@dylan64 Yeah Larry Harris setup nerfs the German starting setup to the point where they can no longer consistently kill 100% on UK’s starting navy. That goes a long ways towards making life more manageable for them. Give it a try.
What should UK do with India?
-
Assuming the Japanese fleet is destroyed at EI, I don’t need my fleet to take your islands, I just need transports and an escort. I’m not going to drop Naval like Hobbes was theorizing (and I’m sure he’s only theorizing, and not saying this is a go to strat). I’m sure that Hobbes is more likely convinced that the EI fleet must die… but that’s for Hobbes to say. I will build land units in India. So go ahead and build your subs, because I’m coming for you. I can take Borneo or the Phillines US2 if I wanted. Although if the UK transports survive, I’d appreciate it if they landed the four units in Borneo on UK2. That way I can possibly land 3 FTRs and two inf for the US there (or 1inf/1AAA) with a DD blocker. So if you did build your IC/2 Trans on J1 and put it in Borneo, you lose the complex on UK2. You’ll be forced to take it back on J2, giving more time for Asia, and then possibly lose it on US2 or lose the Phillipines uncontested.
This whole Naval buy for India was already contested in another thread (better though with the Russian FTR though, but way too risky)….it’s a gamble that I don’t think India can afford…sure, if the dice go UK way, its over…it goes the other way, it’s over the other way. It’s a nice idea, but so was the Hindenburg…
Assuming you can kill the Japanese fleet at EI? You only have a 65% chance of that (including ties). I really wouldn’t PLAN a game winning strategy around a 65% UK1 chance.
No US cannot take any of the islands if i build subs. Not possible, sorry, not in time to stop Germany from taking Moscow and winning the game anyhow.
Maybe you hold India with ground forces, but likely only if you sacrifice Africa to Germany. Which means UK will end up with less than 20IPC per turn very soon, and Russia under 20IPC, vs Germany with over 50IPC. You will lose eventually. The only way you can win is if US gets to the mainland, and it can’t do that through the pacific.
-
Well the BB you were using for calculations in you UK defense were bought on UK2, for a J2 attack. �But if you want to re-run the numbers with a third carrier instead we can. �But i have a feeling the outcome will be the same. �Why would i attack SZ37 on J1 and risk losing half my fleet when i can attack on J2 and be certain of victory with much lower losses?
Surviving 1AC, and 2FTR + UK1 buy of 1AC, 1FTR (save 7IPC for UK2, gives you 38IPC) + UK2 buy of 1AC, 2FTR, + 1FTR from Russia would give you:
2BB, 2DD, 4FTR, 1BMR, 1CA, 1AC, 1SS (34) vs 3AC, 6FTR (30)
99% chance of Japanese victory.
Let’s recap the moves
R1
- Fighters to SZ35 and Egypt
G1 - Destroys UK destroyer on SZ17
UK1 - Buy 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 submarine (save 1 IPC)
- Attack SZ37, 2 hits expected for each side. If Japan loses carrier after 1 round, pull back to SZ35, if not continue 1 more round to sink it (and possibly the entire Japanese fleet).
- Move UK fighters to West Russia
- Place units on SZ35, now has (assuming 1 round of combat on SZ37 and J carrier lost)
- 1 BB, 1 DD, 4 FTRs, 1 BMR vs 2 ACs, 1 CA, 1 SS, 4 FTRs…. or 57% for defenders
J1 - Joins fleet off Indochina, 1 AC, 2 BB, 1 CA, 2 DD, 1 SS, 5/6 FTRs, 1 BMR
- The best purchase would actually be 1 bomber to use on J2, not subs.
UK2 - Purchases 1 carrier and 2 destroyers
- Moves West Russia fighters to SZ35
- 2 BB, 1 AC, 2 DD, 5 FTRs, 1 BMR vs 3 ACs, 1 CA, 2 DD, 1 SS, 6 FTRs… or 81% for attackers
- But UK can simply retreat instead of building to preserve its fleet.
On average, the Japanese fleet would be left with 2BB, 1AC, 2FTR. �Then lets say on US1 you take Solomon Island, and on J2 i buy 5 subs and put them in SZ60. �Then if the US fleet goes to Borneo, or Philippenes, i can attack that fleet with:
2BB, 1AC, 4FTR (2 from FI), and 5SS (31) VS 1BB, 1AC, 2FTR, 1SS, 2DD (19)
99% chance of victory with an average loss of 3SS.
And if the US wants to delay and build more ships, then you build more subs. �The longer the US tries to take the pacific, the longer Germany has to take Moscow. �Axis Wins. �
Really the only GOOD option for UK is to do as you say and pull back to the med.� Use those ships to attack Germany and help keep Africa and support Russia’s Caucuses.
Hmmm. How about this? On UK2 the UK pulls back instead to SZ38 (SW Australia) and leaves the cruiser to block the Japanese fleet on SZ36 from reaching it. On U2 the US can then take Borneo, move a destroyer to SZ48 to block the 5 J subs and the UK can join the US fleet off Borneo. So you have:
- 2 BB, 1 AC, 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 SS, 5 FTRs, 1 BMR vs 3 ACs, 1 BB, 1 DD, 2 SS, 6 FTRs…. or 50%-50%
- Fighters to SZ35 and Egypt
-
This whole Naval buy for India was already contested in another thread (better though with the Russian FTR though, but way too risky)….it’s a gamble that I don’t think India can afford…sure, if the dice go UK way, its over…it goes the other way, it’s over the other way. It’s a nice idea, but so was the Hindenburg…
Bunnies P Wrath once tried this strat against me on 1st Edition and it failed but here you get the shot at the SZ37 fleet. And I’m going to try an India naval… I’m starting to like the idea of having Japan dealing with 2 Allied fleets on the Pacific for a change.
Assuming you can kill the Japanese fleet at EI? You only have a 65% chance of that (including ties). I really wouldn’t PLAN a game winning strategy around a 65% UK1 chance.
No US cannot take any of the islands if i build subs. Not possible, sorry, not in time to stop Germany from taking Moscow and winning the game anyhow.
Maybe you hold India with ground forces, but likely only if you sacrifice Africa to Germany. Which means UK will end up with less than 20IPC per turn very soon, and Russia under 20IPC, vs Germany with over 50IPC. You will lose eventually. The only way you can win is if US gets to the mainland, and it can’t do that through the pacific.
I completely agree with the part of strategies being based on 66% odds but you can rest assured that even if you never use it, you’ll see a lot of people trying. To me, it sounds like something I may try once in a while.
And… yeah all of this discussion on the board has been centered on Pacific and kicking Japan but… none is being said about stopping Germany…
-
Hmmm. How about this? On UK2 the UK pulls back instead to SZ38 (SW Australia) and leaves the cruiser to block the Japanese fleet on SZ36 from reaching it. On U2 the US can then take Borneo, move a destroyer to SZ48 to block the 5 J subs and the UK can join the US fleet off Borneo. So you have:
- 2 BB, 1 AC, 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 SS, 5 FTRs, 1 BMR vs 3 ACs, 1 BB, 1 DD, 2 SS, 6 FTRs…. or 50%-50%
I followed everything you said until here.
How are you sending 1 cruiser to block the Japanese fleet on SZ36 on UK2? The Japanese fleet is on SZ36, so you attack it with 1 cruiser and it blows up. I think you mean SZ37.
Id’s probablyy go to India and bombard/transport units and take it on J2, and buy 5 subs on J2. US2 takes Borneo, UK3 merges its Indian fleet with your US fleet. I attack with everything you just said, +5 subs.
98% chance of Japanese Victory with an average IPC loss of 58 (so I’d lose 6SS, 2DD, 1CA) and be left with a fleet of 2BB, 1AC, 2FTR. Slightly better than the other way, but only 3SS better.
-
I completely agree with the part of strategies being based on 66% odds but you can rest assured that even if you never use it, you’ll see a lot of people trying. To me, it sounds like something I may try once in a while.
And… yeah all of this discussion on the board has been centered on Pacific and kicking Japan but… none is being said about stopping Germany…
Oh i guarantee you people are doing this, and depending on how the Japanese player responds it may work. Especially if they don’t buy subs on J2. I could totally see this strategy working against someone who doesn’t know how to counter it. But once you know how, it’s easy and reliably countered.
My biggest issue is i think subs are overpowered. Japan doesn’t need to take land so it doesn’t need naval units that help in that facet. If the US and UK are in the pacific, that means they aren’t pressuring Germany, so all Japan has to do is keep US/UK occupied long enough for Germany to win the game for them, and mass subs gets that job done.
-
I played the other weekend and I was the Axis and I built 2 subs every round with Japan and germany went crazy and I won 2 games using this plan. My question is how do you stop Germany in this game? We are playing again this weekend and I will be the Allies. At this time my plan is to go 50% in the Atlantic and 50% in the pacific with USA.
-
I played the other weekend and I was the Axis and I built 2 subs every round with Japan and germany went crazy and I won 2 games using this plan. My question is how do you stop Germany in this game? We are playing again this weekend and I will be the Allies. At this time my plan is to go 50% in the Atlantic and 50% in the pacific with USA.
If japan buys subs, i really don’t see how Allies can win if they are spending any IPC in the Pacific. Allies need to go KGF. RUS1 sends Moscow FTR to Egypt to hold it, UK1 buys at least 1DD off the coast of India and on UK2 moves it to SZ17 inside the Mediterranean. Pull ground troops out of India and move them to hold Africa. Once you have the Med and Africa, then with US help, clean up the remaining German Navy and start invading Europe. Either force Germany to fight on 2 sides, or Reinforce the Russian front line to push back either Germany or Japan.
-
Subs overpowered? They’ve been like this for what, at least 4 years? At least they don’t have the two defense…those were the days of overpowered.
India should NOT be abandon…in 41, yes, definitely (by turn 4)…not here…even in a KGF strat, you should not be abandonig India…Uk can still build to support India, but abandoning it only bring back the “orange steamroller”. Why would Japan even bother buying an IC if you are just going to be a coward and abandon your post.
The game is not Axis favored heavily like 42.1 was…the axis should not be “cruising” to victories like you say they are.
-
Subs overpowered? They’ve been like this for what, at least 4 years? At least they don’t have the two defense…those were the days of overpowered.
India should NOT be abandon…in 41, yes, definitely (by turn 4)…not here…even in a KGF strat, you should not be abandonig India…Uk can still build to support India, but abandoning it only bring back the “orange steamroller”. Why would Japan even bother buying an IC if you are just going to be a coward and abandon your post.
The game is not Axis favored heavily like 42.1 was…the axis should not be “cruising” to victories like you say they are.
At least when they were 2 defense they cost 8 IPC. I think that is much more balanced. Then you can’t outproduce subs over equally powerful destroyers, or cruisers. While cruisers cost 12IPC, they have the same ATK/DEF per IPC as destroyers. 4IPC per point of ATK/DEF. So then you can grab 1 destroyer, and some cruisers and still bombard stuff while simultaneously defending against subs.
UK cannot keep India and Africa, and Africa is worth more.
-
Hmmm. How about this? On UK2 the UK pulls back instead to SZ38 (SW Australia) and leaves the cruiser to block the Japanese fleet on SZ36 from reaching it. On U2 the US can then take Borneo, move a destroyer to SZ48 to block the 5 J subs and the UK can join the US fleet off Borneo. So you have:
- 2 BB, 1 AC, 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 SS, 5 FTRs, 1 BMR vs 3 ACs, 1 BB, 1 DD, 2 SS, 6 FTRs…. or 50%-50%
I followed everything you said until here.
How are you sending 1 cruiser to block the Japanese fleet on SZ36 on UK2? The Japanese fleet is on SZ36, so you attack it with 1 cruiser and it blows up. I think you mean SZ37.
The cruises moves to SZ37 to block the Japanese fleet on SZ36 to attack SZ38
Id’s probablyy go to India and bombard/transport units and take it on J2, and buy 5 subs on J2. US2 takes Borneo, UK3 merges its Indian fleet with your US fleet. I attack with everything you just said, +5 subs.
98% chance of Japanese Victory with an average IPC loss of 58 (so I’d lose 6SS, 2DD, 1CA) and be left with a fleet of 2BB, 1AC, 2FTR. Slightly better than the other way, but only 3SS better.
U22 - US moves destroyer to SZ48 (Philippines) on US2 and blocks your 5 subs on SZ69 from attacking the Allied fleet on SZ47.
India builds 3 ground units, plus the US fighter, plus 3 UK fighters (the 2 from West Russia - since no carrier is built on UK2)… with the starting units included I don’t Japan can break that with 4 ground units plus planes. And if it does Russia only needs to have a couple of tanks on the Caucasus to liberate India and allow UK to restart production on the next turn, before Japan can hit it again.
-
At least when they were 2 defense they cost 8 IPC. I think that is much more balanced. Then you can’t outproduce subs over equally powerful destroyers, or cruisers. While cruisers cost 12IPC, they have the same ATK/DEF per IPC as destroyers. 4IPC per point of ATK/DEF. So then you can grab 1 destroyer, and some cruisers and still bombard stuff while simultaneously defending against subs.
UK cannot keep India and Africa, and Africa is worth more.
I’ve already mentioned this: subs here are maximized for attack but they have serious drawbacks, specially you can’t rely on them to defend a fleet against air attacks. And Japan needs to have transports so doesn’t matter if you have 10, 15 or 20, they can be rendered useless to defend surface ships and transports against air attacks.
Like Mallery29 said, the ‘new’ sub stats have been introduced 4 years ago on Anniversary and so far no one has ever complained about them or you see people using massive fleets of subs on AA50, AA41.1 or Global… they can’t go on land and they can’t defend against planes.
-
US moves destroyer to SZ48 (Philippines) on US2 and blocks your 5 subs from reaching that SZ.
India also gets 3 ground units, plus the US fighter, plus 3 UK fighters (the 2 from West Russia - since no carrier is built on UK2)… with the starting units included I don’t Japan can break that with 4 ground units plus planes.
Ok, so then it is:
2BB, 2DD, 4FTR, 1BMR, 1CA, 1AC, 1SS (34) vs 3 ACs, 1 BB, 1DD, 1 SS, 6 FTRs (37)
60% chance of Japanese victory. (average IPC loss for Allies is 114) 75% for Japan with LL dice.
It’s better, it’s at least viable, but at this point it is assuming lucky dice at SZ37 on UK1. So a 60-70% chance of your UK1 strategy working right, plus an eventual 40% showdown. But you should average out to around 1BB and your transports left for US/UK in the pacific, maybe you also save a destroyer. Then IF you do have a DD left you could try to attack the 5 subs on US turn with 46% odds of winning.
At least when they were 2 defense they cost 8 IPC. I think that is much more balanced. Then you can’t outproduce subs over equally powerful destroyers, or cruisers. While cruisers cost 12IPC, they have the same ATK/DEF per IPC as destroyers. 4IPC per point of ATK/DEF. So then you can grab 1 destroyer, and some cruisers and still bombard stuff while simultaneously defending against subs.
UK cannot keep India and Africa, and Africa is worth more.
I’ve already mentioned this: subs here are maximized for attack but they have serious drawbacks, specially you can’t rely on them to defend a fleet against air attacks. And Japan needs to have transports so doesn’t matter if you have 10, 15 or 20, they can be rendered useless to defend surface ships and transports against air attacks.
Like Mallery29 said, the ‘new’ sub stats have been introduced 4 years ago on Anniversary and so far no one has ever complained about them or you see people using massive fleets of subs on AA50, AA41.1 or Global… they can’t go on land and they can’t defend against planes.
Maybe it’s the combination of the new map, initial starting unit placement, and the subs which make them so potent now? Or maybe everyone always went KGF before? The old map seemed to favor KGF, and the new map (at least at first glance) appears to favor KJF.
Why does Japan need transports? Why can it not just build a pure navy to defeat any UK/US navy in the pacific and let Germany beat Russia?
-
Ok, so then it is:
2BB, 2DD, 4FTR, 1BMR, 1CA, 1AC, 1SS (34) vs 3 ACs, 1 BB, 1DD, 1 SS, 6 FTRs (37)
60% chance of Japanese victory. (average IPC loss for Allies is 114) 75% for Japan with LL dice.
It’s better, it’s at least viable, but at this point it is assuming lucky dice at SZ37 on UK1. So a 60-70% chance of your UK1 strategy working right, plus an eventual 60% showdown. But you should average out to around 1BB and your transports left for US/UK in the pacific, maybe you also save a destroyer. Then IF you do have a DD left you could try to attack the 5 subs on US turn with 46% odds of winning.
2 subs, UK and US - UK1 buy is still 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 sub.
Even if Japan wins the US should be able to build an IC on US3 because it can bring 2 inf, and the UK can also lift 2 inf from Australia. And on US3 the first ships built on US1 also start arriving at Borneo….even if Japan attacks the Allied fleet off Borneo on J3 and wins, any survivors will face the risk of an US counterattack.
-
Ok, so then it is:
2BB, 2DD, 4FTR, 1BMR, 1CA, 1AC, 1SS (34) vs 3 ACs, 1 BB, 1DD, 1 SS, 6 FTRs (37)
60% chance of Japanese victory. (average IPC loss for Allies is 114) 75% for Japan with LL dice.
It’s better, it’s at least viable, but at this point it is assuming lucky dice at SZ37 on UK1. So a 60-70% chance of your UK1 strategy working right, plus an eventual 60% showdown. But you should average out to around 1BB and your transports left for US/UK in the pacific, maybe you also save a destroyer. Then IF you do have a DD left you could try to attack the 5 subs on US turn with 46% odds of winning.
2 subs, UK and US - UK1 buy is still 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 sub.
Even if Japan wins the US should be able to build an IC on US3 because it can bring 2 inf, and the UK can also lift 2 inf from Australia. And on US3 the first ships built on US1 also start arriving at Borneo….even if Japan attacks the Allied fleet off Borneo on J3 and wins, any survivors will face the risk of an US counterattack.
What are the odds of a 40% victory following a 60-70% victory, around 25%? Sure it’s possible, but unlikely. Are you really going to PLAN on this? I wouldn’t. I try not to plan on anything less than 80%
Plus you still have to contend with 4-5 more subs per turn. You can’t beat them AND make transports/other land support naval units.
Also you are now talking about being on Round 4, and only taking Borneo. Germany is about 2-4 turns from ending this game.
-
What are the odds of a 40% victory following a 60-70% victory, around 25%? Sure it’s possible, but unlikely. Are you really going to PLAN on this? I wouldn’t. I try not to plan on anything less than 80%
Plus you still have to contend with 4-5 more subs per turn. You can’t beat them AND make transports/other land support naval units.
On a KJF the US only needs to build 1 additional transport on US2, all of the money goes naval (fighters, carriers, subs, destroyers) until you prevent Japan from reconquering Borneo/E. Indies and build an IC there. Until you defeat the Japanese fleet you don’t build any more transports.
Also you are now talking about being on Round 4, and only taking Borneo. Germany is about 2-4 turns from ending this game.
Well, you get the IC on Borneo working on US3, so on US4 you could have a 1st transport ready of troops to kick Japan out of Asia or not, depending on the situation. But the major thing effect of defeating the Japanese fleet is now that India should be secure and can start sending help to the Russians.
But at this point it’s really speculation… I need to try this, there’s a LOT of potential moves, some on the previous posts (I’d buy fighters/bombers instead of subs as Japan… from my experience on 1st Edition the Allies will eventually prevail on the Pacific and planes have a bigger reach and are more useful to harass the US transports on Asia) and the odds are… well, there will be ways to make them better on each situation.
-
What are the odds of a 40% victory following a 60-70% victory, around 25%? Sure it’s possible, but unlikely. Are you really going to PLAN on this? I wouldn’t. I try not to plan on anything less than 80%
Plus you still have to contend with 4-5 more subs per turn. You can’t beat them AND make transports/other land support naval units.
On a KJF the US only needs to build 1 additional transport on US2, all of the money goes naval (fighters, carriers, subs, destroyers) until you prevent Japan from reconquering Borneo/E. Indies and build an IC there. Until you defeat the Japanese fleet you don’t build any more transports.
Also you are now talking about being on Round 4, and only taking Borneo. Germany is about 2-4 turns from ending this game.
Well, you get the IC on Borneo working on US3, so on US4 you could have a 1st transport ready of troops to kick Japan out of Asia or not, depending on the situation. But the major thing effect of defeating the Japanese fleet is now that India should be secure and can start sending help to the Russians.
But at this point it’s really speculation… I need to try this, there’s a LOT of potential moves, some on the previous posts (I’d buy fighters/bombers instead of subs as Japan… from my experience on 1st Edition the Allies will eventually prevail on the Pacific and planes have a bigger reach and are more useful to harass the US transports on Asia) and the odds are… well, there will be ways to make them better on each situation.
I agree planes have more utility, but subs only hit naval units. I know this sounds like a negative, but honestly i think it’s a huge bonus. Now you don’t have to worry about defending planes on AC’s. Say US has 46IPC per turn on US4, and Japan has around 35 IPC. Japan makes 5-6 subs per turn. What can the US make that will win against that? I have tried every combination, the subs always win. BMR’s/FTR’s don’t always win. So you lose utility, but you gain naval superiority. Which means you severely limit the capabilities of India and a possible US Borneo. Can’t get ground units off Borneo, and if you were just going to send FTR’s to India/RUS you could have done that without giving up your pacific fleet.
Only way UK secures India is if they give up Africa. I have gone over the numbers, you can’t do both. While Japan will be severely limited in ground forces by buying so many subs, they do have enough starting units and TRN’s + J1 2x TRN build to take it if UK doesn’t sacrifice Africa to hold it. So now your talking about a 20IPC UK, and a 20IPC RUS vs a 50+IPC Germany. The second Moscow falls, Germany will steamroll/liberate the entire Asian/African continents then drop a navy in the Baltic and take Brittan.
-
Hobbes, instead of going naval, why not hit the EI with the two transports after the battle on UK1…its a 76% battle (4inf vs. 2inf).
I thought about using the CV FTR for the amphib is at 98%, but the Naval battle is only 33%. Â If you take EI, you will have it for a guarantee of two turns, and if the US is on KJF as well, Japan can’t risk retaking EI on J2 knowing the US fleet can take out Phillipines or Borneo US2. Â In the meantime for turn 3, Russia sends its small stacks to hit the North (5inf at Buryatia) and Middle (2tanks/4inf), with India coming from the South? Â I think the numbers/odds for allies increases this way, but I could be mistaken. So with Egypt likely doomed on G2 and having EI on UK1, this will be a non-negative IPC outcome for UK for at least 3turns. -
Hobbes, instead of going naval, why not hit the EI with the two transports after the battle on UK1…its a 76% battle (4inf vs. 2inf).
Yup… have noticed it… but the odds creep me even more there
I thought about using the CV FTR, but I can’t remember if the CV is sacked in the Naval battle, if the FTR can be used in the amphib (it will get sacked either way, question is when it does). The amphib is at 98%, but the Naval battle is only 33%. If you take EI, you will have it for a guarantee of two turns, and if the US is on KJF as well, Japan can’t risk retaking EI on J2 knowing the US fleet can take out Phillipines or Borneo US2. In the meantime for turn 3, Russia sends its small stacks to hit the North (5inf at Buryatia) and Middle (2tanks/4inf), with India coming from the South? I think the numbers/odds for allies increases this way, but I could be mistaken.
The more you send with Russia, the quicker Germany will move for the kill.
I need to try this as Allies and see how long I can prevent Germany from wiping Russia… timing is everything here.
-
I know…I could probably just go with 1 tank and say the Nov inf and the 2inf from Evengi to provide enough “force” into China…that would provide two extra inf on R1 instead of the 2tank/4inf buy…so I guess 6inf/1tank it may be.
-
Hobbes, instead of going naval, why not hit the EI with the two transports after the battle on UK1…its a 76% battle (4inf vs. 2inf).
Yup… have noticed it… but the odds creep me even more there
bad experience with similar battles? as you said before…don’t let the past bad defeats affect your strat… :-D
Suggested Topics
