I agree totally. Japan does better if they attack earlier, but it may put a kink in Germanys plans for sealion. It’s really a very slick design.
Does better, but still loses.
@Cmdr:
Does better, but still loses.
I would even suggest that a J2 attack would still work even in the face of a Sealion since the US would need to commit everything to the Atlantic for several turns for the UK retake and Japan would get even more gains than it would have otherwise in the Pacific. It’s only (+20-30, depending on how many territories Japan takes on J2 attack) extra US IPCs for one turn since the US always declares war on US 3 collect income anyway. Hell, with a good push on Hawaii on J2 you could force the US to split those extra IPCs into the two theaters right off the bat. Early Japanese attacks still seem to work best. Even if you wait and don’t provoke the US’s war NO till Round 3, the UK and ANZAC are making almost that much off the DEI already, AND fortifying it with infantry to boot! (It’s also kind of dumb waiting around to declare war since the US can declare war if the Germans take London on Round 3 anyway…)
Also, define “loses” if the Euro Axis win by going for Barbarossa instead. Faking Sealion has never been easier for the G2 build. And all Japan needs to do is really buy time and force the US to spend in the Pacific. Even historically the Japanese willingly entered a war with the US that they knew they couldn’t win; they were simply hoping to wear the Americans down enough to where the Pacific would become a stalemate. Same thing in this game. The way this game is set up in separate theaters with little overlap makes it even more so.
In my last game I as Japan took FIC first turn, built 3 transports, shipped one transport out to carolines with most of my navy and some air force put a small navy down by FIC and had some transports on the coast. My german partner did the typical G1 moves (killing france and half of UK navy, taking axis neturals)with a CA,SS,DD purchace, USA built on both sides thinking a sealion was happining and retreated their navy from Hawaii fearing a perl harbour on J2. Turn 2 Germany purchaces lots of transports and ground setting up for a Sealion. J2 purchaced minor for FIC and some subs, with no USA navy in Hawaii the lone transport took solomans, all of the navy went and smashed ANZACS navy off queensland, The costal transports took Guam(5 of 7NO) and Borneo as well, 3 TRN went from SZ6 to PHI with navy from FIC (setting up for DEI), as well as killing china out of burma and UK out of Hong Kong. This worked out for Japan in the long run because On turn 2 Japan collected about 45 IPCs Not much difference than if they would collect their 10IPC NO but left USA collecting 75, Anzac 12(4 from Java), UK even(assuming 7 from DEI) and a factory in FIC to build out of on turn 3 and set up to take the DEI.
Now I know I have left out alot of details but Japan is by no way a disadvantaged country, the plain and simple truth is if USA wants Japan to go down, Japan will go down, If they want to Crush Italy, Italy will get Crushed. If one peice of the axis puzzle is not pressing forward it gives USA a choice on where to build.
As the axis you just need to have a competent plan for Japan, that coincides effectively with a German Strategy.
Japan can strike at several American NO’s, and take a -5 or more a turn chunk out of Russia, by starting a conflict with them. Then it’s all about economic’s, drawing the Americans into the Pacific, for Stale-mate or Victory.
I see this as pretty even.
If you don’t, look at the games where the Axis have won on the forums, and work on your Axis Strategy.
My german partner did the typical G1 moves (killing france and half of UK navy, taking axis neturals)with a CA,SS,DD purchace…
Wow a G1 cruiser build! And it made the UK player think Sealion! Impressive. What did you build with the extra 4 ipcs Germany had? I never see cruiser builds in my games, they are not as powerful as the other capital ships.
Something to think about when invading Russia, in order to cost Russia 12 ipcs in land value, it will take you only 4 rounds.
As the axis you just need to have a competent plan for Japan, that coincides effectively with a German Strategy.
Japan can strike at several American NO’s, and take a -5 or more a turn chunk out of Russia, by starting a conflict with them. Then it’s all about economic’s, drawing the Americans into the Pacific, for Stale-mate or Victory.
I see this as pretty even.
If you don’t, look at the games where the Axis have won on the forums, and work on your Axis Strategy.
1. Most of the games played on the forums are not experienced AA players (all of whom would take offense to that statement). There’s a lot of players still making some beginner mistakes or not being as efficient with their buys etc. Point is that we can’t look at the win/loss ratio of Axis vs Allies because there’s a lot of sucky play out there right now. I mean Alpha+2 is only a 3 months old, however in 6-9 months we can take a serious look at this ratio and it will tell us something.
2. Axis does have a longer learning curve so playtesting them will take longer.
3. Attacking Russia before round 6 (unless they stack at Amur) is stupid. It really distracts Japan’s forces to unimportant areas- a game killer for the player that attempts it if you ask me.
4. Your first statement is very true. When playing this game you really have to think about the imbalances of the decsions you make. You have to think “Globally”- no pun intended. :-)
BTW- my current thinking is to tweek Japan by putting 4inf and 1art on Japan (Tokyo).- as if anyone cares. :-D
Reasons are on Larry’s thread- I’ll explain later.
I vehemently Disagree Questioneer.
Japan taking 5 territories or more from Russia is a 10 IPC swing - PER TURN. It’s one of the best ways to affect both sides of the board.
It’s not about attacking and killing those infantry. If they stack, and you have firepower in range - sure, think about it, if they retreat, force them to attack YOU. It’s about widdling down the Russians, and encouraging them to divert resources east instead of west. It always seems to work well for me. The Russians always lose out in the long run.
The best advantage the Axis has - is that it can win on both boards independantly. You need to manipulate that feature as effectively as possible, if you are to have any chance of winning.
yeah its SWINGING alright- all your forces to the north when you should be worried about VCs in the south.
If the Russian retreat, how the heck are you going to force them to attack you??? If I’m Russia you can come chase my 18inf, 1AA (I can also defend with a plane or two) down. Japan will then give me 12 bucks which will help me even more against Germany- dumb very dumb. In the meantime you can waste your forces picking up 1IPC tts-LOL. If Allies see that, you are giving them more time to secure VCs. Trust me I’ve played it! I’ve been on both sides of it. Its not smart- really.
in my last game, japan killed my income by attacking me when I was rus, i had no money to fight germany, lost moscow by R8
Then your Allies player sucks or was inexperienced in the game. There are plenty of ways to make Japan pay for attacking early- pick your poison.
(I can also defend with a plane or two)
<<
If you want to talk about play that sucks, Look no further than yourself, sending Russian fighters east LOL.
(I can also defend with a plane or two)
<<
If you want to talk about play that sucks, Look no further than yourself, sending Russian fighters east LOL.
Hmm……These planes have nothing to do until germany DOW Russia. So why not sending them east on R1 ?
If Germany doesn’t buy some transports for Sealion on G2, they can come back on R2. If Germany goes Sealion, those planes are more useful in the east than sitting for 4 turns near the western front line.
(I can also defend with a plane or two)
<<
If you want to talk about play that sucks, Look no further than yourself, sending Russian fighters east LOL.
Russia only sends them if Japan is dumb enought to chase the 18inf moving West- dar dar. :-P
C’mon Canada- you’re smarter than that.
So instead of being combat effective in the event of a G2, or G3 attack, you are going to fly those planes east? just to fly them back west?
Questioneers position is hypocritical is my point.
He says that it’s dumb for the Japanese to attack - because it gains nothing, and hurts the axis. and I say that it’s crucial for them to attack.
I made my point clear that when the Japanese attack it forces the Russians to divert resources off of Germany - which is why it is a GOOD IDEA for Japan to attack. And low and behold, despite the fact Questioneer DISAGREE’s with me, his knee jerk reaction is to divert resources exactly as I intended and as I hope the russians would do - as part of my overall plan.
Point proven - it’s worthwhile for Japan to attack the Reds.
A second part of the question also remains.
Even IF, all those units in Korea/Manchuria avoided the reds, and the reds avoided the Japanese.
HOW MANY TURNS would it be, before those units saw a single round of combat? or took a territory? 5? 6? turns maybe? THAT’S a waste of perfectly good resources.
And don’t tell me that you’d use your transports to move them around, Surely you are smart enough to realize that there are infantry and equipment already placed on Islands and in Japan that can be used to fill those transports for several turns.
The choice is:
A - move units towards india no combat for 5 to 7 turns, no territories likely taken
B - Attack the russians and make more money, and divert Russian resources in your direction.
I’ve had pretty good success sending a Russian ftr/tac east. Not saying it will work every time, or that my opponents in that game were the best ever, but it can be viable, depending on the situation.
Now we’re talking about either attacking with the Russians OR attacking the Russians as Japan on game start?
OK.
I disagree here. If Japan wastes a lot of resources killing the Amur stack, that’s just it, a waste. You’re just building up a future unit deficit against China and India by not consolidating your forces in the right places. It’s also worse to piddle around against the Chinese and the UK at game start since both powers can make MORE money as the game progresses compared to Russia which will always stay close to a static 37 IPCs (at least for the first 3-4 turns).
True, you could argue that those troops aren’t doing anything anyways, but what would you rather have on J5: 20+ land units you carefully marched across China to Burma with loaded transports in range of India; or 5-10 land units possibly without support isolated in Russia somewhere?
Same could be said of Russia with its 18 INF in Amur, if Germany goes hard for Barbarossa with a G2 build and attacks, you’ll be glad you were cautious with them at game start around R6-7.
Even though these land units aren’t effectively “used” every turn, they still have “threaten potential” to influence future events and builds across the board.
Sounds like there are alot of Japanese “Cowards” perusing the forums here…
Where’s your ZEAL? Where’s your Banzai cry for the emporer? RUNNING FROM THE COMMUNISTS! Absurd!
I’m with ya G> BanzaiX3 squash those 18 Amur Reds with all you got!!!
