Newbie needs strategies

@tamer-of-beasts

We’ll see. I’m just super afraid it’ll increase American morale if I attacked first. Worth a shot though as morale never undermined most campaigns on either side.

@The-Pripet-Martian said in General strategy question:

For example, 3 defending INF can be expected to get one hit per combat round. If you send in enough planes to ensure you’ll kill all 3 enemy INF, you only need to send 2 INF in to secure the territory.

According to probability, yes, but in practise, if you really need that territory, I’d go in with atleast 3 inf. Hitting 2 with 3 inf on def is not too uncommon. Hitting 3 is rather unlikely.

On top of that it also depends who will earn from a war of attrition. If I do, I go, no worries. If I don’t, I won’t, unless it’s for clear strategical and tactical purposes (like your opponent not being able to land planes in a stack next to your Capital).

@Caesar:

@oysteilo:

That was a lot of questions!

for point 4. Why Yunnan, because it is the most important chinese territory. If China holds Yunnan at the start of their turn they can build artillary. If China does not need to fight Yunnan they will fight you everywhere else, such as up north and press towards the coastline. Yunnan is in fact one of the key allied “strongholds” comparable to sz 110, bryansk and later in the game, the middle east. It means the Axis should meet significant resistance here

I disagree with this. While it is important to keep it Chinese for the Burma Road, Japan can easily by pass it if it’s end goal is India. It is tactical but it doesn’t break the Axis.

Ignoring China can definitely break Japan!  Even if you take India early you will still have to invest in ground forces to get back the VC’s you lost to China and now you have no infrastructure to do it effectivley.  Its better to tame China early set up a supply line and get factories going on the mainland.  Its hard enough to maintain island dominace and you can’t afford to lose your income core as well ,China is that core especially the coast line.  Japan is a ripe fruit but if you let it rot from the inside out you are doomed.  I have seen it happen too many times and its what I try to do as the allies against Japan.  Having a big navy for Japan and controlling the DEI as well as getting calcutta are all good things for Japan but ignoring China can negate those advances.  Just my two cents from extensive game play face to face and league play.

These are NOT optimal strategies.  They are meant to be funny and either ridicule “standard strategies” or make fun of losing situations.  Let me explain tthem to the best of my abillity:

Germany:
Must kill Russia and not worry about anything else like Sea Lion or Africa.  This comes from many players who believe that taking Moscow early is the only way to victory for Germany.

Soviet Union:
This comes from the classic Russian build up early on which is soon negated by overwhelming German force.  It ridicules those who just stack Moscow instead of trying to counterattack.

Japan:
1 symbolizes the J1 attack which is used more than J2 and J3
2 symbolizes taking the money islands
3 symbolizes getting so rapped up is Asia, that you allow the U.S. to take Tokyo (lol!)

U.S.
This is actually quite true: with the U.S. you must get enough force to defend yourself or make a hole in your opponent.  Then you must get into a great position like Gibraltar or Carolines.  Then eventually you get that great opportunity–wham!

China:
This, of course, is about players who think China is useless.  In my personal experience, I think most people just like to sacrifice Chinese units.  And of course such gameplay will cause Japan to hit Stalingrad and then Russia yells at you.

United Kingdom:
Europe:
Defending is important early but only in the UK itself.  If Germany at least threatens Sea lion, we see UK just defending for awhile.  Then finallly they make a big blow like Rome or Denmark.

Pacific:
This ridicules players who just build infantry and simply put everything in India.  You bet they get bored.

Italy:
This is more of a ridicule of Mussolini himself.  Or Italy after a really pro-UK Taranto dice mow -over.

ANZAC:
Quite true.  The money islands are ANZACs biggest thing they usually can do…and Japan hates that.

France:
I object to explaining this one.

That is indeed the strategy, and it relies on the allies having pretty bad luck to smash up those stacks without losing 50% of your starting planes.

Germany can replace the planes, but not at the same time as it builds mechs, armor stax
Japan has even more planes, but it needs even more than Germany does because without them, its a paper tiger.

The problem with doing these stub attacks is if you lose more than 50% of your starting air power before turn 5, you will not be able to force your victory cities and strategic objectives.  The consequences are felt several turns later (7,8), when you cant smash stax because you lost your mobile strikeforce.

@Zhukov44:

There are several good reasons to get an ac instead of a battleship.  The first is that Germany already has fighters to land on the AC.  So with the AC (plus fighters) you get a defense punch of 10, with a count of 4, compared to the bb’s punch of 4 and count of 2.  The second is that you won’t get many bombards out of that battleship unless you are using it in the Baltic.  You might get the one bombard when you attack England, but ultimately that one bombard shot is pretty useless compared to 2 fighters (also 20 ipc) that would participate in every round of the battle.

Another reason is acs extend the range of your fighters.  Unlike ships, fighters can’t be blocked.

Whether you intend to go for London or go for Moscow, there are better ways to spend that 20 ipcs.

Agreed, all good points.

@JimmyHat:

I think you can attack unescorted transports, because they would not have any larger combat ships to hide behind.  This would be the only occurrence though because the kamikaze pilots are trained to go for the big combat vessels and not the weak, cheap transport vessels.

No, you can’t.  The errata has not overridden the pac40 rulebook, and the errata applies to Alpha 2.  Alpha 2 only changed the triggers to kamis but it didn’t change how they work.
Kamis can only target surface warships, and it’s not an attack (so deceptive to call it that).  it’s ONLY a defensive action declared at the end of a combat move (not during a combat move) in exactly the same way scrambling is declared.

This also has never changed, it’s ALWAYS been if combat move ENDS in a kami symbol SZ, which ALWAYS means either combat in the seazone or an amphibious assault.  You can’t combat move if you aren’t going to conduct combat.

Well, the American ships in SZ 101 are pretty close to SZ 26 and SZ 10.

I was hoping an American build up in SZ 101 might dissuade a Sea Lion and press Germany into a Barbarossa.  Then, on round 3, when it’s too late really, move the ships down and be in range of Hawaii on US 4.