by using our site, you consent to this privacy policy: this website allows third-party advertising companies for the purpose of reporting website traffic, statistics, advertisements, and other monitoring technologies to serve ads and to compile anonymous statistics about you when you visit this website. cookies are small text files stored on your local internet browser cache. a web beacon is an often-transparent graphic image, usually no larger than 1 pixel x 1 pixel that is placed on a web site. both are created for the main purpose of helping your browser process the special features of websites that use cookies or web beacons. the gathered information about your visits to this and other websites are used by these third party companies in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. the information do not include any personal data like your name, address, email address, or telephone number. if you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
privacy policies
UK invasion…a not-so-insane strategy
-
I call it “the conveyer belt.”
-
Yeah, Conveyor belt does sound better.
-
yes, it has a good ring to it :smile:
-
wow i didn’t feel like reading all these……i like cookies :smile:
-
Yeah I am going to have to agree with SUD on this one. Always keep the threat alive with Japan but doing it is completely a different story.
-
I agree that T1 is too early, but I think the strategy could work well once you can devote 4 INF and a Carrier to the battle, that is T2-3–then you’d have yourself a party! Now whatever the US puts in the water in the Pacific gets sunk by the planes, USA West is in immediate danger of invasion (albeit breifly) and USA must make some difficult choices: leave the Japanese where they are and watch them get stronger and stronger, build a bunch of ARM in West USA to invade, or temporarily abandon the steady buildup of troops to Europe/Africa to march over and respond to the new threat! The only other way would be to use the fleet to sink the Japanese fleet and cut off the Alaskans–except WHOOPS!: the whole fleet is in the Atlantic! Hafta build another one!
Japan moves before USA, so a steady stream of 2-3 INF every turn would reapidly become a major thorn in the Western Allies side. If Japan becomes strong enough to march into Western Canada, the Western Allies could respond–by moving much-needed troops from Europe to help. And Japan can just back them up next turn with more.
A TR bridge could easily develop without compromising Asia, because returning TRs from Alaska could still “bridge” over troops from Japan before departing again next turn laden with more future Alaskans!
The strategy is an eventual loser, of course because the Allies will eventually be able to build up a force to knock you off the continent and Japan can never devote enough resources to trying to stay there to win. But until then Japan has served its purpose well–that is 1.) Harming USSR and 2.) Taking the pressure off Germany from the West. I think this idea is actually a very good one…
Just my $0.02…
Ozone27
-
Besides who would want to T1 Alaska? I mean there are so many more territories in the Asia Mainland that are better to take. I think that a invasion of Alaska should take place until at least T2, more likely T3 or even T4 depending on the “conveyor belt.”
-
Still, 4 infantry make a huge difference in Asia. and then sending two to four out each turn does compromise asian supremecy. Japan has to be threatening russia by turn 4. Taking Alaska is something you can do if you have complexes in Asia, some transports and infantry hanging around on the islands or japan itself.
-
Agreed. Japan shouldn’t even bother taking Alaska until conquest of Asia is assured. However, in this scenario the Axis are more concerned about invading Britian and waging economic warefare on the nation, and not so much being able to take the war to the Russia homeland.
-
whoa, i forgot the name of the subject itself!
sorry!