Some US and Japanese players can virtually ignore the other for several turns.
if i am America and am heck bent on retaking england it really does not concern me if Japan takes hawaii. I will just build enough land units in the western US.
As Japan I play this suck America close game if the do build in the Pacific. The Carolines make it a little more difficult to ignore America in Global.
IF UK/ANZAC attack US round 3 then Japan should not attack US and force the US to declare war during it’s collect income phase. A UK/ANZAC attack on Japan at any time is not the best move IMO as a smart Japan will use it to keep the US out of the war until US round 4. A US that buys subs and ground units instead of carriers is also not the smartest move IMO as the US should build either 2 carriers Pacific round 1 or 1 carrier Pacific and one Atlantic IMO. The US has enough ground forces to begin with, you should make sure you have transports for all of your starting ground units before you buy more IMO. If you spend your money on subs, destroyers, and ground forces instead of carriers, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, air units, and transports, a smart Japan will be able to pull off a pearl harbor style attack and sink a US fleet that comes anywhere near Hawaii, Midway, or Wake. Remember Japan’s strength in the Pacific is it has a navy large enough to soak up hits for it’s air force, and subs can’t take those hits from the air. Result, you lose your surface fleet and your air force as the US and keep your subs. Your point of keeping US ground forces in Central America however, is a good one and one I will definitely do next time I play as US to keep the axis guessing.
Some US and Japanese players can virtually ignore the other for several turns.
if i am America and am heck bent on retaking england it really does not concern me if Japan takes hawaii. I will just build enough land units in the western US.
As Japan I play this suck America close game if the do build in the Pacific. The Carolines make it a little more difficult to ignore America in Global.
If the US lets Japan take Hawaii odds are it will knock ANZAC out of the game before the US arrives to help it, and dominate the Pacific in such a way that US will never be able to rebuild a fleet in sz 10. Big mistake. Let Germany build one or two rounds in UK. In my games the US always takes UK back after Sea Lion (it’s only a matter of one or two turns with all the money US will have by then), and it usually causes Germany to spend too much holding UK so after you take it Western Europe is empty and the Soviets are rolling through East Europe. Sorry about IMO Calvin, I will stop using it if it annoys you.
I agree the USA has to much IPC power for a competitive game. It seems that if all players are equally skilled in their gameplay that the Allies will always win. I would be interested if anyone has tried a game with no IPC bonus for the US. This may allow for a balanced competitive game.
I agree the USA has to much IPC power for a competitive game. It seems that if all players are equally skilled in their gameplay that the Allies will always win. I would be interested if anyone has tried a game with no IPC bonus for the US. This may allow for a balanced competitive game.
52 ipcs? Allies will always lose. Japan will make 60 ipcs, Germany 60, Italy 20. In a Sealion Game, US makes 52, Russia 40(being very generous), and ANZAC 15. 140 to 107. Even with 82, it’as a tough match
Has anyone calculated the TUV of the starting units? Because from what I’ve seen the Axis start out with so many more units that if the US made only 52 IPC the Allies would never catch up to the Axis in terms of IPC and units.
Has anyone calculated the TUV of the starting units? Because from what I’ve seen the Axis start out with so many more units that if the US made only 52 IPC the Allies would never catch up to the Axis in terms of IPC and units.
Actually, I counted it a month ago and remember that the allies start with a slight advantage, but G1 kills 2 allied BB’s, 3 CC’s, and numerous infantry and a ftr for a few subs and inf. Addditionally, Germany gets 9 more inf by activating neutrals
Has anyone calculated the TUV of the starting units? Because from what I’ve seen the Axis start out with so many more units that if the US made only 52 IPC the Allies would never catch up to the Axis in terms of IPC and units.
Actually, I counted it a month ago and remember that the allies start with a slight advantage, but G1 kills 2 allied BB’s, 3 CC’s, and numerous infantry and a ftr for a few subs and inf. Addditionally, Germany gets 9 more inf by activating neutrals
Really? Are you talking about OOB setup or Alpha? With either, after round 1 the Axis (unless being played by goons) have more units no?
Has anyone calculated the TUV of the starting units? Because from what I’ve seen the Axis start out with so many more units that if the US made only 52 IPC the Allies would never catch up to the Axis in terms of IPC and units.
Actually, I counted it a month ago and remember that the allies start with a slight advantage, but G1 kills 2 allied BB’s, 3 CC’s, and numerous infantry and a ftr for a few subs and inf. Addditionally, Germany gets 9 more inf by activating neutrals
Really? Are you talking about OOB setup or Alpha? With either, after round 1 the Axis (unless being played by goons) have more units no?
My calculations are for OOB, but Alpha should be similar since both sides lose the same number of planes.
Yes, after Round 1 the axis have a greater TUV
IF UK/ANZAC attack US round 3 then Japan should not attack US and force the US to declare war during it’s collect income phase. A UK/ANZAC attack on Japan at any time is not the best move IMO as a smart Japan will use it to keep the US out of the war until US round 4.
it doesn’t matter anymore in turn 3, UK/ANZAC play after Japan and USA will have it’s extra money at the end of its turn anyway.
A US that buys subs and ground units instead of carriers is also not the smartest move IMO as the US should build either 2 carriers Pacific round 1 or 1 carrier Pacific and one Atlantic IMO. The US has enough ground forces to begin with, you should make sure you have transports for all of your starting ground units before you buy more IMO. If you spend your money on subs, destroyers, and ground forces instead of carriers, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, air units, and transports, a smart Japan will be able to pull off a pearl harbor style attack and sink a US fleet that comes anywhere near Hawaii, Midway, or Wake. Remember Japan’s strength in the Pacific is it has a navy large enough to soak up hits for it’s air force, and subs can’t take those hits from the air. Result, you lose your surface fleet and your air force as the US and keep your subs. Your point of keeping US ground forces in Central America however, is a good one and one I will definitely do next time I play as US to keep the axis guessing.
When buying subs (and destroyers) there is usually not much money left to buy ground troops, i admit. DOn’t get me wrong i didn’t mean to imply to buy 20 inf ;)
But i also mentioned to build up your fleet. just: warships first (some airforce, BB, AC etc), transports when it is getting time to get into action.
The point of the subs is to send them ahead (but not to their death), while the more vulnerable surface fleet will follow later.
As for surface fleet, i was kinda talking about an Atlantic fleet.
If the Japanese fleet is getting too close, that is indeed another story and at that place subs are useless, i agree.
But of course, USA should watch it’s fleet abit. Although provoking a Pearl Harbour could be interesting early in the game
(to get USA into war)
I am not sure if I have just stumbled upon excellent axis strategy but the allies are finding it hard pressed to win in our last few games. We had a massive winning streak for the allies but now they cannot seem to counter to axis strategies that are being put out.
One thing I can say with absolute conviction is that the USA does not make to much. They are well balanced, and while things could be changed to allow for variances in play style they should have a lower income.
:? Seems the purpose of my thread is completely lost…
Oh, well. interesting and funny to read
Very funny indeed!
