There is another way to win…

@Cmdr:

To address the overall balance of the game.
***you’re “7” pts are really a lot less.  Saying you win no matter what side you play…yeah thats not a point, thats a statement.  A dumb statement too.  To be clear, I am not calling you dumb, but your statement is certainly stupid.

1. It matters not which side I play, it is a very rare occurance when I beat an opponent who is a better player than I am.
   great point.  Irrelevant :roll:

2. Historical accuracy does not mean balance, by definition, it requires unbalance. Be careful when asking for historical accuracy!
   yeah…irrelevant

3. I feel that Russia cannot survive without significant allied intervention. Unlike most of the games of Alpha 2 I played. This is a good thing.
   Thank god we don’t all play this game like you.  My games saw incredible allied assistance to Russia.  Ya know Russia never gets their NO for holding sz125, so why not put allied units in Russia??  I think you should try and do this, it might make russia stronger.  I suggest bringing units from India when Japan is contained, the whole allied airforce from the pacfic should end up in Moscow.  Ground units from a US factory in Korea and mobile units from India!

4. Sea Lion is still an option. It has not been removed. At least, I missed the rule saying you are not allowed, under any circumstances, to invade England with the Germans. If that rule exists, I will change my stance on this point.
   Pretty sure you’re still allowed to attack Iceland too, its just not going to win you the game.  If Sealion is still viable, then I challenge you to try and win a game with a sealion move.

5. I am sick of hearing how a pair of extra AA Guns on the German front of Russia suddenly made Russia this unholy behemoth that will over run the globe. It is not going to happen, I have never seen it happen, and I highly doubt anyone who has played the game at least once would let it happen. See 6)
   I haven’t heard this one, my concern is the aa gun as a whole, not one here, or one there.  Rather the radical changes to the game by changing the unit.  If you are bound and determined to pick an aa gun to point at, look at France!!!  Why is that aa gun there?  Why have outliers occur on G1???

6. AA Gun changes are AWESOME! So much more realistic that they can only fire a couple of shots before running dry. Likewise, the enemy would destroy AA Guns when they invade. Using them as hit counters for England was just brilliant (in the most British sense of the word, of course!)
   Right aa guns are destroyed, this is how its been since A2 right?  Sealion was not a gimmie so ‘fixing’ it was actually ‘breaking’ it.

7. The non-aggression pact for Russia seems a bit wonky. I really don’t know how you can fix this. I like that the units almost have to be used against Japan. Made no sense that Japan invades and Germany gets smacked. One thing I am toying with at home is to give Russia 15 IPC to spend as it sees fit when Japan attacks, but it has to be placed in a territory that Japan is actually invading. This is similar to previous rules regarding the Russo-Japanese non-aggression treaties. I think it was an AARe rule, but it has been a while…it could have been an MSN Gaming Zone rule (wow, that dates me I am sure!).
   Well I’ve never played A&A Revised or the  ‘MSN Gaming zone’ game.  I like the change, it is almost the way we were playing Mongolia in our home games, and this is better.  Russia’s impetus to not attack is because they want to call on the Mongols if war comes.  We play a much easier rule that any territory bordering Mongolia is attacked by Japan then Russia joins or some other bothersome rule.

Without regard to point 7, I think the changes to the game have filtered out the wheat from the chaff of players. One either cuts the mustard and adapts to the new rules (which I am thinking more and more are fine just as they are and more balanced than A+2) or one goes back to playing A+2. In the rare instance of at least one person I play with periodically, he only plays OOB. With regard to point 7, well, that’s just a wonky situation and I don’t think we will ever find a good answer. Mongolia also seems weird…why would the Mongolian empire decide, on a lark, to declare war on the world and join the USSR if the USSR no longer exists? Sure, it’s probably a rare occurance, but I bet it would happen more than once. (Hell, I’ll MAKE it happen one day. Just to have a game I can point too, online, that shows it happened!) Probably won’t liberate the Russian dynasty, but according to the rules, if Japan so much as spits at a territory neighboring Mongolia, even if there are no Russian units or non-adjacent territories, Mongolia joins Russia…and for that matter, why are the Italians and the Germans allowed to invade these territories?? Wouldn’t Mongolia see this as Japan’s allies doing Japan’s dirty work for them???

I totally agree.  I don’t feel like wheat, I feel totally chaff-ted right now!  Being a playtester for a 100 dollar game only to find out that the balance issue is being thrown out the window in order to change a unit’s statistics dramatically.  Face it, a year from now when we find out just how out of whack A3 is Larry won’t even care, he’ll be unveiling his new game.  He’ll say, ‘who cares?  Stop playing that stupid game anyways, I got a new one for you! Only 150 dollars!’  and everyone will come running.  Well I’m too old to sit patiently and wait on someone who has proven to me he’s more concerned with profit than producing a valuable product.  I’m sticking with A2 and am one of the first people to ‘stick his head in the sand’ and say NO MORE!  If I ever get tired of the option and variability of A2, then I most likely will try some house rules.

Larry just provides us with the pieces and identical boards, there’s not law that says we have to listen to his craptacular rules.
~ Reposted here as well as on Larry’s forum.

One comment, just because Mantle hasn’t played a game doesn’t mean he’s talking out of his bum.  Read what he says, sometimes he’s right!  Don’t white wash him.

Just to further expound on the awesomeness of allied units in Russia.  Ya know as Russia how annoying it is to get can openered?  Ever wanted to do that to your enemies?  Well now you can!  Just follow the patented Brad’s Gravy Train to Moscow and you to can blitz into the axis heartland.  Just sprinkle Moscow with a generous helping of British war materiel.  Mechanized units from India, perhaps a few inf if they can make it and plenty of air.  Now  when Germany attacks the next turn, Russia can open the door and British units can blitz on through to the other side!  IF using this tactic against Japan make sure UK opens the door.  This is extremely handy in making sure the axis don’t outflank Moscow to the north.

Money is the most important aspect to this game.

The Axis starts out with 66 IPC Income (30+26+10) and the Allies with 175 IPC Income (37+52+12+28+17+10+19), so just to compete the Axis needs to bring itself to parity with the Allies by capturing territories, gaining NO, denying Allied NO, convoy raiding, stopping Allied convoy raiding, or STR raids.

But those initial default IPC values do not consider NO additions that are default…such as Germany gaining 5 IPCs from the Sweden NO, or USA gaining 10 from holding Continental USA.  Those NOs are default, so we can assume they are baked into the system (assume every power is at war).  Given this, we adjust the starting IPC values for the default NOs (Germany +5, Russia +5, London +5, Calcutta +5, ANZAC +5, USA +25), giving us starting IPC values to compare:

Axis: 71, Allies 220.

This gives us a starting value for our equilibrium score, which is the difference of those two values: 149.  So the Axis needs to gain 149 Equilibrium “points” to hit a parity with the Allies.  Axis gains are Allied losses, so every territory is worth double towards equilibrium, but then we also incorporate the NO bonuses or the portion of the bonus (if multiple territories determine a NO bonus) to find the total value of a territory.  If the Axis can capture 149 points worth of territories then they are are equilibrium with the Allies.  Unless they reach equilibrium or better, the Allies will ultimately win the game.  Here are some of the values of territories:

Yugoslavia: 2
France: 8 + Remaining French IPC value
Southern France: 7.25
Normandy: 4
Finland: 2
Eastern Poland: 2
Hong Kong: 8.5
Yunnan: 3.5
Caucasus: 9
India: 12.5 + remaining Calcutta IPC value
Borneo: 10.5
Hawaii: 10
Eastern USA: 92
Egypt: 11.5 (assuming Germany gets land unit there)
West Indies: 3.25
Gibraltar: 1.25
Greece: 3.25
Southern France: 4.25
Philippines: 9
French Info-China: 4

I just realized I wrote this response to Jenn’s ‘7’ points and now the post I am responding to has been deleted!  I thought you wanted feedback Jenn.  Jeez.

No post of yours was deleted. However, part of the thread was moved to moderation so it didn’t disappear actually.

Just trying to get the tread back on track from sabotage.

@Gargantua:

GOOD POST SHADOW! Thank you…

what are the .5 and .25’s for?

Also, I find the Axis only need to reach RELATIVE equilibrium.

Say for example, the Axis earned 125 on a turn, and the allies something like 145 to 155.

I would call that pretty damn well equilibrium.  YES the Allies are getting more, but the Axis are getting more, in better positions usually.

We should map out the perfect Axis Empire, that reaches relative equilibrium, and devise the strategy to reach said goals.  Maybe we should put a battlemap up?  And delve the responsibilities for each empire to gain IE,  Germany must reach 60, Japan 60, Italy 30.  The allies must be denied the following NO’s. etc.

the .5 and .25 relate to NO rewards.  Take for instance the Japanese 5 island NO.  Each island is not worth 5 IPCs, they are combined worth 5 IPCs, therefore each individual island is worth 1 IPC (5 divided by 5).  Since the Burma Road is worth points, but it’s split into 4 territories, each territory is worth an additional 1.5 points.  You don’t need them all.  Some NOs are difficult to model this way such as ANZAC’s Malaya/original territory bonus.  That would mean each of those territories is worth an additional 5/11ths of a point, but it’s wonky.  Perhaps it’s best to count the NOs as a separate “territory” that can be captured….it would make the system a bit more usable.

To reach 149 points, the following could be taken:

Germany/Italy: France 8, Southern France 6, Normandy 4, Yugoslavia 2, Finland 2, Bulgaria 1, Greece 2, (No Warships) 5, Alexandria 0, Tunisia 2, Algeria 2, Morocco 2, Gibraltar 0, (3/4 Med) 5, (North Africa) 5, Syria 2, Transjordan 2, Iraq 4, Persia 4, Northwest Persia 2, (German in Egypt) 5, (Axis Warship in z125) 5, (Take any British Territory) 5.

Total 75

Japan: French Indo-China 4, Philippines 4, (Take Philippines) 5, Kwangtung 6, Malaya 6, (Take Malaya or Kwangtung) 5, (Take Malaya or ANZAC terr) 5, Borneo 8, Java 4, Celebes 3, Sumatra 4, (DEI) 5, Chahar 2, Anhwe 2, Hunan 2, Hopei 2, Yunnan 2, (Break Burma Road) 6.

Total 75

Axis total points 150 - This is the point they reach equilibrium with the Allies assuming no additional allied NO and no lost Axis territories or initial NO.

The objectives above seem to me to be the “easiest” goals to accomplish for the Axis.  Let us examine these goals.  It becomes clear to me that equilibrium can be reached prior to involving Russia in the war but cannot do this without involving the USA.

Germany/Italy need to clear the med, take all of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, take the Middle East, and take the neutrals in Europe.  This will require naval expenditure by Germany initially.

Japan needs to capture all of the Dutch East Indies, make minimal gains in China by capturing 5 territories, capture Borneo/Hong Kong, and break the Burma Road.

So what strategy will facilitate these objectives?  Logic would dictate that war with USA is inevitable to complete these goals, so lets declare against USA on G1 and go from there.

One strategy I worked on consisted of doing exactly this. J1 attack to go after income, keep soviets out of it for as long as possible.

@shadowguidex:

The objectives above seem to me to be the “easiest” goals to accomplish for the Axis.  Let us examine these goals.  It becomes clear to me that equilibrium can be reached prior to involving Russia in the war but cannot do this without involving the USA.

Germany/Italy need to clear the med, take all of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, take the Middle East, and take the neutrals in Europe.  This will require naval expenditure by Germany initially.

Japan needs to capture all of the Dutch East Indies, make minimal gains in China by capturing 5 territories, capture Borneo/Hong Kong, and break the Burma Road.

So what strategy will facilitate these objectives?  Logic would dictate that war with USA is inevitable to complete these goals, so lets declare against USA on G1 and go from there.

@shadowguidex:

The objectives above seem to me to be the “easiest” goals to accomplish for the Axis.  Let us examine these goals.  It becomes clear to me that equilibrium can be reached prior to involving Russia in the war but cannot do this without involving the USA.

Germany/Italy need to clear the med, take all of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, take the Middle East, and take the neutrals in Europe.  This will require naval expenditure by Germany initially.

Japan needs to capture all of the Dutch East Indies, make minimal gains in China by capturing 5 territories, capture Borneo/Hong Kong, and break the Burma Road.

So what strategy will facilitate these objectives?  Logic would dictate that war with USA is inevitable to complete these goals, so lets declare against USA on G1 and go from there.

If the axis declare war on G1, the US will gain a min $20 per turn for 4 turns that are not nessasary, and the Japs will lose $10. How is this a path towards economic victory?

@JimmyHat:

I just realized I wrote this response to Jenn’s ‘7’ points and now the post I am responding to has been deleted!  I thought you wanted feedback Jenn.  Jeez.

Il musta removed it.

I could repost it, but it’s in your quote so I dont think I have too.

Sea Lion was broke in so much as England had to give up everything to defeat it, as your own tests show.  They could not, for instance, put 3 armor in S. Africa or build 2 destroyers in SZ 106, etc, because Germany would pretty much automatically win if they did that on Round 1.  Now, in my opinion and based on the limited experience anyone can possibly have at this time with Alpha 3, I don’t think that is the case.  I feel England has 10 IPC it can spend anywhere on the board and not risk Sea Lion.  (Well, more, that’s really just to spend yourself down to Alpha 2.  Again, in my opinion!)  Hence, when Gargantua said a complex in Egypt, I was sort of intrigued (fine I was intrigued, no sort of about it).  12 IPC?  Sure.  Since then I have lost interest because it is not just 12 IPC, it’s also putting units there which means a continual drain thus making Sea Lion more and more attractive to Germany again.

I feel you are agreeing with me about Russia.  They are no harder to beat now, and require Allied intervention to survive.  (While they may collect the NO for one or two rounds here and there in the game, it is, as you said, not assured in the least, so why not dump British and American units there?  You can dump more in value there than Russia can buy with the 5 IPC NO anyway, right?  Hell, 1 Loaded Transport is automatically more than 5 IPC, it is 6, 7, 8 or 9 IPC! {2 Infantry, Infantry & Artillery, Infantry & AA Gun, Infantry & Armor respectively})

Shadow, interesting analysis, but I think you under-rate the capitols.  It’s lost value + gained value + lost income from other territories + captured treasury.  (maybe you mentioned it and I did not see it.)  There is also utility cost for each territory.  FIC in your analysis may be off,  I rarely take FIC since I don’t want India or the US to later get it…if I don’t take it, then the Allies can never get it back for themselves, so the money becomes “lost.”  Otherwise, I have to dedicate units to defending it.  I feel you should downgrade it to 2 IPC change and only because someone takes France.

@Young:

If the axis declare war on G1, the US will gain a min $20 per turn for 4 turns that are not nessasary, and the Japs will lose $10. How is this a path towards economic victory?

Because Japan can destroy America’s Hawaiian fleet (6+8+12+7), the Philippines fleet (6+8), the British Battleship (20), capture Borneo denying Calcutta 4 IPCs and gaining 4 themselves, and limit Calcutta to only 10 IPCs their first round.  They can also grab French Indo-China.  Additionally Germany can convoy raid USA with at least two subs on round one which USA cannot counter on U1 costing them 6, and forcing USA to build something in the Atlantic to deal with them.  Also, Japan can begin to grab the Dutch East Indies worth 11+5. So adding up the benefits you outweigh the loss, force USA onto their back heels, and begin the task of actually winning the game instead of letting the Pacific Allies amass huge numbers of troops before you finally attack.  Time is against Japan, attack quickly and get to equilibrium as fast as possible.  Japan is at 40 IPCs at the end of J1 in my proposed scheme.  At the end of J2 they are even higher at around 56.  USA gets 64 IPCs after U1 and must push Destroyers into the Atlantic to deal with my German subs.  It’s a great strat in actuality.

Shadow, interesting analysis, but I think you under-rate the capitols.  It’s lost value + gained value + lost income from other territories + captured treasury.  (maybe you mentioned it and I did not see it.)

The capitals are all variable value.  If Japan already has all of Calcutta’a territories and another Burma Road territory then India is only worth 11 (3+3+5), but if India is the only British possession that Japan owns, it’s worth 25 (3+17+5).  The one time economic boon of captured IPCs doesn’t impact the game multiple turns down the line, so I’m discounting it’s impact.

There is also utility cost for each territory.

Agree, this isn’t added in.  Gibraltar is listed as 0 value towards economic equilibrium - but that’s correct, as it doesn’t impact the financial game at all aside from Italy’s 3.4 NO.  Regardless of everything, the Axis need to reach economic equilibrium - and on top of that they also need good positioning.

Shadow,

I have done exactly as you have described for a J1 surprise attack. (I did not include the German submarines, presumably shouldnt you attack SZ 101 with them, not just Convoy it?  Since there is no destroyer, scrambled units are a non-issue.)

Assuming Germany is a minor player here, (because I didn’t use it so what I am about to say may not be true if it is used) Japan always seems to get smacked hard when they do this.

Folks, see this thread and the leading text. At that time, I did not care about the victory cities one bit. The whole point of my first turn was to try to destroy as many units as I could with as little losses as I could while building up the income and looking to benefit from the logistics of the came.

The thing that scared me is US causing trouble to the italians in the Med early. However, it should not be too bad since Germany can help in the first few turns of the game.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24435.0

After thinking about the long term logistics and economics of the game a fair bit, I am getting comfortable with my Germany strategy.

What puzzles me though is the Japan entry in the war and how it may affect the European board.

My current idea for Japan is the following:

Turn 1:

Build 3 transports, 1 Mech

Declare war on US, UK, Anzac

Combat 1: Repeat of Prince of Wales sinking, with 2 strategic bombers, cruiser from 20 and fighter from Formosa.

Combat 2: Land 1 infantry in Borneo (infantry from Kiangsi), Transport from zone 20, covers with fleet from Carolinas

Combat 3:  Attack Phillipines

Ground battle, 1 tank, 1 artillery and 2 infantry (2 remaining transport)
Tac bomber / figther from Carolinas carrier

See battle, 2 subs (zone 6 and 19), zone 19 battleship, zone 19 destroyer, cruiser from zone 6 and 2 carriers + planes from zone 6.

Combat 4: Take chahar with 1 infantry from Jehol

Combat 5: 2 infantry from Siam take French Indo

Combat 6: Attack Kwantung
1 Art from Kiangsi
2 INF from Kwangsi
2 Tac from Japan
1 fighter from Okinawa
1 fighter from Kiangsu
1 tac from Kiangsu

Combat 7: Attack Anwhe
1 Infantry and 1 Art from Jehol
3 infantry and 1 art from Kiangsu
3 infantry and 1 art from Shantung
1 Mech from Mandchuria

Combat 8: Attack Hunan
2 Inf from Kiangsi
2 fighters from Mandchuria (Goes to Kwangsi)
2 tac from Mandchuria (goes to Kwangsi)

Non Combat
4 Infantry from Korea into Mandchuria
6 Infantry from Mandchuria in Jehol

In Kwangsi
5 fighters (2 from Mandchuria, 1 Okinawa, 1 Formosa, 1 Kiangsu)
5 tactical bombers
2 bombers
1 ART
1 Inf

In Anwhe

7 Inf
1 Mec
3 Artillery

Leave in Japan to protect against Hawai fleet
2 DD
1 BB
3 fighters (1 from Korea, 2 from Japan)

Losses
1 cruiser zone 20
1 infantry in Kwantung
1 infantry in Hunnan  
2 infantry in Phillipines  
Total:   24 IPC

Japan collects 40 IPC

The result of Turn 1 is:

a) Weakened UK southeast fleet by destroying battleship, forces UK to spend all money on fleet and potentially pull out of the Med to reinforce India, giving relief to Italy.
b) took 7 IPC off UK bankrolll with Hong Kong and Borneo
c) UK / Anzac are not in position to take Dutch islands
d) japan well positioned to attack Malaya (Pounding on India more and crippling Anzac further)
e) China is pushed back a little bit and a decent stack of land units is moving down China
f) US loses Philipines (2 IPC + 5 IPC bonus)
g) preservation of Japanese Navy, Fleet off philipines can easily pull back to Japan as necesary
h) There is not much that India, China and Anzac or US can do in the immediate to retaliate.

Obvious disadvantage is that US gets more income immediately and has the initiative in Europe. For example. US forces could head straight for Gibraltar and link up with a portion of the British navy that survives. But, a critical portion of my European strategy is to control Gibraltar…

Let’s assume this continues:

On Turn 2, Japan:

May buy a carrier if US fleet is threatening
6 land units (infantry and mech infantry)
Maybe something else (e.g., or another transport)

Takes Malaya (UK down to 9, assuming persia was taken)
Takes Shan States to start putting pressure on India (UK down to
If Malaya is weak and if not costly to protect transport, take one of the Dutch Islands
Navy destroys blockers off 37, 42, 41, 38 and may attack fleet in Zone 39
Stays quiet and China, takes free territory, but avoid battles while moving south
Japan drops 6 land units on mainland with transport built (Kiangsu)
Watch moves of US navy and Anzac for transports and counter attacks on islands.

You note that I am not cutting the Burma road, but given the firepower in Hunnan and Kwangsi, the Chinese will build up stay back on Turn 2.

Meanwhile, the Italians focus on coming through Irak to squeeze in India good.

In Turn 3, japan builds up navy to handle US and keep expanding his grasp on the Islands and builds.

In Turn 4, India should fall and Japan will have plenty to face China, at least on a defensive basis (planes)

I think the US would need to react to this and spend a decent deal of IPCs in the Pacific?

My strategy with Germany is to steadily build a counter to UK / US invation while grinding into Russia with some help with the Italians (main objective is Leningrad and keeping Norway with a strong Navy.

Thoughts?

I’ve considered a Japan attack turn 2 strategy, but in this case I can’t seem to benefit as much from the initiative (don’t count on mistakes on the Allies’s players part, he’s quite good)

My strategy does not include attacking the US cruiser on G1, although this is juicy. The Germany Navy is already stretched out and this could influence russian purchases (although since russia can’t attack until turn 4, they got plenty of options).

I don’t think the US can really counter in the pacific. They can build up and force Japan to build up (In which case, Germany should do really well).

I see crushing India, preventing Anzac to grow and forcing US to spend IPC on both fronts to be critical to the Axis success. Since Japan has all those planes that do nothing if you just focus on China, I find this to be worth it.

I’m more worried about what the US can do in Europe than in the pacific.

@Gargantua:

I’m liking where this is going…  a G1 attack on the good ol USA,  kill their Cruiser / Transport.

They get to collect at the end of US1  +20  - if the Japanese don’t DENY them the NO…

US 2 +20

US 3 they collect it anyways.

So really, we are talking about 40 extra ipc’s if you attack the US on the first turn of the game.

The british in the pacific get hammered too…  the problem is, the US can counter, and attack units, causing problems… but how much damage can they do?  and is it expected?  What will the Japanese Position look like?  Let’s go farther down the rabbit hole here…

USA has to fight through the Japanese since they can win outright on J6 at Sydney following a J4 capture of India, so anything Germany can make USA build in the Atlantic is gravy.  If USA goes all Pacific then Germany can convoy disrupt them to oblivion, capture the West Indies, and lay waste to America’s income.  USA will be required to build naval units in the Atlantic if Germany is convoy raiding them for 6 or more each turn…with more subs on the way.  UK-London will need to defend against a possible Sealion feint for two rounds which won’t help deal with the subs.  Germany should get all of their G2 income to spend on Naval units to menace USA in the Atlantic, sub heavy obviously.  Italy should have a free hand in the Med. for a few rounds.  They need to get Cairo, North Africa, and the Middle East (those 75 Equilibrium points) and build defensively to deal with Russia on R4.  Sure, Russia is looming and will have a lot of offensive units, but By then India should be taken.

So, logically this seems like the best strategy to reach economic equilibrium with the Allies if you plan to win the game economically.

So the question I think needs asking…Should Japan go all in at Hawaii, or just send the Sub, planes, and a DD and send the CVs and BB to Wake Island to avoid American counterattack?  USA will have just four combat ships to use, but lots of planes (America may or may not scramble the two Hawaiian FTR on J1 if Japan only sends enough to get the job done and holds capital ships in reserve).

@Omega1759:

My strategy does not include attacking the US cruiser on G1, although this is juicy.

I, whole heartedly, agree that it is a juicy target.  However, we all forgot one thing:  Germany can only attack it with 1 submarine, the one from SZ 103, the others are blocked by the British destroyer in SZ 106.  So what we are really advocating is to redirect that submarine, instead of hitting the British Cruiser in SZ 91, it hits the American Cruiser/Transport in SZ 101.

You can still NCM another submarine to SZ 101 to get the 6 dmg to America, assuming you killed the destroyer in SZ 106.

Shadow,

I don’t think you can take Calcutta on round 4.  I tried once, I built nothing but transports to move my militia down to KWA (territory south of Hong Kong) in hopes of getting to India early, but the odds just did not work out.

Of course, perhaps I made a mistake and you are more than welcome to tell me how you do it, so I can see what I was doing differently. (Not accusatory, honest request for information.)

I don’t think attacking Hawai makes sense, puts your fleet out of position. I prefer focusing on the southeast and building carriers / repatriating fleet to deal with the growing threat in Haiwai.

@shadowguidex:

USA has to fight through the Japanese since they can win outright on J6 at Sydney following a J4 capture of India, so anything Germany can make USA build in the Atlantic is gravy.  If USA goes all Pacific then Germany can convoy disrupt them to oblivion, capture the West Indies, and lay waste to America’s income.  USA will be required to build naval units in the Atlantic if Germany is convoy raiding them for 6 or more each turn…with more subs on the way.  UK-London will need to defend against a possible Sealion feint for two rounds which won’t help deal with the subs.  Germany should get all of their G2 income to spend on Naval units to menace USA in the Atlantic, sub heavy obviously.  Italy should have a free hand in the Med. for a few rounds.  They need to get Cairo, North Africa, and the Middle East (those 75 Equilibrium points) and build defensively to deal with Russia on R4.  Sure, Russia is looming and will have a lot of offensive units, but By then India should be taken.

So, logically this seems like the best strategy to reach economic equilibrium with the Allies if you plan to win the game economically.

So the question I think needs asking…Should Japan go all in at Hawaii, or just send the Sub, planes, and a DD and send the CVs and BB to Wake Island to avoid American counterattack?  USA will have just four combat ships to use, but lots of planes (America may or may not scramble the two Hawaiian FTR on J1 if Japan only sends enough to get the job done and holds capital ships in reserve).

I have taken New Zealand and all of Australia from a J1 attack on Hawaii…don’t forget you can get to Queensland/New Zealand from there. (Or Central America for that matter.)