J1–>Alaska; J3 Game Over.

Go to view and on the drop down click on big pieces. I believe this will make the toolbar repop.

@Tragedy:

U.S. 1:
Purchase:
1 Fighter
2 Infantry

U.S. 2:
Purchase:
5 Fighters
2 Inf

J3:
Combat Moves:
Amphibious Assault on Western U.S.:
1 Battleship Bombardment
1 Cruiser Bombardment
4 Bombers, 11 Fighters, 7 Tac (Maybe 8?), 1 Tank, 7 inf

AA Gun Kills: 1 Bomber, 1 Tac, 1 Fighter

U.S. defends with:
13 fighters total (9 U.S., 4 ANZAC), 3 tacs, 2 Bombers, 1 Tank, 1 Mech, 1 Art, 7 Inf.

Japan caps Western U.S. with 1 Tank, 1 Bomber remaining. On turn 3. Both sides had “average” dice rolls.

Thoughts/Feedback?

I agree with the “never work” camp. If Japan, with even dice “barely wins” with the poor US buys, it should not win with proper buys. I will follow this interesting thread though, and watch to see the games posted.

@Tragedy:

• I understand the concept of defending with Infantry…When u have 60ish some odd points to spend on U.S. 2 and u can only produce 10 units, suggesting all infantry is obviously inefficient. As Stoney229 said its apples and oranges.

I didn’t mean that the U.S. should buy 10 inf. I was just talking about general defensive tactics. And I will also take a look at this strategy (I really hope that it doesn’t work b/c that would honestly ruin the game). And What on earth are you guys talking about with these forum games? How do you play them? I would really like to show off my strategic brilliance once in a while.  :wink:

You have to figure a US invasion scenario is something that got heavily playtested. There would be no point in releasing a game that is over in three rounds. Honestly, I think the game favors the Allies more then the Axis, and balancing Euro40 will be even more difficult.

This strat is inttiguing but I too think that with proper US buys that this will not work.

However, the mere threat of Japan from the Alleutian Island group may force US into early buys on land forces over naval forces which could prove devastating in rounds 4 and on when the US finally gets in the game.

So in other words its a gambit you pull back from later after round 3.  As Allies I may consider attacking right away in rounds 2-3 with the Brits/ANZAC.

Has anyone tried this gambit and then pulled back to mess up the US early buys???  This may have a long-term payoff.

@questioneer:

This strat is inttiguing but I too think that with proper US buys that this will not work.

However, the mere threat of Japan from the Alleutian Island group may force US into early buys on land forces over naval forces which could prove devastating in rounds 4 and on when the US finally gets in the game.

So in other words its a gambit you pull back from later after round 3.  As Allies I may consider attacking right away in rounds 2-3 with the Brits/ANZAC.

Has anyone tried this gambit and then pulled back to mess up the US early buys???  This may have a long-term payoff.

3 of us are testing this “gambit” right now.  Links to the games are below.  I think you will see that it’s more of a gimmick that might work once against a drunken opponent, but is generally not a viable strat.

Rounds 2-3??  :lol:  The other allies, including and especially China, all get easy instant growth from round 1 while the bulk of the Japanese navy and air force are trying to get to Alaska for this rash invasion.  The Chinese can buy 3 artillery right up front, and the Burma road is uncontested.  And if you have to get most of the Jap airforce and navy out of position to get USA to buy 5 infantry with their whopping 17 starting IPC’s, well, I don’t think that’s a good idea.  I’m not sure what round you’re thinking of aborting the bluff positioning, but I don’t see how this screws up the USA in rounds 4 and on.

If you would like to show me what you’re talking about, I’m up for a game.

@Tragedy:

If Western U.S. falls do you feel Allies can still win?

This is a all or nothing strat. Japan is “all in” on round 3. Either they take Western U.S. and essentially win imo, or they fail and have wasted their resources to a point they can’t recover from. There is no middle ground or stalling tactics.

I watched (yes, watched …) a game that Japan took Western US (round 5 I think) and the Allies continued to press on until Japan finally fell around turn 9.

Absolutely it is possible.  Difficult, but possible, especially since by taking WUS, Japan is “all in” leaving the rest of the pacific open (to an extent).

What happened, did Japan completely abandon Asia? The UK load up a bunch of transports with Chinese infantry and artillery?  :-o

:lol:

@gamerman01:

@questioneer:

This strat is inttiguing but I too think that with proper US buys that this will not work.

However, the mere threat of Japan from the Alleutian Island group may force US into early buys on land forces over naval forces which could prove devastating in rounds 4 and on when the US finally gets in the game.

So in other words its a gambit you pull back from later after round 3.  As Allies I may consider attacking right away in rounds 2-3 with the Brits/ANZAC.

Has anyone tried this gambit and then pulled back to mess up the US early buys???  This may have a long-term payoff.

3 of us are testing this “gambit” right now.  Links to the games are below.  I think you will see that it’s more of a gimmick that might work once against a drunken opponent, but is generally not a viable strat.

Rounds 2-3??  :lol:  The other allies, including and especially China, all get easy instant growth from round 1 while the bulk of the Japanese navy and air force are trying to get to Alaska for this rash invasion.  The Chinese can buy 3 artillery right up front, and the Burma road is uncontested.  And if you have to get most of the Jap airforce and navy out of position to get USA to buy 5 infantry with their whopping 17 starting IPC’s, well, I don’t think that’s a good idea.  I’m not sure what round you’re thinking of aborting the bluff positioning, but I don’t see how this screws up the USA in rounds 4 and on.

If you would like to show me what you’re talking about, I’m up for a game.

No I completely agree, I figured the that China+India would be able to grow much better in this scenario.  Even if you were able to put some pressure on China AND make the US buy infantry because to the Alleutian Is. threat,  when you pull back after or during round 3 your Jap navy is too far north and way out of position to handle a US round 4 or 5 strike.  ANZAC would be huge positional advantage.

Just curious anyway- does sound like a gimmick more than a true gambit :-)

@questioneer:

No I completely agree, I figured the that China+India would be able to grow much better in this scenario.  Even if you were able to put some pressure on China AND make the US buy infantry because to the Alleutian Is. threat,  when you pull back after or during round 3 your Jap navy is too far north and way out of position to handle a US round 4 or 5 strike.  ANZAC would be huge positional advantage.

Just curious anyway- does sound like a gimmick more than a true gambit :-)

:-) One of the two test games has reached a conclusion, I think, and Tragedy will be moving J2 on my game before long.  You could look at the end of turn one, too.

Tragedy v Gamer P40 ANZAC1.AAM

I have been looking at this over the past week and it does look intriguing, but I also believe proper US play should diffuse it.  I am curious on some of the opening Jap and US moves however.  One simple thing I saw at first (Although not a game breaker by any means)  was that when he moved his CV’s into defensive positions at Hawaii and seazone 1 he left the Tac’s on board.  I would have non-commed a fighter on all my CV’s for added defensive power.  Also why bring the loaded tranny from TRUK to Hawaii, was that just to entice a response in the area more so then seazone 1.  Otherwise I personally would have sent it to sz 6 turn one with the 3 purchased trannies.  Lastly, I thought the strat involved a turn 2 minor IC purchase on Jap 2 for Alaska?  Just inquiring, I may have read some of the posted moves wrong, so correct me if I interpreted it incorrectly.

Cool.  I think what you guys are doing is great.  Its always a breath of fresh air to see these strats come to life whether they succeed or not.

@Tragedy:

Gamer I’m REALLY interested to see how our game turns out.

Me too, Trag!  I’m planning to play you until a clear winner is decided (both sides agree).  Win or lose, it sure is interesting and fun.

I see you posted again, so I’ll check that out and maybe even move tonight if I have time.

I don’t think this move would have worked had the US player been paying attention.  With the Japense in Alaska and with a large transport buy, why were they not anticapating an invasion?  And since Japan attacked on turn 1, that gives the US 55 or so to buy a counter.

5 Fighters?  Why not 9 or 10 tanks?  Combined with 5 Infantry from a first round buy and the starting planes, and I don’t think Japan has much of a chance.

I think a Japanese attack could work if alterned.  I’ve been toying with the idea of a J4 attack.  This gives Japan more buying power through 3 turns.  Japan waits to leave on turn 3 and sails into SZ1, but doesn’t attack.  You’re forecasting your move, but not giving the US any added income.  Sure, they’ll be at war on J4, but the fleet is just 1 space away and can’t be destroyer blocked.