@ncscswitch:
I have had serious havoc played with my Japan strat via a Sinkiang IC. But now that I have faced it played WELL. I know how to deal with it, and it does become a “pending liability” for Russia from the time it is built until it falls to Japan, at which point it becomes a liability for the Allies.
Liability my ass. If there is no IC investment by the allies the Japanese will have all the Russian territories east of Moscow by turn 3 or turn 4 by the latest. With IC investment by turn three they will have only two Russian territories. I also like how you capatilized WELL like that means something. Lets see as the Russians would I rather have my allies holding back the Japnese for 5-6 turns or would I rather have Japan at my dorrsetp taking away 8 IPC by turn 3-4. With IC’s the allies can hold the Japanese to 27 Income without taking islands. Toss in some island hoping and they are well below that unable to relce TP losses meaning they cannot engage the U.S. fleet in the PAcific.
Liability my a**. If there is no IC investment by the allies the Japanese will have all the Russian territories east of Moscow by turn 3 or turn 4 by the latest. With IC investment by turn three they will have only two Russian territories. I also like how you capatilized WELL like that means something. Lets see as the Russians would I rather have my allies holding back the Japnese for 5-6 turns or would I rather have Japan at my dorrsetp taking away 8 IPC by turn 3-4. With IC’s the allies can hold the Japanese to 27 Income without taking islands. Toss in some island hoping and they are well below that unable to relce TP losses meaning they cannot engage the U.S. fleet in the PAcific.
But, with a tactical retreat, Russia can hold off Japan almost indefinitely and that is without the investment of an Allied IC’s.
My assumptions would be this more or less.
The allies man two IC for a total of 3 INF, 2ARM production in Asia to Japans 3 misc. The U.S. moves it fleet into Japanese territory aggresively. The SUb purchase “guards” the BB and TP along with the FIGS. Yes the Japnese can over power this with TP’s, but that is what the U.S. fleet is for to disrupt this.
The Japanese aren’t dumb and detroyed the AC at HAwaii first turn.
The Russians took MAnchuria or at least killed all tthe INF.
The U.S. will man an every turn setady supply of transports in the Atlantic not an evry other turn Tp shipments. The every other turn strategy allows the Germans to not guard their rear every other turn. You can alos combine shipments on a key turn. 4 INF and ARM in africa and 2 INF, 2ARM in EAstern U.S. attack WE. At this pooint you move to the every other turn approach. The idea is to make the minimum investment in the PAcific while having a steady grinding threat in the Atlantic.
I think it is a bad idea to split Allied spending consistantly, and I think a good Axis player will exploit this. You can get away with a nuiscance purchase for the Pac here and there, but consistant spending in that arena will be costly (KJF excluded of course)
Now onto the question at hand, What does Japan do?
Oh yeah, obviously if the Allies do KwangBang in rd 1, then Japan is in quite the hole, but this is precisely why some bid (in units) must be given.
But for the heck of it, I’ll assume a R1 take of Man with 1 inf, 1 arm (But no UK Kwa attack).
Germany takes Egy on G1.
UK buys IC for Ind and fortifies.
Japan buys 2 trn, 3 inf
Japan attacks:
Pearl with sub, 2 bb, ac, 2 ftrs
Man with 4 inf, 1 ftr
Chi with 4 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bom
(or some variation, the point is, all should be taken with relative ease)
Pearl cleared with 2 bb, ac, 1 ftr
Man taken with 3 inf, ftr
Chi taken with 2 inf, planes
From this point on the Allies can be a bit of a nuiscance, but nothing more. Japan can simply ignore SE Asia. It isn’t that relavant to begin with. Northern Russia should be empty due to the R1 Man attack and Japan can leave FIC empty. They have enough planes to trade inf for inf (if they wish) while sending the bulk of their forces to Yak (or Mongolia) to force the Allies to defend Novo. On turn 3 if needed Japan has its 2 bb’s in position to launch a major amphib assualt on Fic, if the UK was foolish to move there in force.
On rd 2 Japan can get 6 inf, 1 arm to Man, and on rd 3 it is 8 inf to Man. That means about 14 inf (+ whatever survived rd 1) in rd 4 on Yak (or Mon). The Allies can defend the IC’s if they wish, but I’ll keep moving to Novo or even Eve. They simply won’t have the attacking power to stop the Japanese Inf push.
Plus the Allies will have to buy aa’s for each IC since Germany and Japan can both bom them, which is an additional loss if the aa’s aren’t bought.
Meanwhile Germany can be blitzing through Afr, until confronted or her med fleet is destroyed. And the lack of pressure on WE (every other turn) makes vacating it even more benefical to the Germans then normal. They can simply leave the turn before the Allies arrive and choose to counter strike or strafe at will.
They should also still be in postion for their lurch in rd 4 or 5 (possibly rd 6 or 7), just as Japan is moving her northern infantry in position to possibly strike Novo.
The key is to time it right, which makes the actual rd it occurs not that important, just that you put the Allies to a very tough decision. Which of course is the trade off for the Allies, give up Kar or Novo or your IC’s in SE Asia.
Japan cannot ignore SE Asia. I am getting tired of talking about this. Set up the board and try it out. no bids.
Yes they can. :-D
The problem is, everyone agrees with you that the IC strat will work in a no-bid game. But a no bid game in general is not that challanging for the Allied player to begin with.
And once bids are introduced this strat no longer becomes feasible b/c most players will place 2-3 inf in Asia making it impossible for the UK player to consider the India IC.
That is all.
Yes they can.  :-D
The problem is, everyone agrees with you that the IC strat will work in a no-bid game. But a no bid game in general is not that challanging for the Allied player to begin with.
And once bids are introduced this strat no longer becomes feasible b/c most players will place 2-3 inf in Asia making it impossible for the UK player to consider the India IC.
That is all.
Hehehe. Our house rules aren’t called “The Allied Challenge” for nothing. Try playing Russia with a 3 unit limit on Karelia. It is challenging. Actually it’s probably allot harder than any bid game.
Plus its not swingy. Placing 5 INF somewhere just unbalances one region of teh board. Thatas a pretty silly way to play the game. Everyone knows that the game isn’t balanced because Russia can plop 8 men a turn in KArelia. It’s really that simple. Play a game with IPC limit and you’ll know what I mean. You’ll actually get an ARm every once in a while with Russia and like have to move men around. The Allies actually have to time there naval movements ahead of time 2 turns in advance. The game becomes much more balanced and complex with IPC limit.
How do you tell a good player from a bad player?
The good player uses his bomber for a bombing run.
The bad player uses his bomber to overwhelm the opponent in a battle that is already won because the numbers tell him that bombing is “inefficient”.
In AA there are no battles that are sure things so from this point of view it is perfectly valid to use a bomber for insurance rather than to scrap a little more from your opponent. Additionally, SBRs are not sure things either since 1/6 bombers will be shot down.
I would say a bad player is one that mistakes givens as absolutes rather than understanding them to be probabilities.
How do you tell a good player from a bad player?
The good player uses his bomber for a bombing run.
The bad player uses his bomber to overwhelm the opponent in a battle that is already won because the numbers tell him that bombing is “inefficient”.
Actually, a good player will use their BOM to improve the odds in a major battle. They use their BOM to shift the odds from an 80% win to a 90% win, and win the battle with more INF alive at the end because of the extra hits each round from the BOM.
For example:
10 INF, 4 ARM attacking 12 INF is a win for the attacker.
Without a BOM, they take the territory with 1 INF and 4 ARM on average.
With a BOM they take with 3 INF and 4 ARM. on average.
That means I am less likely to lose the territory on counter attack, and that I will have more strength, and more fodder, for the NEXT attack… an attack that will also be supported by my BOM.
It also means I have 6 IPC extra units over my enemy by using that BOM in comabt, instead of my opponent having 3.5 IPC less from an SBR. Using the BOM on attack comes out 1 INF better in this example.
I agree with the last two posts.
I will use a bomber in a large battle anyday above and beyond using it in a bombing run. I only will use my bombers in a bombing run if there is no possible use I can get from the bomber that turn.
Looks like by your definition, limitedwhole, all of us must be “bad players” and you are the only “good player” here. You really should start playing on these forums so that you can teach us all a lesson. I am sure we have much to learn from your superior playing.
I like his cocky nature though. It reminds me of me. Not boring at least!!
