Ugh. :roll:
OF COURSE JAPAN CAN BE STOPPED!!!
I never said they couldn’t!
Also Russia can fall, Germany can fall, lots of stuff can happen, that’s why you play the game!
I stated why, IMO, Japan/US are the strongest many posts ago, so you can go back and read it if you choose to or keep ignoring it.
And I stated why supply lines don’t matter in considering which country is the strongest. You should probably go back a read that as well. Well, here’s the short version since I doubt you will. The supply line problem is true for EVERY country, especially the aggressors.
So, because a counrty is on the offensive and has longer supply lines they are weaker??? That is just stupid! So, as Germany I should let Russia take EE, so I can be stronger as Germany because the Russians have farther to go. That makes no sense!
And as Japan, from now on I’m going to let Russia take Man, Fic, and Kwa, so Japan will have the shorter supply lines and thus be the stronger country. Again, that is just stupid.
Those are tactics and strategies, that is an independent discussion then what country someone thinks is the strongest.
This is not a strategy thread, and I probably should have stopped my part of the discussion long ago when you first derailed the thread, but oh well I got caught up a bit.
If Russia were so strong they wouldn’t need help from the other Allies or their Capital would never fall.
Japan is the strongest - they out produce every other country often earning 45 IPC or so, they have the largest empire by rd 4, they can tech at will, and their capital never falls, that is why they are the strongest. Period. If you don’t agree fine, so be it.
Just ask yourself why KJF’s are so hard, then you’ll have your answer.
The supply line problem is true for EVERY country, especially the aggressors.
So, because a counrty is on the offensive and has longer supply lines they are weaker???
Exactly, Japan is only on the offensive because the Allies let them be on the offensive to concentrate on Germany. Also, for any of the land based
powers should they have to go on the defensive they need only fall back, but for Japan this is not possible as Tokyo will alway be somewhat weak to take, and for this reason a clever Allied player can sneak in and take it if they get HBombers at the right time.
I stated why, IMO, Japan/US are the strongest many posts ago, so you can go back and read it if you choose to or keep ignoring it.
Yeah I can read thank you, but I rejected it completely because your claim is that Japan is strong because they never have to defend, and because they can out produced Russia so quickly. Both of these I have repeatedly refuted.
And as Japan, from now on I’m going to let Russia take Man, Fic, and Kwa, so Japan will have the shorter supply lines and thus be the stronger country. Again, that is just stupid.
Is it though? I never attack Manchuria on Russia1 regardless of the bid the infantry are too important to keep Japan out of Novo and Yakut in turns 3-6 which is far more important than slowing Japan down one turn and taking out a fighter which they don’t need anyway. IMO inexperienced players place far too much emphasis on attacking Manchuria which will certainly not be a game ender, and could end up hurting Russia more than Japan.
This is not a strategy thread, and I probably should have stopped my part of the discussion long ago when you first derailed the thread, but oh well I got caught up a bit.
Again I don’t agree you illustrated perfectly why it is that Germany/Russia are stronger, and why Japan and the US are far weaker than many people think. Like I said before if Germany is losing badly it can be very hard for Japan to intervene in a way that will greatly affect the outcome of the game. Likewise can be said for the Americans. I find it is often how Russia/Uk are played that decide the Allies outcome.
If Russia were so strong they wouldn’t need help from the other Allies or their Capital would never fall.
But consider how hard it is to actually make Berlin/Moscow fall, and then think about the inequity of being double teamed by Japan and Germany. If the game were Russia versus Germany or Japan I think they could hold out a long time 30-40 turns, but that wouldn’t be a fun game would it?
Just ask yourself why KJF’s are so hard, then you’ll have your answer.
Well duh they are hard because it is difficult to get to the center of their ipc production. Even if you go after Ocenia this only reflects 8ipcs of their production, and won’t cripple them by any means. On the other hand IMO the best way to pursue a KJF is to build up an enormous Russian army and park it in Mongolia in order to make Sink,China, Yakut, and more importantly Manch deadzones. Once Manch becomes a deadzone if Russia can park this army in Manch the game may be over unless the Japs have a large enough army to hold Kwan/China/Sfe and most importantly push you out of Manchuria. Otherwise their ability to dump troops into Asia will be severely limited from there on.
Japan is the strongest - they out produce every other country often earning 45 IPC or so, they have the largest empire by rd 4, they can tech at will, and their capital never falls,
Their capital never falls because people don’t target them, and because its hard to get to. They outproduce everybody because the Allies will surrender much of Asia to them, but in my experience once it becomes 3 on 1 against Japan the game ends quickly. Unless as Torch suggests the Allies especially America screws up badly. They win because the Allies should be able to retake Africa, and tech at will which Japan cannot afford.
I would disagree that Japan can tech at will because they need to build many guys if they are to advance on Moscow, but at the same time threaten Africa, assuming the Allies retake. What I’ve seen is that if Russia plays as I’ve suggested Japan needs to concentrate on weakening Russia first, Africa second, and tech third. Because of this there is very little pie to go around when tech comes up.
We’re just looking at strength differently. I see the US/Japan’s isolation as a positive, as they are allowed to have a singular focus - which front they want to attack.
I see Russia and Germany as weaker because they have to fight more on multiple fronts, and generally can’t concentrate on just one front. I find when I play either of these countries my job is to stay alive, doing whatever is necessary to stay in the game while I wait for an opening or my Allies help me out.
If more KJF’s were played I’d view Germany as the strongest as it would be their job to get to Russia before Japan fell, but KJF’s aren’t played that often. And since most games are played with the gang up on Germany strat, I find Japan is often left alone and allowed to grow almost untouched till they get near Novo. Thus making them the strongest with 40+ IPC’s and 1 focus.
I place so much on production because that was part of the initial question:
Who do you guys think is the most powerful country in the game? In other words, who is the country who takes the most I.P.C.'s and racks up the most capital kills in most of your games.
I find Japan generally leads in that, while if Russia falls they are the one to take it.
As for the US, I find they do the most damage for me when I play as the Allies.
We’re just looking at strength differently. I see the US/Japan’s isolation as a positive, as they are allowed to have a singular focus - which front they want to attack.
Except this can be a liability as well even defensively. One trick I used to like to use was to get IT for Japan and then launch offensives against both the US and Russia. If you consider that Japan with 42-44 ipcs can build 21-22 guys then they can send 10inf to Asia, but 12 to Alaska. As long as they keep the transports in the JapSz they can pump a lot of guys towards both fronts. This can present America with problems if they only produce 11 units a turn, and will eventually lead to their defeat. More immediately though it takes them completely out of the war in Europe giving Germany a 2 on 1 which they can handle. Who’s weaker now?
If more KJF’s were played I’d view Germany as the strongest as it would be their job to get to Russia before Japan fell, but KJF’s aren’t played that often. And since most games are played with the gang up on Germany strat, I find Japan is often left alone and allowed to grow almost untouched till they get near Novo.
And this doesn’t make them stronger only less focused on. Have you not considered that people pay so much attention to Germany because they are dangerous?
I find Japan generally leads in that, while if Russia falls they are the one to take it.
As for the US, I find they do the most damage for me when I play as the Allies.
Of course the US leads in that because they are the closest to Japan as well. If Berlin falls how/why should the Uk take Tokyo? Furthermore, the US is also more likely to take Berlin as the Brits will have a hard time since they go first, and unless they’ve got HBombers or catch the Germans napping I don’t see it happening. As for Japan taking Moscow I don’t see this as an inherent advantage, and in fact sometimes I let them do it. If Russia is getting weak, but my Allies have spent the time and money to develop tech unlike the Japs I might let Japan take Moscow if I’ve got HBs or a strong likelyhood to get them before Japan can build on Moscow. The net effect is that with HBs you can nuke Japan and Germany making Japan have to take Karelia without the help of more troops. If you can use this to buy time to kill Germany I’d take it.
Yeah, once Tech is involved all bets are off. I’ll take any country with IT and they are the new strongest, IMO.
Have you not considered that people pay so much attention to Germany because they are dangerous?
Or could be just easier to take them out. UK is really in no position to hit Japan all that easily, barring an IC somewhere. Also Russia can’t get ships to the Pacific and would have a hard time holding Man. It is just much easier to hit Germany 3-1 then Japan. And there’s more chances of failure in a KJF than a KGF. Why take the chance unless you have too.
As for Japan taking Moscow I don’t see this as an inherent advantage, and in fact sometimes I let them do it.
Yeah, I can see that. Tech changes everything though. It can also work the other way too. If Germany takes Moscow, there is the possibility of Berlin falling, thus making Moscow, Kar and Cauc all dead territories for the Axis. Whereas if Japan had Moscow they’d still at least have the 8 IPC and be able to place there. It can go either way, IMO. Depends on the players, board, do people have tech, among other things.
Yeah, once Tech is involved all bets are off. I’ll take any country with IT and they are the new strongest, IMO.
Not really because the average cost to get IT is usually around 60ipcs, assuming any player would be equally happy to have either IT or HB. So if you think about it like that IT should cost around 2-3 turns of all tech rolling, and that does not even offer a guarantee you will have it. IMO unless both the US and Uk have IT it isn’t that much of an advantage, and certainly doesn’t offset its cost for a while.
Or could be just easier to take them out.
Yes its a bit of both, but I wouldn’t say it easy to take out Germany. In fact barring a total disaster or a mistake the Germans should drag this out a lot.
Also Russia can’t get ships to the Pacific and would have a hard time holding Man.
Early on yes, but in the later game not at all, and if they do Japan is usually done no matter how strong they are in the south or in Africa.
Yeah, I can see that. Tech changes everything though. It can also work the other way too. If Germany takes Moscow, there is the possibility of Berlin falling, thus making Moscow, Kar and Cauc all dead territories for the Axis. Whereas if Japan had Moscow they’d still at least have the 8 IPC and be able to place there. It can go either way, IMO. Depends on the players, board, do people have tech, among other things.
But some players, especially those in the AAMC from Indianapolis(guess who I’m talking about Torch), will tech as part of their overall strategy. For example, they might spend 20ipcs a turn on tech rolls which should yield HBs in 7-8 turns. Such an allocation ensures that they should have it eventually, and at only 20ipcs it isn’t going to set them back much. Generally if Germany can take Moscow they are going to be okay just so long as in the process they aren’t trying to hold on to too much ground ie WEuro. When I sense Moscow is threatened I will give up WEuro and even EEuro by falling back to Berlin. If the attack is successful then I can hold out until I can use the Russian money at which point I’ll be safe. Moreover if I feel there is even a chance Berlin will fall I might only strafe Moscow with Germany, this way if the Allied do take Berlin they won’t also get the Russian money back. Once Moscow is strafed to the point where Japan can take I’ll back off to at least preserve my army, and let the Japs finish of Moscow.
I was just making a general statement about tech and IT, I wasn’t advocating anything by it, I was just saying if I could magically pick a tech I’d take IT.
Early on yes, but in the later game not at all, and if they do Japan is usually done no matter how strong they are in the south or in Africa.
LOL!!! :D Yeah, if Russia has ANY ships anywhere other then the 2 they start with, it’s game over. As soon as I’d see a Russian ship get bought, it’s game over. Lol! Russian ships! I do like the dreaded Russian Battleship, I like buying those. :D
And, as I’ve said before, I don’t like tech and tech games, I think it can take some of the fun out of it. Once and a while, I don’t mind tech games, but not every game. To me it’s not fun. I like the really long grueling games of position, and back and forth fighting over various dead zones.
I was just making a general statement about tech and IT, I wasn’t advocating anything by it, I was just saying if I could magically pick a tech I’d take IT.
Early on yes, but in the later game not at all, and if they do Japan is usually done no matter how strong they are in the south or in Africa.
LOL!!! :D Yeah, if Russia has ANY ships anywhere other then the 2 they start with, it’s game over. As soon as I’d see a Russian ship get bought, it’s game over. Lol! Russian ships! I do like the dreaded Russian Battleship, I like buying those. :D
And, as I’ve said before, I don’t like tech and tech games, I think it can take some of the fun out of it. Once and a while, I don’t mind tech games, but not every game. To me it’s not fun. I like the really long grueling games of position, and back and forth fighting over various dead zones.
The MuthaRussia!!! They are the only country that really takes direct blows from both Axis powers! Now that requires strenght!
They just kicked my butt.
Damn Russians!
MR - you should buy a BB. :D
LOL!!! Yeah, if Russia has ANY ships anywhere other then the 2 they start with, it’s game over. As soon as I’d see a Russian ship get bought, it’s game over. Lol! Russian ships! I do like the dreaded Russian Battleship, I like buying those.
No I was referring to the part of your statement which said Russia cannot hold Manch which I think is false, and that they need to build ships to defeat Japan which is also false. IMO when Russia can take and hold Manch, and turn the 4 squares around it into deadzones the game is over. Any player that actually makes you take Tokyo is just being a weiner because when Russia can force Japan to only drop troops into Asia via FIC every other turn there is no way even with IT that they can overcome the mechanics of the game. 20inf into FIC everyother turn is only 10inf a turn, with Russia in control of Manch they should be able to match that easy.
I was just making a general statement about tech and IT, I wasn’t advocating anything by it, I was just saying if I could magically pick a tech I’d take IT.
Really that is a bold statement, and I also think incorrect because HBombers provide a greater firepower to cost ratio than even tanks. HBs can allow even a small stack of 10-12guys to create rolling deadzones.
And, as I’ve said before, I don’t like tech and tech games, I think it can take some of the fun out of it. Once and a while, I don’t mind tech games, but not every game. To me it’s not fun. I like the really long grueling games of position, and back and forth fighting over various dead zones.
I don’t mind tech, but I get irritated when people roll 1 dice and get IT HBs or LRA. However, I’m come to see a gradual investment in tech as superior strategy than just stacking men and hoping it creates a deadzone and an advantage, but I find that all too often playing that way plays right into the hands of the more conservative/defensive players which I’d prefer not to do because they are the ones that will roll all dice for tech on round 10 as a hailmary move. It really sucks when you’ve managed to eek out an edge in a grindingly slow game only to have somebody get cheap HBs to win the game.
In this topic I think it’s pointless to talk about how hard any capital is to capture. In theory, all should be impossible in a game less than 50 rounds if players used all their money on buying infantry for their capitals every round, because of the sheer fact that no one country can get more units to another capital in less than 2-3 turns from their own (exception: UK to Germany). In that amount of time the player could stack many more infantry than the person could get to his/her capital on time. So we can’t talk about how hard any capital is to take because in theory all of them should be impossible.
Therefore I think we need to talk about what the guy asking the question asked: who racks up the most IPCs and capital kills. In this aspect I find Germany to be the deadliest since they can wage war against Russian territories on land, can get all of their builds to make attacks without ships, and generally reach a much higher production rate than Russia does. But that is obviously far from meaning Germany will beat Russia every time. I just think they kill the most units in the majority of games by my experience.
No I was referring to the part of your statement which said Russia cannot hold Manch which I think is false, and that they need to build ships to defeat Japan which is also false. IMO when Russia can take and hold Manch, and turn the 4 squares around it into deadzones the game is over. Any player that actually makes you take Tokyo is just being a weiner because when Russia can force Japan to only drop troops into Asia via FIC every other turn there is no way even with IT that they can overcome the mechanics of the game. 20inf into FIC everyother turn is only 10inf a turn, with Russia in control of Manch they should be able to match that easy.
I totally agree with this. The comment about the Russian ships was ment to be a joke. As Japan, if Germany fell, I’ll usually pack it in once the Allies can hold Yak or Sin and Japan is clearly getting pushed back. And if Russia has completely stalled Japan and Germany falls, sometimes I’ll pack it in at the end of that round. Provided Germany can’t be recaptured or Japan doesn’t have a tech or something like that.
And my comment about Man was not to suggest Russia can’t hold it, it was regarding the initial setup/layout of the game and how it is indicative of the 3 Allies to concentrate on Germany, since all 3 have an easier ability to attack Germany.
Really that is a bold statement, and I also think incorrect because HBombers provide a greater firepower to cost ratio than even tanks. HBs can allow even a small stack of 10-12guys to create rolling deadzones.
Yeah, but you have to have the cash to buy HB. Also depending on who you are, you can surround yourself with aa-guns, or just place them in all your countries. I just think HB are very defendable, provided of course you know your oppenent has them to start the game and you can prepare for it. Say you play a game where one side has HB and the other has IT.
Just a fictional scenerio though.
I don’t mind tech, but I get irritated when people roll 1 dice and get IT HBs or LRA. However, I’m come to see a gradual investment in tech as superior strategy than just stacking men and hoping it creates a deadzone and an advantage, but I find that all too often playing that way plays right into the hands of the more conservative/defensive players which I’d prefer not to do because they are the ones that will roll all dice for tech on round 10 as a hailmary move. It really sucks when you’ve managed to eek out an edge in a grindingly slow game only to have somebody get cheap HBs to win the game.
Yeah, I totally agree with that! That’s one reason I don’t like tech, and you precisely laid out why. If you play someone who you know will tech later, then I say just get it out of the way and start teching early on, like you suggest, and your bound to get a tech. But if you tech, your opponents my tech earlier (or should), then it becomes a ‘luck’ race for tech and the first side which gets a meaningful tech or 2 then they are likely to win. Once and a while that’s okay, but I don’t want all my games to be like that.
EDIT:
Therefore I think we need to talk about what the guy asking the question asked: who racks up the most IPCs and capital kills. In this aspect I find Germany to be the deadliest since they can wage war against Russian territories on land, can get all of their builds to make attacks without ships, and generally reach a much higher production rate than Russia does. But that is obviously far from meaning Germany will beat Russia every time. I just think they kill the most units in the majority of games by my experience.
True, but I find the constant 3 on 1 to wear down Germany, thus leaving Japan to grow somewhat easily, at least for the first few rounds.
I do think Germany does the heavy lifting but Japan reaps the benefits.
In this topic I think it’s pointless to talk about how hard any capital is to capture. In theory, all should be impossible in a game less than 50 rounds if players used all their money on buying infantry for their capitals every round, because of the sheer fact that no one country can get more units to another capital in less than 2-3 turns from their own (exception: UK to Germany). In that amount of time the player could stack many more infantry than the person could get to his/her capital on time. So we can’t talk about how hard any capital is to take because in theory all of them should be impossible.
If you are buying inf only, you cant maintain a high or equal income. The player who buys inf only will be outproduced by his opponent and it will take not many rounds to finish the game once this starts.
Example: huge trade off in round 1 and 2 between Russians and Germans, both lose their arm. Spa landings are interesting once Ger hasnt got any arm.
Example: huge trade off in round 1 and 2 between Russians and Germans, both lose their arm. Spa landings are interesting once Ger hasnt got any arm.
Yup when Germany hasn’t got much or any armor they should not expect to hold both EEuro and WEuro for long. Conversely, if Russia doesn’t have much armor walk throughs in the Cauc should be expected.
Yeah, but you have to have the cash to buy HB.
Or have built up a nice stockpile of bombers prior to rolling tech. 3-4 can be enough to have a big impact on the game. For example, I love to sometime build a few British bombers just so when the Japs decide to lurch into Africa(after the Allies push Germany out). I get two rounds to roll for heavy bombers, and if I get a little bit luck those 4 bombers could kill 8 ships which should be enough to kill all or almost all of the Jap Fleet there including capital ships. Once that happens the game is usually over for Japan as their remaining fleet can be hunted down, or at least pushed out of position to be a factor.
Also depending on who you are, you can surround yourself with aa-guns, or just place them in all your countries. I just think HB are very defendable, provided of course you know your oppenent has them to start the game and you can prepare for it. Say you play a game where one side has HB and the other has IT.
No this is a red herring because all powers are susceptable to Heavies at some point and regardless of how strong you are you will have to figure you can’t prevent them. For example, if Britain or America gets HBs they can always bomb Germany without flying over 2 AA guns, true they can’t necessarily hit Japan, but with LRA they can. More importantly though with Heavy bombers the Allies can afford to give up Moscow if they need to as it opens Japan up to SBRs making them have to be able to win with what they have, if they don’t have enough to crack through the wall you’ll put in Karelia then they can’t take Moscow, and Russia gets the benefit of holding Moscow with no units! Because of this I think tech represents an enormous Allied advantage. However, should Japan get HBs they can SBR Britain as long as Germany survives without flying over two AA guns, and they should be able to do the same to Russia, if they position themselves right. The Americans too should be susceptable to SBRs unless they too get HBs before you can get to Hawaii with enough bombers.
Yeah, I totally agree with that! That’s one reason I don’t like tech, and you precisely laid out why. If you play someone who you know will tech later, then I say just get it out of the way and start teching early on, like you suggest, and your bound to get a tech. But if you tech, your opponents my tech earlier (or should), then it becomes a ‘luck’ race for tech and the first side which gets a meaningful tech or 2 then they are likely to win. Once and a while that’s okay, but I don’t want all my games to be like that.
But if you look at tech as a necessary investment you will not hate it as much. What I hate is when I spend 20ipcs a turn for several turns with an overall investment being 60-80ipcs without getting HBombers. Then once my opponent realizes I will get it eventually decides to roll 20-30ipcs of dice and gets it right away. That tech doesn’t require an equal investment for equal results IMO results in too much luck, but LowLuck/NoLuck variants attempt to rectify this.
