you may indulge me a bit, I will delve into some A & A theory to justify my actions:
OK, so (rereading my plan) “Hawaii Compromise v3.0” isn’t something one would probably wanna use if the Allies built up India. Basically, the Axis have to look at a couple of things the Allies did T1 to get a clue to their intentions (good intelligence is a must in war, of course 8) ). One is; what did UK do in India? If they brought in an INF or 2 (or obviously if they added an IC), they probably are not intending to mount a “Germany 1st” strategy. In that case, this opener would be a bad move, because the Allies are obviously planning a strong defense in Asia and if you leave an opening (i.e. in F I/C Burma), they will then try to go on the offensive, possibly wreaking havoc.
However, most of this thread has been focused on what apparently is a “Germany 1st” opener by USSR/UK. USSR turtles w/ the INF in the East, while UK either evacuates or abandons her Indian forces in Asia, concentrating on Africa. This tells a decent Japan player 2 things:
1.) The pressure on him/her will be light.
2.) The Western Allies want to invade Western Europe by T3/4.
In this case this opener would be good because it forces USSR on the defensive in a major way by the end of T2–not to mention crushing the US fleet in the Pacific before it can (presumably) be withdrawn to the Atlantic. The Allies have basically abandoned East Asia to Japan by not heavily defending India, so why take the bait? The Allies’ theory is to crush Germany while you are rolling through Asia–in a perfect “Germany 1st” strategy, Japan is just reaching the outskirts of Soviet territory while Western Europe is being invaded by USA/UK. But as everyone knows, a decent Germany player can hold Western Europe (and fight USSR) for at least 3 turns, so T3 is the magic number.
Would I use this theoretical opener in a real game? Sure, but only if the circumstances were just right. As TG points out, it is pretty inflexible regarding India/China and is not a money-maker. I dunno…
I’ll keep working on it… :lol:
Ozone27
AAhhhhh… I see now. This strategy might be a good “trick” from the Magician’s Hat on the unsuspecting Allies. :wink:
Now I see where you ARM purchase fits it. On, I probably forgot already, but where is the Imperial Navy during all of this?
OK, so (rereading my plan) “Hawaii Compromise v3.0” isn’t something one would probably wanna use if the Allies built up India. Basically, the Axis have to look at a couple of things the Allies did T1 to get a clue to their intentions (good intelligence is a must in war, of course 8) ). One is; what did UK do in India? If they brought in an INF or 2 (or obviously if they added an IC), they probably are not intending to mount a “Germany 1st” strategy. In that case, this opener would be a bad move, because the Allies are obviously planning a strong defense in Asia and if you leave an opening (i.e. in F I/C Burma), they will then try to go on the offensive, possibly wreaking havoc.
Ozone27
This is still a GF strategy! It’s just a GFwGBDJ variation. That’s Germany First with Great Britain Delaying Japan. TRY AGAIN.
Uh no offense, but wasn’t Ozone’s strat a way for the Axis to couteract the “Get Germany First” strategy that the Allies throw at you? Also, I consider Ozone’s strategy very different with previous theory. Xi, you have to read all of it before you can grasp what Ozone is trying to do (AKA the “Hawaii Compromise”)
@Xi:
If they brought in an INF or 2 (or obviously if they added an IC), they probably are not intending to mount a “Germany 1st” strategy. In that case, this opener would be a bad move, because the Allies are obviously planning a strong defense in Asia and if you leave an opening (i.e. in F I/C Burma), they will then try to go on the offensive, possibly wreaking havoc.
Ozone27This is still a GF strategy! It’s just a GFwGBDJ variation. That’s Germany First with Great Britain Delaying Japan. TRY AGAIN.
Yeh…OK, but the Allies must still stick to the rules. If they don’t ship stuff in by sea, they will have to put an IC down. And until they do that they are stuck with what they’ve got on the board in India. Point is; if the Allies WANT you to blunt your teeth on India, why bother doing it? Why not do what they DON’T WANT you to do–kill USSR!
Ozone27
But then again, an unchecked IC in India could pose a threat to the Japanese flank and advancement to Moscow.
The good thing about Ozone’s strat is that UK goes first before Japan! Therefore, Japan will know ahead of time what the Allies intentions are in SE Asia. UK build a IC in India? Fine, just change the strategy to the one you would normally used (attacking all of Asia at once, not just Soviet held territories)! It’s still a work in progress, but Ozone’s strat is looking promising.
@TG:
Uh no offense, but wasn’t Ozone’s strat a way for the Axis to couteract the “Get Germany First” strategy that the Allies throw at you? Also, I consider Ozone’s strategy very different with previous theory. Xi, you have to read all of it before you can grasp what Ozone is trying to do (AKA the “Hawaii Compromise”)
TGM6,
I did, I did, I did read the whole strategismo afore making my call. This does not counteract the GFS, it just delays it a few turns.
Oh, Well! Another attempt at reinventing the wheel. We could spend our time more productively laying out our religious, economic, and/or social beliefs for future discussions. - Xi
I agree with the India strategy–if the Allies try to defend India T1, you should surround it by siezing (Greater) China. Then they are isolated early and if they put an IC down you are in an advantageous position (although that IC can still be a pain in the butt sometimes if you ask me!).
“Hawaii Lite”…now there’s a name! :D
Ozone27
Although it sets me back 30 IPCs, I prefer to build complexes in both S. Africa and Egypt. Then I roll 4 tanks a turn up Japan’s (sometimes soft) underbelly.
