HOW TO PLAY AS THE ALLIES PROPERLY

I prefer the term “experimental”  :-P

Good advice about the french fig.  Depends on circumstances, of course, but the french dd might be valuable in the Atlantic as insurance against Italian can openers.

I recommend massing Amur R2 with all Siberian units.  Either stack Korea or try to advance into the Chinese interior and become a permanent presence, reinforced by Chinese.  The income boost to China justifies it.  Besides, a determined German player will often take Moscow before the Siberian troops could have possibly made it there.  This way you get an extra inf for Moscow for every turn you hold Korea.

Anzac strategy is variable and depends heavily on what USA and Japan are doing.  In some circumstances Anzac doesn’t need to build ground units, in some circumstances it does.

Edit: I reversed my opinion on Siberian units and virtually always immediately retreat towards Moscow now.  I think part of my change of heart has to do with a change to the rules whereby Russia violates Mongolian neutrality if they take Korea.

@Zhukov44:

I recommend massing Amur R2 with all Siberian units.  Either stack Korea or try to advance into the Chinese interior and become a permanent presence, reinforced by Chinese.  The income boost to China justifies it.  Besides, a determined German player will often take Moscow before the Siberian troops could have possibly made it there.  This way you get an extra inf for Moscow for every turn you hold Korea.

I totally disagree with that statement.
Against a player like me who is going to buy a Mic in Manchuria on J1, this strat will be a major fail.
1st, you’re not going anywhere in China.
2nd, if you’re sending your whole infantry stack in Korea, then it’s trapped. Japan just has to build 3 art/tnk on Manchuria J2, and they are ready to attack your stack J3 with minimal number of air units (and if you stay in Korea, then they may just build another 3 units in Man J3 for a better battle J4).

@Zhukov44:

Besides, a determined German player will often take Moscow before the Siberian troops could have possibly made it there.

As determined and skilled as the German player will be, taking moscou before the 18inf can make it back if they’re headed there from the start is VERY difficult. I don’t say it can’t be done, but it’s really difficult.

@Zhukov44:

Anzac strategy is variable and depends heavily on what USA and Japan are doing.�  In some circumstances Anzac doesn’t need to build ground units, in some circumstances in does.

I’d agree with this.  Garg, focusing on turtling with Anzac seems like a waste of potential resources to me.
At least -
If US is going heavy pacific, it’d be more helpful to buy destroyers and such, to help the US fleet advance quicklier.
A fat green fleet off of Queensland or Carolines makes defending Sydney a moot point.

And with US,

The absolute WORST thing you can do, is just build surface combat vessels, with only a piddlance of transports, effecting nothing.

In Atlantic, one could certainly construnct an argument for that.  
But in the Pacific, the 2 transports that the US starts with can often suffice.
Focusing on warships - in order to advance quicklier through islands in the Pacific in the face of the counter-attacking power of the Japanese airforce - can absolutely get the job done with minimal land forces.
The fight in the Pacific map often isn’t decided by land troops as it is in Europe.

@Axisplaya:

Against a player like me who is going to buy a Mic in Manchuria on J1, this strat will be a major fail.
1st, you’re not going anywhere in China.
2nd, if you’re sending your whole infantry stack in Korea, then it’s trapped. Japan just has to build 3 art/tnk on Manchuria J2, and they are ready to attack your stack J3 with minimal number of air units (and if you stay in Korea, then they may just build another 3 units in Man J3 for a better battle J4).

The decision to build a MIC J1, rather than transports, is unusual in my experience so that would merit re-examining my strategy.  Against certain J1 deployments perhaps I wouldn’t stack Amur R2…wait till R3.  Sooner or later Japan needs to move its forces south for the money islands and to threaten India, and that is when the Russians should flank them at Amur.  Potentially neutralizing (or at least forcing Japan to divert forces to defend) a Man factory would be a nice side benefit.

If Japan’s strength is divided and they cant bring all their planes and transports to bear, they might still be able to kill the 18 inf 2 aa but it will cost them dearly, and whatever Japan loses in the exchange will make life easier for China and the other Allies confronting Japan.  The notion of destroying the Russian army on J2 or J3 virtually rules out scoring a lethal wound on Aussie, India, or China in the early going.

As determined and skilled as the German player will be, taking moscou before the 18inf can make it back if they’re headed there from the start is VERY difficult. I don’t say it can’t be done, but it’s really difficult.

I have had games where the Russians made it back in time, which was helpful in that case, but obviously not helpful to my other Allies since Japan had a big mainland edge.

The earliest the 6 inf can make it to Moscow is R6, with the 12 inf 2 aa arriving on R7.  Normally Germany wants to strike sometime b/w G5 and G8 (if Germany knows the Siberians are moving East, the urgency is greater).  The 6 inf get there in time if Germany is going for G7.  I like G6.  So if I’m Germany they wouldn’t make it in time.

One variation might be sending the 6 west and moving south with the 12 inf 2 aa, but I’d rather have the full force in China/Korea to maximize Japan’s inconvenience when Japan attacks.

@Gargantua:

As for ANZAC Navy, aside from transports, What do you need it for? The navy can’t attack any major Japanese fleet formations, and the US moves before it, so any minor ones are always dealt with.  Show me a game or two of equal skilled opponents where an ANZAC fleet formation was the difference maker, over ANZAC ground units.  Again you’d be better off just building planes to supplement the rest of your forces.

Combined fleets make for good defense.  The Anzac fleet (along with 3 figs for scrambling) supplements the USA fleet and makes it impossible to kill.  Also, as much as possible Anzac should furnish dd blockers when they are needed.  Plus USA and UK can-open to allow for small-scale Aussie air/fleet attacks on isolated Jap fleets, which wear down Japan’s navy and allows USA to gain naval superiority later on.

OK so if ANZAC has been building ground units all along, those units can eventually go on US transports and the ANZAC fighters can go on US carriers.  The US fleet clears the sea zones and the ANZACs take the islands, with landings supported by ANZAC fighters and cruiser.

You would want a couple ANZAC transports in that mix too so you don’t have to skip a turn between each island while they load onto US ones.

@Zhukov44:

@Gargantua:

As for ANZAC Navy, aside from transports, What do you need it for? The navy can’t attack any major Japanese fleet formations, and the US moves before it, so any minor ones are always dealt with.  Show me a game or two of equal skilled opponents where an ANZAC fleet formation was the difference maker, over ANZAC ground units.  Again you’d be better off just building planes to supplement the rest of your forces.

Combined fleets make for good defense.  The Anzac fleet (along with 3 figs for scrambling) supplements the USA fleet and makes it impossible to kill.  Also, as much as possible Anzac should furnish dd blockers when they are needed.  Plus USA and UK can-open to allow for small-scale Aussie air/fleet attacks on isolated Jap fleets, which wear down Japan’s navy and allows USA to gain naval superiority later on.

Which is why I mass dd/ss as anzac if US is heavy pac.  If US is light pac, I might be tempted to go turtle hard.

Love to discuss this, Garg, but just as a reminder, I know how to bold text too.  :lol:

@Gargantua:

Air power is a better purchase early to mid game, than ships for the US in the Pac.  Hands down.
The More Ranged units you have covering the pac, the more the Japanese fleets are prevented from spreading out to cover more ground.

I think I see what you’re saying, but a fleet based in SZ 33/54 can accomplish exactly the same thing.
Plus naval forces can actually hold sea zones, while planes can’t.
It’s exactly the same concept as on the ground -
air gives you mobility and flexibility, but troops are what get the job done.

As for my comments about ANZAC, I’m going to stick to them.  Too often have I seen people LOSE, because they’ve been too busy building navy with the ANZAC instead of infantry, and then once india falls, and the Japanese strike arrives, they can only muster 3 ground units a turn, and they’re DEAD.

Well that’s just poor planning on ANZAC’s part.  If US isn’t going mostly/entirely Pacific, then yes, you have ANZAC play defensively.

As for ANZAC Navy, aside from transports, What do you need it for? The navy can’t attack any major Japanese fleet formations, and the US moves before it, so any minor ones are always dealt with.  Show me a game or two of equal skilled opponents where an ANZAC fleet formation was the difference maker, over ANZAC ground units.  Again you’d be better off just building planes to supplement the rest of your forces.

The ANZAC fleet serves to follow the US fleet around, buffing its defensive abilities or blocking, and therefore letting it advance much quicklier than it would otherwise.  With a dozen or more planes sitting in southeastern China, you’ll need an assload of defensive punch to be able to move around safely in the southern Pacific.  You can get a lot of utility out of a strong defensive ANZAC naval force.
Attacking islands never takes more than a handful of troops in the Pacific - normally - so an excess of transports, be they US or ANZAC, will often just be wasted capital. 
Yes, you can certainly get more threat out of more transports, but I’d argue that the utility of optimized allied warfleet is greater than the utility of many transports.

Actually there are two options, economic strategy or rush strategy.

How come functionetta is not a moderator? 94canuck? minorthreat? Basically people that contribute game charts etc.

@Vance:

I prefer the term “experimental”  :-P

1. I hardly look at the names for players I’ve played against before . . . I’ve come to recognize several avatars. You however have switched your picture at least twice today and it’s confusing!

2. Maybe you need to go back to the drawing board for some of your moves.  :wink:

@Gargantua:

ANZAC  Build ground units, Build Ground units, Build Ground units,  until there’s no point in building more ground units.  then build fighters. or subs later.  Anzac’s primary job, is to turn into FORTRESS ANZAC,  If the Japanese can’t take the island,  suddenly their only path to victory, is the capture of hawaii.  If you are doing VERY well economically, build a factory in queensland, so you can build MORE ground units.

Crazy Garg. First you want to turn prussia into a naval power and now you’re advocating a land power aussie. So what exactly is Japan doing if the aussies have so much cash that they can afford to build a spare IC? This likely either means US has a fleet that’s protecting the cash islands OR Japan is concentrating mostly on China/USSR and haven’t really ventured south much. I just don’t see many situations where anzac is getting that much income and where they are under threat of a naval invasion by Japan. Yes, they need a couple of ground pounders just in case, but their main shield will typically be the USN sitting in sz54 or whatever it is.

16+ ipcs for me usually means fighter + 2inf. That’s not a bad build if you’re facing an invasion. Especially if you’ve been doing it for some time. If the USN can’t effectively screen australia, then I love to land any carrier fighters I have and sail the USN away to safety to load up some more fighters. You can get 10+ fighters defending that capital fairly easy. That plus some fodder units means that only a very serious effort will take the capital, and something like that will be seen turns away and prepped for. It’s much much easier to get US help against a hostile takeover then it is to get help in India.

Usually it doesn’t come to that though and personally I fall into build navy/air with australia in most cases. Anzac fighters are so nice to fly into a recently captured AB or onto empty US carriers. Not only do they help keep the USN afloat, but they can mimick the Doolittle raid. Nothing beats killing some unguarded/lighty defended trans by moving the host US cv 2-3 spaces and then flying from there. The aussie navy will never contend with the USN or IJN in size/strength. But that’s not what they’re there for. Anzac dds make great blockers after the USN’s made it’s move. Which means the USN can keep more of it’s strength together and not fritter itself away as blockers. And lastly anzac units make great cannon fodder pieces whenever the bigger navies clash.

90+% of the time the allies must contend with the IJN on the high seas. So much of Japan’s income is easily accessible by sea, they have to have a navy in order to win the game. Once their main naval strength is gone they’re toast. It might take some turns, but it’ll happen. Most axis players recognize this and will try to keep at least near parity with the allied fleet in order to protect it’s cash flow. By automatically building infantry you take away a HUGE asset and make make Japan’s life that much easier. Force the IJN into building more navy. Get them into an arms race on the seas and they won’t have as much to deal with India/China. Keep those two around and kicking for some time and Japan WILL lose the game.

well what is the current allied strategy? convoy 97, fly stuff into russia, exploit russian NO off of afrrica, stop japan from winning.

It is okay to lose russia, as long as no further investment is required of the USA for the pacific, because atlantic presence becomes required at that point to prevent london or egypt vc win.

Check Italy, give Japan *#^^, Kill Germany. Keep Russia alive at all cost. As long as Russia lives the Axis can’t win. (figuratively speaking)

Anzac has the ability to take Java, take Dutch New Guinea, inflate the economy large enough to build a Carrier, add a fighter or two when possible, and then sprinkle in a sub or destroyer as possible.

I’m a huge believer in one major force, rather than a defensive multinational force, so I use Anzac to kill Japanese screens, transports, and lone subs when possible. Keeping the US force as large as possible is the goal.

I’ve found that 4 US Carriers in the Pacific, an Anzac Carrier, and the Brit Battleship forms a nucleus of an Allied navy that can take and hold SZs almost at will.

Yavid is funny.

Hey…

Good topic for me as I am playing USA ( orig global40 rules ). So my question is, how to get Tokyo and secure it?

( In in reverse to be open ), how does Japan get Western USA, leading onto Washington?

I think the Pacific theatre is a cat and mouse game for both USA and Japan. With the wide open Pacific sea with no IDC on any islands. Tokyo is heavily protected, same with San Fran the momant both see’s an attack ( incl Alaska, BC, Mexico ).

Playing either side PROPERLY is fine, but if bad dice rolls, then you’re buggerd.

Cheers, BH

What? It works everytime if done right.