MOVED: Other considerations in evaluating unit cost

@lil-germanz said in Optimal Japanese opening move:

@taamvan though I agree that crippling Germany is challenging you really can slow it down if UK builds up a fleet in Canada and Air Force in London. Than you convoy any where possible and continuous bomb the factories. You will take loses but your spending your income delaying and slowing down Germany’s offensive which buys Russia more time and allows US to get involved. That’s about the only ways that I know that is effective against a powerful German player. You have to keep your fleet off the GB coast line to protect against a air assualt. Need to be able to scramble.

My issue with that is you can’t hit Germany, only W. Germany from London and Germany can leave 4 fighters there to put make repeated bombing runs unlikely.

Also, typical is Moscow being threatened about G6. Its tough to build a fleet that can worry Germany at all with UK when UK1 is building inf and a fighter, then a lot of your air power shifts to the Med to sink Italy’s fleet, can make it back for combat on UK4. So buys on UK2 and 3 are around 60ipcs. Do you really devote that to transports and ships to keep them afloat?

I’m usually a factory in Persia and UK3 and UK4 I spend 60 ipcs on fighters for Moscow. So UK1 is a London buy so no Sea Lion, UK2 you spend 12 ipcs on a factory and then maybe 25 on… it depends. Fighters? Bombers? Troops and a transport for S. Africa? UK planes can land on Russia’s Karaellia if its safe to make it to Moscow in 2 turns…Or shift South if Italy’s a problem.

@StuckTojo:

@8thGuards:

@Ichabod:

I’m reading some revisionist history here.

Emplacing an oil embargo on Japan for murdering Chinese civilians by the bushel is hardly “enticing” Japan to attack the US on purpose.

From Japan’s point of view, it did not “have” to attack the US, but BELIEVED that they would eventually go to war with the US due to their war aggression. They’d been better off not doing so because America came at them with extreme vengeance. The power of the US was so great that one Japanese admiral described it as going to war against the world. In Pittsburg, PA, home of the Pittsburg Steelers football team, named after the steel manufacturing, more steel was produced in just that one area of America than Italy and Germany combined!

Since Japan lost a source of oil, they decided that they would seize other locations that contained oil like Java or Borneo. Doing so would essentially be “attacking” another western nation. Still, they could have done that without also simultaneously attacking the US at Pearl Harbor. The US public sentiment was really against going to war anywhere.

There was some limited activity in the Atlantic, but not widely publicized amongst the US population. And it wasn’t “war” like another poster suggested. They were naval operations which protected US Shipping from submarine attacks. The US did have a right to remain neutral and sell or provide war materials to whomever it wished. That in itself may be helping the war capabilities of an ally, the UK, but doing so is not in and of itself an act of war. Defensive naval operations is not essentially war. These types of actions happen daily out on the vast expanse of the ocean’s navigable routes and are not considered “acts of war.”

Sure the Soviets weren’t exactly nice to people whom they suspected of disloyalty but it was little compared to the industrial level genocide that Germany perpetrated or the casual mass killings done by Japan.
The Soviets lost 25-27 million people in the war, China lost 10-20 million and there is a very clear reason for that as I expressed.

Are you serious?!?!?!  The Soviets, under both Lenin and Stalin, killed millions - more like tens of millions - before WWII even started, over eight million Ukrainians alone in the forced famine, millions more by firing squad, slave labour camp, and gulag.  Not to mention the bungled invasion of Poland by Lenin and the even more bungled invasion of Finland by Stalin. Just because the “intellectual” class doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I believe 11-14 million under Stalin. Makes him one of history’s worst criminals, but still far less than Hitler with 30 million plus in the war he started and escalated (thus most victims in Europe can be assigned to him). Hitler is responsible for more Soviet deaths than Stalin is, even if the latter was complicit in Poland 1939-1941). Please don’t cite Cold War propaganda numbers.

A new generation of German historians also keeps finding that the Wehrmacht was far more aware of war crimes (and participated therein) than previously known. Throughout the Cold War Germany was allowed to uphold the “clean Wehrmacht” myth (and Soviet deaths in WW II were all counted as “killed by Stalin”) but that has by now utterly fallen apart.

Back to the OP. One other point I’m coming to see is devastating is to land 4 ground units on Kwangsi J1. These units really make a big difference in being able to hold on to Yunnan. While you can’t get the TTs back to Japan J2 unless you combine a Naval base on Hainan or Kwangsi, the main game in Asia isn’t to get Japanese land units on Asia but to deny the Burma Rd. If you can do that, your one step on the way to Axis victory in the Pacific. One of the land units can come from Okinawa, two from Japan so you are only relocating one unit within Asia, the artillery from Manchuria, but in a very advantageous way.

@Cow:

If you have a “chance” to win a battle you can plan to move your carrier through it on non combat.

Imagine a destroyer is blocking your carrier and you got 2 fighters, you can send 1 to the destroyer and the other 3 spaces away where it would land on your carrier after.

Yes, but that’s not what was asked, so let’s not confuse the issue.  It’s not about planning, it’s about whether it’s allowed to moved through a space where combat occurred.  And that is allowed.

@AMIGOOFD:

When you buy units, do you get to use them at that turn, or do you have to wait to place them at the end to use them. My friend argues you can use them right away after purchase.

The turn sequence is “Buy units, combat move, combat, non-combat move, deploy your purchased units”.  And then the next nation move does the same and so on.
So you can’t use them to attack, and the only way you can use them in your current turn is carriers as landing space for planes.

Me neither, because they can.

You may use the tank and the two infantries in Albania with maybe an artillery and/or an infantry from Northern Italy. This way, Italy would have done it’s part of the deal for Barbarossa and appease Hitler’s demands about it.